ML20215A152
| ML20215A152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1560, NUDOCS 8612110182 | |
| Download: ML20215A152 (356) | |
Text
f M888/f60
., s ORGNAL O UN11EU STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 1 246 -
DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1986 xana arrine annu
% E UrrBbLbur1 20 No':1emove rom ACRS0" ice 86121101N2 861204
$560 PDa ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Afg
\
Cfficial Reporte's 444 North Capitol Street washingt n, c.20001 l
0\ (202)347-3700 NATIOMVIDE CO\TRAGE
1 CR29112.0-REE/dnw k__ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3- ADVISORY CONTITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT 5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6
Room 1046 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
8 Thursday, December 4, 1986 9
10 The subcommittee meeting convened at 8:30 a.m.
11 ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
12 T DR. DADE W. MOELLER, Chairman s - 13 DR. WILLIAM KERR, Memmber DR. FORREST J. REMICK, Member 14 DR. PAUL G. SHENMON, Member DR. J. CARSON MARK, Member 15 16 ACRS CONSULTANTS PRESENT:
17 M. TRIFUNAC 18 J. DONOGHUE F. PAMER i 19 I
20 OWEN MERRILL, Staff 21 22 23 i O 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 e
29112.0 2
-REE
.f3
%)
1 PROCEEDI NGS
.2 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will now come to order.
3 This is a meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on waste 4 management.
5 I am Dade Moeller, subcommittee chairman. The 6 other ACRS member in attendance at the moment is Carson 7 Mark. We expect that Dr. Forrest Remick will be joining us 8 shortly and Dr. William Kerr will.be joining us around noon.
9 We also anticipate that Dr. Paul Shewmon will be here 10 shortly.
11 We also have a team of consultants working with 12 us. Present at the moment are Frank Parker and Donald Orth
( ) 13 and we anticipate Joe Donoghue being here shortly and 14 Michael Trifunac will join us certainly all day tomorrow 15 and perhaps later today.
16 The purpose of this meeting is to continue --
17 this will be a two-day meeting, one of for such 18 subcommittee meetings scheduled for fiscal year 1987. The 19 last meeting of this subcommittee was held, this is correct, 20 on July 21st through the 23rd, 1986. At that meeting the 21 subcommittee prepared written comments on roughly a half a 22 dozen or more topics. Subsequent to that meeting, these 23 comments were presented to the full committee and the full 24 committee approved having them forwarded to the NRC Staff.
l
- 25 Following the submission of our comments to the
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t
-m, s _ m c- mm_
29112.0 3 REE L/
1 NRC Staff, we received back detailed responses'and comments 2 on each of our comments. So I simply wanted to make that 3 known to the subcommittee members and to place it in the 4 record that these comments were submitted and they were 5 seen by the Staff and very well responded to.
6 On September 10th, Owen Merrill, Jack Perry and 7 I met with the NRC Staff to plan the future schedule for 8 this subcommittee and today's meeting, and the topics that 9 we are going to discuss are an outgrowth of that planning 10 session.
11 Today we will cover a range of topics, all of 12 which pertain to radioactive waste management and all of
() 13 which are, we believe, important topics. The key one for 14 me is the review of the waste management research program, 15 since the full committee, I believe it is at the January 16 1987 meeting, will be preparing a full report to the 17 Commission on that topic. So it is important that we begin 18 to formulate our positions at this meeting.
19 In this regard, we will be reviewing the 20 research programs of both the Office of Nuclear Regulatory 21 Research and the NMSS, and we will be covering, then, 22 high-level waste and low-level waste in separate sessions, 23 beginning with high-level waste. Nick Costanzi will be 24 covering the research program there and Wayne Walker, the 25 technical assistance program related to research. Then we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 5 3 %-6646
4 29112.0' 4
'REE-w 1 will cover low-level waste. Once again Nick Costanzi will 2 be covering the research program and Malcolm Knapp, the F 3 technical assistance program.
4 The meeting will be open all day today and up
- 5 until noon tomorrow. However, we will be closing the 6 meeting. tomorrow afternoon during our discussion of the NRC 7 review of the Department of Energy's final environmental j 8 assessments for the sites that have been designated as 9 potential sites for the high-level waste repository. That-10 is scheduled on the agenda from 1:00-until.3:30 p.m. on 11 Friday.
l.
! 12 Here today as the official ACRS Staff member for i'
() 13 the meeting is Owen Merrill. For the members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to'announce that Owen Merrill.is 14 ,
- 15 now senior Staff engineer, having been promoted roughly a 16 month ago.
17 Owen, we are proud of your promotion and all of 18 the good work that you have done on behalf of this
,' 19 subcommittee.
20 MR. MERRILL: Thank you.
l 21 DR. MOELLER: Also joining us today will be Jack 22 Perry, I presume.
23 MR.'MERRILL: I think so.
24 DR. MOELLER: He is a full-time senior ACRS l 25 f611ow and his area of expertise is waste management. He O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 370t) Nationwide Coserage 801336-6M6
29112.0 5
'REE b,m 1 has been very helpful to the subcommittee.
2 The rules for participation in today's meeting 3 have been announced as part of the notice of this meeting 8
4 that was published in the Federal Register on November 17,
.5 1986. .It is requested that each speaker first identify 6 himself or herself and speak with sufficient clarity and 7 volume so that he or she can be readily heard.
8 This is particularly important for our reporter 9 and we have asked her to sit at the table so that she can 10 hear everything that is said.
11 Before we call on our first speakers, let me ask, 12 Carson, do you have any comments or remarks?
() 13 DR.-MARK: None.
14 DR. MOELLER: And do any of our consultants have 15 anything to ask before we begin?
16 Okay. We will proceed with the meeting.
17 Following our schedule and our first topic, then, is the FY 18 1988 safety research and technical assistance programs, and 19 Dr. Frank Costanzi will be covering the research programs 20 of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Frank?
21 MR. COSTANZI: Thank you. Good morning. I am l
22 Frank Costanzi, chief of the waste management branch of the 23 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. This morning I am 24 here to talk with you about you our research program t
25 beginning with our high-level waste research and
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 20 1 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-6M6
29112.0 6
~ REE 1 particularly what we are looking at in the coming fiscal-2 -year, FY '88.
3 I would like to just open my remarks this 4 morning ~with the observation that the research program in'
.5 waste management is aimed at understanding phenomena. It
- 6. is the nature of the program that it looks for long-term 7 results,. asks questions.which are, we expect to get answers 8 several years hence, kinds of questions which we expect to 9 be dealing with in several years down the road. And the 10 research that we do is generic. It may be specific to a 11 type of medium, but it is not specific to any site.
12 With thati I would like to call your attention
{) 13 to the first page of the handout. That summarizes first of 14 all what our safety problem is, what are we doing all this 15 for.
16 The problem is that the high-level waste must be 17 isolated from the environment for at least 10,000 years.
j 18 There has been no engineering or regulatory experience-with 19 geologic disposal. This is a new enterprise. Geologic and 20 hydrologic properties of repository sites must be inferred t
l 21 from a relatively few short-term field tests. That is the 22 framework in which our research program is devised.
l i-i 23 i Realities with which we must deal: Our L
t l_ 24 approach to dealing with those realities is to develop the 25 licensing tools to assess the ability of DOE's waste ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L.
[ 3C-347-37(U Nationwide Cos erage ML336-6M6
29112.0 7 REE
,a tj 1 package designs to contain the waste, develop the' licensing 2 tools to assess the ability of the engineered facility to 3 control the release of waste. Those are two requirements 4 which are directly in Part 60, the NRC regulations for the 5 disposal of high-level waste. And develop licensing tools 6 to evaluate the capability of the geologic setting to 7 isolate the waste from the environment.
8 That is also one of the performance objectives 9 that has perhaps the great greatest long-term impact with 10 regard to meeting DOE's demonstration that has met the EPA 11 standard.
12 DR. MARK: Frank, no engineering or -- I know
() 13 there is no regulatory experience with geological disposal 14 of HLW. There has been waste disposed of for 40 years.
15 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. But we are talking about 16 things that have to last thousands to 10 thousands of years.
17 It is that kind of a f raine.
18 DR. MARK: Well, you will never have that 19 experience; none of us will. There is 40 years of 20 experience with radioactive waste disposal. You say that 21 is not geological because it wasn't more than 30 or 50 feet-22 deep?
23 MR. COSTANZI: That is right. The environment 24 in fact is quite a bit different. The surface, the 25 near-surface disposal in which we do have experience has o
a I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . .
202-347-37m Nationwide Cos erage 800-3EfM6
/ . :,
29112.0 8 1 REE (o)
%- 4-1 largely been in the west; sites are arid, the bottom of the 4
2 trenches are far above the water table. There are some 3 sites in the east which are humid but the soils are quite a 4 bit different than the hard rock. .
5- DR. MARK: But there is experience of somet'hing, 6 to some degree. I understand it was almost all surface 7- disposal or near surface. It was in various soils, mostly 8 in the west, although Oak Ridge isn't very far west.
'l 9 MR. COSTANZI: That is correct.
s 10 DR. MARK: And surely'something is known from 11 that experience or could be known. That is, you-can tell 12 how rapidly stuff seeps through tuff by taking a look at (v) 13 the Los Alamos sites.
14 MR. COSTANZI: There is=some', there is some i
15 carryover in terms of the knowle.dge which has been gained 16 from the disposal of essentially low-level waste. As /
17 pointed out, where a number of the uncertainties lie, major 18 uncertainties of which we have to pay attention, in that 19 sense we certainly have been using what --
20 DR. MARK: Low-level waste is really not to, tally
, 21 different from high-level waste; it is only a matter of n.
22 ,
degree.
23 MR. COSTANZI: The mix of radionuclides is quite 24 a bit different. There is a different mix. The fact that 25 there is a thermal, there is heat, the high-level wastes ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. m >e>. s _ m _ ,. --
)
29112.0 9
, REE
,m Q) .,
y ,
I are thermally hot as well as being quite radioactive. This 2 p makes the waste-itself behave differently.
I 3 DR. MARK: I understand that.
O q 9 4 '
In any event, such experience is included, I 5 -hope, in the base that one is trying to assemble.
6 '
, MR. COSTANZI: Yes. It certainly is. In fact, J
we often talk about high-level waste and low-level waste 7
8 when we come down here because that is a convenient way of 9 talking about it. Everybody feels comfortable with that 10 mix. But when we administer our research program, we don't 11 fbreakitdownthatway. We don't have a section, for 12 example, which deals'with high-level waste and another (q j 13 section which deals with low-level waste, or, for that.
14 matter, individuals that deal only with high-level or n 7
- 15 low-level.
DR. MARK: You are answering my question very
- f ^" 16 17 nicely. That is, you are interested in the diffusion of 18 <tulerium, doesn't matter whether it is high-level or 19 I l ow-level.
, 20 MR. COSTANZI: That is correct.
21 ! DR. MARK: That is not made totally clear by 22 that statement. There is no engineering experience. There 23 is no engineering experience of stuff that is a kilometer 24 deep.
25 MR. COSTANZI: That is correct .
< s
'l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2C347-3710 Nationwide Coserage 80lk336-6646
'(.
r 29112.0 10 REE (D
\_/
1 DR. MARK: Perhaps never will be very much.
2 MR. COSTANZI: Not in our lifetime, I am afraid.
3 DR. MOELLER: Now, also, what experience do you 4 have, say, with vitrified waste? I know that they have 5 done lab experiments of having it under water and so forth.
6 MR. COSTANZI: There have been a number of 7 observations of the behavior of waste glass, various 8 combinations under various conditions. The Materials 9 Characterizations Center has in fact spent a lot of effort 10 ,
coming out with a series of sets of tests for trying to 11 determine the properties of vitrified waste. We have also 12 done some research taking those tests, changing the f) 13 condi.ons of those tests which are pretty much 14 standardized tests. Most of them deal with 25 degrees C 15 distilled water tests, for example, up to a repository 16 environment, see what changes are made. So but that again, 17 those tests are run for at most a year or two years. They 18 are very short term.
19 We had a program which we talked about, perhaps 20 as long as a year ago, at Argonne National Lab where we had j 21 been looking at glass analogs. There is a lot of natural 22 glass around, some of which has been exposed to conditions 23 which are not identical to what you would expect in a 24 repository but similar, some of the temperatures and
, 25 geochemistry. We have been looking at how that glass has ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
29112.0 11 REE O 1 behaved, taken that glass or freshly made glass, naturally 2 made glass, say from Iceland, freshly being a thousand 3 years ago, subjecting that to the same kind of conditions 4 that you would expect on repository, seeing how that 5 behaved and tried to draw a three-way analogy between old 6 naturally occurring glass, the behavior of new naturally 7 occurring glass and high-level waste glass under the same 8 conditions that we subjected this new naturally occurring 9 glass. The idea is that we get some idea of how high-level 10 waste glass is going to behave in the long-term; presumably 11 it would be somewhat analogous to the way, after several 12 thousands of years, how old glass looks.
() 13 So we are exploring essentially everything that 14 we can possibly get our hands on to get some_ idea of what 15 is going on, what we have to deal with, where the hookers 16 are.
17 DR. MARK: I think I sent or had sent to you an 18 account of the experiments in Nevada from a weapon where 19 there was in fact no containment, no packaging, no nothing.
20 And you do have an idea how stuff proceeds or could get an 21 idea on a few isotopes as to how they move in that medium.
22 There is also oklo where one can at least see what some of 23 the very long-life isotopes seem to have done, which is to 24 say nothing at all without any containment. Now, that is 1
, 25 very special soil. On the other hand, it wasn't shielded l L) i l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37t u) Nationwide Coserage 853366M6
29112.0- 12
-REE O
' (.)
1 ! from water, it was immersed in water.
2' The statement here, no engineering experience, 3 sort of underlines the thing that gets into the press, 4 nobody knows anything at all. The fact is, one does know 5 quite a bit. I believe that in statements, it would be 6 better if that were recognized. To say there is no 7 experience and allow the public to suppose that we are 8 jumping off the edge of a cliff -- we do have experience 9 and the oklo is quite geological and stuff didn't go very 10 far.
11 MR. COSTANZI: That is absolutely right. In 12 fact, we also have knowledge of how radionuclides behave in '
( )~ 13 the environment, from other sources than oklo as well. One 14 of the projects that we have ongoing is looking at the 15 behavior of various uranium and thorium isotopes in some of 16 the Australian uranium deposits: natural analogs, which,is 17 a tremendous base of knowledge. But what we were trying to 18 convey here is that, look, nobody has done this before. It i
19 is not like power plants. There is a large base of reactor 20 operating experience with power plants.
]
21 You can do a lot of things with that knowledge.
22 In fact you can be highly quantitative with it because you 23 can look at actual operating experience, you can look at 24 the components. You can see how they behaved over 40 or 50 25 years of operation. You can look at the whole plant as a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
3CJ47-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(L336-6646
29112.0 13 REE
("
\._)/
1 system. 'And that is the sort of thing we can't do here.
2 DR. MARK: My point is very simple and not very 3 -important. Emphasizing that there is no experience bypasses 4 l the point that there are sources of information and we are 5 using them.
6 MR. COSTANZI: We certainly are.
7 DR. MARK: I think that should come out more 8 clearly in things said about it.
9 MR. PARKER: I think Carson has a very good 10 point. I any think analogous to what Frank has just said 11 about using power plants, the same thing is true of 12 excavations at depth. There is lots of experience at
() 13 hundreds of years, thousands of years in salt at depth 14 which is analogous to the power plant, it seems to me. It 15 is not high-level waste but there is certainly waste in 16 there because it is where the miners threw their tools away 17 and things of that sort. It is also true, not just a 18 couple of years, because-20 years ago, waste was being put 19 in salt and demonstrating that it could be done without any 20 real problem whatsoever. So I think Carson has -- I think 21 overall it is a minor thing, but I think the general tenor 22 is very valid.
23 MR. COSTANZI: I am not sure I would agree that 24 salt vault demonstrated it could be done without any l
25 problem whatsoever. There was, I understand, a rather 4
O i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37m Nationwide Cmerage Mn3E6646
1
-29112.0- 14 REE
.O V
1 unexpected quantity of brine migrating towards the waste 2 packages in project salt vault because of the heat. The 3 heat had an effect on the local, the. local effect on the 4 salt which was not anticipated. Moreover, the temperatures 5 that DOE has been talking about how now for the waste 6 package in the salt repository could be in a region where 7 you have aggressive corrosion or perhaps even 8 chloride-induced stress corrosion. Cracking of the waste 9 packages could occur, which would mean that they would not 10 satisfy the kind of requirements which are necessary for 11 confidence in the safe disposal of high-level waste. For 12 example, the 1000 containment requirement.
/^
(_) 13 DR. MARK: You say you have found this extra 14 corrosion source, but as long as the brine is migrating to 15 the wastes, then we are in clover.
16 (Laughter.)
17 MR. COSTANZI: Remember the duration of the 18 experiment in salt vault was quite short, just a few years.
19 The heat source is going to last about 1000 years, 20 certainly 500. Depends again on the fuel loading, depends 21 on whether it is high burn-up or present-day fuel, but 22 nonetheless you can expect a heat source for quite some time.
23 There have been some calculations that are just that:
24 calculations, nothing more, but indicate that there might
_, 25 be brine movement, essentially convection set up by the v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370) Nat sonwide Coserage Mn336-6M6
.29112.0 15 REE i
' (N.
%)
I wastes themselt 3 which not only would the heat-draw the 2 brine in, but the brine would then attack the canisters and 3 the waste from inside and be driven off by the heat.
4 MR. PARKER: How can it drive it someplace 5 besides the little cell?
6 MR. COSTANZI: Cells could be quite large. It 7 depends on the particular nature of the heat.
8 MR. PARKER: You don't have that much heat 9 relative to-the amount of salt you are going to have down 10 there.
11 MR. COSTANZI: I am not sure that that is known.
12 The temperatures of the waste package have been 150 to 250
() 13 degrees C at the surface, temperatures DOE has been talking 14 about.
15 DR. MARK: I would like to restate my point. I 16 admit this is totally simplistic. You should make it 17 evident to a greater extent than it has been made evident 18 that you are taking advantage of every favorable indication 19 that you find, whether in splt or in oklo or in uranium ore 20 migration, and that it is re'al experience and that it
^
21 real experience over a very 1ong time in some cases.
22 MR. GREEVES: Excuse me. John Greeves. All of 23 these things that you are talking about, the Staff has been 24 paying attention to. I think Nick's problem is, in a line 25 item, he couldn't convey that.
(1) .
1 I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34?-3701 Nationwide Cos erage Nn336-M
29112.0 16 REE
/
s 1 DR. MARK: Look, I understand that. I am 2 reading things which have been said on the outside. They 3 don't have enough of this in it for my feeling.
4 MR. GREEVES: The things that we put out, you 5 are saying, are more than just this line item. We have 6 been paying attention to the work over in Germany. They 7 have a fair amount of experience with deep geologic 8 environments with waste of all kinds. In fact, they have 9 had some of the hot stuff down there. We will be paying 10 attention to those things.
11 DR. MOELLER: While we are on that and I am sure 12 we can -- you will undoubtedly hit it later. I was reading
() 13 in preparation for this meeting the report of the Health 14 and Energy Institute on the Hanford, the salt site. And in 15 that report, talking about the raovement of water over 16 vitrified waste, it said that if the moisture, water moves l
17 slowly, that a coating actually, a protective coating 1 18 algeared to develop on the surface of the glass which 19 tended to help seal the radionuclides in. And then they go 20 on to say, but, if the water moves a little faster, it 21 takes that coating off and leaches the radioactive !
l 22 materials out. I presume you have past data or you are !
23 gathering data that would help clarify this situation?
l l 24 -
MR. COSTANZI: We have done some experiments in l
l <,_3, 25 high-level waste or on high-level waste glass, looking at l '%.) '
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(N) Nationwide ros erage RWK 33AM
A 29112.0 17 REE 1/S
()
1 the leaching experiments.
2 DR. MOELLER: Have those been done at various 3 flow rates?
4 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. Those have been done -- no, 5 actually, I don't think they have been done at -- they have 6 been standing in, essentially the glass has been standing 7 in the leach, in the solution. They have been done in 8 terms of repository conditions with respect to the 9 chemistry of the water, but not at various flow rates.
10 However, we have a program, international cooperative 11 agreement with Japan, JAERI. They are doing some flow 12 experiments on waste glass or are planning to. Those are
/^\
(,) -13 not under way yet -- but that is not exactly right; they 14 have begun doing the experiments but they are still 15 calibrating their system, doing it on cold glass. The hot 16 glass experiments would probably begin in about six to 17 eight months. Let me remind you that glass is not going to 18 be a major constituent of the waste.
19 DR. MOELLER: Right.
20 MR. COSTANZI: The bulk of it is going to be 21 spent fuel. We are doing some spent fuel work at Battelle 22 Columbus right now. And that work should be finished by 23 May, I think.
24 DR. MARK: Do you have reasonably current and 25 easy access to the results of the work of the kind you have ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmide Coserage 80tk3M-M
29112.0 18
.REE fm .
- 1. .just been referring to?
2 f1R. COSTANZI: Yes. As a matter of fact, we l
3 recently sent one of our contractors to Japan to meet with 4 the Japanese for a week going over all the experiments 5 which the Japanese are conducting for us under that 6 research agreement. The Japanese are veryfcooperative and 7 have been very helpful to us in our program.
8 DR. MARK: Do you find that you are doing things
- 9 which they find interesting?
10 MR. COSTANZI: Very definitely. We have signed 11 research agreements at present with the Japanese, JAERI, a
12 with the French and with Switzerland. We have recently put
() 13 into place NAGRA.
14 DR. MOELLER: You also have them with Sweden?
15 MR. COSTANZI: No, we do not. DOE does the 16 basis for -- all these exchange agreements are essentially, 17 you do these set of experiments and we will do these set of 18 experiments and se will exchange information. +
19 Those experiments are things which basically 20 each country would be doing anyway, but the way the 21 experiment is set up or the way it is reported in terms of 22 what sort of results each country is trying to get out of 23 them, are altered to accommodate the other country.
24 We are pursuing the same sorts of agreements 25 with Canada now, and in fact I and two of my staff are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Ccierage 800-3366M6
i I
29112.0 19 REE
/
v 1 going to be going up to Chalk River in January, a lovely 2 time to go up there, to carry on further negotiations --
3 DR. MARK: Why don't you go there in May?
4 MR. COSTANZI: Well, timing. We have already 5 been up to the site itself so we have a pretty good idea of 6 what it looks like and what is going on there. We already 7 have some work that is going which is jointly sponsored, 8 going on there. We have also been up to White Shell which 9 is doing our high-level waste research and we were there 10 last August, I believe. Late August, early September. And 11 we are going up to Chalk River in January so that we can 12 close the loop and un under one agreement cover both the (n) 13 high-level and low-level. If we waited six months, then we 14 would probably have to do it in two agreements. The 15 paperwork would be --
16 DR. MARK: In addition to this, is there an 17 international pool of information on what everybody is 18 doing on the subject?
19 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. There are three 20 international programs which we are involved in. One is 21 ] called INTRACOIN, which is essentially finished now. That 22 l was an international working group to compare the 23 applicability and range of contaminant transport codes, 24 p programs, models contained therein for disposal of i
I f ,3 i
25 j radioactive waste, both high and low level.
'%) !
I I
k ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m me- ~ _ mm- ~~
29112.0 20 REE-
~~
(V 1 1 We are in the final stages of a similar program 2 looking at hydrologic models and the programs that are used 3 to do calculations on those models called HYDROCOIN, stands 4 for hydrologic code intercomparison. And there is a.new 5 group being -- a new charter being formed under the same 6 INTERVAL, which will be specifically trying to look at ways 7 to validate these models. That is to say, develop field 8 data against which you can t'est predictions of these models 9 to see how well they do. The experience in INTRACOIN was, 10 briefly, that the data base is not very good at all. There 11 really wasn't any data to do much beyond comparing one 12 model to another.
l
() 13 With HYDROCOIN there is a sufficient amount of 14 I data to run real problems and not just exercises, but there 15 is still not a sufficient amount of data to do a validation.
16 That is to say, you have a set of data by which you 17 structure the model, you determine the coefficients and i 18 then you have another set of data by which you check 19 whether or not the predictions of the model based on those 20 coefficients match what you observe. There isn't j 21 ! sufficient data to do that. This interval has the express 22 purpose of trying to develop that set of data, that 23 independent set to do the validation.
4 24 DR. MARK: Would it be so, then, that in this 25 way, you would either already have or would come to have i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
312-347-371o Nationmde Cmcrage M3)WM6
29112.0 21 REE
,, s
,/
1 access to the experience, whatever it may be that the 2 Swedes would report on?
3 MR. COSTANZI: Yes.
4 DR. MARK: Even though you don't have a 5 bilateral exchange agreement?
i 6 MR. COSTANZI: That is correct. DOE does have 7 an agreement with. Sweden and in fact they are funding 8 Sweden to do some research in granite for them. I presume 9 that we will have access to those results. We don't have 10 anything with Sweden per se but we do have it through --
11 since Sweden is a participant in the HYDROCOIN, INTRACOIN 12 and INTERVAL.
() 13 MR. PARKER: The same group that started 14 INTRACOIN and HYDROCOIN has also got biological codes. Are 15 you involved with the biological codes now?
16 MR. COSTANZI: No.
17 k MR. PARKER: They do have an international group 18 that is doing biological codes as well.
L 19 MR. COSTANZI: We have not addressed that issue 20 ,
in our research program.
21 DR. MOELLER: Now, there are a number of 22 examples in the published literature of biological activity 23 changing, of course, the behavior of radionuclides, i
24 '
changing the chemical nature.
7_ 25 i MR. COSTANZI: That is true. In our low-level
!n ,! !
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I -,, x _ _- ~~ l
29112.0 22 REE b waste research, as a matter of fact, we have looked at the 1
2 effect of biologically produced complexing nativity, for 3 example, the exiduates from roots produce chelating agents 4 which enhance the ability of radionuclides. We expect that l
5 there would be some carryover. But we haven't specifically 6 asked the question of what is the level of significance of 7 biological activity in a high-level waste repository.
8 As I say, we -- the questions exceed our budget.
9 So we couldn't look at everything. But we can make -- we 10 do think we have enough understanding of what is going on 11 near the surface with regard to the mobility of 12 radionuclides as it is enhanced or decreased by the (n),
13 biological factors that we can make some sort of assessment 14 of whether or not that is a problem.
15 One other thing that we had not looked at, 16 because we -- until, I guess until TMI, as a matter of fact, 17 there was a consensus that in very high radiation 18 environments which you would expect around a high-level 19 ) waste package, that there would not be a whole lot of 20 ;
biological activity. The bugs just didn't like that sort t
21 Il of environment.
I 22 ; of course, on the inside of the pressure vessel l
23 l we are finding a good collection of bugs that are very 24 happy in there. So we may have to relook at that. But it 25 ! is something that -- that is the kind of question which we
(~1 !
v t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- e m., s _ _. mu-
29112.0 23 REE O
v 1 feel that at least at this point that DOE really ought to 2 be responding to and not us. If, indeed, there appears at 3 some point from our research or from other research that is 4 done that this is a question, we might have to look into it 5 further to make sure that DOE does address it if need be.
6 MR. PARKER: As long as you brought up the 7 foreign experience, the Swedes, the French, the Germans 8 have -- the Swiss have all come out with research. agendas, 9 many of which have not been translated like you did. Have 10 some of your staff read those, like the Castaing report 11 which has a very good critique of the French program which 12 is an official French group so it is not an anti-nuclear O)
(_
r 13 group but it is a scientific group.
14 MR. COSTANZI: I don't know the answer to your 15 question on that specific report. I do know that the 16 Project Guarantee, which was the Swiss --
17 MR. PARKER: Did you translate all those eight 18 volumes in German or have you read those, has someone read 19 those?
20 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. I am not sure that all the 21 eight volumes -- we did get --
22 f MR. PARKER: The summary volume. There are t
23 i eight of the summary; there is only one in English but 24 there are eight in German.
I 25 MR. COSTANZI: We have -- I am not sure if we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202,347-17m Nat sonwide Cmerage WU-3%-6M5
. . _ . . _ , _ _ . . . . . ~ . _
l 29112.0 24
-REE'
\,J 1; have gotten all eight volumes. I do know that we have-2 received the complete report.
~3 MR. PARKER: The English one.
4 MR. COSTANZI: Yes, definitely. Also the German.
5 MR. PARKER: That doesn't reflect what is in the 6 ' German, I have to tell you.
7 MR. COSTANZI: We do have reports in German and i
8 one of the Staff has read some of those reports. I don't 9 know if he has read them all. He was asked to go through ,
10 them and to pull out what was significant and he indeed did
~11 do that. So I presume that whatever was in there that was 12 important to our program has been pulled out.
() 13 DR. MARK: People on the Staff I' hope who can 14 read both French and German reports without waiting for 15 somebody to translate them. It is too much to ask for i 16 Swedish and Japanese, of course.
17 MR. COSTANZI: The. fellow who read them is Swiss, 18 as a matter of fact.
i 19 With regard to French, no. We don't have anyone 20 who is not fluent in French on the Staff. But the NRC will
- 21 translate and we do get almost weekly the list of 22 publications which come in to IEP and they send it over to l us and then we look through them and when we do want 23 <
- 24 something translated, they will take care of that for us.
25 Also, there is a compendium that is put out by CE)
\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage *n33MM6
- _ . ~ . . - -. ._ .... . , _ . . . . ._ _-- - , , . ~ -
~-29112.0 '25 REE j.
v 1 two people in P&L, and I can't remember their names.
2 MR. PARKER: Kent Harmon is the fellow.
3 MR. COSTANZI: Okay,.that says who is doing what 4 in the international community. And of course, we respond 5 to that.
6 We also attend quite regularly meetings of the 7 NEA as well as international symposia which occur almost 8 monthly --
9 MR.-PARKER: Every week.
10 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. In waste management, both 11 high level and low level. So our foreign contacts are 12 exercised very frequently. So I think we do have a pretty
() 13 good idea of who is doing what and what is going on where.
14 MR. PARKER: Have you accepted what NEA has 15 determined to be validation of the demonstration -- they 16 have'a number of papers, a number of reports on 17 demonstration they call direct demonstration and indirect 18 demonstration to show safety of repositories. Do you agree 19 with what is said in there? I think it is a very crucial 20 point.
21 MR. COSTANZI: I am not going to be able to 1 22 answer your question because I agree the point is crucial 23 and I do not, one, do not recall sufficiently clearly what 24 1 they said. I do know what we feel is validation of models.
,_s 25 As far as validation or debonstration of the performance of
(-)
I
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2112-347-3700 Nationwide Cos crage M k334 M 4
29112.0 26 REE-i
%)
1 repositories per se, which in our, for our point of view 2 'means demonstration that you have met the requirements that 3 'are in Part 60, the people that need to determine that are 4 --- the licensing people, not the research people. What we 5 are trying to do is to the best we can identify what are 6 the components of that demonstration, and what needs to be 7 considered, how that is considered, and the judgment as to 8 whether or not DOE has done that job is really theirs, not 9 ours. We would be overstepping our charter.
10 MR. PARKER: To determine whether or not you 11 have the research available to make that judgment, that NRC 12 will have to make that judgment, I think you need to be
() 13 familiar with what they call a direct and indirect 14 demonstration of proof of safety.
15 MR. COSTANZI: If you have a specific question 16 on that, I would be happy to get back to you.
17 MR. PARKER: This is self-evident. Nobody is 18 going to have 10,000 years of experience, and so to say we 19 need to do that by indirect demonstration, they go through 20 a whole series of things that one could do and the question 21 is, is NRC going to agree with that?
22 MR. COSTANZI: Okay. I think that the licensing i
23 Staff are really the people that need to answer that 24 question. We would take our direction as to what we would t 25 work on from their decision as to how appropriate they
- (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202J47470D Nationwide Cmerage M103%tM6
29112.0 27 REE f}
Q'
- l. think that is. But that is really not something that the 2 research office ought to be meddling in, really. That is a 3 policy matter.
4 I want to mention that we talked about the 5 research regulatory approach and talked about developing 6 licensing tools. The development of licensing tools to do 7 any of these things, all of these things is really done, I 8 want to stress, in cooperation with the licensers, the 9 people who are using the Division of Waste Management.
10 They essentially do the -- put into' place the tools. What 11 we do is provide them some technical support, hopefully 12 some insights as to what is appropriate technically or
() 13 scientifically or what isn't. But the actual piecing of 14 all the elements together.to make the licensing tools is 15 really not something that the Office of Research does. Our 16 approach is to contribute towards the things that we have 17 mentioned here.
18 The next item is funding. That is really one of 19 the reasons we are here this morning is to talk about the 20 budget. I think that pretty much speaks for itself. We 21 believe that we are presently underfunded by about $2
[ 22 million and we are anticipating that our budget in FY '88, 23 l that 5 million will be an appropriate level and that we i 24 will be able to preserve that through the oncoming budget l 25 cycle.
l (1) :
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3-m ~ - m m ... --
29112.0 28 REE V(3 1 DR. MARK: You say you are underfunded, which 2 indicates that you have projects you believe should be done 3 but you don't have the money?
4 MR. COSTANZI: That is correct.
5 DR.. MARK: How much money is DOE spending in 6 that same area, the stuff that you think you would be well 7 advised to do, are they spending S50 million on just that 8 field anyway?
- 9 MR. COSTANZI: I can't answer that. I don't 10 .know the detailed -- I don't have off the top of my head a 11 detailed breakdown of the DOE budget. I do know that their 12 FY '87 budget post-cutback from the Congress is something
-() 13 like 360 million, or to our 3 million for the waste 14 management program.
15 DR. MARK: But they are probably not directing a 16 very large part of that to things that you feel you would 17 like to see done?
18' MR. COSTANZI: I don't know. I can't -- I don't 19 know the line items of their budget.
20 MR. PARKER: Isn't that cutback primarily the 21 site characterization of the drilling, the big bucks cutback?
22 ! MR. COSTANZI: That is right. From 760 million --
23 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act essentially tells DOE that it 24 can't do any researcli related to geologic disposal. What 25 they are required to do is essentially develop it. They 7-L)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage mn 3366M6
~ .- . . . - - - _ . . . . - . . - - - - . . --. .. .-. ._ . .
"29112.0 29 REE-1 are supposed to dispose of the waste. But they are 2' certainly doing work in areas which are pertinent to the 3' kinds of questions which we are exploring in our research.
4 In fact, there would be a terrible disconnecting if we 5 weren't working on many of the same things. One of the 6 things NRC has to be able to do is determine whether or not 7 DOE's answers are the right answers. You have to have some 8 idea of what the right answer looks like in order to do 9 that.
10 So much of the work, in fact all of the work 11 that we are doing is certainly in areas in which DOE is 12 doing things. Perhaps not as much in some areas as we I 13 think they ought to and perhaps sufficient in other areas.
\.s) .
14 I might mention that both the results of our 15 research as well as questions which are raised by those 16 results, in terms of " Gee, DOE, we think you ought to be 17 doing this or you ought to be looking at that," are 18 regularly conveyed to DOE through the interaction between 19 the Division of Waste Management staf f and DOE, which is j 20 under the agreement between DOE and the NRC.
21 DR. MOELLER: Are they --
t 22 MR. COSTANZI: Research Staff and contractors f
23 l regularly participate in those meetings.
24 DR. MOELLER: Are they pretty responsive to your i 25 comments or suggestions?
I f
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3Nul Ntionside Coserage $4k336-6M6
l 29112.0 30 REE. l
/%
1 MR. COSTANZI: I think overall, they certainly 2 listened to us. They haven't always agreed but I don't 3 think that they have simply dismissed any of the concerns 4 or recommendations that we have. I think that perhaps the 5 licensing people who deal more directly with them than I do 6 would be in a better position to give a more clear picture 7 of it.
8 DR. MOELLER: I would think the licensing Staff-9 could say to DOE, we believe we need the following data in 10 order, or that you need to develop the following data and 11 provide it to us. Otherwise we are going to be slovad down
, 12 or we can't reach a decision. That would be quite an
() 13 incentive to DOE to obtain the data.
14 MR. COSTANZI: I think it is my understanding 15 that that is the kinds of things -- Phil, is that -- could 16 you comment?
17 MR. JUSTUS: I am Phil Justus, the acting chief 18 of the geotechnical branch. That is one of our principal 19 jobs right now, the preconsultation phase interacting with 20 DOE on technical matters. The transmitting the benefits of 21 research as well as reports derived from our technical 22 assistants contracting on specific matters that we may be 23 discussing with DOE or even generic matters on technical 24 positions and approaches.
25 That is the forum where we are transmitting NRC
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk33MM6
29112.0 31 REE p
V 1 information that should be of benefit, we think, to DOE, if a
2 they would consider it. I will have more to say about that 3 later as we get into the meeting.
4- MR. COSTANZI: I would like to turn now to the 5 second page and talk a bit about some of the things that we 6 have done in the last year. They are essentially reports, 7 papers that have been published or are to be published in
. 8 the area of geohydrology. We have identified techniques 4-
) 9 for characterizing fractures, measuring infiltration and i -
10 percolation and measuring permeability of unsaturated 11 fractured rock.
12 Heretofore'the techniques that have been-used to
() 13 characterize unsaturated media have been for characterizing 14 unsaturated soils and not unsaturated fractured rock.
15 There wasn't a whole lot of interest in doing the hydrology 16 of unsaturated fractured rock because there is nothing but 17 water, nothing of economic value there. However, if you 18 are going to put waste in that sort of media and since 19 water is the primary mechanism by which the waste can be 20 transported, you bet you have some sort of understanding of l
- 21 the hydrology of unsaturated fractured rock.
22 , So we have identified what sorts of techniques j 23 are appropriate for characterizing that rock and for 24 measuring the way water gets in and flows within that rock.
25 That has been published as a NUREG.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i - o, ~ _ m_. --
Y 29112.0 32
,,REE
( )
\J l We have also published a data input guide and a 2 theory and implementation guide to an NRC-developed 3 computer program called Swift 2, which is a program for 4 doing calculations for a system which has the thermal 5 source, groundwater, thermal source and also with brine 6 transport.
7 In the area of waste package performance, we 8 have developed at the -- I should say -- let me go back. I 9 want to mention that the first one, the unsaturated 10 fractured rock work is done at the University of Arizona 11 and the Swift 2 work is being done at the Sandia National 12 Lab.
p y ,) 13 Waste package performance, our work at Battelle 14 Columbus has developed a model of local corrosion, pitting 15 corrosion specific to carbon steel in a repository 16 environment, which gives the model, what has been observed; 17 namely, pits in carbon steel in that sort of environment 18 tend to be shallow, tend to be rather shallow, broad pits 19 as opposed to very narrow, very deep pits.
20 The shape of the pit has a great deal of I
21 significance on the lifetime of the waste package if the 22 ; waste package presumably failed by pitting corrosion in 23 that it directly affects the amount of material that has to 24 be removed to penetrate the waste package, which means that
,- 25 you need a lot more water if the pits are indeed shallow, L-] l i
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-INO Nationw hie Coserage bulk 34ur
29112.0 33 REE N.
1 broad pits as opposed to deep, narrow pits in order to 2 penetrate the package.
-3 It also means once the package is penetrated, 4 you now have a rather large-size hole as opposed to a 5 pinhole. So-it effects both the lifetime and the source 6 term.
7 MR. PARKER:' Is that saying that carbon steel is 8 not going to be as useful as DOE has claimed, because of 9 the very high degree of corrosiveness that you will not get 10 these deep pits; are you saying that?
11 MR. COSTANZI: No. Not at all. All we are 12 saying is that the nature of the way the package will fail
() 13 and the time needs to consider that the pits that are going 14 to grow on the carbon steel waste package, say in a salt 15 repository, will be broad pits and fait;1y shallow as 16 opposed to very narrow, deep pits. So the number of pits 17 that, if you have a failure criterion, for example, which 18 says so much surface area is penetrated through, the number 19 of pits will probably be smaller. Perhaps some greatcr 20 uncertainty in the time it takes since fewer pits will,
! 21 quote, meet the -- will fail the waste package. You will 22 need fewer pits to fail.
23 But on the other hand, the amount of material L
24 . moved, removed and hence by implication the amount of water 25 which has to be flowing through the repository or around (2) >
I 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.m ,_ m c_. .. --
29112.0- 34 1 the waste package, would be significantly greater.
2- So it will affect both the model for the 3 lifetime waste package and once it fails the model that you 4 use for the source term; that is to say,-the amounc of 5 radionuclides available to be taken from the waste package
- 6. to the underground facility and potentially to the 7 environment. 'So it doesn't say anything about whether it 8 will work or not. It just says that this is what you need 9 to consider when you make the argument.
10 Incidentally, that is the flavor of all our 11 research. We are not saying that, something will work, 12 ever work or not work because we haven't really come across j ) 13 anything like that. It is really a question of what needs
- 14. to be considered in a demonstrational argument that the 15 criteria, for example, the containment criteria in Part 60 16 will be met.
17 Geochemistry, there is a -- should be -- we have 18 demonstrated that DOE needs to develop thermodynamic 19 geochemistry data for radionuclides at repository 20 temperatures. That should be a T greater than 25 degrees C.
21 I Most of the thermodynamic data is at 25 degrees C. Some of 22 the work that we had done at LVL indicated that the 23 extrapolation of the data at 25 degrees C repository 24 temperatures is very uncertain. It leaves a lot open to 25 ! question, and that DOE needs to focus on that.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 hat Mnwide C0\crage 80k336-M46
29112.0 35 REE
(~N.
V 1 We have also demonstrated that surface diffusion 2 increased the rate of radionuclide transport through 3 granite. That is one of the packing materials which DOE is 4 proposing to use. This required an upward correction to 5 the bulk diffusion coefficient in these materials. That is 6 a paper which will be published in the Journal of Soil 7 Science.
8 In the area of bore hole and shaft sealing, we 9 have completed an experimental program of testing the 10 performance of the seals in fractured rock which would be 11 applicable both to the salt or granite and we have 12 summarized the effects of the various parameters that O
() 13 describe the seal, namely, the cre.t oerature in which the 14 seal is going to operate, the size of the plug material, 15 the composition. This was published in the NUR"G.
16 The next page, I would like to talk just briefly 17 about some things that we are discussing with the Division 18 of Waste Management to do in FY '88. One of them is an 19 integrated waste package experiment in tuff where we would 20 simulate a waste package packing material in a tuff -
21 environment with the groundwater characteristic of what we i
22 expect in a tuff repository. g 23 DR. MOELLER: Say that again. What in an x ,
i 1 24 l integrated waste package experiment? i i
25 l MR. COSTANZI: As opposed to just looking at O_- ,
s l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i -, , _ m- - ..
,.h 29112.0 , ; 36 REE '
~
I what the effect of the perceived repository environment 1s 2 on the back field or packing material or on the overpacked 1
3 material itself, looking at whac the effect of the 1 4 repository environment is on that combination, looking for, 1
5 synergistic effects. '
6 We are also planning to do some thermohydraulic 7 laboratory experiments. One of the things that we have )
8 found from our participation in this hydrocooling exercize 9 is that experientially in salt, there is not a very good 10 understanding of what the hydrology looks like. With heat 11 as a complicating factor, there is this question of cells, 12 convection cells which might be insignificant or might be 1( ) 13 quite significant. It is not known.
14 Also in unsaturated media, especially when there 15 is stratification with regard to permeability, the 16 hydrology is very difficult to model. People who have 17 tried to do this in the HYDROCOIN exercise have come out 18 with a lot of different results, each of them having very 19 good arguments where their result is correct but with 20 nobody being really sure of what is the physically correct 21 results. We hope to do some dynamic similarity experiments 22 of essentially the dimensionless parameters to scale a
, 23 laboratory experiment to look at how the fluid and heat 24 behave in an unsaturated environment with various degrees 25 of permeability, various layers.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2te-347-3700 %tionwide C05CragC M O 33 M 686
, ..-,...~_ _..- -.---_-, . . . - - , _ _ _ , . _ . . .- _ -. _ - . . . _ _, , __ m.
29112.0 37 REE h
l R/ 1 1 We are also looking at hydrothermal analogs. We )
2 have done some work looking at geothermal systems and !
i 3 essentially looking at the models which have been used to 4 try and understand geothermal systems. Those temperatures 5 are fairly high compared to what we want to look at in the 6 hydrothermal analogs, which would be lower temperatures.
l l
7 They would be more analogous to the long-term behavior of a '
8 repository where there is a heat disturbance above the 9 background material, turf, the host rock, but we are not 10 talking about very close in where there might be 11 essentially boiling of the groundwater. We are talking 12 about further out where there would still be heat effects f( ,) 13 but the heat effects would be primarily changing the 14 boyancy of the water and hence pathways of groundwater and 15 perhaps some chemical effects, but not the close-in effects.
16 Lastly, the seismic and geotechnical research 17 related to repository design. One of the things -- I might 18 add that all of these things have been either explicitly 19 culled out or inferred from the user need letter that we 20 have which they are of course now updating. One of the 21 things that has been asked for for some time, which we have 22 l not had the resources to do, is seismic and geotechnical 23 research related to repository design.
24 l The effects of ground motion on underground I
_ 25 { structures is not very well understood. DOE will have to
%-)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-- ~ _ . c- ---
I 29112.0 38 REE
/ 1 C'
1 consider that in their design of the repository, and in 2 order to get some idea of the appropriateness of their 3 consideration, we feel we need to do some research in this 4 area so that, again, as I said, we will have some idea of 5 what the right answer looks like, so that we can do a 6 credible audit of their demonstration as we are required to 7 do.
8 DR. MARK: I can understand the great interest 9 in the stability of the region, seismically, while you are 10 building the repository. It would be a prime question for 11 the Bureau of Mines, for example. It has nothing whatever 12 to do with radioactivity particularly.
() 13 MR. COSTANZI: It can. It can in the following 14 way: If the stability of the openings in which the waste 15 is placed is questionable, you might end up with premature 16 failures of the waste package.
17 DR. MARK: Okay. After you have closed the 18 repository or put stuff in it, then you can ask, are all 19 the waste packages cut in half by slip of a meter.
20 MR. COSTANZI: Right.
I 21 l DR. MARK: And then --
22 MR. COSTANZI: You can also ask the question, i
23 l has the hydrologic regime been specifically altered by i
24 fault movement somewhere upstream.
25 DR. MARK: Then you start new calculation and l
(Z) i, s
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mum,,
s-_ug7 7,_
29112.0 39 REE 1 discuss the movement of material after that has happened.
2 But really, the interest in the stability of the site.is 3 very high during construction.
4 MR. COSTANZI: Very definitely, yes.
5 DR. MARK: Later, it is sort of an exercise, the 6 water movement is changed. The waste packages have all 7 been splintered or severed or something. And now does that 8 mean anything or not?
9 MR. COSTANZI: Right.
10 DR. MARK: Which side of this are you mainly 11 concerned with?
12 MR. COSTANZI: We feel that at the moment that j ) 13 with' regard to the above-ground structures there is already 14 sufficient understanding and criteria to take care of them.
15 With regard to the underground structures, the response of 16 those structures to seismic activity is something which we 17 don't know. And that is one of the things which we propose 18 to work on. The other thing is the long term, the question 19 of changes in the regional hydrology.
20 DR. MARK: I can understand your interest in the 21 long term. I wonder why you couldn't just hand the other 22 question to the Bureau of Mines? j 4
23 MR. COSTANZI: I don't know that we couldn't.
24 MR. JUSTUS: If I may, the -- we do in fact 25 include the Bureau of Mines in our retinue of technical ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cosenge 8tWL3M-6646
.m._ _
29112.0 40 REE
.,m 1 assistance. They accompany us to meetings with DOE and 2 engage DOE and our own staff in the lessons learned from 3 mining experience in planning repository activities and ;
4 investigations.
5 Some of what you are asking about we actually 6 p;; form under technical assistance in the short-term 7 interactions in dealing with DOE and helping them set up 8 their program for what information they would need to be 9 getting to plan for performance assessment, long term or 10 short term.
11 In the short term, seismic information forms not
, 12 just an issue with regard to impacting canisters or
() 13 groundwater flow, which, of course, are impacts on the 14 components of the overall performance of the repository.
4 15 But in the short term, there is a direct safety effect on 16 workers, should seismic events occur in the mines, in the 17 shafts, as well as on the surface.
18 We have very little experience available to us 19 regarding the impact to underground openings from seismic L 20 events. The attenuation of acoustic waves at depth is much 21 more poorly known than it is for surface effects. In I 22 short-term technical assistance work that we have had with 23' Oakland, we have actually asked them to compile the 24 literature on what lessons have been learned from mining in 25 South Africa, for example, and elsewhere. And that is o
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3474NU Nationwide Cmcrage 8tB336 6M6
29112.0 41
_(.REE XJ l about as far as we have gone.
2 The research efforts that we have been-3 encouraging Nick to gather should extend the meager data 4 base that we have to near term safety problems, as well as 5 the long term.
4 6 MR. PARKER: In general, though, isn't it the 7 case that there is far less effect underground than there 8 is on the surface?
9 MR. JUSTUS: The answer really is a matter cf 10 what frequency of vibrations are we talking about. Yes, 11 waves, acoustic waves are attenuated under the pressures 12 that occur at depth. And the vibrations, let's say the
() 13 long period vibrations are much smaller in depth than they 14 are on the surface.
15 However, high-frequency vibrations have been 16 recorded in South African mines that actually yield f
17 accelerations in the rock mass adjacent to the openings as 18 high as 12 Gs, but of course it is for an instant, so 19 nevertheless, it may be significant in planning or 20 designing the openings themselves.
21 MR. PARKER: I thought in the analysis of what 22 took place in the Rumanian mines and some of the Mexican 23 mines where people actually were in the mines during some 24 of these events, the effects were negligible in comparison 25 to what took place on the surface.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Ac-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
-- ,. ... --..- - , ..-, _. - - - . _ . . . . . , . , . . . . . -.. -- -.- . . , . _ . . . . - - . - - . - , ~ , - - - - , .
29112.0 42 REE fl',
V 1 MR. JUSTUS: That is correct. We have other 2 examples. In China, the Tangshan earthquake, I forget the 3 year now, on the surface several hundred thousand people 4 were killed. There were folks were operating a coal mine 5 only a few thousand feet below the epicenter and barely 6 felt the vibrations.
7 So that is correct. But, again, the nature of 8 the rocks, the tectonic regime, varies from those examples 9 to what DOE may be investigating. We need to be assured 10 that DOE can extrapolate what little is known and hopefully 11 get better information.
12 DR. MARK: The question occurs to me as to
() 13 whether the NRC is properly passed in the role of licensing 14 the digging of the whole, the handling of the structure, 15 the working in it, why that isn't something that you could 16 simply slough off. The long-term thing is your business, 17 our business. The construction phase is something that is 18 not nuclear in any identifiable way.
19 DR. MOELLER: In that regard, I was looking 20 through my notes to find it and I was unable to do it, but 21 which one is 10 CFR, which one is high level?
22 MR. COSTANZI: 60.
23 DR. MOELLER: 60. In there is a section that f
24 l says the NRC is responsible or must direct some attention 25 to health and safety during the construction and and the O
\J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n w.n, 8 ----
- 29112.0 43
-REE p&I 1 installation or the insertion of the waste.
2 DR. MARK: It may say it there, but I am not 3 sure whether it belongs there.
4- MR. GREEVES: There are a couple of things that 5 force us to pay attention to construction aspects during 6 the operation. One is you are dealing with radioactive 7 material. We have got a responsibility to protect the 8 workers down there from the radiation hazard in case a 9 surface thing were to happen.
10 The other is, one of the key performance 11 objectives in Part 60.1, retrievability. And it is not an 12 easy, particular performance objective to address in
() 13 certain media, all of which are forcing us to look at-14 things like the stability of openings. So we have several 15 . strong forcing mechanisms that force us to pay attention to 16 the construction aspects of the underground facility. A 17 particularly strong one is the'retrievability aspects which 18 is one of the performance objectives. We have got to make 19- a finding that when DOE starts to construct this sort of 20 thing that they have the ability to retrieve it up to a 21 50-year time period, all of which forces you to be able to 22 defensibly assess the stability of the openings.
23 DR. MARK: I can see that it is wonderfully 2:4 complex. And the fact that it is radioactive waste means 25 that it must be the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has to do ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage MG336-f646
29112.0 44 REE rx U
1 it or do something. But you don't pay the same kind of 2 attention to the construction aspect of a power plant. You 3 ask that the product come out correctly, but you don't ask 4 if their procedures in climbing up the side of the tower 5 are sensible or not. You leave that up to, I don't know, 6 OSHA or somebody.
7 MR. GREEVES: The reference in Part 60 was 8 particularly put in there with the thought being, what is 9 good for the safety of a miner in~ terms of his ability to 10 function underground also is good for our radioactive waste 11 that is underground. If you have got to put mechanisms in 12 place to protect the miner's health and safety, the same
() 13 sorts of protections would be good for the radioactive 14 material and also good for our ability to get in there, 15 handle it, deal with it and remove it if we had to. That j 16 is the implications.
! 17 DR. REMICK: I guess I can't resist adding a few 18 words. I would hope, however, in this that the j 19 retrievability would not drive us to making seismically I 20 qualified mine shafts over the recovered material for 50 i
j 21 years. If we went to that extreme -- I don't differ with L 22 what you are saying and what the NRC's responsibility is, 23 but I can see that if we went that far that retrievability
~
24 drove us to designing shafts that would withstand 25 earthquakes of an SSE, in my mind I think we are going too ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natiom'ide Coserage 800-33MM6
/ 'r <
~
29112.0 45 REE 1 far.
2 The bit of talking about underground structures, 3 maybe I am misinterpreting it, but it seems to me that one 4 y could almost stipulate that an earthquake in a mine is 5 going to collapse shafts. When you talk about structures, 6 I visualize this as drifts or mines underground and access 7 shafts and ventilating shafts and so forth. It seems to me 8 man-made structures, one could also assume they are going 9 to fail if you have a close-by earthquake. That would be 10 disastrous to workers down there, but that is true of any 11 g mine in the world that there was a nearby earthquake. The 12 chances are that it could affect miners. I don't know how I[ j 13
- q far these things drive us.
14 I realize we have to understand them and do 15 prudent things. One of the most important things I would 16 think if you were underneath an aquifer and there was a 17 fair chance of an earthquake that that would be of 18 considerable concern that that type of thing -- but I guess 19 ! -- I don't differ with what you are saying; you need to t
li 20 But I am kind of leaning to Dr. Mark.
[ understand it. I i
21 i would hope it doesn't drive us to unrational types of a
22 activities in this area.
23 '
MR. COSTANZI: I think that the more that we I
24 '
understand, the confidence we have in our understanding of 25 !l what is going on, in fact the less likely we are to do k' k a
i:
a ii s
lo ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, - 8_ -- --
29112.0 46 REE
- i. ;
v 1 something irrational. That is one of the reasons for 2 taking a look at this.
3 There has been, as you point out, mines 4 experience indicates that it doesn't seem to be a big deal.
5 But nonetheless it is not really understood. It hasn't 6 been looked at. In order to be able to make a reasonable, 7 well thought-out regulatory decision on this matter, which 8 we will have to make, there is no substitute for 9 understanding what is going on.
10 DR. REMICK: I certainly agree. I do hope that 11 you use the Bureau of Mines' competence and so forth in 12 helping you arrive at the decisions that you have to make.
,m 13 MR. COSTANZI: As I indicated, these four items (a) 14 are proposed initiatives. That means that we are now 15 engaged with the Division of Waste Management as to whether 16 or not these things ought to be on our future agenda and 17 what they are going to look like, assuming that they or 18 whatever else eventually gets on our future agenda. This 19 whole process of coordination takes into account all 20 sources of information that we have and who is doing what.
21 We don't do that in a vacuum. It is not just even research 22 or the research staff that makes this decision.
23 l The decision as to what the program looks like i
24 l and what level of effort is put in is a collegially arrived i
25 at decision which has all the information that we, all of 7_s
(
s-
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
21t2 347 37(X) NatiOM%ide rO)erage &AL3%M4
29112.0 47
- REE Dv 1 us-can glean, being factored into that decision.
1 2 MR. JUSTUS: A word on complexity. Dr. Remick 3 brought up a hope and in general I think we all share these 4 kinds of hopes that no one thing will be so overwhelmingly, 5 let's say, expensive or difficult to do that it would cast 6 a doubt on the viability of the whole operation.
7 The example you use though, the example of 8 stability of shafts, this part of the repository is not 9 only involved in worker safety. It is not only involved as 10 possible access to waste for retrievability options that 11 may be developed. It is also future pathways for escaping 12 radionuclides. So they have to be sealed.
() 13 Now, if disruptive events can impinge on these
. 14 shafts, let's say if we have only in mind retrievability, 15 we are thinking too narrowly. We might solve the 16 retrievability problem, but are we a'lso solving the other 17 complicated aspects of that part of the system that need to 18 be addressed, whether it be near-term or safety-oriented or 19 long-term migration of radionuclides by groundwater because 20 of seals that may have failed, which are usually failed by 21 earthquakes. These weren't dealt with with that purpose in 22 mind, but just say focusing on another purpose which we may I 23 have given undue emphasis to. What I did want to say is we 24 always have to keep in mind the whole system. l
- 25 DR. REMICK: And I agree, but at the same time, v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370ll Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-6M6
48
'29112 0 REE (3
V 1 I guess it is inconceivable to me that somebody can design 2 a seal for one of these that would withstand an earthquake, 3 that you would have assurance that it would withstand.
4 There may be prudent things you can do to help, but it 5 seems like when you are dealing with seismic activity of 6 underground activity like this-that there are risks and you 7 shculd know what they are. But I would hope it doesn't try 8 to design seismic-proof mine shafts and so forth. My guess 9 is that we just couldn't do that.
, 10 DR. MOELLER: Let's see, Nick. I think it has 11 been fine to go a little beyond schedule on this opening 12 portion because we are covering a lot of things that all of
() 13 us wanted to talk about in general over the next two days.
14 How much longer do you think it will take you to --
15 MR. COSTANZI: I think I can wrap it up by noon, 16 I would say.
17 I just want to briefly call your attention to 18 the next four items, unfunded projects. These are projects 19 which we have taken a look at. They would be things which 20 would be on our wish list, if we had several million 21 dollars more in our budget to do them.
22 DR. MOELLER: Can you just run down them and 23 give us a little bit on each. This is very helpful, though, 24 for us to know what you are not able to do.
25 MR. COSTANZI: On the first one of these, the
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I u-~ - - + c _ ,. -
29112.0- 49 REE o
U 1 effect of mineral variation in host rock on high-level 2 waste over pack corrosion, what we are doing right now, all 3 our studies are essentially we take an environment which we, 4' on our best knowledge and information of what the 5 repository is going to look like, what the waste package is 6 going to see and we run all our experiments on that. -We 7 have not done any quantitative, systematic way varying that 8 even environment to see uhat the effects are. So we 9 haven't done the experimental sensitivity analysis. This 10 forces us to do calculational sensitivity analyses, which 11 are okay to a point. But they are usable and it doesn't 12 detract from the validity of the experiments. But you.are
() 13 always more confident if you do an experimental sensitivity 14 analysis as well as a calculation.
15 Similarly for the studies of hydrogen 16 embrittlement and the heat-affected weld zones, there is 17 some indication that that.might be under certain repository 18 environments. We think that at this point that we can 19 sufficiently describe the repository environment that that 20 will not be a problem to DOE if DOE describes their 21 expected environment which would be in that zone, we would 22 probably have to revisit this. But it is not something 23 which is really pressing.
24 DR. MARK: I was wanting to agree with the fact 25 that it didn't seem to me to be really pressing. The word ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I nun, u -+ c- u,--
g-29112.0 50 REE V
1 " hydrogen embrittlement," that is one of the forms of 2 embrittlement that one is aware of. But plastics get 3 embrittled by being in the sun or just by getting old.
4 Embrittlement could be a problem and I am sure it is. This 5 sounds a little highly specific.
6 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. Which is one of reasons 7 again why we are not doing it. There are more important --
8 DR. MARK: I am voting with you.
9 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. The flavor of this is that 10 we are -- part of our job is to think all the time, do the 11 what-ifs and play the intellectual game of what do you need 12 to look at. What if you are not right here? What if you
'( ) 13 are wrong there? What if your assumptions aren't correct?
14 It comes down to that you have to pick and choose. You 15 have to be selective about the research you do.
16 DR. MARK:- I didn't want to argue with you at 17 all. I am in favor of dropping it even if you could have 18 funded it.
19 MR. COSTANZI: Okay.
20 Next one is research in repository behavior 21 under off-normal conditions. This is asking the question, 22 you have -- you believe you know what the repository looks 23 like in terms of its environment and design of the 24 engineering components. What if you are mistaken? What if
( 25 it is not built and constructed as designed? How far off (2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage *G336-6M6
29112.0 51 REE 7.-
~V
- 1. ^ can that be? How far can you be on your description of the 2 environment to where you have a safety problem? This is 3 something which I think we will have to look at at some
~4 point, but we are postponing that simply because we don't 5 have the money and we think we have much more pressing 6 questions right now which would be applicable in the time 7 which DOE is characterizing sites which are coming up, and 8 that this kind of a question can wait until later on in the 9 process.
10 Last thing is analysis of coupled thermal 11 hydraulic geochemical phenomena. As I mentioned earlier, 12 we had looked at a lot of the geothermal models which had (m
y) 13 been developed to try and understand geothermal systems.
14 And those all indicated that the coupling of the heat water 15 and geochemistry was a weak coupling in the sense that you 16 would not get too far wrong by treating those as variable 17 conditions, that you didn't have much of a synergistic 18 effect there. What we would plan to do here is to try and 19 quantify how far wrong that is. Right now we feel fairly 20 comfortable at this point in time it is not something which 21 we need to delve into further.
22 With regard to what we are going to be doing 23 ,
this coming fiscal year, this fiscal year, present fiscal 24 year, and coming FY '88, the following three pages kind of
_ 25 break our high-level waste research program into three m !
ACE-FEDEIML REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 80th336-(M6
29112.0- 52 REE
(~'i V
1 topics and then-specific items under each of those. These 2 .are not finished in the sense that many projects will 3 contribute towards these but these are rather categories of 4 research that we are doing and we plan to do in FY '88. I 5 caution you that the FY '88 numbers are for planning 6 purposes only. They have no more validity than just the 7 piece of paper they are on. They are not approved and 8 blessed by anybody. They are just what we are using now as i 9 a point of departure for discussion in preparing our FY '88 10 budget.
11 I will just briefly talk about what these first 12 one is doing. Analyze hydrology and geochemistry of
() 13 repository environments, determine interactions important 14 to containment of waste. The performance objective to 15 focus on is the containment requirement and it is focusing 16 on the environment in which the engineering and the 17 geological activity of the repository is goir3 to have to 18 work.
19 It is one thing to design the engineering, for 20 example, the waste package. It is another thing to show 21 that that design is compatible with the conditions under 22 l which it has to work.
23 The next item is identify performances factors 24 l and failure modes for materials and engineering of man-made f
25 l structures. We now, in the first part of looking at the i
o/~%
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
AC 347-3740 Nationwide Coserage 80t>34-6M6
29112.0 53 REE
- c. .
U environment, we know what sorts of conditions under which 1
2 the engineering is going to have to work. Now we are
~
3 asking the question, how does it fail? What are the 4 consequences of that failure? This is affecting the source 5 term. And the transport of radionuclides from the waste 6 package through the underground facility and eventually 7 available to transport to the environment.
8 Lastly, identify and quantify system safety 9 factors and risk assessment methodologies. That is a fancy 10 way of saying, transport from the repository to the 11 environment. It is the bottom line. It is the EPA 12 standard sorts of questions. That is the various projects
(') 13 which we are planning to do, doing, and planning to do 14 which will help us come to grips with those questions.
15 The last page are some rulemakings that we have 16 done in the high-level waste area in the last year. We 17 have published the final procedural amendments to Part 60.
18 These are the changes which were required by the passing of 19 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and proposed amendments to 10 20 CFR 60 conforming to the EPA standard. That rule has been 21 proposed. It is out for comment. The commentary is closed 22 and the Staff right now is working to address those 23 ,
comments and we hope to have a final rule for the 24 l Commission review shortly.
j 25 DR. MOELLER: Other questions or comments? Yes, 1
(2) l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 n.w n u a--- ,_
29112.0 54 LREE
~ C): .
1 Don.
! 2- MR. ORTH: Reviewing all of these programs, they
. 3: 'seem.to break down into sort of three levels or kinds of 4 programs, iffI wanted to categorize them. One of them is 5 ' completely-independent study and an example would be.
4 6 identifying technique for characterizing-fractures, 7 measuring infiltration, those things that were mentioned 8 where a NUREG came out already. Another one'is sort of 9 confirmatory. They are not going out. independently but 10 they are sort of saying, hey, we've got to be able to check
- i. 11 what DOE is doing and I am just going to develop enough of i .
12 a technique so I can at least check what they are doing.
l-( )_ 13 A third one might be, I haven't that many 14 examples of it, but might be'just we do just enough work to 15 identify if there is a problem and then we go back to DOE.
16 The pertinent part.of this series of comments I 17 think is if you are in an.unfunded position, you have to 18 very carefully decide'which you need to do. I would say 19 that what you do is that you forget the independent 20 research, except for something you actually have to do, and
+ 21 maybe even some of the confirmatory and spend all of your 22 money identifying those areas in which you go back to DOE i 4
23 and say you are not going to get licensed unless you come i
' 2:4 through with some data on these points.
25 MR. COSTANZI: That is exactly our approach. In
()
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M6M
29112.0 , 55-REE g]
1 fact we always start with the lighter item first. And what 2 brings us to the second, the confirmatory'or the 3 independent is the degree of ignorance that we-discover 4 about the particular topic and the relative importance to 5 it of meeting the performance, a performance objective of 6 Part 60 or the EPA standard. Things which we believe to be 7 very important, we spend a lot more effort on and in the 8 case of hydrology, for example, we do some independent 9 research. We have had this discussion in past years, too.
10 I agree that that is what ysu are generally doing.
11 When I was looking at this listing of the 12 details on geochemistry of tuff and salt, some of these
() 13 things, it was difficult to see whether or not they were, 14 from this very brief description, whether or not they were 15 really, let's see if we have a problem type and tell DOE to 16 solve it or whether it was independent research. And these 17 titles don't tell me that. From what I could see here, 18 some of them look like, I am going to go off and just do 19 something independent. I wanted to offer that suggestion 20 that you look very carefully where you haven't got the 21 money.
22 MR. COSTANZI: What we have done up to this i
23 l point is simply identify where there is a problem and told 24 DOE. We are doing a bit of confirmatory now. That is what 25 you see on the chart before you which will be to get some
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 - Nat sonwide Cmcrage 8(Wh336-(M6
c 29112.0 56 REE
/i
's, 1 idea of what the right answers look like. It is going to 2 be very selective. We are not going to try to develop a 3 thermodynamic data base 60 or 90 degrees C. We are going 4 to look at a few of the radionuclides just to see what kind 5 of behavior could be expected and to be able to then audit 6 DOE's -- presumed DOE's filling in of that data base. I 7 don't believe we are going to do anything beyond that.
8 DR. MOELLER: Again, Nick, you did say you 9 agreed with what Dr. Orth said. Now then, if you looked at 10 the pages 5, 6 and 7 and if I -- this is probably a totally 11 inaccurate approach, but if I took page 5 then as the 12 independent research and 6 as the confirmatory and 7 as, g~s
(,) 13 let's see if we have a problem, there is, the money is not 14 -- well, there is more money on page 7, but it is not all 15 that much more.
16 MR. COSTANZI: I would hope you wouldn't do that.
17 DR. MOELLER: What you want me to do is look at 18 page 5 and even though you list this topic, what you are 19 emphasizing in that research is to see if we have a problem?
l I
20 g MR. COSTANZI: On that one, that one example.
21 ! The actonite geochemistry, these three pages are not broken L
r 22 down that way. They are really broken down more according 23 to the containment and controlled release requirements of 24 Part 60, containment control release conforms to Part 60, i
-s 25 l and the overall performance of the repository.
lLJ !
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l .n ~ - - - - --
j-29112.0 57 REE
(
L))
1 They are specifically focused on the environment 2 for the engineering, the performance of the engineering in 3 that environment and the overall performance of the 4 repository. That is another way of heading pages 5, 6 and 5 7.
6 DR. MOELLER: Okay. Any other questions for 7 Nick?
8 Thank you. Why don't we take a 10-minute break 9 and we will resume with the technical assistance program.
10 (Recess.)
11 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will resume.
12 We will now shift to the high-level waste O 3 techeice1 eeetete=ce nroore e=a their ieterre=e with the 14 research program, and our speakers will be Phil Justus and 15 Wayne Walker. Phil will lead off.
16 MR. JUSTUS: I am the coordinator of the 17 interface between the licensing groups and the research 18 groups in the Division of Waste Management. Wayne Walker 19 is with John Linehan's branch. He is responsible for the 20 c-: ordination of the'high-level w @te TA prcgram.
21 DR. MOELLER: Just to ,quickly jump ahead, how l 22 much money are we talking about Eith yoi versus the 3 23 million that Nick was telling us about?
24 MR. JUSTUS: Are we talking '88 or '87 now?
25 DR. MOELLER: Well, either one. Or both. Just ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37tn1 Nationwide Cmcrage 80l%3346M6
29112.0 58 REE
,~
Of 1 roughly.
2 MR. WALKER: Since we are phasing in we are 3 going to have about 4 million outside in '
87 for technical 4 assistance and about-2 million and a half will go to the 5 FFREC. That will continue, will just about reverse itself 6 for the next year and then will continue to phase out.
7 DR. MOELLER: So you are not that far different, 8 I mean it might be a total of 5 or 6 versus 3, but it is 9 not 28?
10 MR. WALKER: No.
11 DR. MOELLER: Thank you.
12 MR. JUSTUS: We always prefer to start out by
,m 13 reminding ourselves and each other of what' DOE's job is in
(_)
14 the program because that sets the stage for our work. To 15 make some familiar points again, emphasizing research anb 16 TA follow-ups, DOE has the responsibility of completing and i
17 defending a full licensing and performance assessment and 18 providing complete technical rationale for it.
19 We know that that will involve identifying and 20 characterizing limitations and uncertainties, all 21 associated with basic phenomena or events and processes 22 that influence the repository performance. DOE has to 23 provide us with an analysis of what is insignificant in 24 their view when there are hard data available and
( 25 alternative interpretations. They must be addressed, and i C')
l i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nrionnie roverage 800-336-6M6 N - -y e e c-wwe* m -v e +-P-r -mw- -~ y-- ^1--- -er---:=$ v
29112.0 59 REE O
V 1 if deemed insignificant, they have to be defended by DOE to 2 the same level, we feel, just as what work data or 3 interpretations they feel are significant to support their 4 licensing application. So in effect, we need to review the 5 entire spectrum of data and interpretations to be assured 6 that the most important ones affecting the performance of 7 the repository were indeed considered.
8 The NRC' Staff's job, on the next page, is 9 carried out over and varies with the phases of the program.
10 The Staff needs to identify, in the present prelicensing 11 consultation phase what DOE must produce in the license 12 application in the way of data and analysis. Therefore, we
() 13 have to give now early and continuous or ongoing guidance 14 to DOE on what we think is needed in DOE's licensing and 15 performance assessments to support compliance with 10 CPR 16 60.
17 Eventually, we will be making findings and
<. 18 defending them. In preparing for that event, we need to do 19 independent reviews of data. To do that we do involve 20 research and technical assistance, as well as Staff efforts.
21 We do review DOE's performance assessments as we come to 22 ; understand them. We need to establish in advance, if we 23 can, and resolve concerns as they exist, if possible, or 24 i help resolve them, what are adequate models, parameters to I'
25 support them, what scenarios have been developed and what 1
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3%4M6
.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ , ~ ,. . _ _ _ - . _ . . . _ . ._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _. _ _ -.
29112.0 60 REE
/m V
1 is the adequacy of them and, of course, can we agree on the 2 uncertainties of the input, the models, the output 3 scenarios and the overall performance.
4 We also independently assess performance, not by 5 doing a complete one. We don't intend to do that; that is 6 DOE's job. But on a selective basis, we will be 7 independently evaluating components of the repository ,
8 system.
9 It is-also important to note what NRC Staff 10 doesn't do or won't do. That is, we cannot assume any of 11 the responsibility for proof of or making DOE's case. Also, 12 we will reach a point when we get a license application
() 13 where if there are gaps or deficiencies, we just treat the 14 whole license application at face value. We do not fill in 15 the gaps or deficiencies.
16 Therefore, NRC research can't be conducted to 17 supplement DOE's licensing assessments. And on the other 18 hand, we feel there cannot be any area in which NRC is 19 doing research about which DOE isn't told, through our 20 prelicensing consultations, that they need to be doing work 21 on it. Now, the consequence of that is that NRC does 22 research in the same areas that DOE does, but for different 23 purposes.
24 On the third page here, we have enumerated some 25 criteria that the licensing staff, waste management staff ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3WU Nationwide Cos erage 80lb336-6646
~29112.0 61
- EEE
.)
1 supports NRC research on a selected basis.
2 Because we are in prelicensing consultation, NRC 3 independent research should enable us, that is to say the 4 licensing staff, to effectively establish what will be 5 needed for license application. Later in a license review, 6 NRC independent research should converge to provide 7 technical support to the Staff to defend the licensing 8 assessments they make. So we would agree that research is 9 needed. We have established with research that if they 10 meet the criteria laid out here in simplified form, we 11 would support, sometimes encourage it, sometimes support it 12 if it is initiated.
() 13 There is no doubt that NRC research efforts 14 should be probing into highly uncertain phenomena or events 15 and processes that have the potential impact for disrupting 16 repository performance or otherwise influencing it. And 17 Dr. Costanzi indicated some areas where research has done 18 this and is doing it and intends to.
19 Also, we would want NRC research to evaluate all 20 sorts of approaches that lead to developing models or that 21 require the collection of certain kinds of data. But 22 especially, we would expect research to be exploring, let's 23 say, new or perhaps unconventional approaches that may be 24 relevant to this complicated repository project.
25 For example, what is unconventional? Lots of CE) !
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-3700 Nationwide roserage 14 4 3364 646
29112.0 ,
62
- REE:
1 things that we have done in mining are or will be done and 2 can be done in excavating a repository at depth. However, d
3 in establishing the environment of a repository, 4 hydrologists, for example, are looking for places where 5 there is a dearth of water in.the subsurface most of the 6 techniques that hydrologists have been utilizing to 7 characterize subsurface have been to find water, not to And so there are ways 8 find places where there isn't water.
9 that may be needed to extend the present technology or 10 perhaps even develop into unconventional technology to fit 11 .the needs of this program.
12 Perhaps -- also important is the notion that we
() 13 need to do selected confirmatory research to spot check 14 conclusions or interpretations reached by DOE. This may 15 involve us actually gathering data. That is sometning by 16 itself which is not an NRC responsibility in this program.
17 We don't gather data for establishing the viability of a 18 site. And let's -- we don't want NRC data-gathering for 19 the purposes of doing confirmatory research to be confused 20 with something we ought to be doing; that is, feeding 21 information about any particular site into a model of the 22 site for purposes of establishing the l_ cense application.
23 Research must, of course, determine, help 24 determine what is and isn't significant in almost anything
, 25 we wish to establish relevancy and significance in, about 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37tu) Nationwide Coverage M4334646
. . -. .-. .~ -., x_
^
. -. - . - w.
- yQ
,~
29112.'O- 63 REE g
~
- -k 1y
- 1 whether it be the need to generate shaft' liners that >
Is that a sigrkificant v i, *'
2 withstand seismic effects or not. i w- ,
\s 3 thing to do in a particular situation? The answer propably i 1-E n;*e 4 will be significantly different if we are dealing with salt
?
~
i( =a
-or some matisrial that behaves brittle, differs .
5 ,
'(
6 significantly.
.j 7 We have established, by reviewing 10 CFR.60, ,
8 areas of research that we feel willbe needed in any cafe. g s
, g t %; ~,1,
) 9 We developed a user need stateme'nt or letter.that_describM -
b y
g{ <
10 actually 18 areas of research activiti h to be conducted. ,
\
11 This was done several years ago. When Dol: was in the early gl
. M .
- 12 stages of reviewing 18 and-then nine sites. Times have'
[.
I-h 131 changed now. Recently DOE selected t$hree sites, three
-i 14 different media. Because of that, we now are rev'1 ewing a
.N l 15 user need statement and do' expect this year to be modifying #
., J.
16 it, for other reasons as well, -in addit! ion .1to [hefact'tha't?(
'- y ,y 7 17 i we can focus our activities on three right ndw. DOE'is _ 'A d 18 developing test plans for the-various sites that they ar% e 1
. t-19 about to share with us. These have information and i+' '
l 7' > \ .
[M
~
20 approaches that we may need to probe.s ,
4 i s jy l
r 21 Also DOE schedules are changing.- That, of ,
,y+
22 course, is a highly significant aspect in planning research ,.
i 23~ and even our technical assistance activities. 'And meetings
.t 24 on LOE's new schedules and activities, what-generic apd 4
.N
(
25 site-specific work they will be doing in the near term, O .
s
.g
- i 1
I n -
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. W 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage RXL316-6M6
29112.0 64 REE A
h I will be held in January, early January, I am told. The 2 results of that will undoubtedly influence our planning 3 research and technical assistance activities.
4 On the next page, we have simply listed some 5 distinctions between research work and TA work, technical 6 assistance contracting work. There are areas of overlap.
7 I did mention earlier one area. I didn't frame it that way.
8 A technical assistance contractor to the geology group did 9 some, let's say short-term research. It was a literature 10 study on the effects to underground openings of earthquakes.
11 The longer term studies would more properly be conducted by 12 the Office of Research, not through technical assistance
() 13 contracting. We do some technical assistance contracting 14 with laboratories that indeed do some confirmatory 15 investigations to enable the Staf f to respond to DOE 16 documents in the area of geochemistry, for example. DOE 17 has reached certain conclusions about the redox capability 18 of groundwater systems, using certain kinds of experimental 19 procedures, specifically using hydrozine in their 20 experiments to generate earth-reducing conditions.
21 We asked our TA contractor in geochemistry, Oak 22 Ridge, to probe the uncertainties associated with the use 23 of hydrazine that led to certain conclusions. They did and 24 there were, let's say, interesting results that we have 25 been sharing. There are problems with interpreting the D_-
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
29112.0 65 REE 1 results done under the conditions that the B group did.
2 Our TA contractors are geared to assist us in 3 these short-term interactions with DOE, the preconsultant, 4 prelicensing consultations that we have. They attend site
- 5 visits with us to keep abreast as we do of developments.
6 We asked the contractors to develop technical reports in 7 certain areas that we don't have the time or even personnel 8 sometimes-to do, to support feedback that we would or 9 guidance that we would wish to make to DOE in various 10 aspects of their activities.
11 We also develor,sd formal, general technical 12 positions or branch technical positions. And we
(') 13 constructively criticized DOC's formal raports, such as 14 their final environmental assessments. Our technical 15 assistance contractors support some of the critiques that 16 we give feedback to DOE.
17 However, research personnel, the research staff 18 also accompany the licensing staff on visits, also give 19 input to the licensing staff of DOE documents and 20 occasionally, research contractor personnel also attend and 21 support the short turnaround program, you might say, or the 22 prelicensing consultation program. So we don't only have 23 communications with research by approving or disapproving 24 proposed research work done by the NRC. We also have 25 contact in the field during site visits and other kinds of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationwide Ces erage 800-3E6646
i 29112.0 66 REE ,
v 1 interinteractions with DOE.
2 I think that may suffice as an introduction for 3 Wayne Walker to delve into the specific areas of technical 4 assistance contracting that we have and even lay out some 5 of the specific technical assistance contracts.
6 MR. PARKER: NRC has an RP out for assistants.
7 Is that going to be technical assistants?
8 MR. JUSTUS: Are you referring to the FFRDC?
9 MR. PARKER: Yes.
10 MR. JUSTUS: I think that is an understatement 11 about what it is intended to be. Because there is an RFP 12 out, we didn't really delve into the specific expectations
[w-') 13 or funding levels or a breakdown of activities in it. In 14 FY '88, however, that is probably clear in the RFP. That 15 is the year the FFRDC is likely to come on board. We will 16 be phasing into the FFRDC a good portion of our technical 17 assistance work. It is clear from the pr' am sure I 18 could say this, that we have laid out areas ut activity 19 that we require the FFRDC to support us in. They totally 20 l overlap all of our technical assistance areas, in fact, i
21 many of our reserve areas. That is another area of l
22 h interaction that we have internally.
23 What research activities in a particular area, 24 let's say geochemistry that are going on now might be
- 25 phased into the FFRDC and I mentioned our TA Oak Ridge work, i
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3 AU Nationwide Coserage 84G336-6M6
c.
29112.0 67 REE
!~)
\_/.
\
I what of that would be phased into the FFRDC, and can we 2 have economies of scale generated by the concentrating 3 efforts and what efforts, since we can't-do it all at once 4' -- we are in the midst of that kind of transition now.-
5 DR. MOELLER: And you are saying the FFRDC will 6 be a Commission-wide resource? All programs will feed in?
7 MR. JUSTUS: No. My present understanding of it 8 is it Js an office of NMSS-oriented operation and-almost 9 entirely supporting: the waste management area.
10 DR. MOELLER: I understood that. But when I 11 said Commission-wide, it will do research for the Office of 12 Research as well as for NMSS?
(') 13 MR. JUSTUS: That is correct. I did 14 inadvertently leave out the Office of Research as an 15 integral part of the FFRDC.
16 DR. MOELLER: Now, you have gone over in your 17 -introductory remarks the philosophy -- what I would call
!' 18 philosophy and the way in which you are operating and'what -
19 it is that you are seeking to do, et cetera. Is that 20 pretty much agreed upon by, again, everybody who has-a hand 21 into research, like, well, obviously NMSS, but RES agrees 22 and does NRR agree with this as an office?
23 MR. JUSTUS: I am not sure I understand your 24 question, by agreeing with what, in particular?
f 25 DR. MOELLER: You have set down, as I see it, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
29112.0 68 REE O
U 1 the objectives of your research and where you will do 2 research and where you won't and what it is you are trying 3 to do. Is that your private opinion or is it more widely 4 held throughout the NRC?
5 MR. JUSTUS: Is this with reference to phasing 6 in to FFRDC?
7 DR. MOELLER: No, just what you have laid out 8 here. These first four or five pages. I mean, I could 9 just ask Nick Costanzi if he agrees with --
10' MR. COSTANZI: Why don't I speak to that.
11 DR. MOELLER: That would help.
12 MR. COSTANZI: Yes, the program division of
() 13 responsibility that Dr. Justus has laid out in his charts 14 is certainly something which the Office of Research agrees 15 with. In fact, that is the basis for how we determine 16 which office ought to do the work. Those things which are 17 indicated as being the research, the long-term orientation,
- 18 identifying or dealing with phenomena generally, generic 19 stuff, that sort of work is what we do. And any time an 20 idea comes or a problem comes up and we think, gee, we 21 ought to work on this item, the Staff's waste management 22 and the Office of Research get together and essentially 23 make a recommendation and say it is an informal process but 24 very effective as to who does what, whether it is research 25 or technical assistance or what portion is research or ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800.4 696
. . - - - , , . , -,, , ., ~ - . . , . . , - .
m I
29112.0 69 REE 1 technical assistance.
2 I want to emphasize that nothing that we do in 3 the Office of Research with regard to waste management or.
4 anything the Division of Waste Management does with regard 5 to technical assistance is done in a vacuum. In fact, 6 every one of.our two offices' projects in waste management 7- has a cognizant individual in the other office which is 8 following that project and is responsible for being aware, 9 up to date on what is going on. In fact, we just exchanged 10 the most recent update of those assignments with the 11 Division of Waste Management. So the answer is, I guess it 12 was a long-winded way, is by saying the answer is yes.
() 13 DR. MOELLER: Thank you.
14 DR. MOELLER: Any other questions for Dr. Justus?
15 MR. WALKER: Wayne Walker. Repository projects 16 NRC.
17 _This first slide just lays out the broad program 18 areas where we are doing or we are conducting technical 19 assistance in the low-level waste program. I won't bother 20 to read through them but I will talk in a little greater 21 depth to those as we go on.
22 The next slide lays out our technical assistance 23 arid it kind of talks to the question that was asked by Dr.
24 Orth earlier, when you have a limited amount of funds, 25 where do you spend the greatest deal of your time and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370) Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6No
29112.0 70 REE
\-)
l efforts and dollars. And as you can see by the percentages 2 which I laid out here, under " technical expertise," that is 3 the area.where we are spending, we are having our 4 contractors and technical assistants spend the greatest 5 amount of time. Under these contracts in this area we have 6 them develop review criteria for us. We have them assist
'7 us in GTB development. All these things are geared towards 8 helping the Staff be able to have an independent technical
.9 capability to review DOE's license application.
10 Tne next area, methodology development. An 11 example under that category would be Sandia has just 12 finished and they will be speaking to the ACRS tomorrow on
{) 13 developing a NUREG for us called " assessing compliance with 14 the EPA's standard," and they have worked with the Staff in 15 developing this methodology to help us look at how DOE is 16 going to be dealing with uncertainties in being able to 17 evaluate whether we are in agreement with that or whether 18 we see some holes in that area of DOE's program.
19 The last one, confirmatory data gathering, Phil 20 has already mentioned quite a bit about that. That is 21 basically just, if we see areas in DOE's programming where 22 we feel we need to maybe -- we don't necessarily agree or 23 we need to poke holes in, then we might go and do some of 24 our own confirmatory testing to verify that what they -- to 25 point out to them that they may not be taking as ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370ll Nationnide Coserage 80th3346M6
l 29112.0 71 REE 1 conservative an approach as might be necessary or that we 2 feel is necessary.
3 I didn't lay in the dollars, as I mentioned 4 before, because the program essentially as far as the 5 percentages will stay the same. But obviously the dollars 6 will switch f rom non-FFRDC contractors to more FFRDC 7 contracts.
8 DR. MOELLER: When the FFRDC is operational, 9 will it be working in all three areas; they might gather 10 data in methodology, development, they go can do anything?
11 MR. WALKER: Yes.
12 DR. MARK: Has it ever happened that DOE has
,- w
) 13 brought in a document claiming that such and such is the 14 fact that you have been willing to accept that without 15 having Oak Ridge or somebody else go through it and say, I 16 guess it is all right? Or we are sure re have found some 17 flaws? I mean, supposing you had something signed by a 18 senior official from Penn State that had been done under 19 contract with DOE, would you be willing to say, that must 20 be good work, we don't have to do it?
21 ! MR. JUSTUS: We would be willing.
I I
22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. JUSTUS: But only after an extensive review.
24 I (Laughter.)
,_s 25 h MR. JUSTUS: As I know you are aware, we need to
(
s_-
) !
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447 3AO NationwiJe Coserage 800 3%u46
29112.0 72 RSE Nj 1 always have a healthy skepticism of whatever we get from 2 whomever we get it. i 1
3 MR. WALKER: Tne next slide is technical l 1
4 assistance for hydrology. What we have attempted to do in l 5 this category is we have two different contractors who are 6 looking at different parts of the hydrology. The first one i 7 deals mainly with the field testing and data collection, 8 more in line with helping us review DOE reports, GTP f
9 development, identifying groundwater issues. The second 10 one, second contractor is involved more with integration of 11 data into conceptual models of the groundwater flow system
)
12 and doing sensitivity-type studies to evaluate the fv ') 13 conceptual models.
14 This week a group of the B witness team is out 15 reviewing, having a hydrology data review and there is also 16 members of research with that group. So we do have like a 17 joint group that goes out to review DOE's program.
18 Also en route to that trip, the research and 19 waste management staff visited one of our contractors and 20 g we looked at some data on fracture flow which is analogous i
21 I to the situation with hydrology. So we are interacting i
22 I with research and they are aware of what we do. They go i
23 i with us on these data reviews and activities.
i 24 t DR. REMICK: Williams is the contractor there, 25 that is the name of the company?
t) ,
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm- x _ m- -
29112.0 73 REE m
k,)
1 MR. JUSTUS: Right. Roy Williams, Incorporated.
2 MR. WALKER: -Nuclear Waste Consultants is the 3 other one. NWC.
4 MR. JUSTUS: And of course Sandia National 5 Laboratories.
6 MR. WALKER: Next is technical assistance in the 7 geochemistry area; what we are seeking here is an 8 independent evaluation of DOE's geochemical research, their 9 data and analysis. Mainly the Oak Ridge contract under BO290, 10 a great part of that contract is conducting confirmatory 11 testing and mainly to date they have looked at salt. They 12 are now starting to get into the tuff media.
() 13 Under radionuclide mobility, the contractors are 14 looking at solubility questions, sorption and the transport 15 l processes. They have assisted us in developing a GTP on 16 solubility and we are in the process of finalizing a GTP on 17 sorption which was presented to the ACRS in July. On the 18 transport process, we have ANSI looking at the geochemical 19 sensitivity analysis and they have developed something 20 called a Stanford model that represents sorption phenomena 21 for us. And they have also assisted us in developing a 22 thermal chemical data base and they have helped us look at 23 speciation effects and coupled effects. We are also having
( 24 technical assistance in matrix diffusion and brine 25 migration.
n-V l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(X) Nationwide ros erage Mk3346M6
- - . . - . , .- ., -. .. ~ ~ - - - .
29112.0 74 REE
/~N-k/
m 1 Under the technical assistance for geology and 2 geologic stability, we are getting assistance in this area 3 to help us to review the uncertainty of data add methods 4 used in the seismic at the tectonic investigation completed 5 by DOE.- And I don't think I will say much more about these.
6 We pretty well discussed that already earlier.
7 Under technical assistance for repository design 8 and rock mechanics, this area deals mainly with the 9 preclosure phase of the DOE's licensing program or DOE's 10 program. And what we are looking here is at the overall 11 design and it is divided into three components, the surface 12 facilities, a underground and the waste package. The
() 13 task has been developing codes and models for us, assisting 14 us in it, and looking at the in situ stresses dealing with 15 the exploratory shaft and the openings for the waste 16 package. There you can see we are using the Bureau of 17 Mines, which was mentioned earlier, for their expertise in 18 tunneling technology.
19 Also, the coupled thermal effects, here we are 20 seeking -- the NRC wants a thorough and independent review 21 of the thermal hydrological and mechanical aspects of 22 coupling effects on designs and we would like to -- the 23 results will help us identify coupled thermal effects 24 expected to impact on the design at the site. And that 25 will allow us to be able to, in our review of DOE's license ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XX) Nationside Coverage 84XF33MM6
29112.0 75
-REE
,I application -- ;
i 2 DR. REMICK: Who are the two core contractors 3 there, the ITA, SCA and the NCRM?
4 MR. WALKER: That is ITASCA and I don't know 1 l
5 what that stands for. ITASCA. )
6 MR. GREEVES: They are a rock mechanics group.
7 Most of them are from the University of Minnesota,~ located 8 in Minneapolis. Dr. Fairhurst is associated with them.
l l 9 They have got a number of experts that publish quite a bit l
10 in rock mechanics. A private firm. And the NCRM, what
-11 that is is the National Committee on Rock Mechanics. It is 12 a National Academy of Sciences -- in fact the National 13 Academy of Sciences has two committees that we have 14 interactions with. One is the Rock Mechanics Committee.
15 The other is the Tunneling Technology Committee. So 16 periodically when we produce technical positions, we run by 17 those folks and get a little bit of an independent peer 18 review. If we come upon a particularly difficult issue, we 19 ask them for their advice on the issue.
20 MR. WALKER: The next area is the technical 21 assistance for high-level waste package. In this area it 22 is DOE's responsibility to design and develop, manufacture 23 and test and demonstrate a waste package that meets our, 24 the NRC requirements. It is the NRC's responsibility to 25 advise DOE of the type of information needed from the tests ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Zo: 347-3ho Nationwide Coscrage 80lk3346M6
29112.0 76 REE
. f%
N.
I and analysis. Under the contract on waste package 2 evaluation, this is with the National Bureau of Standards, 3 it consists mainly of the laboratory testing program to 4 evaluate different materials and failure modes and also 5 some confirmatory testing.
6 Under the waste package performance assessment,
~
7 the contractor there was Aerospace and we no longer, they 8 are no longer with us. So we will be, this will be one 9 that will definitely be phased into the FFRDC at a very 10 early stage.
11 That contract was used to develop methodologies 12 that we can use to determine whether DOE, DOE waste package
[~)
v 13 was meeting the requirements of Part 60 and it also allowed 14 us to take an independent look at what DOE was going to 15 have to do to try and provide a substantially complete 16 containment.
17 Under technical assistance for performance 18 assessment, there are two headings there. The broad 19 methodology part of this contract, it is trying to develop 20 an overall methodology to assess DOE's performance 21 assessment program and in developing this methodology, this 22 group also, with our staff as represented in the 23 international community, they also helped us critique and 24 monitor work DOE is doing in this area. And they helped us 25 keep abreast of what all the other contractors are doing in ACE-FEDElb\L REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationaide roserage W ak336-fM6
29112'.0 77 REE
~(Q.D l performance assessment, such as engineered barrier system 2 waste package, so we can assure that we have an integrated 3 approach to looking at the whole system.
4 Under scenario probabilities --
5 DR. MOELLER: Excuse me. Frank?
6 MR. PARKER: In this topic,_ performance 7 assistance, were you also involved with the agency which 8 set up a new group now on performance assessment?
9 MR. WALKER: Right, we are. In fact, I think, I 10 believe there is a meeting coming up. Is it in Paris or --
11 MR. JUSTUS: There is one coming up in Seattle 12 on hydrologic modeling and as a compoment of the overall
() 13 system we expect to send representatives there, at least 14 one representative there.
15 But, yes, we have attended NEA meetings.
16 MR. WALKER: Under scenario probabilities, the 17 contractor has assisted us in identifying things which we 18 have to, which have to be considered. In other words, how 19 to come up with various scenarios, how to deal with the 20 different uncertainties with these scenarios and, again, 21 tomorrow Sandia will be here to discuss those, Robert 22 j Cranwell.
23 Under TA for quality assurance, we are, we audit i
24 I DOE's OA programs for site characterization. Presently, 25 this is, we are reviewing program documents which DOE (2) 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage miO-3%6(4
29112.0 78 REE 1 produces and to date we have observed DOE doing their own 2 audits of their program. And when their program is fully 3 qualified, then we will actually go out and do audits 4 ourselves with our contractors. But to date, we have only 5 observed that DOE is conducting them.
6 MR. PARKER: Was it at your instigation that the 7 USGS did the audit of the hydrologic work?
8 MR. JUSTUS: That was not at our instigation. I 9 presume that was at DOE's bidding, perhaps in response to 10 some concerns we addressed.
11 DR. REMICK: Do you have QA contractors now?
12 MR. WALKER: We have a consultant right now. It
() 13 is -- I am not sure o$ his name.
14 DR. REMICK: Just an individual?
15 MR. WALKER: Right. It is just a different --
16 the only difference being that it is just a matter of how 17 you fund them. The timeliness with which we could get him 18 on board made it better just to go out and try to get a 19 i personal consultant.
20 DR. REMICK: Do you use any I&E people in this 21 area?
22 MR. WALKER: Yes, we do.
23 Lastly, we have technical assistance for i
- 24 licensing support. This is an ongoing part of our efforts 25 to streamline the licensing process so that we can meet our ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Natkmaide Coverage 800 336M*6
. . ~ . . - . . ,- , . . .. . -347-3700 - - - _ - -
29112.0 79 REE
,q O
1 mandated three-year licensing review period. And one of 2 the efforts ongoing -- this is an effort to develop a 3 license support system which will allow us to have all 4 information in a computer system so that all parties that
.f 5 are involved in the licensing process can have access to 6 this information: The state's tribes, NRC, DOE, 7 intervenors, whatever. And the negotiated rulemaking of 8 this licensing support system is an effort to develop a 9 format for how the information is going to be placed, the 10 data, what format it will have in this system. And that is 11 trying to get all the parties to agree on a set format.
12 Then information management is just a matter of
( [) 13 us buying expertise, really, in the information management 14 field to assist us in this area. And the issue management 15 is a support system to help us track residue issues.
16 DR. REMICK: Do you have your cwn information 17 management system or do you have somebody doing that? Is 18 it an internal system?
19 MR. WALKER: It is internal.
20 MR. WALKER: It is internal.
21 MR. JUSTUS: We have a pilot program going on 22 now that I am sure we will soon be telling you about. I 23 ; personally think it is remarkable that with new technology 0
24 [ for scanning, laser scanning of documents, getting whole i
25 i documents into a file that can be searched for words and
[sh s_
)
4 k
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mum., ,_ m- mm
29112.0 80 REE O
\m) 1 culled up virtually instantaneously. We have seen this, it 2 has been demonstrated in oup own shop and when it is 3 expanded, it will certainly, it will be beyond our internal 4 control. We would need assistance to keep it up to date.
5 MR. PARKER: This has been very helpful but it 6 is really very hard for me to understand what is going on 7 with such short summaries. Is it possible in the future 8 that we could have a one-page description of each of these 9 to look at?
10 MR. DONOGHUE: We used to get one.
11 MR. JUSTUS: Certainly.
12 DR. MOELLER: All right. We apologize for not
- () 13 including that level of material. Principally we didn't 14 because we didn't expect to get into the level of detail of 15 the individual contracts. But we will be more than happy a
16 to provide summaries and updated summaries at that.
17 DR. MOELLER: You are correct, in terms of what 18 we have done this morning, and even here, we have run 19 overtime. But you are absolutely right, it has just been 20 an overview and we really haven't gotten into the nuts and 21 bolts of what is going on.
22 I think with that thought, I am of much the same 23 thinking. I wonder if you could tell us, for example, if l
i 24 this subcommittee were preparing comments on your program, 25 what do you see as your major problems or major concerns ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m N,uionwide Cmcrage 8 % 336-6646
129112.0 81 REE 1 and so forth at this point? I mean, is the lack of money 2 your number one concern or what?
3 MR. JUSTUS: In the high-level waste program, 4 our concern right now is integrating our research and TA 5 with DOE's slipping schedules. There have been 6 stretch-outs of certain of our contracts to, for 7 contractual reasons, procedural reasons, to hang in there 8 as, let's say, site characterization plan schedules have 9 slipped and so forth, until we phase into an FF -- our -- I 10 think in a sense I would summarize our main concern not by 11 saying the perennial money shortage, which is still a 12 problem, but integrating the overall program in this
() 13 environment that we have right now, which I think is 14 probably the major problem.
15 MR. ORTH: Is another way to ask the question I 16 think that, do you consider yourself unfunded and in what 17 areas are you not doing things you ought to be doing? Or 18 could be doing?
19 MR. JUSTUS: We are unfunded. We do have, we 20 have identified areas of work that we did not do in '86.
21 We have identified work in '87 that we have had to cut. '88 22 is a greater unknown. Frankly, we project that FY '88 will
-23 be the most difficult year with regard to money shortage as 24 well as turmoil in gearing up the FFRDC, phasing in. In 25 terms of specific dollar amounts, I can't really address ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cover age MG34fM4
29112.0 82
,.REE
%-)
I that.
2 As I indicated, in part where we will 3 reemphasize TA and research depends in part on the upcoming 4 meetings we will have with DOE. As far as specific items 5 of work that we haven't done, we haven't enumerated for 6 this particular session, we are expecting basically to be 7 here ancillary to the principal research thrust, but we are 8 certainly more than happy to point out specific points.
9 For example, in the area of salt, there is a 10 wide range of -- wide-ranging conclusions in DOE documents 11 regarding dissolution. Dissolution is a complicated 12 phenomenon. It involves chemical, hydrologic, geologic
() 13 interactions and it has implications obviously for design.
14 And we wanted to have focused attention internally on that 15 particular area, to give a concentrated feedback or make a 16 concentrated effort to tie that together on behalf of DOE's 17 diverse activities.
18 In the area of geochemistry, we had wished to l
19 get involved in radiolysis effects. We wanted our Oak 20 Ridge contractor to probe the possible significance of I
21 ! radiolysis in the waste package environment. We were
)
22 looking at it from a geochemical point of view. There are i
23 j sensitivity analyses that we would have liked to have 24 i perforned in several areas. We are just delaying those for 25 now.
r~')
o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
->m, s.e_ m r- _
yo, _
1
/
29112.0- 83 REE f1 J
1 The list is long. Some are not very important 2 and perhaps ought not to have been done. That is always 3 debatable. But there are some things that we do want to 4 have done. We just couldn't do it when we expected.
5 MR. DONOGHUE: Are you saying it is a good thing 6 or a bad thing for you that the DOE schedule has slipped?
7 MR. JUSTUS: Philosophically, it is not good to 8 have DOE's schedule slipping because we-have been gathering 9 a lot of momentum in the program. We are. poised to react 10 and interact. Practically speaking, as our TA and research 11- budgets decline, our ability to respond to what DOE is 12 doing also diminishes, so if there are slips in the DOE
() 13 schedule, it does alleviate the problems we have in giving-14 timely feedback.
15 MR. DONOGHUE: I don't know what the status of 16 the legislation is, but wasn't there legislation introduced ,
17 recently that would slip their schedule mandatorily by 10 18 years?
19 MR. JUSTUS: I don't know factually about that 20 legislation that you mention. There are all kinds of 21 legislative inputs that are in press now that could have an 22 impact, a severe impact on the present program. That one, 23 though, is one that is not familiar to me. If there is anyone 24 to knows about it --
25 MR. DONOGHUE: Senator Benson introduced it last (2) l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Cm erage 810-336-f646
, ,, -347 3700 - - - , . , - - - . . . ,
29112.0 84 REE v'
I term.
2 MR. JUSTUS: I myself don't know about it.
3 MR. GREEVES: I think the question was are we 4 unfunded in any area. And there is no simple answer in 5 part due to this transition to the FFRDC. It has taken a 6 while to get that thing moving and in place. An example of 7 the problem there is the waste package area. Ycu can see 8 from the slides that we had a major contractor in that area.
9 We don't now. And it is clearly intended that that type of 10 work would be an early activity with the FFRDC. So 11 currently we are using Staff resources where we might in 12 the past have had the contractor resources. However, the
( ) 13 decision was, hey, we cannot go out and get a commercial 14 contractor and establish a multiple-year contract with a 15 commercial contractor in that arena when in fact the FFRDC 16 would be on line within say a year. So that is an example 17 of where we are having what we hope is a momentary problem 18 I that will be solved when the FFRDC is in place.
l 19 The question of unfunded may be one that has a 20 complicated answer. Am I being of some help?
21 DR. REMICK: How about the Division of Waste 22 Management from the standpoint of Staff? Are you fully 23 staffed and do you have any problems with turnover?
24 ! MR. JUSTUS: No/yes. We are not fully staffed 25 in some areas. Our ceiling has been cut. So even though I
<~n ;
u> ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 34M700 Nationwide Coserage Nuk33M46
f 29112.0 85 REE f
1
(~1
% /.
1 believe we are approximately at our authorized ceiling,
- 2. some technical disciplines are not filled, in part due to 3 turnover in areas that we were not able to replace people 4 in.
5 DR. REMICK: What is the major reason that you --
6 well, you didn't say " recruit," but are you having problems 7 recruiting; if you are, what are the main problems? Is it 8 because of competition, other opportunities or 9 unavailability of the expertise needed?
10 MR. JUSTUS: Yes. We have had problems, 11 traditional problems in recruiting in certain areas.
12 Specifically surface water hydrology, hydrology. Certain
() 13 areas in engineering have been difficult to get qualified 14 younger persons for. We are also recruiting. We have 15 ongoing recruiting effort. It takes -- we wanted to be 16 poised when attrition occurs to identify candidates for the 17 opening.
18 You asked a complicated question that has 19 complicated answers or complications. Attrition has been a 20 problem in the past. I understand recently it has slowed 21 down. But if past performance is any indication, it will 22 be somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. So I don't think 23 that is extraordinary.
24 DR. MOELLER: Per year?
25 MR. JUSTUS: Per year. In a situation of 138 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm. ~ _ o_,, - j
29112.0 86 REE g
\_]
1 persons. Am I correct in that?
2 MR. BELL: It is a little higher. Mike Bell, 3 deputy director of the Division of Waste Management. I 4 think traditionally we have spent the last three years, we 5 have run between 15 to 20 percent attrition rate in the 6 program as a whole. That is high-level, low-level coverage 7 for all the program areas.
8 And there is a combination of reasons for that.
9 One of the reasons is because of our grade structure in the 10 division in the office, we are generally forced to hire 11 people who are relatively young, just out of school, very 12 mobile, don't have families, large mortgages and such I) v 13 things.
14 Also, there are good opportunities out there for 15 people in the waste field, both in hazardous waste and in 16 the DOE program. As the DOE program has gotten funded with 17 passage of the High Level Waste Act and they have gotten 18 money out of the nuclear waste fund that is being collected 19 from utilities, the DOE programs are bringing on additional 20 contractors and staffing up. We have lost a number of 21 staff to consulting firms and various organizations working 22 in the DOE program.
f 23 Another complication our division faces is that 24 l even though we have an expanding program, much of the rest
, 25 of the agency is contracting. So the agency as a whole is
%-)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm._ m_ m <- ~~
. ~_
'29112.0 87
-REE b
a 1 generally not in-a hiring mode and rather than us being 2 able to go outside and hire, we find ourselves in the 3 position of having to find people elsewhere within the 4 agency who can do our work.
5 Phil Justus, for example, John Greeves and I all 6 came from NRR. And with the reorganization that is going 7 on in the agency now, I am sure we are going to be picking 8 up people from I&E and some of the other organizations who 9 are undergoing major changes. But in the meantime, we have 10 some specific needs, like the one Phil has been trying to 11 fill for more than a year is a surface water hydrologist, 12 critical area in both high- and low-level waste. We only
() 13 have one individual on staff who is tremendously overworked.
14 We have to, you know, hire consultants and such to help 15 back him up. And people are just not in the agency. We 16 are not going to get a surface water hydrologist for my 17 need but yet right now we can't hire from outside.
18 DR. REMICK: Any of your fire protection 19 specialists are considered hydrologists?
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. JUSTUS: Fluid dynamics.
22 DR. MOELLER: Back on an earlier question, you 23 said you could give us single pages describing the 24 ,
individual projects. How difficult is that to get ready 25 for us? I mean, could we have it tomorrow?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(t) Nationwide rmerage Mn 3 %M86
29112.0 88-
.REE Cs.)
1 MR. BELL: I will make a promise for the 2 division since maybe Phil is uncomfortable answering. We 3 have project description summaries for all our projects 4 that have been put together and we can make them all 5 available. It may take more than a day to get them.
6 DR. MOELLER: All right. Then you will send 7 them to us.
1
. 8 MR. BELL: Yes.
9 DR. MOELLER: Next week, let's say.,Okay.
10 MR. JUSTUS: I think actually I can, I think I i 11 can do better than that. If a three- or four-page project
. 12 descriptive summary will suffice, that is a matter of
() 13 copying and you can have them tomorrow. We have those --
14 DR. MOELLER: That would be very --
4 15 MR. JUSTUS: If we do need to synthesize to one i 16 page, that may take a little longer.
17 DR. MOELLER: No, just give -- don't redo 18 anything for us. Just give us copies.
19 MR. JUSTUS: Pine. They will be delivered 20 tomorrow.
It i 21 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. That will be very 22 helpful.
l
- 23 MR. PARKER
- Could I ask you the came question I 24 asked research people. More knowledge is always helpful.
25 The question is, how much more is necessary? When do you
- (1) l ACE-PEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37m Nationwide roserage kn33MM6
29112.0 89 REE I decide that you know enough in the technical assistance?
2 Is'it 99 percent, 90 percent? When is the cutoff point, 3 since you never know 100 percent? Maybe you think you will.
4 MR. JUSTUS: How much is enough -- that is .
5 c corre't. We recognize and DOE recognizes we have to make 6 decisions in the face of uncertainty. How much uncertainty 7 or how much work is needed to get to a position where, for 8 DOE to get to a position where they can defend-a license 9 application that gives NRC Staff the ability to say that we 10 have reasonable assurance that DOE has complied or (
11 demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Part 60, 12 that is the goal.
O 13 a #ch i e e=ow 1 -- the eme er et tai-14 moment is dependent upon DOE's approval to demonstrate 15 compliance. We have been asking them to make preliminary 16 determinations of how much they wish to rely on a 17 particular component of the overall system and then test 1
! 18 that reliance. This is the performance allocation aspect l
19 of the program.
20 DOE's answer to how much they wish to rely on l
21 groundwater flow, radionuclide transport or retardation p 22 factors that they may select, how much instability, 23 mechanical instability or chemical instability can be 24 tolerated by the system that they are proposing will meet 25 the EPA standard and other standards. How much is enough ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.- yy-+ c- -
.29112.0 90
^
REE
/N N,]
1 'for them to doLat this point we cannot answer in 2 quantitative terms. It does depend on DOE's approach and 3 response to establishing what quantities they need to 4 demonstrate in the components that accumulate to a 5 demonstration of compliance with the EPA standard. And 6 performance objectives.
7 That is -- the answer -- we want to give an 8 answer to that question, to focus DOE's program. I don't 9 believe we have one at this point.
10 DR. MOELLER: Okay. Thank you. We will move on 11 then now to low-level waste. And we will go back to Nick 12 to lead off with Mal Knapp will cover the TAP portion.
() 13 MR. COSTANZI: The format of what we are talking 14 about, low-level waste, is identical to that which was 15 discussed on high-level waste. To begin with, what the 16 problem is. Long-term effectiveness of engineered 17 alternatives to shallow land burial hat not been 18 demonstrated. State compacts are looking towards something 19 other than shallow land burial. Shallow land burial, for a 20 variety of reasons, we have a very -- is not looked upon as 21 being a favorable method of future disposal of low-level 22 waste. There seems to be a feeling that something better 23 has to be done, whatever that means. There is not a source 24 term for assessing the performance of low-level waste 4 25 disposal sites or facilities.
O ,
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Rn33MM6
, , , - . - - - , . - - . , , - , - - . , _ . ------ - . . - - . . - . - - - . . - - . - ~ - - . . - - . . - . - - - - - . . _ . , -
.29112.0 91 "REE
~
l And finally, monitoring strategies and t
i 2 techniques-to assure continued performance of low-level 3 waste disposal system are not in place.
4 So these are the problems that the research in 5 low-level waste is trying to deal with. Our approach 6 recognizes that the states and compacts will be doing the r
7 bulk of the licensing of future low-level waste disposal 8 and that they indeed will be very likely licensing some 9 sort of alternative to conventional shallow land burial for 10 the disposal of low-level waste.
- 11 DR. MOELLER
- I know it is not your b 12 responsibility, but the thought came up, say you have a
() 13 compact that has some states that are agreement states and 14 some that are not, then.what governs?
15 MR. COSTANZI: I really don't know the answer to 16 that.
- 17. MR. KNAPP: Mal Knapp.
18 In the event that the -- whatever the whole 19 state is within that compact, the state, the status that 20 that state has will govern.
21 MR. COSTANZI: We are proceeding to try and 22 assess the safety of alternatives to shallow land burial, 23 develop in effect a source term for performance assessment 24 of low-level waste disposal and develop the licensing tools
- 25 for assessing post-closure performance of the facilities.
O r
l l
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationaide Cmerage 800-33M4m
29112.0 92 REE 1 DR. MOELLER: What does the source term consist 2 of or what is the research there?
3 MR. COSTANZI: The research there is trying to 4 take advantage of the fact that the waste has to be 5 classified and that each classification of the waste tends 6 to narrow the composition of the waste. To take advantage 7 of that and for each classification, develop an effective 8 source term which will be used in the performance model, 9 essentially we are tying it to the origin of the waste.
10 Hopefully what we will end up with is something like a 11 table which would say, waste from this sort of generator, 12 you use this kind of a source term in terms of quantity and
() 13 species for input to the calculations for transport out of 14 the facility, off the site.
15 DR. MOELLER: This would also depend upon the 16 waste form?
17 MR. COSTANZI: Exactly, yes. The waste form and 18 any barriers will also be taken into account in that 19 assessment.
20 DR. MOELLER: Where are we covering today above 21 hclassC?
22 MR. COSTANZI: We are not today.
23 DR. MOELLER: Isn't that impacting your program?
h 24 ; MR. COSTANZI: It is not at the moment. We have 25 j no funds to deal with the above class C waste. No plans to (Z) !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Cmcrage An3366646
_ _ _ ._-347-3 7( H._..___,_
29112.0' '93 EE 1 do that. The Department of Energy, under the direction of 2 the Policy Amendment Act, is supposed to dispose of above 3 class C waste. NRC is supposed to license the disposal.
4 And I think NRC has a year from the date of that act to 5 come up with --
6 MR. GREEVES: The Low Level Waste Management Act 7 which'was passed last year calls for DOE to produce a 8 report within 12 months. 12 months are up January. So 9 that report is due from DOE on what they are proposing to
~
10 do with greater than class C waste since our understanding 11 is that it should be available within the next month.
12 DR. MOELLER: Let's say the report comes out and
() 13 they are telling you the five different ways that they may 14 or five different methods they may use for disposing of 15 above class C. Where in your plans are you going to 16 initiate any research that is needed or do you think your 17 high level and low level together will give you the answers 18 to this?
j 19 MR. GREEVES: I think that what we are covering 20 with the high-level waste program and what we are covering 21 with the low-level waste program will do a fair job of
. I s 22 j assessing this. So until we see with specificity what they 23 are going to say, it is a little bit, we think a little 24 premature to start vectoring the program now.
25 MR. KNAPP: We have a very modest amount of J
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202-347 3700 Nanonude Coserage R)0-3%N46
29112.0 94 REE 1 money in the technical assistance budget to deal with 2 greater than class C this year. Right now, the money that 3 -is kind of earmarked is around $50,000. The sorts of 4 things I have in mind for that are some questions such as, 5 depending on the extent to which DOE answers these, just 6 how much greater than class C is there, what are some of 7 the properties of this waste aside from the radiological 8 properties that might be important in asking whether it 9 should go to a high-level repository or some other facility.
10 But we are forced to admit right now to being in a reactive 11 mode and to respond to the DOE report when it comes out.
12 DR. MOELLER: Thank you.
() 13 MR. COSTANZI: Last item on that page is just a 14 funding trend. We are projecting an increase in FY '88 as 15 of 2.8 million.
~
16 DR. MOELLER: Do you have signals that tell you 17 it is reasonable for you to project an increasing budget?
! This is what we have been using 18 MR. COSTANZI:
19 for planning purposes. It is what is in the long-range 20 research plan. What it actually will be, of course, as you i 21 well know, we know that almost at the last minute.
22 MP. MOELLER: You don't know whether the 23 commissioners support this trend?
24 j MR. COSTANZI: This level of funding has been I
i 25 through review by the BRG. And it is in the current book ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37t.X) Nationwide Cos crape *Nk346646
.. -- , - . , , . - - , , , ~ . , , -_--_ . - - . . . . - . . . . - ,. , ,. , , - -
t 29112.0 95 REE-I with the missionary concept, the missionary codes. Plus
, 2 all of the various missions for the agency and 3 responsibilities and fundings. And they are at this level 4 in that document.
5 The accomplishments, the things that we have ,
6 accomplished over the last year, in the area of the 7 engineered enhancement and alternative to shallow land
}
8 burial, we have ider.tified the engineered features which 9 are common to several of these shallow land burial 10 alternatives and assessed their relative importance to 1
2 11 safety. That is to say, for a given alternative, a 12 particular component, how much of the overall safety is
() 13 that component going to be responsible for.
'4 In transport modeling, we have --
I j 15 MR. PARKER: Are we going to discuss that this 16 afternoon?
17 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. That particular program in 18 fact was carried out at INEL.
19 DR. REMICK: It would be helpful to me, unless 20 you are going to cover it 1cter, are there specific 21 alternatives that are being considered so as you talk I can 22 kind of picture high-level waste --
i 23 MR. COSTANZI: The INEL project was begun when 24 there were, I think, about a half a dozen alternatives.
25 Since that time, the Division of Waste Management has a
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 . m. , m m r_. m.,u-
-29112.0 96 REE b
%/
1 considered what alternatives it feels appropriate in 2 accordance with what it is directed to do in the Low Level 3 Waste Policy Act are appropriate for its consideration at 4 the moment. Perhaps Mal might wanted to speak to that.
5 MR. KNAPP: Right now we have what we might call 6 a long list of five alternatives. Very briefly, these are 7 above-ground faults, below-ground faults, earth mounded 8 concrete bunkers, shafts and mine cavities. And more 9 recently, that is late summer and into September, we have 10 shortened that down to focus on essentially disposal 11 systems which are covered with earthly materials and made 12 principally of concrete, which means that we are now paying
() 13 most of our attention to below-ground vaults, earth mounded 14 concrete bunkers, and we are paying a certain amount of 15 attention to shaft disposal. Later on in the day we will 16 talk about these in detail. If you would like a quick 17 verbal description --
18 DR. REMICK: That is adequate.
19 DR. SHEWMON: Is the shaft lined or unlined?
20 MR. KNAPP: That is an option.
21 ! DR. SHEWMON: Yes.
22 MR. KNAPP: Yes. We are looking at both.
23 MR. COSTANZI: In transport modeling, wo 24 recently completed an exercise in which we compared model 25 predictions of radionuclide movement with actual ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(12-3 47-37(N) Ndliefl%3dt rOWGige % O 3.4N>46
29112.0 97 REE'
, A k-)
1 observations. This was, I alluded to this morning, in part 3
2 of the work that we have ongoing with the Canadians up at 3 the Chalk River installation. They have developed or have 4 disposed of some wastes a number of years ago, about 20 5 years ago in fact, and have about 20 years of data of 6 watching the movement of this waste as well as extensive 7 data on the characterization of that site. What we did was 8 simply take some of the data on the features of the site 9 and modeled it, projected where we would expect to see 10 radionuclides given the amount of time since they were 11 disposed of initially and compared that with what was 12 actually observed.,
() 13 The comparison turned out to be fairly favorable.
14 We were certainly conservative in terms of we did not 15 predict concentrations in the groundwater which were lower 16 than what was actually observed. In fact they were pretty 17 close.
18 MR. PARKER: Hasn't USGS been doing that at 19 commercial sites with mixed results?
20 MR. COSTANZI: The GS has been doing that sort 21 of thing and in fact there are a number of programs that i
22 j are looking at movement of contaminants which we are, which i
23 we are aware of. For example, EPRI has a program for 24 l looking at contaminants which are leached from tailings, 25 l from cold tailings, or from ash piles at coal-fired power (1) :
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37t ui Nationwide Coserage M433M646
.29112.0^ 98 REE O
.N_)
1 plants, and looking at the transport of that into the 2 surface water.
3 .MR. PARKER: I am talking about the commercial 4 low-level waste burial si'.es.
5 MR. KNAPP: UaGS has been looking at Sheffield 6 in part under our funding. Other investigations have been 7 more limited. At the two Dwyer sites, that is at Beatty 8 and at Richland, Maxi Flats, I am not aware of the recent i 9 work, and USGS felt that it was pretty complex to analyze.
j.
We have done a little bit of work of our own at Barnwell, 10 11 but I am not aware of an extensive USGS study there.
12 MR. PARKER: I believe the USGS report follows
( ) 13 all those sites. -
- 14 MR. KNAPP
- I am just not aware of anything 15 comparable to the depth of Sheffield where we have a 16 hundred wells and we have a reasonably good idea of what-is 17 going on.
18 MR. COSTANZI: I think it is important to stress 1
19 that what we were trying to do in this project was to do an 20 experiment in characterization on the site. Trying to say, l
. 21 what is a reasonable thing to do in terms of characterizing i
22 !
the sites and how good a prediction are you going to make J
23 when you do reasonable things as opposed to very extensive 24 i characterization and monitoring of an existing site. This 25 l site was chosen for two reasons: One --
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- x. - s _ m r _ ,, mu- ,
., . . ~ , _ . - - ~ . _ . , . , _ . _ , _ . . , _ _ . . _ , . _ . _ - - - - . . , _ . , _ _ _ , , . _ _ _ . . . . _ , _ . . , . _ , , , , _ _ _ . , , , _ . . . . . - _ - . , . . . _ _ _ . , _ _ , , , _ _ . _ .
29112.0 99 REE
-0 a
1 MR. PARKER: Sheffield?
2 MR. COSTANZI: Chalk River. One, because the 3 site itself is very simple. So we could get a test of the 4 complexity of the site itself that would not interfere with 5 the results. Secondly, the source term was well known. So 6 that would not interfere with the results. We are now 7 moving to another site at Chalk River where the source term i 8 again is still fairly well known but the site is much more complex, todeterminethedegreetowhichthecomplexit$of 9
10 the site impacts on the robustness of your site 11 characterization program.
12 Again, the characterization program, I might l
() 13 mention this, is one based on observations of what the site 14 looks like. It is done as if the site had never had a 15 radionuclide in it. It was a site that somebody was going
, 16 to dispose of waste in or planning to. We went out there 17 and looked at where would you put wells, what kind of 18 information would you gather. The fact that the Canadians 19 had very well instrumented the site to begin with allowed j 20 us then to just simply take their data which corresponded 5 21 to where we would have liked to put a well had we been ,
22 drilling a well there, and then use that in the exercise.
23 DR. SHEWMON: Is this site sand, clay, rock, i 24 what is the host material?
25 MR. COSTANZI: It is a till above ground. I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTER'$, INC.
.-,, ~ _ m-
,.------,--,-.-..,,--.--.,--..r
. .m_
29112.0 100 REE
- O l' don't know --
l 2 DR. SHEWMON: Above granite?
3 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. I don't know the exact 4 nature of the site.
5 MR. ORTH: I am digressing a moment, but when 6 you said that the results were conservative and that the 7 predictions were not less than you found, how conservative?
8 5, 10, factor of 1000?
l 9 MR. COSTANZI: I believe in terms of the lateral,
- 10. in terms of the extent of the plume, how far it went, they 11 were quite close, well within an order of magnitude, like a 12 percent, 20 percent, something like that. I don't recall
- O 13 exece1v-l 14 The models, however, predicted much greater 15 lateral dispersion of the plume than was actually observed. i 16 The plume was really much narrower than was predicted. We
! 17 subsequently tried to understand what that was and it turns i
18 out that that is an artifact of the modeling program itself.
4 19 And it has to do with the way you set up the model to run 20 ,
it on the computer, to grind out the numbers. It has very
! i l 21 j little to do with the model and absolutely nothing to do 22 with characterizing the site. It has to do with the grade ,
23 l spacing. We are now trying to see what can be done about j 24 that in terms of is it a significant problem or as long as
, 25 we can be assured that indeed whatever plumes como out of O
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34717m Naiionwide Courage
- n3M N46 I
29112.0 101 REE A
1 the site are going to be much narrower than would be 2 predicted, we don't have to worry about them because the 3 concentrations in the groundwater outside the plume will be 4 less than would be predicted. As long as you don't 5 underpredict the concentrations within the plume, then you 6 are safe. Then you know -- you are not going to say that 7 there is not going to be an exposure.
8 11ydrology, we have recently completed some 9 laboratory and modeling studies which have allowed us to 10 design some field experiments to test the validity of 11 stochastic theories of near-surface, unsaturated hydrology.
12 One of the difficulties of modeling unsaturated
() 13 groundwater movement in the soils has been the variability 14 of the soil itself from point to point. We feel that using 15 the stochastic approach, which looks at the variability of 16 the characteristics of the soil and factors that into the 17 l model which would then calculate the movement of i
18 contaminants is an approach which would resolve this 19 l problem.
t 20 l What we are going to be doing at the site in Las 21 l Cruces, New Mexico is running a test of those models. This 22 l work, which has been published as a NUREG, documents the 23 '
laboratory and the field, laboratory and modeling work that 24 : was done to set up those experiments. Those experiments l
25 are getting under way this spring.
l Os_
l l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 3e eno s .,_m. n-, .., m.o- i
4
.29112.0 102 ,
.[ -
1 The next page we talk about what we are going to
] ,
2 be doing, proposing to do. And again, this is as with the i l,
3 high-level waste, is a consultation with the people in
! 4 Division of Waste Management,. characterization of I
- 5 performance of engineered barriers in low-level waste
]
6 disposal facility. How well can you expect the various !
t I
j 7 components of.an engineered alternative to perform over the I 8 long-term. And the other one is the effect of organic
+
9 complexants, microparticulates and radionuclide retention ,
10 mechanisms. This would relate to your question somewhat on
- 11 biological considerations. Again, it is primarily looking i
i 12 at low-level waste, that to say, temperatures are ambient 1
() 13 as opposed to elevated. And the radionuclides we are l 14 dealing with is that in Part 61.
15 The unfunded projects, there was only one i .
j 16 project which we have dropped. Unfunded or delayed is l i '
i 17 perhaps a better title for this section. The one we l'
'18 dropped was the development of site engineering i l I i 19 compatibility criteria for alternatives. We didn't have i i i
! 20 the money to do it. Essentially beginning last fiscal year, !
l 21 in order to get the information out to the states in time ;
i !
- 22 where it would be of use to them, since the low-level waste l
! i 23 Policy Amendments Act sets a pretty strict schedule as to i I .
- 24 when the NRC has to get out its information to the states, !
t i
j 25 there wasn't really time to begin this in FY '87, to have
! () .
! i i !
I 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REf'ORTERS, INC. l myne ~ _ m_ ,, -- g
I 29112.0 103 REE V
1 that information out to the states where they could use it.
2 So we just dropped that.
3 We have had delays and stretch-outs of these 4 other projects which is development of a working source 5 term. The characterization of decontamination waste as a 6 low-level waste form and the monitoring strategies and 7 techniques for low-level waste disposal performance. We 8 intend to pick those up, but they have been delayed as a 9 result of the budgets.
10 The next three pages are simply what we are 11 doing now in FY '87 and what we would propose to do in FY 12 '88. Our program is broken down into three areas. It
() 13 identifies systems and components of engineered low-level 14 waste disposal important to safety. Here we are looking at 15 the wasto package itself as well as the engineorod barriors.
16 Closure methods assessment, this is looking at waste, you 17 determine 50 years hence when it is timo to close a 18 facility that indeed it is performing the way you 19 ; originally expected it to perform when you licenced it and i
20 , of courso looking at the safety assessment alternatives, h
21 l again looking at the consequences of failure of the 22 individual compononts.
i 23 l Determino appropriato source term for 24 performance assessments. Hero wo are looking at developing I
25 a source term, field validation of performance performanco 7_
(> '
l l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 m e n., s .,_ # n _ m, m.
29112.0 104 REE p
'd 1 assessment models. Proporties of LWR waste and 2 decontamination waste and the engineered component and 3 performance assessment which we will begin with in FY '88.
4 Last page is the long-term monitoring methods. A lesson 5 learned performance for shallow land burial which we hopo 6 to begin sometime this fiscal year which would be to 7
lsystematicallylookatexistinglow-levelwasteandother I
8 sitos as appropriate to soo what surprisos might be in 9 store for us. It is kind of a fishing expedition, but the 10 general idea is to minimize the possibility of getting 11 surprised later on, either at a now site, because of 12 something which might have boon at one of the existing
() 13 sitos had wo looked for it. Last is the site closure and 14 monitoring for shallow land burial and alternativos.
15 s DR. MOELLER: Questions?
16 DR. SilEWMON: There is nothing on here about 17 ,
where those are in '87, yet presumably they are all funded.
18 MR. COSTANZI All of them are or will be funded 19 l within the next quarter in the FY '87 program.
I 20 DR. SilEWMON: Most of them will be at national 21 labs or privato industry?
22 MR. COSTANZI: In the low-level waste area, I 23 I think the bulk are at national labs. I would guess like 70 24 to 80 percent would be at national labs. There are a few i
25 i at the University. For examplo, the work at Las Crucos is O
I x> ,
I i
! ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I w.m., s , .._m.., m u m . , n,. m ,
29112.0 105 REE
/
O 1 a New Mexico State University; also theoretical work is 2 being done at MIT. There also is work that is being done 3 in collaboration with PEL. We have some work at the 4 University of California, which is being done in fact at 5 the U.S. Department of Agriculture experiment station out 6 there in Greenbelt. That is being funded, funding is to 7 the University of California at Los Angeles. The rest of 8 our work is I think at Brookhaven and at Idaho.
9 DR. MARK: I was interested, when you said Las 10 Cruces, that is New Mexico state. There isn't any 11 hydrology there though? I mean it is one of the driest 12 corners of the country.
p) q 13 MR. COSTANZI: That is right. If you are going 14 to do an experiment in the unsaturated zone where you are 15 looking at the effects of the degree of saturation, but you 16 want to do it in real soils and not in a lysimeter or a 17 column, if that is where you want to go, you can control 18 the moisture into the soils. In other words, it is an 19 experiment using real materials but you still want to be 20 able to control the parameters of the experiment. That is 21 why it is being done there.
22 DR. MARK: I see, you chose it deliberately 23 I because of the fact that there is almost no water?
I 24 l MR. COSTANZI: That is correct.
i 25 : DR. MOELLER: On the long-term monitoring, what
($) I l
1 ace-FEDERAL REPOKFERS, INC.
- v: w m 8.~,-,w -, , a r-
29112.0 106 REE 1 is long-term?
2 MR. COSTANZI: The expectation is to set up 3 essentially an ongoing program, 300,000-a-year level, which 4 will just continue to look at existing sites. Long-term is 5 long-term. There is no definite ending on this.
6 DR. MOELLER: I guess I am mixed up. We are 7 talking low-level waste. And I was trying to tie it into 8 that Part 61 which says that what you will maintain 9 institutional control for 100 years, is it?
10 HR. COSTANZI Yes.
11 DR. MOELLER: So help me again. You are trying, 12 you are not setting up what the state or the operator has
() 13 to do. You are trying to project the real long-term impact 14 of low-level waste?
15 t1R . COSTANZI: No. There are two programs with 16 regard to monitoring. One is to develop a monitoring 17 program or identify the elements of a long-term program to 18 assure continued performance of a low-level waste disposal 19 facility, presuming a new facility. This is something that 20 we would want to have in hand before the facility gets 7
21 built and what not.
22 i DR. MOELLER: It is a monitoring program which I
23 l you might do over a period of 20, 30, 40, 50 years, but it 24 ,
is to assure the long-term performance?
25 ; MR. COSTANZI: Yes.
($) l
\
! ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- :u: wn., s,.- . ,u-u,c - m .a
N 29112.0 107 REE (s) 1 This other monitoring program which is the 2 losconn learned one is a program of going out to the sites 3 which exist now and set up a monitoring program at those 4 sites and to keep watching the performance of those sitos 5 to, as I said, this is kind of a fishing expedition, to try 6 and soo what sorts of things we cculd learn about what is 7 going on at the sites and how the sites change over the 8 noxt five, 10, 15 years, which then, at the time wnen other 9 sites are in full operation or thoso sites are ready to bo 10 closed, we will havo -- be in a better position to make 11 prudent regulatory decisions about what to do at those 12 sitos and also what happens at those sites might tell us
() 13 about what to expect at the newer sites.
14 DR. MOELLER: Okay.
15 DR. REMICK: ? note that there is no research 16 being dono on what I would call the kind of socioeconomic, 17 : legal aspects of burial or a shortage of low-level wasto.
18 Is there any work that is being dono to help the states in 19 basically maybe ahead of timo establishing what criteria or 20 ! a what questionn and answers might help in acceptability of 21 l sitos? Is anybody doing anything like that?
l 22 i MR. COSTANZI: A number of years ago, about fivo 23 ! or six years ago, before the Office of Standard Development 24 and the Office of Roscarch merged they had somo work dono 25 >
at Brookhaven National Lab which looked at tho
($,J !
i ace-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
I x m n., s _ m.m., s , m, ,.
! 29112.0 108 REE O 1 institutional questions and set forth a program for 2 responding to institutional and societal concerns with 3 regard to site, radioactive waste disposal facilities.
4 There has not been any subsequent work done as
! 5 far as I am aware of to that, certainly none by research.
6 It is something which wo are aware is a problem, but we 7 have not had the money to do that sort of thing. Wo have 8 not had the money to do it for so long that it is not oven 9 on our wish list any more.
10 DR. REMICK: That is the reason it is not on 11 thoro, is because it is sort of hopeless, I guess, to 12 consider it?
() 13 MR. COSTANZI: It does appear to be that way, l 14 yes.
15 DR. REMICK: But otherwiso you think it is an 16 important aspect that perhaps should bo looked at?
l 17 MR. COSTANZI It is certainly something which l
18 the states and compacts are dealing with right now. And I 19 think that -- well, recently, I guess at the American 20 Nuclear Society mooting, there were a number of talks or 21 papons which woro given on that subject. There was 22 ,
certainly a lot of discussion of that in the hallways.
I 23 1 Every mooting on management of radioactive wasto l
24 j which deals with the siting of low-levol wasto disposal l 25 ! sites, as well as high-level, with the states that always
($) <
t l
i !
i I Acti-FEDl!RAI REPORTERS, INC.
me n., s . o ..-a . ,,,, mnw.
29112.0 109 j REE i i comes up. It is a recurring topic. ;
2 DR. MOELLER: Any other questions at the moment?
I 3 4 Well thank you, Nick. Let's move on to 4 Dr. Malcolm Knapp, who will be covering low-level waste 5 with the TAPS.
t 6 MR. KNAPP: I have asked John Greeves to join me 7 at the table. John is responsible for much of the direct 8 managemont of the technical assistance contracts we have 9 through his branch. There may be a few questions that he 10 can answer better than I.
11 Speaking of questions, I hope that before I am !
12 finished that a couple of the questions that wore directed l
() 13 carlier are repeated, such as resource questions with t
14 respect to waste management. So I would encourage those 15 questions.
f 16 DR. MOELLER: Please also toll us what it is you 17 are not doing that you really need to be doing, if you will 18 do that.
19 MR. KNAPP: I will to the extent that I can. ;
20 If you will turn to the second page of your 21 handout, just a few items with respect to the contracts 22 ,
that I will be speaking to later, wo have a single copy of 23 those brief descriptive copios and wo will have that 24 duplicated over lunch and that will be available after 25 lunch. '
i l
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i
- uno s_o.,m m,, m m ,.
29112.0 110 REE q
LJ 1 My method this morning is to review the 2 low-level waste program area without getting into specific 3 contracts first, and having done that, then I will speak 4 briefly about some of the individual contracts that we have.
5 I would like to talk a little bit first about the overall 6 breakdown of how our budget goes. As you look at this 7 figuro, LLRWPAA is an abbreviation for the Amendments Act, 8 and as you can soo in fiscal '87, the emphasis in our 9 technical assistanco budget addressos the act. There are 10 other efforts, other regulatory action beyond the act which 11 take up a small amount of the budget, as does case work.
12 As you can soo, we have a total budget for fiscal '87 of
() 13 slightly over $2 million.
14 It is my best understanding that in wasto 15 management we are planning to go lovel funded into fiscal 16 '88. It is exactly level funded. $2,070,000.
17 What you can soo, howevor, is that unforosoon, 18 thoro's a pretty significant shift in the way wo spond that 19 money. The principal chango is that I expect to bo 20 l spending a lot loss addressing the regulatory features of 21 the Amendments Act. You can soo we have dropped something I
22 over $400,000. And I oxpect that what we caso pays work 23 will go up dramatically. And that is because under caso '
i 24 ! work, we are budgeting the technical assistanco and j 25 guidanco that wo are providing to the states. I soo us as
($) -
t ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,, m n., sm,~,m - mo ime
i 1
'29112.0 111
[
1 doing a great deal more of that. Actually, we are already 2 significantly increasing that effort. I expect there will 3 be a lot more in fiscal '88. I will speak to the detail 4 more. Each one of these three-page bullets is a subject
[
5 after the Vugraph that follows. What I would like to do 6 would be to turn to the next Vugraph, if I may, or the next 7 figure.
8 As you see these, there will be a number of 9 places where you see triple asterisks. Those appone for 10 two reasons: In fiscal '87 money, they appear because 11 there they are contracts under negotiation, and because l 12 this is an open mooting I don't want to put the figures in. !
O 13 rn e i 9 rei 11v true ter ci c=1 88- te i 1o e ce i
14 that in fiscal '88 we really don't have our minds made up 15 down to dollar amounts. So thoso, some of those are still 16 floating.
17 one of the things that we will bring to you that 18 we hope will bo helpful, I understand there will be a j 19 presentation to the full committeo next week in closed i
20 session and we will bring a more detailed breakdown to that 21 session. In fact, if it is legitimato to do so, we can 22 append -- wo have had loss time. We would bo happy to ,
i 23 l provide that detailed breakdown along with the PDSs if that ,
i 24 is legitimately dono this afternoon. So -- .
i 25 DR. MOELLER: Wo will soo. I think maybe next i O i
! ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- w m., s n.- ,n a,,, nowun
_ _. _ .. . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ -- _ _ _. _. ._ _ .m i
g I
i
! 29112.0 112 l REE C) .
- 1 week is adequate. Let me interject a comment here as I was t
I 2 sitting and listening. A few minutes ago we were saying, l
3 well, we don't have enough detail to really comment on l
l 4 individual projects and we indeed do not. However, the ,
l-5 committee has -- maybe " admonished" is the wrong word, but 6 they certainly highly encouraged this subcommittee to 7 primarily direct our attention to an overview of the 8 situation and not to become a peer review committee. And 9 that is one of the primary reasons we are not delving into l 10 the individual projects, because presumably someone else 11 can do that.
12 Go ahead.
() 13 MR. KNAPP: I would like to go over some of the 14 principal project areas we have under the Amendments Act, 15 both this year and what we expect to do next year. I !
16 already answered a question of where we are'on greater than 17 class C. You can see it is a limited amount of money in 18 that area. The source of concerns we have, how much class 19 C or greater than class C waste is there, what are some of i 20 the nonradiological properties, and those are to better 21 address a review of DOE reports of this DOE upcoming report l
22 so that we can talk about where it might be, the greater i
23 than class C might best go and some of the concerns that l 24 might need to be raised.
l r 25 With respect to alternatives to shallow land
, (2) f ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmm, sm o.m n,m . m m. . .
29112.0 113 REE
(.
G; 1 burial, as you can see that is the biggest budget item on 2 this page, that is the biggest single budget item in 3 low-level technical assistance this year. Again, I spoke 4 briefly on that earlier. We have had five alternatives 5 under consideration for some time. We have now focused on 6 this smaller number of the concrete materials with earthen 7 covers. That will be discussed at length this afternoon by 8 ! both research and TA speakers.
9 With respect to the FY '88 budget on 10 alternatives, I expect that that is going to drop. How 11 much it will drop, I don't know. But it will go down. The 12 reason is very simply that our guidance that we need to O 13 proviae te emoetea 8v tue ^me"eme#te act to be ao e im 14 January of '88. So we will have to have the bulk of this 15 work done by that time. Because of the continuing interest 16 that states are going to have for some years in this, wo 17 will continue to work on it. But I suspect fewer resources 18 in fiscal '88 than we have now. How much I am not sure.
19 The next item with the principal heading of 20 } 15-month licensing review capability with three subitems 21 under it, this is the direction from the Amendments Act l
22 that we would have to have the capability to review an 23 application within 15 months, absent public involvement.
24 i This is the Staff effort. We are doing a number of things 25 i under that line item. We have a contract that complements
, O I
i il 0
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. m: mm s _m _,, m ns,.
1 l
l 29112.0 114 l I
REE l
- ' \
Ql 1 and is coordinated with the one that Nick mentioned just a i
2 few minutes ago that has to do with learning from existing 3 sites. And Nick has already given you the rationale for 4 why we are doing that. It is twofold: First, we want to 5 know what is going on at existing sites. If we don't have 6 a continuing understanding of what is happening with them, 7 then we are vulnerable should something go wrong.
8 DR. MARK: When you say existing sites --
9 MR. KNAPP: I mean the six commercial sites.
10 DR. MARK: Not just Beatty --
11 MR. KNAPP: I mean all six, Beatty, Hanford, 12 West Valley, Sheffield, Maxi Flats, Barnwell. The full set.
() 13 And in some cases, in some of this work we will probably 14 not pay quite as much attention with some portions of this 15 work. To Beatty and Hanford simply because they are as dry 16 as they are and certain areas we would be emphasizing the 17 wetter sites more. Again, it is twofold. It is to watch 18 what is going on and make sure we don't have any nasty 19 surprises and also for lessons learned that we can apply to 20 s future siting activities, future licensing activities.
i 21 ,
I would also like to mention with respect to l
22 l this whole license review capability, although Congress 23 l mandated that we do this, I think I may have mentioned this i
24 about six months ago, it is our expectation that the bulk 25 l of the licensing will be done by agreement, states with the
/" I
(_))
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3c ,ms,., s_m _ --
~ _ .
29112.0 115 REE p t O
1 states and compacts. 'So our work here is intended not so 2 much to tune up our staff, and I don't want to say in 3 secret, but let's just say internally. Always it is to 4 document what we do so that the states and compacts are 5 developing sites and have as much guideance as we can 6 provide them. So that in doing that a lot of our products 7 are intended to be documents that will, such as a standard 8 review plan, which the state.or compact will find usefu).
9 With respect to the leaching source term, one of 10 the concerns we have is exactly what our source terms are 11 for low-level, because it is such a gang of materials. And 12 in part under this we are doing some materials studies and
() 13 in part we are continuing to take advantage of the target
< 14 of opportunity in Three Mile Island. There is some EPICOR 15 resins that were heavily loaded many years ago and we
- 16 continued to analyze those. We have talked about those
- 17- briefly when we get to individual contracts.
i 18 DR. MOELLER: Do the low-level waste sites tend 19 to receive the same types of waste? I guess that is what 20 you are saying if you are looking at identifying the source 2 21 term. You must be assuming that they all receive roughly 22 I the same mix of resins and hospital wastes and so forth?
l 23 MR. KNAPP: They do not. I am not in a good 4
24 .
position to tell you what the differences are. I think --
l 25 " I would rather not go out on a limb. It wouldn't be useful.
(~)
I.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3C3?m Natenwide rmerage N G3 b N46
29112.0 116
.REE s-3
- lV 1 But I do know that for the various sites, some tend to 2 receive a larger fraction of, let's say, generator waste.
1 3 Others tend to receive a larger fraction of hospital wastes.
4 But I really don't have those numbers in front of me and I 5 don't recall them.
6 Source term is perhaps an oversimplification.
7' It would be better to say we want to understand the source.
8 There are a lot of contributors to the source term.
9 Depending on whether you have class A, B or C the source
- 10 term can be different and various items in class A can be 11 very different.
12 DR. SHEWMON: When you do these studies, whether
() 13 it is in New Mexico or someplace else, what do you 14 introduce into the environment?
! 15 MR. KNAPP: I may -- this is one I would love to 16 pass over to John. Let me give him.a minute to think and 17 while he does, one of the ones I would like to go back to 18 is a little bit of this on the EPICOR II studies. Again, 19 these are the loaded resins. This is a project that DOE 20 initiated in the early '80s and they ran into some funding 21 problems and we have picked it up I think probably about '83, 22 '84. With respect to releases to the environment, there 23 are two tests under that project that are of interest. One i
24 which has just been completed which has to do with 25 solidification and laboratory leach tests on EPICOR II (2) ;
4 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3'm Nanonwide Cmcrage *XL 3 4 tM6
29112.0 117 REE .
-3 (1
1 resins. The next test which is one we will be continuing 2 next year, this year and next are lysimeter studies. These 3 are being done at Oak Ridge and Argonne and they are with 4 -respect to the environment. I believe they are being done 5 in simulations of both southeastern and northeastern or 6 midwest types of earth. What we are looking for in those 7 lysimeter tests are principally strontium and cesium.
8 DR. SHEWMON: Lysimetry would measure 9 laciviousness to me. Would you tell me what it means?
10 MR. KNAPP: Lysimeter tests to me, and, let's 11 see, I see Phil Justus has handily absented himself, I was 12 really hoping to get a geologist to answer this. My
-( ) 13 understanding of lysimeter tests is pretty limited but it 14 is essentially one method or another of, let's say we put a 15 waste form into the ground, we have some mechanism of 16 collecting the water that will pass through the ground that 17 is in contact with the waste form. And it is the lysimeter 18 -- simply of something very simple. At least in my 19 understanding it is a method of catching the water and then 20 analyzing the water. So a lysimeter test says, what water 21 crossed the waste form, what does it look like, how much of 22 the -- in this case strontium and cesium and other things 23 did we pick up. These are done in this particular 24 experiment I believe quarterly. That is about it.
25 DR. MOELLER: Is that right, Joe?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage M3364646
29112.0 118 REE t'
O) 1 MR. DONOGHUE: That was a good explanation. It 2 is a trap for soil moisture.
3 MR. KNAPP: Let me write that down.
4 DR. REMICK: The EPICOR II, were those organic 3 or inorganic resins?
6 MR. KNAPP: I know that there was zirconium 7 mixed in with the samples that we are studying. That is 8 obviously inorganic. Whether others were, I don't know.
9 DR. REMICK: I remember way back then there was 10 a debate on whether one should use organic or inorganics.
11 If I recall, they used organics and then had a problem.
12 The other question I had slipped my mind at the m
) 13 moment.
14 DR. MOELLER: While you are thinking of it, to 15 help me on the EPICOR resins, you are studying those to 16 apply that to the normal primary cooling water resins? Or 17 you are looking toward additional decommissioning and 18 decontamination and cleanup?
19 MR. GREEVES: The Staff put out a branch 20 technical position on waste form requirements for low-level 21 waste. We are only looking at the disposal aspect.
22 DR. MOELLER: What does EPICOR represent?
23 ,
MR. GREEVES: EPICOR is a decontamination system 24 I which they used at Three Mile Island to decontaminate --
25 DR. MOELLER: But then what is the pertinence of n
v i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 047 3700 Nationwide Cos erage 8Cn336-6M6
29112.0~ 119 REE (g) 1 it?; Do you anticipate many more accidents with many 2 more --
3 MR. KNAPP: The real pertinence is it is an 4 extremely heavily loaded resin. It is an accelerated. test.
5 DR. MOELLER: Is it drastically different than 6 the resins used for normal cleanup of the primary coolant 7 in power reactors?
8 MR. KNAPP: I can't answer that. I don't 9 believe it is significantly different. The object of the 10 test is basically to get an accelerated understanding of 11 what normal resins which would be disposed of at low-level
^
12 sites would be likely to do. But whether EPICOR II is an
() 13 industrial standard or whether it represents simply a 14 target of opportunity, I honestly don't know.
15 DR. REMICK: EPICOR II itself isn't a resin, it 16 was the system design for Three Mile Island and the resins 17 were called EPICOR resins.
18 DR. SHEWMON: I think there was a first and a 19 second because the first was so intense it started to 20 decompose the organics.
21 DR. MOELLER: Correct.
22 DR. SHEWMON: Are you ready for the environment 23 now? He was going to answer the question of what was 24 introduced into the environment.
' 25 MR. GREEVES: When you say " introduced into the O ,.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 -347-37(x) Nationwide Cos erage Mn3%-6M6
29112.0 120 REE g3
(_)
1 environment," are you questioning what we place in the 2 lysimeter or what moisture did we put through it?
3 DR. SHEWMON: I have visions of your wanting to 4 know something about the exchange properties of what this 5 passes through. Do you do this with stable isotopes or 6 with radioactive isotopes? And if you do it with stable, 7 then you must saturate things at a much different 8 concentration than you would be worried about if it was 9 radioactive.
10 MR. GREEVES: I really am not in a position to 11 answer your question in detail. Tim Johnson who works for 12 me, who is not here, would be able to deal with those.
() 13 However, two places we are working with this. The one that 14 we discussed about the EPICOR resins,.we are studying both 15 in the lab and in these lysimeter conditions. In addition 16 to that, Brookhaven is doing some amount of limited testing 17 for us to try to understand what the leach mechanism of the 18 various waste forms are. And I can't express --
19 DR. SHEWMON: So a lysimeter is a controlled 20 environment that doesn't sort of look at where the Lost 21 River comes out into the Snake or.something?
22 MR. GREEVES: No. It is in fact a can in the 23 ground that you control the environment. You know what the 24 surrounding materials are and if rain comes down on it and 25 you are really just analyzing what the interaction of your ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3710 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6M6
29112.0 ?. 21 REE I waste with the soil environment around it and as it 2 trickles down to the bottom it is collected.
3 DR. SHEWMON: To the best of your knowledge, 4 they don't let anything out to see where it shows up 5 someplace else?
6 MR. KNAPP: There is no intentional release of 7 any radioactive material outside the -- I mean, it is i
8 released to the lysimeter. It is collected. None goes out 9 into what we might call the environment.
10 DR. REMICK: I remember my question now. The 11 Kentucky site. What was the name of that?
12 MR. KNAPP: Maxie Flats.
/r
. I ,) _ 13 DR. REMICK: I was going to ask you why that was 14 not included.
15 MR. KNAPP: It is.
16 DR. REMICK: That has been turned over to the 17 state? The material in that site?
18 DR. MOELLER: As I recall, the state paid the 19 operator of that site a half a million dollars or something 20 for the privilege of taking it over. I should have owned l 21 stock in that.
l 22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. KNAPP: I would like to move along here. I I
24 want to talk briefly about site screening. Our site i
25 screening work here is -- some of the work that we are (2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4 646
'29112.0 122 REE
()
v 1 doing in the area has to do with environmental monitoring.
2 We have again rather a small effort here. We are also 3 concerned with site _ screening from the perspective of 4 helping out the states. Under the Amendments Act in 5 January of 1988, they have to have a siting plan. This 6 money is being spent in part to provide any guidance that 7 we can that they may be able to use coming up with a siting 8 plan. I know that DOE is doing a lot of that. But it is 9 my feeling that we have to support the states to the extent 10 we can. As I said, the principal area we are concerned in 11 right now is environmental monitoring.
12 Under data base, we are doing two things at this
(). 13 time. First we are collecting information from the 14 operating sites from U.S. Ecology and from Chem-Nuclear.
15 They are sending us their manifest data for low-level waste 16 that they receive and they are sending it to us in 17 microfiche form. And part of the money you see there pays 18 for that.
19 Another portion of the money is spent to develop 20 an electronic format in which we can receive the 21 information and manipulate the information in the future.
22 And we will talk a little bit more about that later on.
23 John, when we get to that, may want to speak a lot because i
24 he has been pretty closely involved in that.
25 DR. REMICK: You can't use this super systen we o
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XC Nationude Cos erage Sto-336-f446
29112.0 123 REE 1 heard of in the high-level waste area.
2 MR. GREEVES: What you heard of in the 3' high-level waste area was really a document information 4 system. It is a full retrieval text. This is a data base 1 5 management system that we are talking about here, numbers 6 and locations, not full retrieval document activities.
7 .
DR. REMICK: You are restoring texts in one case 8 and data base in the other?
9 MR. KNAPP: How I visualize the difference is 10 this. You might want to turn to the next page. To a i
11 degree it can help illustrate that difference. A question 12 that has been raised recently by Mr. Stello has been what
( )- 13 about biologically hazardous waste which is also low-level
'l{ radioactive waste. That immediately introduces a lot of
.p 1 questions we would like quick answers to. Could we take a 1C look at the manifesps and find out how much low-level waste
- 17{ is in fact considered biologically hazardous. Who is 18 generating it? Where is it going? Have we any confidence 19 it is being deactivated biologically before it arrives at 20 the sites? Those are things that if we had a readily 21 manipulatable set of information on manifests we could turn
- 2) out almost i[ mediately.
J
'3 l As in this particular case in the event, what we 1 24 hadf)bdowas to more or less sight-read a whole stack of r
25 microfiche that took a long time, a lot of staff hours and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3AU Nationwide Coscrage M336-%46
29112.0 124 REE f]
V 1 a lot of chronological time and we don't have a complete 2 answer. . We have a very preliminary answer.
3 That is the data base management, the 4 manipulatability that we seek to bring to the low-level 5 management system. By contrast, the records management 6 that is working with high level is, as I understand it, 7 principally directed to be able to retrieve documents, some 8 years into the future, through the use of key words and 9 references so that when somebody says, did you ever really 10 look at this problem, we can go back and retrieve what the 11 Staff has said about and others have said about it. It is 12 a somewhat different management system. It does't
() 13 manipulate the data. It more or less indicates --
14 DR. REMICK: I would think the high-level waste 15 people are going to have to accumulate and maintain data 16 bases in the future of sites and manifests of what is going 17 on.
18 MR. KNAPP: Yes.
19 DR. REMICK: It is not a major point. I was 20 just curious.
21 MR. KNAPP: It is a good point. In high level 22 some years ago_we did create a data base management system, 23 something like about four years ago. And to the extent l
24 that we can use that, it would certainly be good. I think j 4
25 the problem we get into is that this is something we are 1
L.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage tWE3W6646
.- 1
I 29112.0 125 REE 1 negotiating with the two operators as well as DOE and in 2 addition to that, things like the IBM PC which might now be 3 an' appropriate tool were not available at that time. So we 4 have been overtaken a little bit by negotiation by 5 technology. I am not just, I am not sure.
6 DR. REMICK: One of the things that drives my 7 question, I wouldn't ask the question if it was NRR and 8 NMSS sitting here and I would know why they wouldn't.have 9 the same. But when it is all within NMSS, I guess why it 10 is impossible to combine --
11 MR. GREEVES: They serve two different purposes.
12 DR. REMICK: Certainly, yes.
13 MR. KNAPP: Any combining we can do, we will do.
14 The folks that are doing the NMSS data management are quite 15 0 close to where John and I are both located and we are 16 certainly not going to go off on separate directions, if we 17 can help it. It is more a question, is it going to be more 18 cost effective to stay together or to develop the system?
19 DR. MOELLER: I have a question. On the 20 j chemically hazardous waste, the Commission is involved 21 currently in working with EPA for who has jurisdiction over 22 mixed waste. When you come to biologically hazardous waste, 23 is EPA the supreme authority there or is it someone in 24 Health and Human Services at NISH. Who is it?
25 MR. KNAPP: I shudder to answer that question.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80[k336-6646
L
. 29112.0 126 REE O 1 First let me mention where our current status is on the 1
2 -chemically hazardous. At the moment both the commissioners
~
3 and the EPA administrator are pretty much, are not worrying 4 about-jurisdictional issues on the chemically hazardous 5 material. The way the Congress has it right now, EPA has 6 jurisdiction over the chemically hazardous part. NRC has 7 jurisdiction over the radiologically hazardous part. What 8 our efforts are are to work jointly to see to it that this 9 stuff is regulated both to protect the public health and 10 safety and to minimize the red tape and confusion.on the 11 part of the licensee.
12 That program seems to be working reasonably well.
() 13_ By contrast, with respect to the biological hazardous 14 wastes, I think you could probably argue that under RCRA, 15 EPA has the formal responsibility for dealing with that 16 waste nationally. It is also dealt with under H&HS and 17 they work at, by working with I believe it is the Joint 18 Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals in Chicago. Then 19 there is also those hospitals which are~not so accredited i
20 are also regulated by states and there can be as many as 50 21 states involved in this. And that also, of course, can 22 involve the state health agency as well as the state, if it 23 l is authorized, the EPA portion of it or if it is an l
24 agreement state with NRC, the NRC agreement state portion 25 of it. All in all, things get extremely hectic.
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 -347-37tO Nationwide Cmerace 800-3366M6
. ., _... _ -..,., _ - , . . _ ._ .. __ .- - . _ _ _ - _ . - . _ , . _ , _ . - , -- - . , ~ - , _ - - - . . .
l 29112.0 127 REE v
1 The fact is that we are hopeful it can be 2 simplified pretty readily. When you come right down to it, 3 as a general practice, hospitals and all biological 4 facilities deactivate their wastes before they ship. I 5 mean autoclave, incinerate, chemically treat, one way or 6 another, but essentially kill off the biologically 7 hazardous portion. In fact, in some places, such as NIH, 8 the shipper who accepts radioactive waste from NIH, that is 9 one of his demands, he will not accept it unless it has 10 been deactivated.
11 ,
So although there are a lot of people involved 12 in the regulation of biologically hazardous waste, where we (n) x-13 are coming out on this one and the reason we don't have any 14 resources budgeted against it in fiscal '88 at this time is 15 that we believe by simply _using Part 61, which we can, to 16 prevent active waste from being accepted, biologically 17 active waste from being accepted at the site and in in fact 18 strongly recommending that it be deactivated before it is 19 shipped is going to do little more at this point than to 20 ; formalize what appears to be a pretty widespread industrial 21 I practice already, and what we will be doing is catching 22 those few people who are not behaving safely. So it is our 23 hope that we can resolve this one.
24 Whether Mr. Stello agrees that this is a 25 reasonable resolution or not is open to question. But that
/,,T U
i b
li t
!I I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mm. ~ ~ r- _
29112.0 128 REE
/
t}
o 1 is where the Staff is coming from right now.
2 MR. PARKER: You say that the chemically 3 hazardous mixed waste is in good shape. Where could I send 4 my mixed waste today?
5 MR. KNAPP: In good shape, what I should have 6 said was we'seem to be on track to come up with a 7 resolution to the problem. With the amount of floundering 8 we have done in the past, that does represent an 9 improvement.
10 At this point, you do not have a place to ship 11 it. It would have to be stored. We are going to try to 12 provide as much guidance as we can on the. subject. There
() 13 is some waste that you can deal with. If your mixed waste 14 happens to be scintillation fluids, which is a mixture of 15 organic, et cetera, that you can ship to, without 16 mentioning specifics, there are people who will broker it 17 and people who from the brokers will incinerate. That will 18 deal with that portion of it.
19 MR. PARKER: There is a special exemption for 20 that.
21 MR. KNAPP: That is correct. The two other 4
22 principal sources of mixed waste, that is to say cromates 23 and contaminated lead, we are still working on. At this 24 point they would have to be stored.
25 l Additional sources of mixed waste don't seem to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433&fM6
- --.=, - -. _
29112.0 129 REE e s U
1 be real extensive right now. One of the successes I 2 believe we are having in our negotiations with EPA is 3 coming up with a detailed definition of mixed waste that 4 prevent there inadvertently being a much larger fraction of 5 the present low-level waste inventory that we have. There 6 is some question as to exactly what is a chemically 7 hazardous waste. And a very strict reading of RCRA and of 8 EPA regulation could expand the inventory of mixed waste.
9 One of our successes and one in which EPA is 10 supporting us a lot is trying to keep that to a reasonable 11 fraction. We are providing a bunch of guidances and I hope 12 that it will be out -- by and large, some will be out by
(') 13 the end of this year. Some will be out the first quarter 14 of the coming year. Such as find out whether you have a 15 mixed waste.
16 We hope to have a working definition. We also 17 hope to provide some guidance to people who are generatinp i
18 it on how they can reduce the quantity, how they can treat 19 it and how they can segregate it. So while we don't have a 20 ! solution, it is our expectation that the bulk of the 21 problem will be a lot less significant say three to six 22 I months from now than it is right now. It is the best I can 23 m offer at this point. I I l 24 j, MR. PARKER: I don't know the commercial l
1
_ 25 l situation very much, but in the government-operated
\-) i \
i i 1
! l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
lh
. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MG 33M46 l l
29112.0 130 REE s
u 1 laboratories, there certainly are many more other instances 2 of mixed waste than just cromates and lead.
3 MR. KNAPP: Yes. I don't mean to say that that 4 is all that there are. It is just that the initial surveys 5 that we have that have been done by Brookhaven don't 6 suggest that the other instances represent a significant 7 fraction of the total amount of low-level waste that is 8 being disposed of. It is entirely possible that that 9 survey will be different when it is updated, but so far the 10 initial survey and our verifications say something like 3 11 percent or less of all low-level waste is in fact mixed.
12 MR. PARKER: Partially those sites in the past
() 13 they just got rid of it. They didn't treat it separately.
14 So it was no problem.
15 MR. KNAPP: That is entirely possible. One of 16 the reasons we are verifying the survey is to find out how i 17 much of that we missed the first time we took a look.
18 To speak to this figure very briefly, what we 19 are getting here is technical assistance to address some of 20 the questions that we have just talked about, such as i 1
21 surveys, such as computerized lists of people that generate 22 both radioactive waste and chemically hazardous waste.
]
23 j People that appear on the same list are ones that would get The next figure is case work.
24 l our special attention.
I 25 There has been, as you can see, limited O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m NationwideCoser ge RU 33MM6
. ~ , - - , _ - - - . . - - - . -_ _ _ - - - _ - , - , , _ , - _ . _ - _ . _ . -
29112.0. 131 REE
(
V 1 technical assistance in this area planned for or actually 2 ongoing in fiscal '87. Most of it is directed to topical 3 reports. Topical reports deal with waste form and 4 containers such as high-integrity containers for enhanced 5 disposal technology. Some years ago we offered a free 6 review of reports in this area. We still have a backlog of 7 about 20-some cases that we are dealing with. We also have 8 had people that have brought in potential. designs such as a 9 high-integrity container subsequently and we continue in 10 those reviews.
11 That has been the principal budget area for 12 fiscal '87. For fiscal '88, as you can see, again, these
() 13 figures are simply estimates. We expect we will 14 significantly increase the technical assistance that we 15 provide to states both from the Staff and by using 16 contractor assistance to do this. We expect to do some 17 design reviews. The reviews refer to some of these 18 alternatives, the shallow land burial that has been i 19 mentioned.
20 What we would like very much to do would be to 21 review a design and be in a position to say that at least J
22 certain features of the design have NRC endorsement. If we 23 can do that and in some way generically come up with 24 alternative designs, we think that that might be very 25 helpful to states and compacts who are developing sites.
O ;
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37tu) Nattoriaide Cos erage IRY>336-6646
29112.0 132 REE
. (.
V 1 I also expect to spend some technical assistance 2 money on dealing with BRC, go below regulatory concern 3 petitions that will be coming in. Also, I hope to get some 4 technical ~ assistance to support our review of West Valley, 5 DOE's work with West Valley. I can't really hazard a guess 6 at this point as to how much money we would be spending in 7 either of those areas. I don't know how many BRC petitions 8 we are likely to get.
9 We are at the present time rethinking just how 10 much involvement in West Valley we would have. So those 11 .are kind of -- I don't want to sound like I am blue-skying 12 it of the $2 million that we have for fiscal '88. Right
() 13 now I feel I have my hands around about 900,000 of that 14 with a pretty good sense of where we are going to spend it.
15 And the other million you can see here, but there are going 16 to be changes, perhaps, 20, 30 percent changes as we learn 17 more about what is going on.
18 DR. REMICK: Is there a standard review plan for 19 low-level waste disposal site consideration?
20 MR. KNAPP: Almost. I received the second draft 21 for review about a week ago. We anticipate publishing --
i 22 i this will only be for shallow land burial in January. This 23 i is something we were directed to by the act. And we will i' ,
24 be bringing out a revised version of the review plan in !
25 January of '88 which will also speak to some alternatives.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l wn. -- ~, 8<-
-29112.0 133
.REE
/~'i U
1 There are a couple of other products as well such'as format 2 and content guide and an environmental standard review plan 3 which we are developing. You don't see those here under 4 the technical assistance budget for two reasons. One, we 5 had to move fast. And two, a lot of it is more of a 6 regulatory' nature which requires Staff attention. Those 7 have been done in-house. We have absorbed a lot of the 8 Staff resource.
9 DR. REMICK: You have answered some of these 10 things when you mentioned'a standard review plan would be 11 helpful to states and the topical reports. What kind of-12 assistance is the NRC prepared to offer the states? It
() 13 seems to me that -- I could be wrong -- that you are going 14 to soon get flooded, I would think, by a lot of demands 15 from states who all suddenly have this responsibility and 16 don't have the capability.
17 MR. KNAPP: That is correct.
18 DR. REMICK: It seems to me that the figures you 19 .are talking about are probably going to be minuscule 20 compared to the demand.
21 MR. KNAPP: It may be. .What we will have to do 22 is try to work very smart. Among other things, you may 23 recall back in the spring Kitty Dragnet came down and spoke-24 about a number of things. Among them she can speak very 25 cogently about Part 61. We have had her visiting a number l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202447-3NU Nationwide Co erage 800-33MM6
29112.0 134 REE
./\
- U 1 of states. Unfortunately, there is not enough of her to go 2 around so we are videotaping her discussion of Part 61 and we are going to make those videotapes available as a 3
4 learning tool.
5 By having things like standard review plan 6 format and content, environmental review plan available, we 7 hope that that will help. We are also, frankly, going out 8 to states and asking what specifics we can do to be of help.
9 And we are looking for areas where we could be helpful.
10 But, yes, I think we may very well be swamped and we are 11 just going to have to do the best we can. But it is our 12 view that timely implementation of the act is pretty 13 important and so we are going to have to put enough t( )
14 resources into this that the states can do it.
15 We may have to be selective. We may have to 16 focus on those states which are interested and clearly 17 making progress as opposed to those states which although 18 they may be doing stuff on paper are not really making 19 progress.
20 DR. MOELLER: On this West Valley, are you 21 saying that NRC rec.lly is not looking into that very much 22 now, the major activities that DOE has under way?
23 MR. KNAPP: We are looking into it. The problem 24 we have with West Valley -- and maybe I will use this as an 25 end to resources -- we are terribly strapped for resources.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37to Na.ionwide ros erage tko-3366M6
s 29112.0 135 REE l
d(~s .
1 I am not talking about technical assistance dollars. I am 2 really talking about total number of staff and experienced 3 staff. One of the things that we are thrashing about right 4 now, Phil and John and I, are we going to get these 5 standard review plans and other materials out on time with 6 the Congressional mandate and not pay as much attention to.
7 West Valley as we would liker or are we going to look at 8 West Valley right now and lip shows those. We have the-9 same Staff doing both.
10 We do not have a formal licensing action on West 11 Valley. We are to advise DOS, and to a degree they are 12 free to take our advice to the extent that they think it is
. ()_ 13 appropriate.
14 DR. MOELLER: Legally they are under no 15 obligation.
16 MR. KNAPP: That is correct. So DOE has a tight I
17 timetable that they have to meet and ours is a sort of a 18 situation where either we are going to have to speak up and 19 speak up effectively or the train is going to leave and we 20 will have missed it. And any place that we can take-21 advantage of technical assistance to increase the amount of 22 staff resources we have available we want to do that.
23 l Of course one of the problems we get in West I
24 ! Valley and a number of these other areas, how much of that 25 can we in fact contract out and to what extent could we be
! O '
i i.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage an3M4646
- . . . . . . . , . - . , , . . . - . . . . . , . . , - . . . , - _ - - . .. . - - ,- - -- ,-. ~.. . . . . - . _ . - . . . - - . - .
29112.0 136 REE O 1 considered to be abrogating our responsibility. So any TA 2 effort on West Valley would have to be done jointly with 3 our staff to make sure that it is an NRC product, not a 4 contracting product.
5 Other questions or comments?
6 We.didn't look at the last-page.
7 MR. KNAPP: That is, to a degree, up to you. We 8 can speak about -- these are the individual contracts that l
9 ve have. You can see there the various organizations where 10 they have been placed or are being placed. We can speak to 11 the contracts or if you prefer, you can get that 12 information from the descriptive summaries that we will
(') 13 make available this afternoon, f 14 DR. MOELLER: I think that is' fine.
15 Any other questions or comments? Paul?
16 Well, let me thank John and Mal for-appearing, 17 plus many others this morning. Most will be, or certainly 18 some of you will be back this afternoon.
19 We will now recess for an hour for lunch, 20 beginning at 1:30.
21 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the meeting was 22 recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., this same day.)
23 24 25 n
v i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3AU Nationwide Coserage 8(Kk336-6M6
137
/^,iE E g
1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.)
2 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will resume. We will 3 pick up on our agenda with the item on alternatives to 4 shallow land burial and our speaker is Mr. Pittiglio of the 5 NMSS. Waste management, what is LLW?
6 MR. PITTIGLIO: Low-level waste.
7 Good afternoon. I would like to take this 8 opportunity to talk to you a little bit about our 9 alternative program. Basically I would like to tell you 10 what we have'done, what-we are currently doing, and where 11 we are going with the program. And I thought the easiest
~
3 12 way to do it would be to go through the presentation
%J 13 package and tell you what we are doing as far as the 14 program.
15 Basically the first sheet in the presentation 16 package is simply the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments 17 that affect the NRC; specifically, us, and I have listed 18 those, and as we go through the package and in the closure, 19 I will tell you how and what we are doing to meet those 20 requirements. I thought I would put them in the front to 21 remind everybody of what we are obligated to do.
22 Basically, on March 6 of this year, we published 23 in the Federal Register our draft technical position on 24 alternative disposal concepts. The position summarized a
() 25 three-year study that was conducted by the Army Corps of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80M36-6646
138
/'7EE Q
l Engineers and the NRC and basically it did, one, it 2 identified alternatives currently being considered. And it 3 also established the applicability of Part 61 as far as 4 licensing of alternative disposal concepts.
5 What we really did as far as the study went, we 6 took Part 61, which is really divided into subparts A 7 through G, and looked at subpart D. Subpart D is the 8 technical requirements and that is really the only part 9 that deals specifically with near-surface disposal. 'The
- 10 remaining part of the regulation deals with any type of
~
11 land disposal. And we examined the technical requirements s 12 specifically in subpart D, the site suitability 13 requirements in 61.50, the siting and design requirements, 14 the siting and operations and closures and the 15 environmental and monitoring requirements.
T 16 All of that particular.section was really i-17 developed' based on knowledge and experience from shallow 18 land burial. So we took a close look at those particular 19 sections and we evaluated them for the specific 20 alternatives, meaning below-ground vaults, above-ground t
21 vaults, earth-mounded bunkers, auger holes and mined 22 cavities.
j ;
23 DR. MOELLER: Excuse me. When 10 CPR 61 was 24 originally prepared, although you now say that it is l
() 25 applicable to almost any of these alternatives, you really, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
-. _ . . _ . - _ -. _ . _ - ~ . _ . , . . . , _ _ _ . -. . _ . - _ , _ . _ - _ _ _-_. . _ . . _ . - - . _ _ _ _ _ - ,.
139
/'3EE V
1 were you not, you were really writing it primarily for 2 shallow land burial or with that primarily in mind?
3 MR. SHAFFNER: We used the words "near-surface 4 disposal." That is a point of difference that we tried to 5 point out. That concept we tried to clarify with people.
6 No, the intent was not just for shallow land burial. It 7 was for near-surface disposal up to 30 meters.
8 DR. MOELLER: You actually used those words.
9 MR. SHAFFNER: Yes.
10 MR. PITTIGLIO: A lot of experience was 11 developed based on a lot of the knowledge and experience em 12 that we had gained from shallow land burial but it was b 13 -- subpart D is for near-surface disposal.
14 Basically as we go through the package, I 15 provided cutaway sections of the alternatives that we 16 examined in the Corps reports, if you look at the next few 17 slides, as far as the different concepts.
18 Following that, we will talk a little bit about 19 the Army Corps of Engineers six-volume reports and list and 20 talk through briefly the principal key items that were 4 21 discussed in each of the alternatives.
22 DR. MOELLER: The Army Corps of Engineers study i 23 was three years in duration. When did it finish?
24 MR. PITTIGLIO: The Army Corps was completed in 1
() 25 October of 1985. And I think it is important to point out ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. . - - :oi":!" ._ ""-"?"* _ -
_ .i
140
/~lE E Gl 1 that that study had been going on for three years and the 2 Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act, which was passed in 3 January of '86, had directed us to identify alternatives 4 being studied. However, we had been in the process of 5 doing that for over three years and basically had completed 6 our study before the Act was really passed. So the program 7 has been moving in the direction for well over three years 8 at the time.
9 What I would like to do now is talk about the 10 slide that deals with below-ground vaults. Basically there 11 are four or five key bullets under that which clarify it 12 being licensable under 61; one of the principal things was bgs 13 it did not rely as heavily as above-ground on construction 14 materials for long-term performances.
15 DR. REMICK: Do you mean that Part 61 is 16 adequate as a regulation to license?
17 MR. PITTIGLIO: Yes, Part 61 is adequate to 18 license any one of the above-ground, below-ground, 19 earth-mounded bunkers --
20 DR. REMICK: But you haven't made a 21 determination that a particular below-ground vault is 22 licensable?
23 MR. PITTIGLIO: Yes.
24 MR. SHAFFNER: Our, Part 61 was basically
() 25 promulgated for land disposal. What we are talking about ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
141
.'O.OEE 1 here is specifically looking at subpart D, the technical 2 requirements. When I referred to it being applicable to 3 near-surface disposal, that is what I was talking about.
4 Part 61 applies to all land disposal. Administrative 5 requirements and financial requirements would. apply across 6 the board. The Corps of Engineers study that Larry is 7 primarily highlighting looks at just those technical 8 requirements related to near-surface-disposal to 9 double-check their adequacy vis-a-vis these alternatives.
t 10 And there were certainly some additional -- some 11 embellishments that the Corps of Engineers suggested in 12 their reports, but the basic bottom line is that they were 13 licensable.
14 MR. PITTIGLIO: One of the initial slides in the 15 package listed subparts A through G and, specifically, 16 every one of those subparts other than subpart D is for any 17 type of land disposal.
18 DR. REMICK: You don't see any need to modify 61 19 in any major respect to make it suitable for handling these 20 different alternatives; is that what you are saying?
21 MR. PITTIGLIO: Absolutely not. And that is the 22 position that we took in the draft technical position and 23 it will become final and published probably the end of this 24 month and it will be restated again.
() 25 I think that the Corps, again, looked at each ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433MM6
142 (G~'~iE E 1 one of the five alternatives. I have listed the key items 2 for all of them. We can take a brief look at each one of 3 them, the below-ground vaults, the above-ground vaults, 4 again, licensable under 61, one of the problems is it 5 doesn't rely heavily on construction materials for 6 long-term performance. No long-term experience with this 7 alternative. Possible high exposure of workers and, at 8 best, performance equal to shallow land burial.
9 DR. MOELLER: What does it mean that it does not 10 rely as heavily as above-ground on construction materials?
11 MR. PITTIGLIO: The --
12 DR. MOELLER: Is that above-ground vaults?
bgs 13 MR. PITTIGLIO: Yes, meaning it relies entirely 14 on the engineering materials for the containment and 15 performance of the structure.
16 DR. MOELLER: It relies on the vault, whereas if 17 the vault is below ground and buried, you get the 18 protection of the cover?
19 MR. PITTIGLIO: From the cover.
20 MR. SHAFFNER: And also just the natural things 21 that surround the vault.
22 DR. MOELLER: When you look at 61 and it says 23 that the waste must be in some certain form -- I don't 24 remember the numbers, but maybe you can refresh me -- it
() 25 says something about a release rate or something about how ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6646
143
/^,
%.]~E E l long -- it has to maintain integrity for 300 years, isn't 2 it?
3 MR. SHAFFNER: Right.
4 DR. MOELLER: When I put waste into a vault, is 5 it the vault system that has to then meet the 3.00 years or 6 is it --
7 MR. SHAFFNER: Part 61, it is 61.57, I believe, 8 or .56,-that allows flexibility in that stability can be 9 met either by the package, the vault, the stratigraphic 10 unit itself. So basically the flexibility is there.
11 DR. MOELLER: So --
12 MR. SHAFFNER: I think we would want to say that 13 we wouldn't want to just see people pouring a bunch of 14 waste into, liquid or even just dry active waste into a 15 vault without some kind of containment. But in effect, 16 Part 61 does allow for that flexibility and achieving that 17 -stability you are referring to.
! 18 DR. MOELLER: Do you anticipate then that if 19 people know they are sending waste to a vault that the 20 shipping will certainly -- DOT is not going to change the 21 shipping requirements?
22 MR. SHAFFNER: No.
23 DR. MOELLER: Do you see a reduction in the 24 integrity of the container in which the wastes are
(') 25 transported?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
144
. (~' g g v
1 MR. SHAFFNER: Probably just the reverse.
2 i Believe it or not, even though the requirements once they 3 go into the vault, as far as stability is concerned, would 4 be less. In order to assure that the waste itself was not 5 going to affect the integrity of the vault, there would --
6 the restrictions on the packaging would probably be at 7 least as restrictive as they are for shallow land burial.
8 DR. REMICK: Any thinking as to whether these 9 vaults are going to be seismically designed?
10 MR. PITTIGLIO: Specifically, we would think 11 that the above-ground vault would have to address that to 12 maintain its integrity for 300 to 500 years. And that 13 could be a real difficult problem.
14 DR. REMICK: Do you think that is necessary? In 15 other words, suppose you had a seismic event and you 16 ruptured that vault, you have some low-level waste that has 17 accessed the environment but you wouldn't expect much of a 18 release, I wouldn't expect; presumably you could correct it, _
19 clean it up? -
20 MR. PITTIGLIO: Well ~~ j"r r .- .
21 MR. SHAFFNER: That is ass' uming .it occ0rred .- .
y :, - ,; , /2 l 22 within the so-called institutional contro'l period.'-One of ,-
23 the assumptions of Part 61 is that such a thing is only ,
- j. s 24 going to exist for 100 years. So we would have to_3ssume
() 25 by the rules that we a'v6 estab1 shed that af terf$ that :
., ~.'. 's , ,'
7 y l[
- 'r* *'
Y /l g
- & i ' /
ACE-FEDER^L REPORTERS, INC. '
e 202-347-3700 , / Natio,mide Coverage 804 336 6646
.- , . . .,. . , . . ~ _ !_ . - -
^
145
.t
(,.)%g g 1 period, we are going to have to rely on the structure to 2 take care of itself, so to speak.
3 DR. REMICK: We are getting ourselves into some 4 real binds, aren't we?
5 DR. MOELLER: On the high exposure, the possible 6 high exposure of workers, this is due to the fact that to 7 get the waste into the vault and properly positioned, they 8 have to handle it a little more?
9 MR. PITTIGLIO: Yes. The two things that could 10 occur, one might be that the walls would be poured and then 11 the possibility would be that the waste would be set in 12 with remote cranes; however, there is a potential high 13 exposure while you went back and poured the roof. The 14 other way might be that the roof and walls were poured but 15 you had to bring it in on front-end loaders to set it in.
16 So your potential -- we are not saying that it will happen.
17 They may be able to develop adequate procedures for 18 handling, but there is a potential to get a higher amount 19 of exposure just in handling the waste as far as placement.
20 MR. SHAFFNER: Certainly there is a way around 21 that, if you spend more money. But what we are trying to 22 do is highlight the fact that there is a potential for 23 higher exposure. It can be corrected.
24 DR. MARK: There is a potential in shallow land 0 - 2s derie1- too-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
E 146
'C'iEE '
O 1 MR. PITTIGLIO: There is.
2 DR. MARK: If you don't do it sensibly, you will 3 get exposed.
4 MR. SHAFFNER: What they are saying is you need 4
5 the proper administrative controls to insure that it 6 doesn't happen and it is probably going to be more 7 expensive to effect those in some of these alternatives 8 than it would be in shallow land burial.
9 DR. MARK: I don't see why you emphasize that.
10 It could be true but it doesn't have to be.
11 MR. PITTIGLIO: That is true, except that, again, 12 if you have to consider pouring that roof after the waste 13 is placed, there is a potential then for a high exposure of 14 the workers.
15 DR. MARK: You have to cover the shallow trench 16 after the waste is in.
17 MR. PITTIGLIO: Are you talking about a 18 below-ground vault now or an above-ground vault?
19 DR. MARK: I am talking about shallow land 20 burial, 21 MR. PITTIGLIO: Yes, we realize that. But the 22 time for covering the trench is considerably less than 23 pouring a roof, potentially.
24 MR. PARKER: Isn't there experience in France in
() 25 just doing exactly this without high exposures?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 804336-6M6
147 EE 1 MR. SHAFFNER: Are you talking about the Centre 2 de-la Manche?
3 MR. PARKER: Yes.
4 MR. SHAFFNER: I am not familiar with the
^
5 exposure there. That is a much broader activity than we 6 are talking about here. Basically it is a soup-to-nuts 7 waste process alternative. I am not -- I don't have the 8 figures at my disposal as to what the exposures are, but I 9 was given to understand they do have in some cases very 10 fairly decent exposure or worker exposures over there.
11 MR. PARKER: Their exposures are far less than 12 ours and the UK's.
t 13 MR. SHAFFNER: I know they have a pretty good 14 public relations department.
15 MR. PITTIGLIO: But basically in the draft 16 technical position, we addressed and summarized the 17 alternatives and then closed the technical position by 10 asking four questions. Basically we came back and said, 19 are there any alternatives that we have not identified that 20 are currently being considered? And the response that we 21 received -- and we received, I think, 13 responses, formal 22 responses on the Federal Register notice -- and the 23 response was, no, the alternatives identified in your 24 position and by the Army Corps of Engineers study are the
() 25 alternatives currently being considered.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n33&f646
__ __ . ~ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ , . .. . _ . . , . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - - - -
148 O'EE v
1 We asked a second question, which basically said, 2 what additional regulatory guidance do you feel is 3 necessary? That particular response varied from, you have 4 given us too much guidance to not enough. There was no one 5 answer on that particular response.
6 We asked two more questions, one of which 7 basically was related to standardization and 8 standardization of design. And the responses that we 9 received from that were very favorable. However, there was 10 an emphasis for standardized design, possibly on a regional 11 basis or by component rather than trying to develop one gg 12 standard design for all cases.
V 13 And finally, we provided one more question which 14 was really related to the prelicensing process and 15 consultation and that was heavily supported by all people 16 that responded who felt that that was a favorable way to go.
17 We currently are in the process of finalizing 18 that position. It will be put out on the street hopefully 19 the end of this month. We are also working on a standard 20 formatting and content guide which was mentioned this U 21 morning as far as work on alternatives. A set of standard 22 review plans for alternatives, both of which will also be 23 put out, I believe, now in January of this year in form for 24 availability. We have a regional workshop program where we
() 25 are meeting with states and interested parties to get ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
202 Nationwide Coserage 80fL336-6646
- _ _ _-347-3700 _
. . , . . _~. . . _ , . . - . - . , . _ _
149 GEE.
1 comments'and information on alternatives. And also we have 2 now decided to go forth with a concentrated effort on-3 selective alternatives, meaning below-ground vaults and 4 earth-mounded bunkers.
5 That is our position and we have really decided 6 to focus on those two alternatives because of the responses 7 we received to. the position, the kinds of comments we 8 received at the workshops that we have had. We had a 9 regional workshop on June 24th and 25th, several different
.10 smaller groups with states.
11 And also due to our limited resources, we are 12 going, once the standard review plans and format and U
-)
13- content guide which we discussed go out in January -- they 14 deal for the base case with shallow land burial -- we will 15 again immediately begin to develop appendices to deal with
-16 those two specific alternatives and then follow eventually 17 with the others.
18 I want to make it clear that we are not saying 19 that the others aren't licensed but we are saying at this 20 time we are going to focus our attention on below-ground 21 vaults and the earth-mounded concrete bunkers, simply 22 because of what appears to be the demand and interest by 23 people and because we have to focus our limited resources.
24 So that is important to point out. That is where we are
.l() 25 going with those two alternatives.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-e646
150
/~';EE V
1 DR. MOELLER: Could you go -- then you are 2 saying the below-ground vault and the above-ground --
3 MR. PITTIGLIO: Partially above, partially
'4 below-ground covered concrete-type bunker.
5 DR. MOELLER: Could you go over that. I see 6 your slide here -- It seems to me that I would need a 7 little more description. It looks like you have --
8 MR. SHAFFNER: Do you want to throw that one up 9 on the thing, Larry?
10 MR. PITTIGLIO: Yes..
11 MR. SHAFFNER: We can point some-things out.
i 12 Do you want to see the earth-mounded concrete
(
13 bunker?
14 DR. MOELLER: Yes. That is one of-the two you 15 tell me you are placing the emphasis on and the reason is 16 because those are the ones that people are asking about?
. 17 MR. PITTIGLIO: Right.
18 DR. MOELLER: It looks to me like, I guess you 19 have a concrete bathtub or, you know, tank. Then do you 20 put some waste in it and seal it over and then add some 21 more on top of that?
22 MR. SHAFFNER: Who was telling us earlier how to 23 put these things on right?
24 MR. ORTH: He didn't do what I told him.
() 25 MR. SHAFFNER: Basically, with the earth-mounded ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
--.. -347-3700 ,
151
(~~)TLEE~
1 concrete bunker concept, it is just a big trench. You just 2 start out the way you would with shallow land burial. 'You 3 dig a big trench. Pour concrete slab in, which is 4 impregnated a drainage grid. Then over top of that are 5 constructed concrete monoliths that are basically 6 reinforced concrete boxes without a lid on it. Waste based 7 on its activity is then placed either in the boxes or in 8 the interstices between the boxes. The whole thing is
(
9 covered over with another concrete slab, which is then, 10 that is used as kind of a working -- there is another layer, 11 a drainage gallery on top of that. It is used as a working gg 12 layer to construct what is known as a tumuli. Essentially G 13 your lower activity waste that has then formed a kind of 14 stacking arrangement using traditional disposal-type 15 packages.
~
16 Now, you will notice that this kind of in a way 17 belies a little bit of the segregation criteria that we 18 have in Part 61 with regard to waste classification. That
, 19 is something we would have to work our way around with this 20 concept. And then the whole thing is covered over with 21 soil and vegetative cover.
. 22 DR. MOELLER: Where does this drain drain?
23 MR. SHAFFNER: Okay. Do you see this gallery 24 down here, this is basically a large drain that kind of
() 25 intercepts -- the nice thing about one of these things is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
. . ~ . . . - . .__ _ , ._ . _ . _ , . - .
152
/ NEE CT 1 basically you are taking the drainage off at three levels 2 so you have the opportunity to monitor at any one of those 3 three levels to see whether you have got -- if you go down 4 here and monitor, you can pretty well pick up any problems 5 you might have in your monolith. If you go up here, you 6 pick up any problems you might have in your tumuli; and if 7 you go up hero, you pick up any -- certainly you would hope 8 you wouldn't but you have got to allow for the possibility 9 that there might be problems with vegetative uptake and 10 radiation actually migrating upward through the soil.
11 DR. MOELLER: What -- it drains down, you pump 12 it up into_some tanks?
O 13 MR. SHAFFNER: Hopefully it is clean -- not 14 necessarily -- it is basically -- you look at it, if it is 15 okay, you let it go. If it is not, you capture and treat 16 it.
17 DR. MOELLER: And yet on the below-ground vault, 18 I don't see any drains.
19 MR. SHAFFNER: They are there.
20 DR. MOELLER: Well, I guess it says drain and 21 sump.
22 MR. SHAFFNER: Yes. One thing you will note, a j 23 tough concept for us to sell and one that certainly the 24 public has not accepted yet, is that we by design did not j
() 25 necessarily make this an entirely integrated structure. In l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
153
_ ,m.;E E
\_/
1 other words, Part 61 does not call for, nor did we require 2 in any of the alternatives, a zero release format from 3 these alternatives.
4 We are saying in the below-ground vault and 5- implicit in the earth-mounded concrete bunker and any one 6 of the other alternatives that certain releases from these 7 things are acceptable to the biosphere. insomuch as they do 8 not violate the performance objectives of Part 61. So we#
9 are not requiring a complete containment of material from 10 the disposal units.
11 Thus, we deliberttely -- and we allowed for the 12 possibility of putting a floor in the below-ground vault,
%J 13 but it would not necessarily be required.
14 DR. SHEWMON: Tell me what an irradiating waste 15 is?
16 MR. SHAFFNER: That is a French concept that --
17 I am sorry we used that term. Basically what.they are 18 talking about, I believe, is just something with a very 19 high surface -- high potential for, a reading something 20 around 200 R per hour or something like that. I think that 21 is --
22 DR. SHEWMON: It doesn't mean it will activate 23 -- it puts out a radiation which will activate other things.
24 It is just --
i
() 25 MR. SHAFFNER: It is just something that you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 -347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
- . - . - . ., ._~ ..
154 (DEE V
1 -wouldn't want to be around for a very long period of time.
2 DR. MOELLER: Why do we put the nonirradiating 3 waste -- jumping back to the earth-mounded concrete bunker 4 -- why are the nonirradiating wastes carefully sealed in 5 the concrete bunker; why aren't they put up above? To me 6 "nonirradiating" means they are low level.
7 MR. SHAFFNER: ~Again, that was unfortunate that 8 that terminology got used there. First of all, that is 9 terminology that just kind of carried over from the French 10 concept that we should have excised it from our report.
11 Unfortunately, we didn't.
gS 12 MR. PITTIGLIO: The Vugraphs were just taken V 13 because they presented a fairly good picture or cutaway 14 view of each of the alternatives.
15 DR. MOELLER: Back to the drainage. Now,-it 16 drains into sort of a tunnel? Are there pumps -- how do I 17 sample from that?
18 MR. SHAFFNER: Okay. The way you would sample 19 from that, there would be some kind of a sump associated 20 with this, a reservoir so to speak, that one could, either 21 continuously or on a grab basis -- probably continuously at 22 first -- look at the effluent coming into this th, -) . If 23 it is within a certain standard, whatever standard you set 24 to be comfortable that you are going to meet the
() 25 performance objectives, you just let it go, just turn it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
155
[)EE v
1 loose into a stream nearby or whatever. You just say, we 2 have checked it, it is okay.
3 If it is not, then.you have a mechanism whereby 4 you can capture it, again using the sump and reservoir 5 concept and treat it, take it off and treat it.
6 DR. MOELLER: If I turned off the -- say it was 7 contaminated and I turned off, closed the valve so it can't 8 drain, will it back up somewhere? Is tnere enough 9 absorptive --
10 MR. SHAFFNER: Certainly that is an undesirable 11 situation. The concept is that this system is going to 12 work such that there is a very, very low probability that p)s L
13 you are going to see a problem with your drainage system.
14 But that would be the concept. You would turn off the 15 valve and the idea would be you would have to treat it 16 rather quickly.
17 One of the things that -- I don't know whether 18 Larry pointed this out, this is a fairly high 19 maintenance-type of arrangement.
20 DR. MOELLER: Yes, and for how many years, 100 21 and then we can walk away? That is what --
22 MR. SHAFFNER: If it was -- in keeping with our 23 regulation --
24 DR. MOELLER: With 61, I can leave it in 100
(') 25 years, can I not?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
156
(~'7E E v
1 MR. SHAFFNER: We would be saying that see would 2 have confidence that we would know all there was to know 3 about the performance of the site within that time period.
4 DR. MOELLER: Then if it doesn't perform 5 properly within the first 100 years, then I can't walk away 6 from it?
7 MR. KNAPP: That would be correct. Let me just 8 take a second and talk about these figures.
9 By and large, these are meant to be illustrative, 10 and in fact, there are a variety of different designs that 11 would constitute an earth-mounded bunker or an above-ground f- 12 or below-ground vault. And the specific features here -- I
(_g / s 13 think that the reason for using this figure, if I recall 14 properly, is that this is pretty good sketch of what the 15 French are doing at la Manche. But that specific features 16 such as plans or where you may have dual lines under a 17 facility or something like that would nrobably be a design 18 feature that would be added according to the people that 19 would like to build this particular alternative.
- 20 I don't think we mean to imply here that an i 21 earth-mounded bunker necessarily has a particular series of 22 drains and that a below-ground vault necessarily does not.
23 MR. SHAFFNER: Thank you. That is exactly right.
24 These are concepts we are talking about here. And that was
() 25 exactly, the Corps of Engineers reports are only yay thick, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80N36&46
> 157
, f-w J
l so they can only be conceptual in nature. If we were 2 talking about.the discrete designs we are probably talking 3 about a document yay thick.
4 DR. MOELLER: Do the states know something that 5 we don't or that you don't? Because in reading -- I am 6 getting ahead -- the EG&G or whoever-it was that did these 7 studies, each of the various alternatives, the safety 8 assessment that we are going to hear about next, but in 9 that report they say time and time again, we are very 10 careful not to compare the relative effectiveness or the 11 relative advantages and disadvantages of the various 12 alternatives. Now, the states, as I hear you, are coming 13 in and saying, these approaches appear to us to be the way 14 to go. Now, have they, somebody out there that we don't 15 know about has evaluated all the alternatives and shown 16 that these two are the cheapest or the best or what? They 1
17 are positively better than shallow land burial?
18 MR. PITTIGLIO: That is not the case. I think 19 what we have seen, having dealt and talked to many states, 20 is that what we are talking about is a politically 21 acceptable, not necessarily technically the best or the 22 cheapest, but what is politically acceptable to the states.
23 MR. ORTH: It is noted in this discussion of 24 what the states individually are doing that a reasonable
() 25 number of the compacts have forbidden shallow land burial
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804346M6
l l
l 158
.v C EE 1 as such. So they have got to look at alternativos.
2 MR. COSTANZI: I would like to address that last 3 point. EPRI has funded some work by Vorn Rogers Associates 4 as has the State of Texas, looking at various alternatives 5 to do essentially a safety comparison thing which we did 6 not do. Our presumption, and it is still the opinion of 7 Research that you can make any one of these alternativos 8 about as safe as you want to, depends on how much money you 9 want to throw into it.
10 What they had tried to do is give some sort of 11 comparison of the various alternatives, making some 12 reasonable assumptions about what sorts of things would 13 happen. And I think that it is fair to say that nothing 14 looked really out of line. Again, they all looked fairly 15 comparable for reasonable cost and reasonable efforts. The 16 selection of a particular alternative on strictly technical 7 17 grounds doesn't seem to be very likely. Other factors will 18 prevail.
19 DR. SIIEWMON: Did they, what is the -- I am not 20 sure what shallow land burial means. Are we talking only 21 about the same treatment as wo give high-level waste then?
22 MR. ORTil: No. What they meant -- somebody who 23 was talking to tho states would have to answer -- but my 24 reading of the thing was moroly that it meant the typical
() 25 shallow land burial as practiced at Sheffield, Barnwoll, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(X) Nationwide Cmerage RNA34%46
O EE
\_f -
1 and those places will be forbidden.
2 MR. SHAFFNER: That is correct.
3 DR. SHEWMON: This is not shallow land burial or 4 this is different enough to be different?
5 MR. SHAFFNER: -I guess you would have to ask 6 each one of the stato people individually. It has been our 7 assumption ~that what they are referring to when they have 8 outlawed or banned shallow land burial is they are talking 9 about the traditional operations at Barnwell and Hanford.
10 DR. MARK: Do you ask on the point of 11 performance anything different as between one alternative 12 and another and shallow land burial?
13 MR. SHAFFNER: No.
14 DR. MARK: Your precision for shallow land 15 burial is as strict as it would be for this?
16 MR. SHAFFNER: Yes.
17 DR. MARK: So your worry about the underground 18 mounded bunker, difficulty of demonstrating long-te rm 19 performance of construction materials doesn't really belong 20 anywhere because if the constructions fall apart, it is 21 shallow land burial.
22 MR. PITTIGLIO: Not necessarily. One of the 23 concerns we have is that you want to make sure that any 24 engineering enhancement does not becomo detrimental, in
() 25 other words, that the failure of, for example, a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.m.n. s.e_ m, r_... mu- 1
160 EE (G
1 below-ground vault roof would not result in the collapse of 2 the cover. So that they may not be, you know, get any 3 benefit.or credit from the design. We want to make sure 4 that the design will not be detrimental and therefore, less 5 effective than shallow land burial.
6 It could well be that if it is not properly 7 engineered that a collapse of the structure could result in 8 failure of the cover and therefore that is what one of the 1
9 concerns is.
10 DR. MARK: Okay.
11 MR. PARKER: Since Germany, Sweden and 12 Switzerland are all going to mine disposal and you are not
(. 13 looking at it among your favorite ones --
4 14 MR. SHAFFNER: We did look at mine disposal. We 15 have since published a mine disposal report that was 16 deliberately not published as part of the original set 17 simply because our conclusions vis-a-vis mine disposal were 18 different from the conclusions for the other alternatives.
.. 19 That being that the technical requirements, that the
, 20 technical criteria in subpart B were not adequate to 4 -
21 license mine cavity disposal.
22 MR. PARKER: There were three other major 23 countries that have opted to go for that. !
24 MR. SHAFFNER: I am not saying that we -- I am
() 25 not saying by that that we have said that mine cavity ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043NM46 l
d 161-D.EE GI i
1 disposal was bad, just that we couldn't use the technical 2 . criteria in Part 61 to license them.
3 MR. PITTIGLIO: It could be licensed under 61.23 4 on a case-by-case basis but not by application of the 5 technical criteria.
6 MR. SHAFFNER: The technical criteria in subpart 7 B just left too much to be desired vis-a-vis the kinds of 8 things you would want to know with respect ~ to mine cavity.
i 9 MR. PARKER: Somewhere there is the implication 10 that it is frowned upon.
11 MR. SHAFFNER: We know that there are a couple 12- of states out there who are interested in, that are looking 13 at mine cavities. New York , and I guess Pennsylvania and 14 Illinois come to mind, and we weren't trying to, you know, 15 'say that people shouldn't necessarily be looking at them. '
16 But that, rather, from a technical standpoint, the criteria E
17 that we have established in Part 61 really don't apply or 18 our -- enough additional criteria were needed that we would 19 have to take another look at it.
20 MR. KNAPP: We have a paper on the subject of 21 the alternatives and our decisions in reducing for the 22 number we are going to focus on. We would be more than 23 happy to supply that to you if we haven't already. But a 24 couple of features of that paper that are probably worth
() 25 knowing here is the order of the logic in which we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
162
("~;,E E v
1 accomplished this. We did not do an in-depth review of all -
2 five alternatives and then say, these are the ones we want.
3 We had a different approach.
4 What we are looking toward, we believe, would be 5 very beneficial nationally, would be some sort of 6 standardization or reduction in the number of alternatives 7 considered. Given that at the premise that we want to 8 reduce the number of alternatives that we will focus on to 9 save national resources, frankly, because of our own 10 limited resources, then the question becomes, okay, which 11 ones will we most want to focus on? And having done that, 73 12 then the logic became, well, if we can stay below ground, V 13 stay below the frost line and below weather -- that is a 14 simplification so life will be a little bit easier, so 15 let's not look at alternatives of that complexity, either 16 from the technical viewpoint or from the perspective of 17 trying to get a license application.
18 Again, the reasons for the differences of the 19 regulation and mine cavities forming, that was the one we 20 set aside. So our logic was not one of, which were the 21 best and therefore we will reject the others. It was, we 22 have got to focus on a few. Given that we have to do that, 23 what are the few that seem most appropriate based on the 24 present position? That is how we got where we are.
() 25 DR. REMICK: This is a concept, but I guess I
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide roverage 80433M446
163
/3EE
. O 1 fail to see the importance of the vaults and why they are 2 necessary. I am not talking about the concrete.on the 3 outside but it is the internal vaults, I can see a distinct
~
4 disadvantage from having those. One, of course, is cost.
5 Complexity. If I don't backfill those wastes within the 6 vault, then I have got to worry about 150 years from now 7 the roof of the vault failing and I lose my earthen cap.
8 It seems to me that a straightforward, like you 4
9 would in placing shallow land burial now where you put the 10 drums in and you backfill and you put drums on top, you get 11 some compacts during the 100 years that you are responsible 12 for it and you keep filling that gap, that that might be 13 more conservative than the vaults which might fail.
14 MR. SHAFFNER: You may very well be correct.
15 Remember, we are talking about, basically we are borrowing,
, 16 we are plagiarizing the hell out of what the French are 17 doing here. The French have introduced these things and 18 they provide some structure to what they are doing. But 19 there are other concepts of this genre that I have seen in 20 this country where they don't do that. It is basically 21 just half above-ground and half below-ground type of thing 22 and segregation by whatever --
23 DR. REMICK: So you are not locked into the 24 concept of vaults? l 4 1
() 25 MR. SHAFFNER: Right. l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 84336-6M6
164
( 'T:EE
.O 1 DR. REMICK: Okay. Why do the French do it, do 2 you know?
3 MR. SHAFFNER: I assume they do it primarily for 4 the structural stability that they have. Remember, they 5 classify their waste differently than~ we do in this country.
6 I believe their classification allows for a little hotter 7 waste to go into their low-level sites. And I suspect that 8 that has something to do with the structure that they use.
9 MR. PITTIGLIO: Let me put up one more slide 10 which is basically the last in the package, because I think 11 it is important as we go on to reemphasize the NRC's fg 12 meeting on the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act of k,)
13 1985. Again, the Federal Register notice, combined with 14 the study conducted with the Corps of Engineers is how we 15 are meeting our Section 8 requirements for identification 16 and publication of relevant technical inf ormation .
17 The Section 9 requirements, which we are 18 mandated to meet as f ar as being able to develop processes 19 for processing a license application within 15 months are 20 going to be met through the mechanism of standard review 21 plans and standard format and content guide. This will be 22 the principal vehicles to allow us to evaluate a license 23 application in that time frame.
24 Those particular requirements are due January of
() 25 this year and those documents will be out on the street ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
165 (v7 EE 1 either in December, this month, or January of next year.
2 The 1988 requirement, we are using our technical 3 workshop programs and meetings with different~ states to get 4 input to develop the technical guidance. That is what we 5 will be doing during the next year for the second part of 6 the Act's requirements.
7 I have one copy with me of the standard review 8 plans, second draft, and a copy of the standard format and 9 content guide. I can leave these here. I have brought 10 some additional copies also of the mine cavities report, 11 which was just recently issued about a month ago, a month
,f- 12 and a half ago. I would be glad to leave those and we can
(_-
13 provide more copies if anybody is interested.
14 DR. MOELLER: Additional questions on this?
15 DR. MARK: Was the second version of the 16 standard review plan, which is the one you have there, 17 longer or shorter than the first?
18 MR. PITTIGLIO: It is about the same. There is 19 not any significant technical difference. The first 20 version was put together by the Staff and after we read it, 21 we decided that it was time to get the technical editors 22 involved. So what we have done is simply gone through a 23 major editing process, got in contact with the typing unit 24 in Bethesda to develop a standard format. So that the
() 25 document reads considerably better than the first edition.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
166
.f gg
%.)
1 We are now going through a final Staff review, 2 management review of this document one more time, and like 3 I said, it should go out on the street in January of this 4 year as NUREG-1200; the standard. format and content guide 5 will be issued as NUREG-1199. But again, I should have 6 brought both but I don't think you could tell the 7 difference in the thickness.
8 DR. MARK: I was just hoping that you had one 9 twice as thick, this one is twice too thick also. Then you 10 could do a third version which would be a more reasonable 11 length.
12 MR. SHAFFNER: We are sorry for this. You were
'~'
13 counting on these for Christmas giving.
14 DR. MOELLER: Another question, when these 15 regional compacts finally reach decisions and implement 16 disposal facilities which are not shallow land burial, what 17 will happen to Barnwell and Beatty an'] Richland? I know 18 they have dates at which they are gcing to quit accepting 19 outside waste but sill they continue to operate as shallow 20 land burial sites?
21 MR. SHAFFNER: That is the current -- those that 22 don't have a dropmisaa date like Hanford as of now are --
23 we are anticipating they will continue to operate as 24 shallow land facilities. Politicians are fickle and God
() 25 knows what is going to happen when the first concrete site ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
167 lT.E E V
1 opens up somewhere.
2 DR. MOELLER: Would Barnwell and Beatty and
. 3 Richland meet 10 CFR 61?
4 MR. SHAFFNER: Yes, they would.
5 DR. MOELLER: All three would meet them.
6 MR. SHAFFNER: Yes, they definitely would.
7 MR. PARKER: Barnwell has a closing date.
8 MR. SHAFFNER: I said, those that don't have a 9 drop-dead date. Barnwell does have a drop-dead date.
10 Hanford does not. Beatty, it changes week to week.
11 MR. PARKER: The DOE facilities are not required i 12 to meet 10 CPR 61.
13 MR. SHAFFNER: Right. But they are looking very 14 carefully --
15 MR. PARKER: Are you going to assist them to 16 believe they ought to go to something other than shallow 17 land burial?
18 MR. SHAFFNER: DOE is very sensitive to the 19 whole -- the study that Nick mentioned, DOE is very 20 ' involved in that EPRI study and they are very sensitive to 21 the whole issue. Whether or not of necessity they are 22 going to go to something other than shallow land burial, I 23 don't know. They are certainly looking --
24 MR. PITTIGLIO: Let me say one thing in response
() 25 to that statement. NRC's position is that shallow land ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
- 202-347 3700 Nationaide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
168
/3EE
(/
1 burial is still an adequate and reasonable disposal 2 mechanism. okay?
3 We don't want to present anything other than 4 that. So we obviously don't influence the selection of any 5 type of disposal.
6 MR. PARKER: And you are not saying anything o
7 about waste packaging at all?
8 MR. SHAFFNER: The alternative study did not 9 look at waste packaging, it looked specifically at the 10 siting design, operations and closure requirements. We 11 recognized that as we got into the study, we had kind of
~
12 wished that we had looked at packaging a little more so 13 that we would have been a little better prepared to address 14 the question we got earlier. As we have looked at it since 15 the study has been done, we have convinced ourselves that 16 people would not, people would not be able to just go in 17 and slop their waste into one of these things. That 18 packaging requirements would be fairly rigorous.
19 DR. MOELLER: Okay.
20 What is the lonlgst half-life material or what 21 are some of the longer life materials that are going into 22 low-level waste sites today?
23 MR. SHAFFNER: Carbon 14 comes to mind. You 24 have got some really low activity uranium.
() 25 DR. MOELLER: But of the fission products, is it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage RXh33MM6
_ . ~ ,
169
' EE Lj 1 still strontium and cesium?
2 MR. SHAFFNER: Yes.
3 DR. MOELLER: 30 years. But of course carbon 4 14 --
5 MR. SHAFFNER: And a very little bit of iodine 6 129.
7 DR. MOELLER: Well, we will have a chance with 8 the next session to talk about the safety assessment.
9 Thank you very much. That gets us started very well and we 10 will move then back to Frank Costanzi and Mr. McCartin to 11 cover this safety assessment.
,r~3 12 The final session on the state's implementation
~
13 of the Low Level Waste Policy Act amendments will be part 14 of the same subject.
15 MR. MC CARTIN: Today I would like to talk about 16 a safety assessment of the alternatives that is currently 17 being performed at EG&G Idaho. I would like to say 18 initially that by safety assessment, what we were looking 19 to do is to try and understand what for a particular 20 alternative design works, why it works, is it important 21 that it works. So that when a state or compact selects a 22 particular alternative, they know what they are getting.
23 The cover component, if you will, for this 24 alternative is important. It buys you this amount of
() 25 protection.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m33MM6
170-OdEE
%.J l For the study, it is a two-year study and 2 although we have two objections, objectives, one could look 3 at it the first year and the second year. The first year 4 we were looking to identify the important design components 5 for each of the. alternatives and rank them according to 6 performance.
7 DR. MOELLER: In the report we received then is 8 the first year --
9 MR. MC CARTIN: The report that you received 10 covers that first year or first objective.
11 That first year's work was done primarily to get 12 us to the second year. The second year we are just 13 starting to do a reliability analysis and the reliability 14 analysis is focusing on the design features that we 15 determined were important in the first year.
16 (Slide.)
17 That first year's work scope had three tasks.
18 The first task was to review the alternatives that were 19 currently either in the literature or being actually done 20 around the world. This first task obviously relied heavily 21 on the previous report that Larry Pittiglio talked about i
22 from the Corps of Engineers. And to remain consistent we 23 did adopt those same five alternatives.
24 Itaving got the alternatives, we then went to l
() 25 identify the important design components and then ranked ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage kn3346M6
^ 171 P.EE
(_/-
1 those design components. And once again, that is the first 2 year's effort. I will be discussing that in detail in my 3 subsequent slides. What they are currently doing now is 4 quantifying, quantifying the benefits and risks associated 5 with the design features that were determined to'be 6 important. And that is the second year's effort. I will 7 talk very f riefly on that to show you the direction that we 8 are headed.
9 For the first year's effort, the technical 10 approach consisted of first identifying design components 11 for the alternatives and also at the same time defining the p 12 performance objectives. It became very obvious early on to 13 the study that there needed to be some type of common 14 language, if you will. You have these alternatives as you 15 saw there is various designs. Somehow we needed to get a 16 common language so that subsequent studies would be
IY'~ compatible and what they decided upon, which was analogous 18 to the EPRI study that Vern Rogers is doing is a four 19 component list, a cover, structure, fill, and container.
20 It was felt that any imaginable alternative you could come 21 up with, design features that you would have would fall into 22 one of these four categories.
23 Likewise, we were looking at the functions that i 24 you would expect of each of these four components. You can
() 25 see, cover, biobarrier, diverse incidents, water, prevents ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cosertge 3n336-646
a ..
+
.r.
,_7, . .
.,;~
y, . .
... ~
(' /
.~ f * ' _ , _
.r i,,
_a
< /
,e-
~ ,, ,,
rf.- 1
( ,
t 172 pagg.
l
( ,
V : ,
r ,
airborne release, shields direct radiation,'et cetera /$or 1
~
2 the various cbm9'onentsi Tha't is really the-fodridatioh, .- -
'for 3 -the INL work.' +. -
/ + l, **
y . .
,r' S- ,
4 DR. MOELLER:E 'In,this evaluation, again, you do
- 1 - 1
,,.~ ~
t 5 ., not cover '
shallow' land burial.'r '
, e
, -~, ,s,,.
- 6. + MR. MC CNRTIN':< Yes,.weldo, as a baseline case.
(f ) ~"f ', ,
7 .It is: covered in there and-I should add that once again, n / ,
- e-8 jgetting back to the design question, you have a 9 below-ground vault, you hafd an earth-mou'nded concrete r
10 bunke r ;r.
+ ,.
Those alternatives, u .
dep,endinhonwhatyouwant to 11- add to the design of'hach one, they can look exactly the 12 . saine . And it is hard to.. differentiate one alternative from
' ^
13 the otherd.So'what was done was for each alternative, they 14 had an enhancement to an alter' native. I will show that in 15 a subsequent slide,<but and that is the reason we came --
16 it was decided very early on, you wanted to get some 17 terminology down that can sort of keep everyone's thodghts 18 focused along the right iden,'you know, a component and a 19 function. ,
20 DR. MOELLER: Does the shallow land burial have 21 a structure?
22 MR. MC CARTIN: No, it would not. Let me just 23 go to my next slide that might clarify a little bit of that.
24 (Slide.)
O 2s eer the etter#ettvee we c #etaerea euett 1eea ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 w
s.
173 I'/
'E E ,
't j 1 burial, for the baseline case we would have cover and we IhN 2 would have fill. As an enhancement to th'at shallow land 3 burial, we could add a container. By a container, we 4 define that as something more than a 55-gallon drum or a 5 box of some type. We were looking at a high-integrity 6 container. A below-ground vault, our baseline case it has 7 a cover.and a structure.
8 With that, one could add some fill to the 9 below-ground vault and both of these are covered in the
~
10 . , analysis. But for each of the~ alternatives, you can see we 11 have some enhancements that you might want to add tu your g3 12 particular design. I will mention here, we do not have
'V 13 mine cavitiesthere. It was felt early on also in the study 14 that mine cavities was, really it was an. apples and' oranges 15 type of thing. It was relying 100 percent on the site 16 characteristics and to generically treat a site where you, 17' the site characteristics are everything, it just would not 18 fit in the analysis. So we have not included it.
g 19 MR. PARKER: The people that are doing it might 20 disagree with you.
21 l
'MR. MC CARTIN: We'are not making a judgment as
< 22 to whether ~ it should be done or not, but for this analysis, 23 we felt it did not fit in. It just -- there was no way to 24 compare it with the other alternatives. You will notice,
() 25 for these alternatives, there is no credit, if you will,
+ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370() Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
174
'2SE
%./
1 taken for the site characteristics. They are not 2 considered at all here. For a mine cavity, that is all you 3 have.
4 MR. PARKER: I think they would say they have a 5 container, they have a fill, they have a structure.
6 MR. MC CARTIN: The structure is the site though.
7 MR. PARKER: I am sorry. There is a silo, a ,
8 concrete silo inside the mine cavity in Sweden.
9 MR. MC CARTIN: Okay. Well -- okay. Although 10 we could call that an earth-mounded or a below-ground vault 11 as a concrete structure.
.g- 12 MR. COSTANZI: The purpose -- the underlying
\m/
13 purpose of this study was to essentially give information, 14 primarily to the states, who are looking at alternatives to 15 shallow land burial. Alternatives being the kinds of 16 things that are looked at here.
17 Mine cavities, although it is being considered 18 by some states, has not received the kind of focus that 19 these other alternatives have. We have limited resources.
20 The other studies that were ongoing, both Corps of 21 Engineers study and the EPRI study that is being done by 22 Vern Rogers Associates, we are focusing on these 23 alternatives. What we tried to do is say, okay, we are 24 going to provide information from our point of view that we
(~\ 25 think would be most useful to the states. What can we do, ts j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
175 G't;EE 1 given what we have got. And the conclusion was, this was 2 it.
3 Mine cavities was sufficiently different in 4 concept and execution that we just didn't feel that we 5 could profitably spend resources on it. It just would not 6 fit one end of the scheme in this analysis. Two, it 7 doesn't really fit at present into our whole approach 8 towards low-level waste disposal. That is why we didn't 9 consider it.
10 DR. KERR: What determined your whole approach 11 to low-level waste, that this didn't fit into?
g- 12 As I said, the ground rules were,
>g MR. COSTANZI:
13 one, that overall Part 61, any facility which is land 14 disposal, which meets the requirements of Part 61 is 15 acceptable to the NRC. That is a given.
16 These alternativen to shallow land burial are 17 all within the considerations of Part 61 and in particular, 18 the requirements of subpart D to Part 61 which are 19 applicable here. And hence, that is --
20 DR. KERR: Would it be accurate to say Part 61 21 ' determined your approach?
22 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. Part 61 is what we go by.
23 That is the Commission's regulations, sure. We have to be 24 consistent with that.
() 25 MR. PARKER: I think that is somewhat ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
C 176 o(~' PEE 1 disingenuous. Because you can license a mine repository 2 under Part 61.
3 MR. COSTANZI: On a case-by-case basis, that is 4 right.
5 MR. PARKER: So it is perfectly legal to do it 6 under Part 61.
7 MR. COSTANZI: Yes.
8 MR. PARKER: It is just not administratively 9 easy.
10 MR. COSTANZI: The performance objectives of 11 Part 61 are the bottom line of what the Commission passes 12 yea or nay on. And any disposal system has to meet those 13 objectives. Those are universally applicable, absolutely.
14 But what we are trying to do is apportion our limited 15 resources to where we feel we could get the most bang for 16 the buck and these are the kinds of decisions we have to 17 make and this is how we came out with it.
18 DR. MARK: Is it said somewhere in a discussion 19 that a mine or an abandoned mine could be licensed if it 20 meets the criteria of 61?
21 MR. COSTANZI: It is my understanding that that 22 is the case, but licensing people I believe have already 23 said that.
24 DR. MARK: It should be available to a reader if
() 25 he has an old mine that he wants to sell.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34'-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l i
i 177 i
([7EE' 1 MR. PARKER: Actually there are a number of 2 mines that have been looked at very seriously in this 3 country for low-level waste disposal.
4 MR. COSTANZI: I am aware that some' owners of 5 mines have proposed that. I don't know if anyone at any 6 state or licensing authority has taken them.up on that.
7 DR. MOELLER: Okay. Go ahead then.
8 MR. MC CARTIN: They haven't decided upon the 9 alternatives and their. components, we agree this is a busy 10 sl Je. The only thing I would like to point out are the 11 six functions that we are looking at that those components, 12 certainly one component hopefully is not tasked to do all 13 functions but serves one or more functions. And you have 14 the release of radionuclides either to the atmosphere, 15 surface water or groundwater. The top three here.
16 Prevention of inadvertent intrusion. Minimization of 17 radiation dose to workers and the maintenance of stability.
18 Those are the functions we are loQking at that these 19 components have to perform.
20 They used a failure modes and effects analysis 21 where they had various categories of failure. Clearly, it 22 is a cover does not fail in a binary mode. It is not yea 23 or nay, it is partially failed and they had these various 24 failure modes where obviously the top is the system
() 25 performs exactly as designed to the bottom where you have ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
178 GEE 1 complete failure. And you have various degrees in between 2 that were used in the analysis.
3 MR. PARKER: Could you tell us how they derived 4 the weights and what the rationale is for the ratios 5 between them?-
6 MR. MC CARTIN: There is a certain amount of 7 subjectivity. There is no question about it. I guess I 8 should say right now that the numbers obtained in this, in 9 the first year, are not to be adhered to exactly.- When you 10 see .55, nobody would try and say that, yes, that number is 11 .55 exactly. It is a higher number than .50 obtained over 12 here, but they are used in a more coarser sense where .5 is 13 different from .3. Is .5 different from .4? We --
14 MR. PARKER: Is 5 twice as good as 2 is what I 15 am asking you? That is what you are saying, that is what 16 the report says. Is that what you are really saying though?
17 MR. MC CARTIN: I don't believe it says 5 is 18 twice as good as 2.
l 19 MR. PARKER: As 2-1/2, sir. You are using those l
l 20 weighting factors to get those other numbers.
t 21 MR. MC CARTIN: The first year's study was done i 22 to get us to the second year. The second year is where we 23 are really doing the more quantitative and defensible, if 24 you will, analysis. This was a first cut crude analysis to
() 25 get us to that second year, to guide our thinking. And so ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage EKG33MM6
179 (v"'?EE 1 I would definitely say that .5 is not twice as important as 2 .25. It is more important, but to.say is it twice as 3 important, no. There, the numbers do not have that much 4 value.
5 MR. COSTANZI: It is safe to regard the numbers 6- as strictly ordinal. High numbers are clearly more 7 important and you worry more about the low numbers.
8 MR. PARKER: Your point system doesn't say that..
9 The report says that one is better because the number 10 is 10 much better. That is what the report says.
11 MR. COSTANZI: It is true. If there are 12 differences, small differences in two numbers, you would b
13 expect that the two items which are represented by those 14 numbers would have roughly the same significance. If there 15 is a large difference in the numbers , then you would expect 16 to have, see a larger difference in the significance. But 17 I wouldn't take it as being much more than ordinal because 18 obviously it is generated by the relative weight. You 19 change the relative weighting, then you will not change the 20 ordination, but you will change the scale.
21 So take it as ordinal, you are safe. Beyond 22 that, you can argue about it.
23 MR. DONOGHUE: Why use two decimals in these 24 tables though if the numbers are just, had such a wide
() 25 range of weighting factors anyway. These look almost like ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
- .-_._ ____ . - , . . . ~ .,-. . - . _ _ . _- _. --_. .
180 EE 1 ranking. You~have got numbers, numbers like .50 and .43.
2 MR. COSTANZI: The authors would rather have the 3 reader make the rounding than they do it for them. We 4 didn't want to make the rounding and hence blur any 5 distinctions which came out of the analysis, even though no
- 6. one will argue that they are real distinctions. We would 7 rather leave it to the reader to do that so we are 3
8 presenting everything that was done. Not trying to make 9 any kind of decisions for the reader.
10 MR. DONOGHUE: Are all these tables going to be 11 revised?
-w 12 MR. COSTANZI: No. This is, what you saw was (s] 13 the final report for Phase I of the work.
14 DR. KERR: I don't understand the concept of not 15 making decisions for the reader. You have already made a 16 decision when you put in numbers to two significant figures 17 it seems to me.
18 MR. COSTANZI: These numbers have just come out 19 of the analysis.
20 DR. KERR: Yes, but the report is your 21 interpretation of those numbers, isn't it?
22 MR. COSTANZI: Well, the report is a 23 presentation of what was done.
24 DR. KERR: It is not supposed to mean anything, (m_) 25 it is just supposed to be numbers and words.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80LL33M646
181
. , .3E5 V
1 MR. COSTANZI: That is not precisely the case.
2 The idea was to --
3 DR. KERR: I withdraw the question.
4 DR. MOELLER: Well, on this table on the screen, 5 I see the numbers and the weighting factors.
6 How do I tell if the particular alternative 7 system that I am looking at, how do I determine if a given 8 component falls in category III-B or, I mean II-B or III.
9 What tells me where it falls?
10 MR. MC CARTIN: For each of the alternatives, 11 let me just put up this other slide, hopefully this will 12 clear it up. You have 2N possibilities, N being the number 13 of components of the system of where we are saying we have 14 a plus is success. It does its job, minus is it doesn't do 15 its job.
16 DR. MOELLER: And you just looked at all 17 possibilities?
18 MR. MC CARTIN: Yes. We go from the top where 19 the all pluses, everything works as planned. To all 20 minuses where everything has failed. And all the 21 combinations in here. And you are absolutely right, there 22 is a certain subjectivity when I get to this, to a 23 particular failure mode what do I assign to a situation 24 where I have, this is one where we have all four components.
n
() 25 We have a cover, a structure, a fill and a container, my ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
-, - - . , - - - . . . , - . . - . , . . - -, ---...- ~. -
182 e m .2 E E v
1 cover has failed. And I have to, I have to make some 2 judgment call as to what hazard category that falls into.
3 Is it negligible and one more failure will drop it into a 4 release. That was up to the authors. That is why we paid' 5 them to do that thinking.
6 All of these charts are in the back of the 7 report and in an appendix, so one could go there and see 8 what they assigned for each of these. And agreed, one 9 could argue for an individual failure mode, gee, I would 10 have put that in a different one. I would likt to think 11 that no one would read the report and see, gee, here is a fs 12 failure mode one and I would have assigned it a failure b 13 mode 5. Certainly between two and three, certainly I --
14 that is one reason why I cautioned that the numbers were we 15 are not trying to say .55 is exactly .55. We are using the 16 numbers to guide our next phase of the work.
17 MR. PARKER: You are correct that those tables 18 are in the back of the book, but it doesn't tell you how 19 they got there. It just says this is what they did. There 20 is no way to divine what process they went through to reach 21 those conclusions. What the effect is of the failure of 22 the cover versus the failure of the structure versus the 23 failure of the fill.
24 MR. MC CARTIN: Yes. I -- yes, that is correct.
()
(x 25 There is subjectivity to it. We hope to eliminate that in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M686
183
,m,
,O.E E 1 the next phase. This was strictly a guiding way to get to 2 that next phase. We did not want to try and assess all the 3 alternatives and all the components. And we are using it 4 as a coarse filter.
5 DR. MCELLER: I follow this, you know, this 6 certainly has all possible combinations. Now, on the next 7 page, where we assigned a fraction, the ranking factors is 8 where I need help.
9 MR. MC CARTIN: Okay. You sum up for a 10 component. Let's say the cover. I will sum up all the 11 times it is successful for each failure mode it is 7 , 12 successful and multiply it by the weighting factor. Then I
(_) 13 subtract from that all the failure modes where it is a 14 negative or has failed, times its weighting factor. And 15 then I, for an alternative, all those numbers get 16 normalized to 1 which is why the tables add up across the 17 board to 1.
18 DR. MOELLER: And the weighting factor is based 19 on what?
20 MR. MC CARTIN: These six categories here.
21 DR. MOELLER: How do I know, I went through the 22 report, but I didn't follow this portion. Go on to the 23 next slide where it says the shallow land burial, the 24 baseline, the cover gets, I guess it is a .50. How did I
() 25 get .50? I mean, I would have to have some idea of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i l
184
,~
O'zgg 1 probabi,lity of the failure of the cover.
2 MR. MC CARTIN: There is no -- there is 3 absolutely no question that the rate of failure, the degree 4 of failure are all subjectively accounted for when you 5 assign these type of things. And at this phase, this was a 6 fairly inexpensive effort that we did to get us to the next 7 phase where we plan to spend more money in getting at that 8 procise question.
9 DR. MOELLER: Okay. I am with you then.
10 MR. MC CARTIN: I have to apologize. I did not 11 bring a slide from the appendix in the report. In the 12 appendix, and --
0- 13 DR. MOELLER: What page?
14 MR. MC CARTIN: Anywhere in appendix B. And you 15 can see the failure modes with the pluses and minuses and 16 then for each function the hazard category they assigned.
17 And you could go through and multiply the hazard category 18 times, for the pluses and then subtract through for the 19 minuses and you would arrive at those numbers.
20 Now, agreed, it doesn't say how they arrived at 21 those hazard categories. For this phase of the work, we 22 did not feel it was important to invest a lot of effort and 23 money to do that. It was a subjective thing that these 24 people did. The next phase, the next phase, it is a
() 25 different story though.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
_185
/~;EE C/
1 DR. MOELLER: What they did though, they went 2 through all of this and ended up and said that the cover is 3 the most important barrier. I could say, well, that may be 4 true, but maybe the waste container is the most important 5 barrier. If I had a good waste container, I wouldn't even 6 need a cover. So I found that hard to understand.
7 And then on page 39 in the report, when I read 8 that far, I was looking at the third paragraph on the 9 left-hand column and it says the results of this analysis 10 indicate that the cover component is one of the most 11 important engineered barriers. And then the first full g~ 12 paragraph on the right-hand column says, structures such as
%)
13 vaults can provide significant enhancement to near-surface 14 disposal systems, particularly where they reduce reliance 15 on cover for preventing radionuclide releases.
16 Well, I found the two statements inconsistent.
17 It is just what I am saying, if the vault la good, I don't 18 care whether I have reliable cover or not. So cuat makes 19 for me the vault more important than the cover.
20 MR. MC CARTIN: Well, yes, in terms of the cover 21 coming out most important, I believe the analysis bears 22 that out, that the cover was the critical thing.
23 DR. MOELLER: I could rationalize it that the 24 cover is the most important because that is my last barrier.
() 25 And I surely don't want it to fail.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3.W
186
/~'2EE
.V 1 MR. MC CARTIN: It also keeps the infiltration 2 of water, the inadvertent intruders and the reason 3 structure and fill come out as enhancing a system is, once 4' again, if you are in a hazard category where the cover has 5 failed and you have a structure, well, you have got some 6 stability there and it is giving you some redundancy and 7 the structure and fill primarily are important that they 8 make the cover last longer.
9 DR. MOELLER: Okay.
10 MR. MC CARTIN: That is why the structure and 11 fill were also looked at as things that could enhance. It gw 12 was because they could improve the lifetime, if you will,
\)
13 of the cover. And once again, that is a qualitative type 14 statement, that we hope to numerically analyze in th.is next 15 phase.
16 MR. DONOGHUE: Is there any quantitative basis 17 at all behind those weighting factors? Are those purely 18 subjective? Why were they ranked like that? Why 1 through 19 5. Why not one through 1000?
20 MR. MC CARTIN: Convenience, I would have to say.
21 DR. MOELLER: Are you thinking, too, Joe, that 22 they might have been logarithnic.
1 23 MR. DONOGHUE: Yes, not necessarily linear. l l
24 DR, MOELLER: Right, why is it linear?
() 25 MR. DONOGHUE: All these two decimal place 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Ceverage 800-336 6686
187 I' LEE U
1 numbers have been generated through those weighting factors?
2 MR. MC CARTIN: Yes. To get a coarse.look at 3 the alternatives and what am I counting on to allow for 4 system performance success. What needs to survive. And 5 according to this first phase, the cover was the thing. I 6 need the cover to survive.
7 I fully admit there are limitations to it. And 8 that is precisely the reason for not trying to come out 9 here and making definitive statements about the cover, 10 other than that this analysis has shown that. With that, 11 we feel that it was general enough and applicable enough to s 12 allow us to now go and look at the cover more carefully.
13 MR. DONOGHUE: I understand you are saying that 14 these are just ordinal listings, but it seems as though it 15 would have been less, would have been more informative just 16 to make them verbal descriptions like very good or not so 17 good.
18 MR. MC CARTIN: Well --
19 MR. DONOGHUE: It implies that there is some 20 quantitative basis behind them.
21 MR. MC CARTIN: It is an easy way to assess a 22 lot of different combinations and interactions that I agree 23 it is limited, but --
24 DR. MOELLER: I think that, too, says if you are
() 25 looking at various combinations and you give all of them ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8433M686
188 l
('3EE V
1 these same weighting factors, it is telling me that the 2 failure, gross failure, complete failure of the waste 3 package is the equivalent in importance to a complete 4 failure of the cover. And, again, in my mind, I am not 5 sure that they should carry the same weight.
6 MR. MC CARTIN: I am not sure that is true, in 7 that if I look at, if I have a cover and a container, if 8 the container fails, as long as the cover survives, I am 9 not worried.
10 DR. MOELLER: I am not sure. I mean, how do I 11 know how the radionuclides might migrate through the cover?
s 12 MR. MC CARTIN: Well, in terms -- well --
fN k.
13 DR. MOELLER: What do I --
14 MR. COSTANZI: The primary function of the cover 15 is essentially to keep water away from the wastes. If-the 16 cover is functioning, you don't have water in the waste so 17 you don't need a container. Now, there is a requirement in 18 Part 61 about 'the waste formed in the container, so that 19 might give you a problem with respect to confidence in 20 meeting the regulation and hence you still have to consider 21 the importance of the container in doing your a analysis I
22 when you have an alternative which has both both core and l
23 container. Hence, that is what shows up in the numbers. )
24 But the idea is, are you relying on one thing alone
() 25 primarily for your safety or are you relying on two things, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
189 EE 1 what is the degree of reliance and that is also related for 2 -each of the kinds of problems like contamination of 3 groundwater, like worker exposure, whatever, that you are 4 worried about.
5 With regard to your remark about why not use 6 good, very good, excellent, something like that, yes, we 7 could have done it that way. To do the analysis we would 8 invariably have translated those words to numbers because 9 it is a lot easier to do those kinds of manipulations on a 10 computer than it is anything else. It is a tool. It is a 11 way of crunching numbers. You can also make statements
,.-~ 12 analogous to numbers, you crunch the numbers, you reconvert-(_) 13 them back into statements. We could have done that. But 14 we think that that would make the whole analysis even less 15 transparent than it is now or more opaque than it is now.
16 It is complex. It is dealing with a lot of 17 different things. -And we are not trying to hide anything.
18 We are not trying to shade anything else. We are 19 presenting it just like it came out. Just completely bare, 20 no dressing or whatever. That is why we didn't do it that 21 way.
22 DR. KERR: It seems to me that you have 23 convinced yourself that the analysis demonstrated that the 24 cover is the most important part of the system. And you l
(') 25 argue that the cover is the most important part of the 1
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
190 GEE 1 system and I think you can make a plausible argument that 2 if the cover works everything else is okay. You can do 3 that without any analysis at.all.
4 Has the analysis really demonstrated anything or 5 has it just made you feel good about a conclusion you 6 reached independently of the analysis?
7 MR. COSTANZI: I think you should look at some 8 of the other, the importance of some of the other 9 components which are, which are displayed in the tables for 10 the various functions which this disposal f acility forms.
11 The fact that the cover came out as something being s 12 significant, one, it does give us a good feeling that we d 13 know what we are talking about, and also that we did the 14 analysis in a reasonable way, and gives some sort of 15 confidence to our conclusions about the other components.
16 DR. KERR: I am not arguing against the use of 17 engineering judgment. I do have some misgivings about 18 trying to dress it up with what appears perhaps to be a 19 logical demonstration. I don't see the logical 20 demonstration. I see the engineering judgment. I have no 21 quarrel with it. One has made engineering judgment and 22 then one has gone through an exercise which gives it 23 legitimacy. But it is still engineering judgment, isn't it?
24 MR. COSTANZI: The computer was just a e-( 25 calculational tool. Sure it is good engineering judgment.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646
191
().'REE
\
1 At least we hope it is . . What the system has done or the 2 analysis has done is try to apply judgment in very a 3 systematic and ordered way, but it is still -- basically 4 still engineering judgment, based on experience on what 5 people know about the way things work or don't work or what 6 they know about what is important to meeting Part 61 and 7 what isn't. But the analysis-is to try to apply that 8 judgment in a systematic way which people can take a look 9 at and say they agree with or they don't agree with.
10 DR. KERR: I don't know how this will finally-be 11 used in the licensing process. I have had. experience with 12 licensing in the position of a licensee. And when one rm
() 13 finally gets a license, the people who enforce the license 14 frequently don't understand the basis for the stuff that 15 went into it. They are apt to enforce those word for word, 16 bit by bit, number by number, and one has to be very 17 careful about that. You are telling me now that this is, 18 this is qualitative, good engineering judgment.
19 What I would worry about is that somehow this 20 gets embedded into the process which people use when they 21 make a judgment on a particular facility and one has this
- 22 weighting process and these numbers, and somebody is 23 finally going make a decision on that basis.
24 '
MR. COSTANZI: I hope that nobody will make a-25 licensing decision on just what we have presented here ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.u m e , m_ -- ~~
_ , _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ , , . . . _ , - ~ - _
, _ _ . _ . . . _ - _ . _ ~ . _ - , , _ - , _ _ _ - . , _ .
192 REE g-N]
1 today. That is not the purpose of it. The purpose ofLit L .
2 was to, twofold, one, to identify what we really need to 3 worry about in terms of doing reliability analysis on 4 various components of alternatives. That is phase 2 of the 5 work. Also to provide immediate information to those who 6 are thinking about designing alternatives to shallow land 7 burial for low-level waste disposal as to where they might 8 want to consider putting their money or not putting their 9 money.
10 One of the Vugraphs, for example, that is titled 11 " Ranking Factors," if you look at the example shown of 12 shallow land burial, what it indicates is that if you have
<m 13 a container, a good waste package, fill is not going to be
(_)
14 terribly significant. You don't need to spend a lot of 15 money to worry about fill. If you do, you might be wasting 16 your money. That is the kind of use to put this thing tt 17 with regard to an immediate use.
18 With regard to the research program it tells us 4
19 that, well, for example, cover is something which we need 20 to consider almost universally.
21 For certain alternatives, structure or fill or 22 the containers become important and for those alternatives, 23 we need to worry about those in terms of reliability.
l 24 But basically, in taking this and saying that 25 this is an alternative that somebody ought to use and we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3XO Nationwide Coverage 800-33W4
. . - - - - - -.m-_.
193 REE
, i uf 1 are going base our licensing decision on that, no, we 2 certainly don't intend to do that.
3 DR. MOELLER: Well, let's go ahead with this 4 chart here.
5 MR. MC CARTIN: One of the benefits of doing 6 this was the fact that when the analysis is done, you could 7 emphasize the numbers three different ways. One, G emphasizing the function; two, emphasizing the component; 9 and three, emphasizing the alternative chosen. And the 10 three -- those three things are highlighted in the tables 11 that are presented in the report. I really, unless there 12 is a particular question, I was not planning on going 13 through any particular numbers on these charts. I brought
( })
14 them as more example and provided them in the handouts.
15 But as Nick pointed out, when you see a number 16 like .5 - .1 and .4, the .1 sticks out. Those were the 17 kind of things we were looking at. In terms of the 18 above-ground vault that was brought up in terms of the 19 seismic issue before, you can see the above-ground vault, 20 you have a structure and that is it. Now, I am first to 21 admit that before the analysis was done, one could say, all i
22 ) you had with an above-ground vault was the structure and it i
23 l would come up the most important. But it is a way of i
24 looking at the relative things and we feel it has been 25 useful.
<_/
x_ i l
l
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 '47 37to Nationw k'e Cos erage 80Lk33MM6
194 REE
- .;- ("N 1 MR.' PARKER: How does this relate to Part 61 2 requirements? How can you translate what this tells you as 3 to whether or not you are going to meet the Part 61
. 4 requirements?
5 MR. MC CARTIN: The functions were taken out of 6 Part 61.
7 MR. PARKER: I understand that. I am saying, 8 does this mean that only'10 percent of the problem is fill, 9 I can ignore the fill and still. meet Part 61? That is the 10 problem I find with this report. It doesn't help me at all.
11 MR. MC CARTIN: In the report it is stated, I 12 believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe it is stated
() 13 that each of these alternatives are licensable and safe 14 under Part 61. As Nick pointed out before, it depends on 15 how much money you want to put into it. And there is not 16 an attempt to say, yes, 10 percent of my performance 17 objectives need to be met by the fill here. All this 18 implies to me is that I really don't count on the fill to 19 satisfy the performance objectives.
20 If someone is trying to sell me a very expensive 21 fill for this particular alternative, I might question 22 whether I really want to do that. If the fill is extremely 23 cheap, I could take, adopt the attitude, well, why not, l
24 l knowing that it isn't really buying me a lot in terms of
, 25 meeting the performance objectives.
.O ,
r i f
'l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447 37tO Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
-. , , _ . _ _ - , . _ - . _ _ . . _ . . _ ~ _ . _ . _ - . _ _ ,,-.m .- _ , ,
l l
'l l
195 REE rs
. U 1 Does that clarify it?
2 MR. PARKER: Thank.you.
3 t1R . COSTANZI: Perhaps we don't really
'4 understand your question.
5 MR. PARKER: Well, what I am saying is there is 6 no way to relate what these numbers are to meeting the Part 7 61 objectives. So if I am going to meet the.Part 61 8 objectives, do I have to spend 50 percent of my money on 9 the cover and 40 percent on container and 10 percent on the 10 fill.
11 MR. COSTANZI: No.
12 MR. PARKER: There is no model to tell me how
() 13 those things function. It is a totally subjective --
14 MR. COSTANZI: The question we are trying to 15 answer is not that question. The question we are trying to 16 answer here is, for example, let's say for some reason I 4
17 chose shallow land burial enhancement which has three 18 components, cover, fill and container.- As far as meeting
, 19 the groundwater release requirement in Part 61, what this 20 shows is putting a lot of my resources in fill isn't going 21 to buy me much. Most of my reliance for safety is going to 22 be on cover and the container. That is what it is saying.
23 It is not saying that you are meeting Part 61 or not.
24 MR. PARKER: I am saying that without having a 25 model of how these functioned, then there is no way of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
332-347 37(1) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-& 4
- . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ , . _ _ . . . _ . . . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ __ _, . _ . . . . _ . _ _ , . . ~ . _
196 REE s_)
'I knowing whether these numbers are where they ought to be.
2- Maybe 1 percent is the right-number for the fill or 1/10 of 3 a percent is the right number for the fill. There is a
~4 standard air release quality, a standard water release 5 quality. Then you could say I understand where these 6 numbers come from.
7 MR. COSTANZI: In terms of looking at the nature 8 of the component and how it relates to the performance 9 objectives, that is how you get the rankings. Again, those 10 are ordinal rankings. What this says is not that fill is 11 worth 10 percent. What this, what you can take from this 12 is, gee, the cover and the container are about equal and
()
im 13 the fill doesn't seem to count as much. Don't be any more 14 quantitative than that in the interpretation of what this 15 means. We are just simply presenting the way the numbers 16 came out.
17 The interpretation has got to be qualitative.
i 18 It cannot be quantitative for the very reason you say it 19 was simply an ordering. It wasn't anything more than that.
20 MR. PARKER: It is not just the weighting. I i
21 don't know how to go from a failure of a cover versus the 22 3 failure of a structure to a number through the weighting I
- 23 thing that they used without having a model.
24 DR. MOELLER: Yes, you would have to -- not only 25 l would you have to have a model, you would have to know the (1) !
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(X) Nationwide Cos crage & & 336 M 4
197 REE i )
LJ l design, how thick is the fill and you would have to know 2 what is the composition of the fill and what is the 3 modeling of the movement of the radionuclides through the 4 fill.
5 MR. COSTANZI: If you are going to answer the 6 question, what is the consequence of the failure in terms 7 of dose, then the answer, then your statement is absolutely 8 correct. That is not the question we are trying to answer.
9 The question we are trying to answer is how much 10 reliance are you placing on the fill or how much reliance 11 are you placing on the individual component. Redundancy is 12 another way of looking at it although redundancy implies a 13 stronger independence of components than actually exists.
(J) x.
14 But another way of looking at this is perhaps an analysis 15 of how much defense you have, and density it is not related 16 strictly to the degradation or even precise mechanism by 17 which a component fails, but only if it fails is there 18 something else to back it up and if it fails, does its 19 failure likely -- is it reasonable to expect that its 20 failure is going to lead to a degradation of whatever is 21 left? So is failure really independent and is there 22 something else that is backing up that component which 23 .
fails. That is the ranking. That is the ordering and this 24 l is what is essentially contained unfolded, if you would, in
^
25 fthesenumbersas they come out. Those kinds of
()
s_/
j k l l
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l --,, ~ - - c- _ ,
l
198 REE 1 considerations of what is available, left after this 2 ' component fails and does the failure of this compoment 3 somehow affect or can'it be expected to affect the 4 performance of the other components. No more than that.
5 DR. MOELLER: Well,- let 's move on and try ix) 6 wrap up shortly.
7 MR. MC CARTIN: I had a few other slides showing 8 these tables with the different emphasis. I will skip-9 those. The reason they are done that way is you may have a 10 different perspective in looking at things so you look at a 11 different table.
12 With that I will take the bold move and present
(') 13 the conclusions from the report that I guess we.have gone 14 over a little bit. As we said, the cover design'did turn 15 out to be important, regardless of other design components
'16 present.
17 Design enhancements that could improve the 18 performance of the cover were looked on as a way to enhance 11 9 the performance of the system, structure and fill being two.
20 Also as was pointed out earlier, the 21 above-ground vault is unique among the alternatives in that 22 you have one design component and everything resides on 23 that one design component for safety.
24 With that set of conclusions, we have gone into 25 the next phase. In this next phase we are concentrating on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34L3700 Nationwide Coserage Rn33k616
-#..-2.- - . , _ . , . . - - _ _ . . , .__ - .- _ . _ - _ . _ _ , . . _ - _ , , - . _ . _ _ _ . _ , , , , , , . _ _ _ . , . . - . . , _ . . ,
199
,REE ~
(%.)\
I the cover and the structure and the fill, the structure and 2 fill primarily in relationship to how they affect the 3 performance of the cover. And the reliability analysis to 4 date, and we have just recently begun this, and there are
- 5 four points that they are proceeding on. The first is they 6 need to identify some relevant time scales. As was quite 7 apparent in the first year's finding, there is no attempt-8 to look at the degree of failure, the rate of failure, et 9 cetera. So they wcat to look at relevant time scales.
10 They want to look at --
11 DR. KERR: What does " relevant time scales" mean?
12 MR. MC CARTIN: Relevancy is in terms of Part 61.
13 We-have to provide certain assurances for the first 100 f) 14 years and then 300 years. So --
15 DR. KERR: Thank you.
16 MR. MC CARTIN: We are looking at how are things
! 17 going to perform over that time period. There may be a 18 time period for a particular component that we are not 19 interested in.
20 Next we need to look at both benign and i
21 detrimental environmental conditions, as was done in the 22 previous year's work, it either failed or didn't fail and 23 we tried to put some hazard degree to it. Here we want to 24 look at, we are trying to look at more carefully how is it 25 going to fail, this concrete tumulus, what type of
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
200 REE f _
NY l environmental conditions are going to be detrimental to it, 2 benign to it, why has it failed, how is it failing. It is 3 those kinds of questions and you can't get away from the 4 cited characteristics for this part of it. We did not look 5 at site characteristics for the first year's work.
6 Next and probably the hardest part is the need 7 to develop a technique to estimate performance lifetimes 8 attributable to the important environmental concerns. I 9 put "important" in quotes. "Important" relates back to 10 benign and detrimental. We obviously can't look at all 11 types of environmental conditions, but for a particular 12 concrete, is there an environmental condition that is (Oj 13 . extremely benevolent or is there one that is extremely 14 detrimental. We want to look at those types of issues.
15 .And then lastly, we want to present results in a 16 form which will aupport the development of design criteria 17 and performance assessments, and look at what we wanted to i
18 come out of-here is a reliability for the components, why 19 .and"how?they fail, at what rate, what does it matter.
20 fiThose types of things.
21 Now, very brie,flyr some of the issues that they 22: are looking at, this 'is loss of containment of structure.
23 There is -- you can see there are various things that can
. .c
~
24 happen. These are the failure mechanisms. Concrete 1
25 cracking, seals go bad,'. leaching, we have causes of this,
()
~
<+ r.
~
r r* f
- ,NCE-FEDERAI2 REPC RTERS, INC.
L .
jmo,o -_a_ _
201 REE.
m
'(_[ '
l ' contributing factors, trying to take all these things into 2 account. They are just starting out on this but these are 3 the types of things we are going to look at.
4 Now we have to understand why and how things are 5 failing to get'some type of failure rate, if you will. In 6 terms of the failure rate, if you will, we are hoping --
7 and once aga'in, they have just started on this -- and we 8 are looking for some type of curve where we have a time
,t
!.' 9 scale and this is percentage of failure or probability of 10 failure -- I am sorry, zero to 100 percent.
11 And you can see we have a-benign environment and-12 here we have environmental attack, something detrimental.
13 Obviously this is a hopeful picture. I will not say we f( )
14 will come back a'nd be.able to do this. That is what they 15 ; are trying to do. And it is --
16 DR. KERR: The implication of curve A is 17 that a benign environment contributes to failure but not 18 ! assumed --
I 19 MR. MC CARTIN: We assume that everything will 20 fail given enough time. There is no concrete that we can 21 -- given that we are looking at a covered situation. It 22 eventually will go to 100 percent failure, if you will.
23 The thing is, we don't care, once we get out to here, it is 24 a no never mind in terms of Part 61 as to whether it has 25 ' failed or not. I think --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 8%33M646
202 REE (v~h 1 DR. KERR: I was just trying to understand the 2_ significance of the environment.in this, of benign in this 3 case. Benign means it doesn't' start failure until after 4 100 years?
5 MR. MC CARTIN: It is not as harsh as an 6 environment where we have everything in environmental 7 attack.
8 DR. SHEWMON: The environmental attack is 9 whether they salted it down each year to keep the snow off 10 and the rebar corrodes or what? Does water dissolve 11 concrete in 100,000 years?
12 MR. MC CARTIN: Certainly with rebar, I think
() 13 one could argue that that is the worst thing you could do 14 for the concrete is put rebar in it because it is going to 15 corrode and you are going to get preferential pathway 16 through the concrete, through the rebar. Thoro may be 17 particular environmental conditions, salt obviously being 18 one, that may enhance the corrosion rate of the rebar.
.19 DR. SHEWMON: What is your basis for the 20 difference in those curves? Is an order of magnitude a 21 nice round number or what?
22 MR. MC CARTIN: This is strictly for examplo 23 considerations. There have been no numbers --
24 DR. MOELLER: It says, data are available for 25 this, for the solid graphs.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage 800-336-6646
203 REE
.,/
L.)
1 DR. SHEWMON: That is not what he just said.
2 DR. MOELLER: I know it.
3 MR. MC CARTIN: Let me just state one thing.
4 This is the work we are just starting out on. In terms of 5 this is what we hope that will be a product of that work.
6 But nothing, no curve like this has been done with any 7 analysis or anything. This is -- we are thinking, can we 8 get something where we have a failure? .Obviously we 9 certainly hope that in the early years the probability of 10 failure is zero.
11 DR. SHEWMON: I won't ask you how you are going 12 to do accelerated tests on concrete, then, but I am curious.
- s
() 13 Go ahead.
14 MR. MC CARTIN: I believe we have a research 15 project on accelerated testing of concrete which I am not 16 at all capable of discussing. But --
17 MR. COSTANZI: I might respond to that. We 18 recognize that that is a very good question. And in fact, 19 we are trying to figure out if there is some way of doing 20 that in a reasonable fashion. What we have to go on right 21 now are there are some very old concrete structures, 22 notably not reinforced, I might add, that have been around 23 for a long time. We can get some idea of the environment 24 they have been in, whether it was favorable or unfavorable.
25 So we can get some idea of how long we might expect things ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202J47-3700 Nationwide Coverage Exk346M6
I <
204 REE s -
1 to last.
2 With regard to the failures, items in a hostile 3 environment that failed, the curve becomes dashed simply 4 because once something like that has failed, it is torn up 5 and replaced. So the last stages of degradation we don't 6 really have much data on because we don't see it. It is 7 not there.
8 What we are hoping to do is that we might be 9 able to find a way to run some tests on materials like 10 concrete which would put us in that range of percent of 11 failure on, when attack first becomes noticeable but before 12 complete failure so that we can project some lifetimes.
() 13 Whether we will be successful on that or not, I don't know.
14 But we are going to try.
15 . DR. MOELLER: Any other questions or comments?
16 I have two quick ones and then we will have our break.
17 On page 11 of the EG&G report, NUREG CR 2601, it 18 quotes 10 CFR 61 and gives this EPA limit for the 19 population of 25 millirem whole body and 75 millirem to the 20 thyroid, and I am waging a personal little battle, and it 21 . is not NRC's problem, but I am hoping that NRC will work 22 with EPA to get them to reconsider those numbers and 23 perhaps change them, if appropriate, inasmuch as in the 24 r revision, in the proposed revision of 10 CFR 20, you are h
25 3 going to the -- if the proposed revision were adopted, you
()
,~
k u
li ls ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mm. ,.e_ m r- 8- m I
205 REE us 1 are going to the new ICRP 26 approach, which as a minimum 2 gives a ratio of 10 to 1 for the thyroid to the whole-body 3 dose, meaning that if you accept 25 millirem as the limit 4 for the whole body, then as a minimum the comparable 5 thyroid dose should be 250 or so millirem. If that enters 6 into any of these analyses, I would hope that some thought-7 would be given to that and perhaps evaluate it both ways so 8 if in time the limits are made compatible with 9 international recommendations, then you will be ready for 10 it.
11 The second comment is on page 22, the right-hand 12 column, the last paragraph, it says, " Clearly the question
() 13 of doses to workers is an important one," and we have heard 14 it discussed here several times today that the occupational 15 dose in placing these wastes in a vault or what not and it 16 says this should be the subject of an independent study 17 designed to address all the relevant aspects of this 18 problem. Is there anyone planning such a study?
19 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. As a matter of fact, under 20 l the SBIR program, small business and intervenor research 21 program, there is a small contract now which is looking at 22 the question of worker exposure at alternative low-level 23 .
waste disposal facilities. I am not familiar with the I
24 ! details of that program, other than that it exists.
{
25 I believe it is in the Division of Regulatory (El ,
i a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 i mm-m x _ m r- m 33 - ;
-206 REE tO v
1 Applications in the Office of Research and it is called the 2 dollars division.
3 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. That is good to hear.
4 Are you finished?
5 MR. MC CARTIN: Could I make one comment. One 6 thing with the alternatives, I believe everyone assumes 7 that it has to be at least.at safe as shallow land burial.
8 One of the things we are trying to do here is to see, is 9 there a snake in the grass. One thing that I personally 10 feel is that flow and transport in a fractured media is not-11 very well understood. You get these big concrete blocks.
12 They are going to crack. .The concrete will -- capillary 13 forces will keep it fully saturated. Is there a way that 4
1) 14 with a high infiltration at the surface or a raise in the 15 water table, could that impact and get a preferential 16 pathway of the nuclides through the cracks in the concrete.
17 To date I don't know if anyone has ever shown it. Is that 18 important? I don't know. But we would like to think it is 19 safer, but it is unclear. We don't want to --
20 MR. DONOGHUE: About your major conclusion that 21 the cover is the most important component in the structure, 22 would that still hold if the waste were buried in the 23 saturated zone?
24 MR. MC CARTIN: I would have to say most likely 25 no, because the cover, one of its primary functions is to n(_/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8G336-fM6
- - . - . , . , .. ,, .,, , - . - - - - - , - . . . . - - , . - --n ..,
207 REE r,
-d 1 keep out of the trench or off the structure, whatever is 2 below the cover. So, no. Part 61, if burial-in the 3 saturated zone is to occur, diffusion, I believe, has to be 4 shown to be the dominant transport process. So --
5 MR. COSTANZI: I might mention, if you are in a 6 situation where you are beneath the water table, and you 7- are meeting Part 61, you can expect that the material would 8 have a low porosity and permeability. It would be very 9 tight material. So there would not be very much 10 groundwater flowing or available to flow through the trench 11 or through the vault. However, in that kind of situation, 12 the cover is still important because you now have created a
() 13 bathtub. You have the highly impermeable walls or liner 14 both of the vault itself or of the soil which is 15 surrounding it. So your cover would still be important but 16 it is exactly -- the degree to which you would worry about 17 it would be different because now it is not just a question 18 of water percolating through the cover, leaching out some 19 of the waste and continuing on down through the soil to the 20 water table. It is now the standing water in the vault or 21 trench containing whatever you have.
22 DR. MOELLER: Someone else?
23 ; DR. SHENMON: I am sorry I missed this, but if 24 the cover is important, this thing acts as a beam and if 25 you are trying to make the beam out of concrete, you have
- O ;
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447-3%t) Nanonside Cowage 800 3NfM6
208 REE iv I 1 got members in tension and without rebar you have had it
- 2 and with rebar you have had it. So it would seem to me 3 that you ought to also look at waste to make concrete 4 impermeable and you can plasticize the surface and/or build 5 it out as something else. If the impermeability of that is 6 important, then unreinforced concrete is going to give you 7 problems.
8 MR. MC CARTIN: Yes, I would agree. I believe 9 on the -- I believe in terms of -- it is one of the things 10 they are looking at in the barrier penetration are the 11 failure of coatings. So it would be with some type of 12 coatings that would cover the plasticizing.
13 But rebar, you are right, rebar is -- right now
( })
- 14 I don't know what the outcome is, but early indications 15 that we have are that rebar is something you probably would 16 want to preclude. It really caused a problem.
17 Now, how do you design around a nonrebar 18 system --
19 DR. KERR: Certainly you make the rebar out of 20 glass.
21 DR. SHEWMON: That is not --
l 22 l DR. KERR: I am serious.
23 p DR. SHEWMON: They certainly put wires in steel t
24 l on a fine scale to do it and I wouldn't be at all surprised i
25 if people have this on the market.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37to Nationwide Coserage RNL3%Ni46
-, _ m-.. - . , .
209 REE
[V ')
1 DR. KERR: DuPont has material that could be
.2 used for concrete reinforcing.
3 MR. MC CARTIN: It is one of the things we want 4 to be careful of. If rebar causes a big problem, we want l 5 to know about it for the regulations.
6 DR. SHEWMON: You don't want wires. My neighbor 7 has a drive surface he tried and that didn't last two years, 8 much less 200.
9 DR. MOELLER: Thank you-very much. We will take 10 a 15-minute break.
11 (Recess.)
12 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will resume.
j) 13 Before I turn the meeting over to our next 14 speaker, I wanted to mention that during the break, 15 Mr. William Dornsife, D-o-r-n-s-i-f-e, from the Department 16 of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 17 kindly has given the subcommittee four reports which his 18 group has developed on screening criteria for low-level 19 radioactive waste disposal facilities and technology 20 performance and legislation to apply to such facilities, 4
21 and then they even have an information packet, the draft 22 process for siting a low-level radwaste disposal facility.
23 It is quite appropriate for us to have this material 24 because the very next topic is, of course, the states' 25 implementation of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy O
I
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage Mn336-f646 i
210 REE b,em 1 Act amendments. So we very much appreciate this.- We will 2 make copies so that everyone can benefit from those reports.
3 The next topic then is the states
4 implementation, All of you.were'provided with a copy of.
j 5 the report on this, the NUREG-1213, plans and i
6 implementation, the NRC's responsibilities. .Then we were 7 also provided with copies of a report, a memorandum of 8 October 9, 1986 prepared by our speaker, Mr. Steven Salomon.
9 And this pertains to the current status of each state in 10 providing disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Let me 11 say that this was a fascinating document, the memorandum 12 that you provided. We very much appreciate it.
13 MR. SALOMON: Thank you.
()F 14 DR. MOELLER: It is just the most interesting 15 piece of information to read.
16 Go ahead. The floor is yours.
17 MR. SALOMON: Thank you very much.
18 I have prepared an update of that earlier 19 October 6 memo and in this document, it differs somewhat.
20 It has additional, more current information, but in terms 21 of the progress of siting, which we view at NRC as the most
! 22 important aspect, I have tried to show the progress that
, 23 the states have made following a generic, a generic time, 24 j set of time lines that the Department of Energy has 25 instructed over here. It is a draft and it is being sent CE) :
l l
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2G347-37)0 Nationside Coserage 80LL336-6M6
211 REE L/
1 out to all of the states for review. This particular 2 diagram is in the small packet that was also issued to you.
3 It has basically embedded in it the Congressional 4 milestones. January 1, 1993 to have a site in operation.
5 Submit license application, January 1, 1990. The first 6 chance for the states to submit license application, 7 January 1, 1990. And then develop a siting plan January 1, 8 '88. And this first milestone that was present was the act, 9 July 1, 1986.
10 I don't intend to go through all of the compacts 11 and all of the progress made by the states. It is a very 12 complicated and long drawn-out affair. I attended a me'eting yesterday sponsored by the National Conference of
('/
s_
N 13 14 State Legislatures. It was an all-day meeting. It would 15 probably take me that long to cover the same amount of 16 material. I am sure you are all familiar with various 17 aspects of the progress that the states have made. I would 18 hope that in this session I can answer questions of 19 particular interest to you, rather than stress a formal 20 presentation.
21 DR. MOELLER: Incidentally, I am sure all of us 22 have many questions. You mentioned attending this meeting 23 yesterday. That was one of the questions I wrote down.
24 Does someone convene all of the states periodically or even 25 the leaders of the various compacts so they can exchange O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage N63%6M6
212 REE
,I 1 ideas?
2 MR. SALOMON: Yes. The compacts themselves 3 under their own initiative and also initially funded by the 4 Department of Energy have been meeting on a periodic basis.
5 Initially Holmes Brown was the instigator. He was the 6 staff person in the National Governors Association. Now he 7 is on his own with Afton Associates. So they do 8 interchange information and try to attack problems of 9 common interest to them. The relevant federal agencies do 10 participate, like NRC, Department of Energy, EPA are the 11 primary ones.
12 DR. MOELLER: Maybe it comes about as a result 13 of such meetings that so many of them have prohibited
( })
14 shallow land burial, or did they do that independently?
15 MR. SALOMON: I think that has grown out of the 16 compacting process that started in the early '80s and has 17 progressed on an individual basis.
18 In that regard, I might show you on this map 19 !
which shows the various compact configurations, since the 20 ; October version, I did add an element of bullets that shows 21 f which compacts permit shallow land burial and which ones do 8
22 i not. If I start on the West Coast, the shallow land burial 23 ! is allowed in California. This is what U.S. Ecology has i
24 proposed. 1 25 In the Western Compact, Arizona and South Dakota, o
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmo, ~ . < - -
213 REE R.)
I that is permitted.- Also in the Rocky Mountain Compact.
2 In Texas, which is proceeding alone, in their 3 amended law they have -- do you have a question?
4 DR. SHEWMON: Finish your sentence.
5 MR. SALOMON: Okay. They have restrictions.
6 They ask the authority to investigate alternatives, unless 7 it can be shown by rulemaking that shallow land burial is 8 the best approach.
9 DR. SHEWMON: In Nevada, is it shown connected 10 in that way because it is not contiguous with Colorado, is 11 that it?
12 MR. SALOMON: Yes. There are two compacts
(} 13 14 consented to by Congress which are not contiguous, the Rocky Mountain and also the Northeast, which have 15 Connecticut and New Jersey. The proposed Western Compact 16 of Arizona and South Dakota would not be contiguous and if 17 North Dakota joins the Rocky Mountain Compact, that would 18 not be contiguous states.
19 DR. MOELLER: In the previcus memo, scmewhere in 20 there it said that some compact was considaring inviting 21 both North and South Dakota to join them. I don't remember 22 which it was.
23 MR. SALOMON: Yes, there was a proposed compact, 24 let's see, that went, I think was the Western, Arizona --
25 l no, it was a proposed one between California and South O !
l
\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,.m ~ _ . r_. --
a 214 REE 1 Dakota which would also include North Dakota as well, but 2 it has never passed the California legislature.
3 There is also an earlier version of a Western 4 Compact with California and Arizona and that was enacted by 5 Arizona but never by California. There is talk in the next 6 session that they may reintroduce it. And Governor Babbitt 7 of Arizona believes that the one that would make the most 8 sense would be Arizona and California and it could also
- 9 include perhaps South Dakota and North Dakota as well 10 because the -- a prospective site in Arizona would be very 11 close to the prospective site in California, just on the 12 other side of the border. So it would be senseless to
(~) 13 develop two sites.
v 14 In terms of the issue of not being contiguous, 15 Governor Babbitt wrote to Moe Udall, who was one of the 16 instigators of the Amendments Act, and his view was, 17 i although he could not speak for Congress, that it was not 18 Congress' initial intention to have states that were not 19 contiguous, at least not this kind of a configuration. He 20 thought that ones that were close together on a regional 21 l basis made more sense. But neither the original Low Level 22 l Waste Policy Act of 1980, nor the amendments prohibits 23 l states from being not contiguous. So there is no 24 prohibition in that regard.
25 To continue on with those compacts that do not
('T i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 - 347- 3 'm NanonwiJe rmerage NNL 316 tM6
215 REE 1 --
their view of the burial technology, the central states 2 do not prohibit it in their compact per se, but recently in 3 their draft request for proposal, they do mention that the 4 Compact Commission would take seriously those proposals 5 that include enhancements to the shallow land burial. So 6 for that reason, I would call it restricted.
7 In the Central Midwest Compact, Illinois and 8 Kentucky and also in the implementing legislation of 9 Illinois, the shallow land burial is written into the 10 legislation as being banned.
11 In the Midwest, it is not in the Midwest Compact 12 but the Compact Commission has issued a policy statement
(} 13 14 banning shallow land burial or just using it for reference purposes. It remains to see which host state will be 15 chosen in the Midwest and what kind of technology they will 16 choose.
17 of course in the Northwest, you have the 18 continuation of the Hanford site which is the shallow land 19 burial. In the Southeast you have for the time being the 20 l use of Barnwell, which is shallow land burial. The compact -
21 Commission there has investigated alternatives, and their 22 contractor, Dames & Moore, said that shallow land burial 23 was the most favorable technology, however. The Compact 24 ,
Commission decided just to use that as a technical 25 reference document and allow the host state which has the C:)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m.= s.o... a, n,,,,, m m,-
216 REE i
I responsibility for developing the next burial site to 2 choose the technology and so far they have designated North 3 Carolina as being the second host state. However, North 4 Carolina has yet to accept the responsibility. At this 5 meeting that I mentioned earlier, yesterday, there were 6 about four representatives from North Carolina and they are 7 very interested in what kinds of technologies are available, 8 so they are just getting schooled in a lot of this.
9 DR. MOELLER: Again in your write-up you said 10 that, of course, North Carolina was upset in being selected 11 as the host state and that they argued that the 12 calculations of the volume of low-level waste that they
(~J L
) 13 produced were in error.
14 Now, later in reading about some of the other 15 compacts, I gather that if you are in a compact and you 16 produce the most waste of any state in that compact, then 17 you are obligated to be the host state?
18 MR. SALOMON: It depends on the compact. Most 19 -- the compact language says that the management plan will 20 determine the number and the kinds of facilities and the 21 host state. In the Appalachian Compact, the host state is 22 Pennsylvania. In the Central Midwest it is Illinois t
23 ! because those two states generate by far the most amount of i
24 ! waste.
i 25 l DR. MOELLER: What was the point they were o
v I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I -n., ~_ ~. -
k 217 REE
/s I) 1 making about North Carolina, that the volume of the waste 2 was in error?
b 3 MR. SALOMON: They used, I think, seven 4 different parameters to choose. The Compact Commission 5 chose them. And some of the things that they weighted 6 heavily was the amount of waste that each one of the 7 parties' states generated, by class A, B, and C, and also 8 the distance that it'had to be traveled as well. Then the 9 potential suitable areas were included. The population and 10 a number of other factors.
11 DR. MOELLER: Were these all weighted equally?
12 MR. SALOMON: No. The Compact Commission,
(~} 13 through some kind of an iterative process, a modified
\_/
14 delphi process, assigned weights to the various ones, 15 independent of what the contractor did. It determined all 16 of the technical aspects, like the amount of waste. They 17 tried to project out -- for example, they used the 1983, 18 which was the best available data that had been compiled by 19 k EG&G and then they went out through all of the generators I
20 l and found out, out to 1990, I believe, how much waste they 21 expected to be generated if any new technologies were going 22 l to be implemented, such volume reduction technology, 23 e incineration, what not, and based on these forecasts, they 24 l came up with the numbers.
25 The thing that North Carolina didn't like, and l
t O y,'
s i
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i x me., ~_ m_ _
218
_REE i
LJ l they did a separate study was using 1983 as the base year 2 because the decision was finally made just this year and 3 1984 and 1985 data was available. So they thought more 4 current data was available. So they did their own analysis, 5 using the scenario approach, using 1983, '84, '85, various 6 averages. In fact, they asked NRC for technical assistance 7 in this respect to help them out. And it turned out that 8 depending on which scenario you used, North Carolina was 9 either in first place and sometimes Georgia was in first 10 place and sometimes I believe Tennessee was in first place, 11 However, that didn't convince the compact commissioners, so 12 that when they took the final vote it was unanimous except (9),
13 for the North Carolina commissioners, who voted against the 14 North Carolina.
15 The thing that struck me is the technical -- as 16 a technical person is that the differences were sometimes i
17 ( less than 1 pe,rcent, and when you talk to the waste 18 management people and you figure out how the numbers that 19 go into this thing are done, how the utilities estimated it, f
20 l is not an accurate graph at all. So you would say the 21 accuracy is at most 10 percent, and so it is certaialy a 22 number of states, you know, fit in that error bracket. But 23 l the political process being as it is, if they wished to i
I 24 i stick to it and they were voted as the next host state and 25 if they accept that responsibility, then they would. But 3
C/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3,mm., ~ _ _ , . .. -
219 REE
%J l that is up to the North Carolina legislature to determine.
2 The reason why I say that, North Carolina is the only state 3 in the union where the governor has no veto power. He can 4 suggest legis'lation and make recommendations and he has 5 made the recommendation to the legislature that they be the 6 next host state. But he doesn't have the power to enforce 7 that. So the legislature will determine that.
t 8 So we are trying to work closely with the 9 legislature for him to understand better the facts and make 10 whatever data available that NRC can supply so they can 11 make a sound decision in that regard.
12 MR. PARKER: I think in the Southeast
() 13 particularly, it is interesting that chem-Nuclear would be 14 very happy to continue operating Barnwell. Apparently 15 there are no problems there whatsoever in terms of the 16 enormous amount of money that it brings to the state. It 17 is strictly a political decision.
18 DR. MOELLER: I notice some of the compacts 19 offer an incentive and some of the incentives sounded quite l
20 j' good. Why don't all of them offer an incentive?
21 MR. SALOMON: Depends on the compact.
l n
22 l The Central Compact is getting interested in 23 I this particular aspect, probably because they are seeing at t
24 least the reaction so far in the Midwest. A number of 25 small communities that think that they could benefit from
($)
n I
t
! ACE-FEDERAL REPOICFERS, INC.
I w:w.nm s ,.., - a - m m, -
220 REE
'i
/
1 this have made inquiries, at least 10 that I have heard of.
2 But, however, they may not match up with the technical --
3 that area may not be able to meet the Part 61 siting 4 requirements. But nevertheless, it has elicited some 5 interest. The Central Compact is now showing that kind of 6 a thing.
7 Bill Dornsife, who is in the audience, perhaps 8 could speak to what kind of incentives Pennsylvania la 9 offering local communities because that is another level 10 that there is incentives for the state in choosing a host 11 state, but once the host state is chosen, there is a whole 12 other layer that consent is required in local communities, f) v 13 and I believe Pennsylvania has built in the structure for 14 incentives. If Bill wants to comment.
15 MR. DORNSIFE: Bill Dornsife, Pennsylvania. We 16 have included some very specific host community incentives 17 in our proposed draft implementing legislation which I have 18 .
given you a copy of. This is based to some extent on 19 l discussions we have had with the public advisory committee.
20 We have set out a decision consisting of representatives of 21 ! various interest groups among technical and nontechnical h
22 groups throughout the state, like the League of Woman 23 i Voters, some political groups, township supervisors, county 24 commissioner, associations, those kinds of things.
25 j Basically I think the sense we got was people
(~1 ss
)
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- ,, ,,, ~ _ , - _ - ..,3 ,
l i
221 REE
(
1 don't.want only money. They view money as a buy-out, as a 2 bribe. So what we have set up is probably the most 3 important, one of the most important incentives we say is 4 that people would like to have local control. So we 5 provide for a local inspector, paid for out of site 6 revenues, that would report back to the local-community but 7 would have essentially, not shutdown powers but equal 8 inspection powers to the state _ inspector.
9 We also provide in the legislation for a free 10 well water monitoring program. We also provide for 11 $100,000 to go to the local community to pay to hire 12 somebody to review the license application.
() 13 We also allow, not in terms of a particular 14 amount, but allowance for a surcharge that would go to the 15 local community that would be decided upon by our 16 department. And also one of the -- we essentially have a 17 two-tiered siting process. We first of all select a 18 contractor to do area screening and then a site operator.
19 One of the criteria for selecting the site operator in 20 addition to that technology he would perform and how well 21 that technology meets our criteria is what kind of an 22 ! incentive package he would offer in addition to that of the 23 .
local community. We have talked with these various site 1
24 I operators. They have been in to talk to our advisory ,
f 25 j committee several times. They have to be aware to convince (2) l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m .,.m ,
~ _m_. --
222 REE r 1 the local community it is a benefit before they can begin f_ 2 to site a facility. So those are the kinds of things we 3 are considering.
i
- 4. DR. MOELLER: That is good, helpful. ,
5 MR. DONOGHUE: The incentive you were talking )
l 6 about in the case of the Central Compact, is that the LLW 7 research center?
i
- 8 MR. SALOMON
- That is in the Midwest. They have 9 proposed this, to establish some kind of low-level waste IV research center which perhaps could even serve the nation, 11 but certainly the Midwest Compact as an additional l-
. 12 incentive for the state and perhaps it could even be 5
() 13 located nearby the disposal site, depending on where it is
, 14 ultimately located. But that is in addition to the 15 monetary incentives.
16 MR. DONOGHUE: Are there any federal provisions 17 for federal contributions to an incentive like that?
I j 18 MR. SALOMON: Well, there is an incentive and 19 penalty program that is built into the act itself which 20 establishes surcharges, $10 per cubic foot currently and 5 21 then it builds up to 20 and 40. As we go on --
22 DR. MOELLER: Several of the compacts already
- 23 finance themselves through a surcharge.
24 MR. SALOMON: That is an additional --
25 DR. MOELLER: Yes, on all waste apparently l(2) i 7
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-1700 Nationwide roserage Mn316fM6
223 :
REE O
v 1 generated in their area. ,
2 MR. SALOMON: I wanted to show, since we have 3 Bill over here, a graph that --
4 DR. MOELLER: Excuse me a second. Those were 5 all expressed in dollars per cubic foot. I think one of 6 the compacts was getting 75 cents per cubic foot above.
7 How many cubic feet in a barrel, so I would know what it is 8 per barrel?
9 MR. SALOMON: 7-1/2.
10 DR. MOELLER: So it is $10, then you are getting 11 S75 or so per barrel. Okay. Thank you.
12 MR. SALOMON: To give you an idea in terms of
(} 13 the act by meeting the milestones in the act, over here, 14 Bill had presented at another meeting last May that NRC had 15 worked with the National Conference of State Legislatures 16 to inform them more on what is going on in this area. And 17 he had presented this graph that shows a state such as 18 Pennsylvania with 225,000 cubic feet per year, how much the 19 generators would have to pay even if they moet all of the 20 milestones. S30.83 million, which is quite a bit. And 21 then if they miss all of the milestones, they would have to 22 pay $84 million. Part of it is rebated back to the state 23 and it shows what the rebato is, because three-quarters of 24 the money stays with the cited states and 25 percent is 25 rebated back to the Compact Commission and then funnoled to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x m. m., s o.uae, ., m u.
224 EE 1 the, usually to the host state. So'~c hey would get almost 2 $8 million back, which Bill informed me earlier was 3 certainly enough to fund the regulatory program in i 4 Pennsylvania.
j 5 MR. DONOGHUE: Is there any continuing incentive 4
6 through the life of the repository to the host state?
, 7 MR. SALOMON: This is, I am told, the new sites
' 8 are operating and the use of the existing sites at Barnwell 9 and Hanford and Beatty. Then after that, depending on.the 10 host states, they can deny access, too.
11 MR. DONOGHUE: The state that accepts the site, 12 does it continue to get an incentive to do so?
13 MR. SALOMON: You mean a new host state through 14 the federal process?
15 MR. DONOGHUE: Yes.
16 MR. SALOMON: No. That would -- all of this i 17 ends in 1992.
! 18 DR. MARK: When it is said that shallow land 19 burial is banned, what alternatives are deemed to be 20 acceptable if shallow land burial is a trench 30 feet deep 21 or something like that, to be covered and filled in, if I i 22 put a concrete box in the trench and then put the stuff in 23 ,
there and put a lid on the box, is that likely acceptable
- 24 to all these states?
25 MR. SALOMON: Well, that would depend on the O
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm n., s e , - m ,, m ,, mmm.
225 REE 1 individual state. Texas is going through, for example, 2 such an evaluation of alternatives. Now --
3 MR. DORNSIFE: Maybe I could help. To tell you 4 how we define shallow land burial, how we have forbidden 5 shallow land burial. In our compact, shallow land' burial 6 is defined as disposal in subsurface trenches without 7 additional confinement and engineered structures. That is 8 forbidden.
9 DR. MARK: But a concrete lining of the 10 trench --
11 MR. DORNSIFE: That would be an engineered 12 structure.
13 DR. MARK: And the rest of that being identical, 14 that might be acceptable?
15 MR. DORNSIFE That is right. Some other states 16 have more stringent requirements. It is worded differently 17 how they would evaluate it. Some states have to show that, l
18 I think Illinois has to show that the technology they 19 choose is better than above ground, something above ground.
l
- 20 So they all have different kinds have wordings.
l t 21 DR. MOELLER: And in Pennsylvania will you 22 require seismic capability? l
[ 23 MR. DORNSIFE: That is in fact one of our i 1
24 criteria, to show that the facility, we don't specify in l 25 our critoria whether the facility is above or below grado.
1O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
nm.nw u n acc.c.n ww-
226 REE f n.
(
x- )
1 We just specify a series of performance objectives, 2 performance requirements relating to the engineered barrier, 3 relating to the recoverability, relating to a variety of 4 things. One of those things that it has to be designed to 5 withstand is external events such as earthquakes.
6 DR. MOELLER: Are you in agreement?
7 MR. DORNSIFE: Not yet, but we will become one.
8 DR. MOELLER: Are you telling us that your I
9 standards or regulations are tighter than 10 CFR 61?
10 MR. DORNSIFE: Very much so.
11 DR. MOELLER: In --
12 MR. DORNSIFE In fact NRC is performing a
() 13 formal review of our criteria at this moment. We have had 14 several, three or four meetings with the Staff to get their 15 preliminary input into it and those meetings went very well.
16 They didn't find anything major, any major problems with 17 !
our criteria, but they are now undergoing a formal review 18 l to see if they are compatible.
i 19 MR. PARKER: You mentioned that Illinois --
20 MR. DORNSIFE The way I understand their 21 f legislation is worded, they use something other than above 22 , ground, totally above ground disposal concept. They have 23 to show that whatever they use is better than something 24 , above ground.
25 MR. PARKER: In the EIS, Part 61 --
/"T l
() l i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-n., s.,&,, . ,& n,m, .,y ..u -
227 REE 1 MR. DORNSIFE: Let me give you my perspective on
.2 that. We are going through a series of public meetings now, 3 taking our criteria actually to the public. And this is 4 evident from a lot of different forums. The public in 5 general likes something above ground because they feel they 6 can walk around it, see it, they can monitor it, the whole 7 -- that is the concept the public has. They don't 8 understand other things. And it is very difficult to get 9 it across to them that that may not be the safest. And I 10 think NRC could do a lot of, help us a whole lot in that 11 area, providing us what these concerns are about above 12 ground in some very definitive, very definitive way. They
() 13 have done that to some extent in some of the Federal 14 Register notices, but it is not enough.
5 15 DR. HARK: Do the NRC refuse to help you?
' 16 MR. DORNSIFE The Federal Register notice 17 addresses some of the concerns with above ground but it is 18 certainly not strong enough for the purposes that we need 19 it.
20 DR. MOELLER: Through this -- how many members 21 were on your advisory --
4 22 MR. DORNSIFE: 16.
23 l DR. MOELLER: So through that you get the word 24 out to some degree. Do you also have public informational i 25 meetings?
(1) ;
? l l
i i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m m.m., ,_ um_,, _
-- ,7r -
r p.
l y r; jy' ' - 228 REE e
' ,/ j m <s
) -
l, ~ ,
1 , MR. DORNSIFE: Wo decided early on that we need 2 som[ sort of semi _technicaI-advisory committee. So about a
<^
3 year and a h,alf ' ego we put together this advisory committee, 4 it is abobt eight members represented the technical w: 5 community, eight are nontechnical. And the primary purpose 6 of this committee was to he'lp us develop siting criteria 7 and technology design crite a. It turned out they also 8 '; ' helped us write some of the implemensing legislation, too.
/
9 They had so<ae very helpful suggIstions on implementing 10 legislation. This group provided input on these three 11 things, to help us develoa thesh three things.
12 Our next step shich we are actually doing now is
/
Ou ,, 13 taking these'out to the public to get additional input from
. )'
14 the public in the form of public meetings, not hearings but i
15 meetings. Our hearing process, whe;1've go out for a public 16 -hearing, it is a very fermal thing. We just sit there and 17 j ' listen to the concerns ot the public. That is all. We l
18 can't respond to them. In the meetings we can. I think 19 that is a auch incre etf.cctive way of resolving some of the 20 concerns we have. The.public by and large doesn't 21 ) understand a lot of these things. They don't know the 22 i difference between high- and low-level waste, first of all.
23 DR. REMICK: Does anybody else?
24 { MR. DORN3IFE: That is a good question.
i
- 25 ! ftR. SALOMON: The legislators do not either, to v
0 t
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
C g. n., ~_ _ --
229 REE 1 a great extent.
2 One of the other factors that I think has led to 3 the state legislatures themselves banning shallow land 4 burial, and usually they mean just the plain trench, is 5 i that their previous experience has been with haz'ardous 6 waste disposal and they read the EPA standards and they say, l
j- 7 you put in a liner. So they see NRC coming along without a 8 liner and they say something is missing, you have to put an l
9 engineered barrier in there of some kind so it will look j l
} 10 like what EPA is doing with their hazardous waste. So you l; 11 have a bunch of lawyers or English majors that don't even l
12 bother to call NRC up on the phone who start writing this
[ )
13 legislation. It is law before you know it.
l l 14 Some of the states like Pennsylvania are better l
15 and they ask NRC to testify at legislative hearings so we f 16 get a chance at least to make some kind of a comment before L
17 the thing is finalized.
18 MR. DORNSIFE: Just to help you out a little bit 19 on the mixed waste issue. We are kind of pushing NRC and
(
20 EPA to solve the mixed waste issue by including how you 21 deal with mixed waste in our criteria. What we are 22 basically saying is our system requires a self-contained 23 monitoring system which is equivalent to an EJ collection 24 system. It has to be leak-resistant for 100 years and be 25 stable, structurally stable for the hazardous lives of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 2-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Sin 33MM6
230
'REE
' O. 1 waste, which.in case 6, class E is up to 500-some. So the 2 mixed waste has to meet all this criteria and you have to 3 show compatibility are RCRA. The latest revision of RCRA 4 allows that. ,
5 MR. SALOMON: I might point out that one of the 6 representatives from Pennsylvania, Ivan Itkin, did attend 7 meetings of Barnwell facilities in early November that NRC 8 had funded. It was a tour of Barnwell and'also the 9 Savannah River plant. Kitty Dragnet led the tour. He 10 asked lots of questions and apparently was impressed enough
)!-
11 to stake responsibility to be one of the co-sponsors of
! 12 legislation that was introduced November 20, just recently
() 13 in Pennsylvania for the legislation. So we try on a 14 regular basis to get in these groups in various ways to try 15 to-conform the legislatures as much as possible. ,
i 16 Over two years ago we held a workshop here in ,
17 Bethesda and had'almost 100 participants where we explored i 18 the alternatives and the waste management folks told us ;
19 what they were doing with the Corps of Engineers and had j 20 the DOE people come in and told them about what they had 21 done, and what we are doing in terms of disposal of 22 low-level waste at Oak Ridge and Savannah River plants. ;
23 We have an ongoing program to try to inform as
- 24 many people as possible but we are always running because 25 there is a big changeover in the legislature. So we inform i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
_ _ _ . , , - ~ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . _ , , , , . _ . . _ . - , _ _ _ . . _ _ ._, _ _._ _ ._ _ .-. _ _ , _ . _. __-._ _ _., _,.,___,,
i 231 REE Y
I as many people as possible.
2 MR. ORTH: Has anyone tried to define either in 3 terms of physical arrangements or factors enhancement what 4 is the minimum change you have to make to, quote, shallow 5 land burial to have it meet something that is greater 6 confinement than shallow land burial?
7 MR. DORNSIFE: That is exactly what our criteria 8 that we have given you does.
9 MR. ORTH: I haven't heard the criteria.
10 MR. DORNSIFE: That is exactly what we have done 11 in our criteria. We have specified in terms of performance 12 and design factors what you need, the minimum you need to O
V 13 do.
14 MR. ORTH: Is a factor of 10 better?
15 MR. DORNSIFE: Well --
16 MR. ORTH: Is a factor of 10 better than 10 CFR 17 61?
18 MR. DORNSIFE: Let me give you an example.
19 Probably the meat of the thing and how you define what this 20 engineered containment means or an engineered confinement 21 means, we require the use of a dedicated engineered barrier.
22 What this means is that the waste form has to meet all of 23 f Part 61 requirements, stability requirements and everything i
24 else. You put an engineered barrier around it. You don't 25 i specify what it is made out of, just an engineered barrier.
/~ l N_T) ,
i k
f i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-37tO Nationwide Coverage feb3 W6M6
232 REE
~
's.)
1 Probably it would be concrete. This barrier has to be 2 leak-resistant for 100 years, at least. It has to be 3 structurally stable for the hazardous life of the waste 4 whi'ch is A, 100 years; B, 300 years; C, 500 years. You 5 also have to be able to somehow show by materials 6 performance, monitoring of materials performance that 7 indeed the facility is performing as you expect it. Some 8 ongoing monitoring of the materials performance.
9 Finally, you have to show by analysis that the 10 technology, the design by itself with this engineered 11 barrier can essentially meet the NRC performance objectives 12 without taking any credit for the natural site features for
() 13 the first hundred years. So you demonstrate it does really 14 give you some redundancy. This is gone over with the 15 public. They are impressed by this kind of a concept.
16 There is a lot of simple things that can meet these as you 17 may well imagine. It is not going very much beyond what is 18 currently existing at some of the sites.
19 DR. REMICK: What is the definition of leak 20 li resistance?
i 21 l MR. DORNSIFE: That was a tough one. There was 22 .
a workshop of experts on concrete and I asked that 23 particular question, how can we define leak resistance.
24 i One thought maybe permeability. So we really haven't come 25 up with a good definition of that. That is one of the p_ l
(_; ;
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mum., ,._ m- mu-
- 233 REE 1 weaknesses. I am not sure what we are going to do about 2 that. Right now it is specified as leak-resistant, but I 3 am not sure what that means.
4 Again, that is why the work that Nick Ccatanzi 5 was talking about, that is very important to the kinds of 6 things we are developing, particularly the Phase II data 7 will be very helpful to answer some of those questions.
8 DR. REMICK: That is leak resistance after a 9 seismic event.
10 MR. DORNSIFE: Yes. We also specify this thing 11 that has to be recoverable, not retrievable, recoverable.
12 In small modules that are recoverable.
I'T V
13 DR. REMICK: Okay.
14 MR. DORNSIFE: So there would be a series of 15 small modules, not one massive structure.
16 DR. REMICK: By requirement?
17 MR. DORNSIFE: No, but that is probably the only 18 way you are going to meet the recoverability criteria. We 19 specify that right in the criteria, that is one of the ways 20 to enhance recoverability.
21 Are you familiar with the Surepak concept?
22 DR. RZMICK: Just in general.
23 MR. DORNSIFE: Something like that.
24 ,
DR. REMICK: Okay.
25 MR. SALOMON: One of the things I might point e
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2112-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80th336 &46
234 REE.
n U
1 out is that the public is willing to pay for a lot more 2 than just planning a trench. In fact, we hed a meeting 3 that the DOE sponsored out in Denver last September and all 4 of the technical people agreed that the shallow land burial, 5 generally speaking, was an adequate technology. However, 6 it was not publicly acceptable, but when legislators and 7 others asked the public whether they would be willing to 8 pay two or three times as much, that didn't seem to bother 9 them at all. They seemed to be, even though their electric 10 rates would go up a little bit, other industry and hospital 11 expenses would go up somewhat, but they seemed to be more 12 concerned to be really assured that the thing was going to
-( ) 13 perform and they seemed to be impressed by big heavy 14 structures.
15 DR. REMICK: I don't know what the meaning of 16 that is, because I think if it was something they had to 17 pay directly themselves they would not, but it is thinking 18 that somebody else is going to pay that cost that, really, 19 do they really realize electric rates will go up and 20 tuition will go up and all these things?
21 MR. SALOMON: Well, it will go up like a million 22 per kilowatt hour. That doesn't seem to unnerve them. I 23 think in Maine where they held hearings, several small 24 industrial people said it would drive them out of business; 25 if they had that, they would have to leave the state.
v
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3NU Nationwide Coserage 8(0 334 M 46
235 REE
~ \,_,)
1 MR. DORNSIFE: I think, Dr. Remick, the best way 2 to answer is from our experience with radon in Pennsylvania, 3 we have calculated that probably on the average you are 4 talking about less than a dollar per person-rem for 5 remedial action to reduce exposure. We have a low-interest 6 loan program in existence now for six months, 10 people 7 have signed up 'for it. There is no perspective out there.
8 Less than a dollar per person-rem.
9 DR. MARK: Are the public utility commissions on 10 board on this raising the rates?
11 DR. REMICK: I don't know.
12 MR. SALOMON: That is an interesting question.
() 13 I don't think so.
14 MR. DORNSIFE: With the surcharges that are 15 already into the system right now, what you are going to be 16 paying by 1993 just with the surcharges is probably going 17 to be cheaper even with our engineered technology to 18 dispose of waste in Pennsylvania. So I don't see we are 19 talking about much of a cost difference compared to what it 20 is going to be.
21 MR. SALOMON: Another interesting development 22 that was discussed at yesterday's meeting, because of the 23 surcharges of S10 per cubic foot to everyone's surprise 24 that the system is quite elastic and now they are reporting 25 a drop of 30 to 40 percent in the volume generated. And x
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coscrage 80t>33&6646
. _ . . , _ . . , . . . _ . . . . _ _ .. _. . - . . . . _ _ . , . _ . . _ . . . . - _ . . ~ . .
236 REE L.)
I what this means is, because all of these systems follow 2 some kind of economies of scale, that many of the smaller 3 compacts which generate just a few percent of the nation's 4 waste may be faced with building a very small site where 5 the unit costs would be very, very high and maybe even 6 uneconomical or require state subsidies.
7 So now there is talk in the future that maybe 8 compacts will combine or there be some kind of arrangements 9 going on. It is still too early to say and nobody knows 10 whether it is bottoming out, whether this 30 to 40 percent 11 drop would then show a steady rise or the following year it 12 will be another 10 percent and the -- so when DOE projects
(\.j) 13 in 1980 in the report to Congress that the low-level waste 14 would continue to rise, Congress slapped on all these 15 surcharges which will go up in the future and the waste may 16 actually decrease in the future.
17 MR. PARKER: Westinghouse has introduced that 18 mobile supercompacter, which has really shrunk the volume.
19 MR. SALOMON: That is an example. Apparently 20 one of the burial site operators did a survey because they 21 thought that in order to avoid the surcharges, people were 22 beginning to store waste. The conclusion so far is no.
i 23 l They are not storing it, but they are taking administrative 24 ! measures to try and generate a lot less waste to begin with.
25 . And I have attended a number of technical sessions where I
(~'>;
- t. 1 3
8 l
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447-3700 Nanonwide Cos et age 800-336-6M6
237 REE'
(~
D) 1 utilities,-for example, guys, workers would bring the
- 2 morning newspaper into areas which were forbidden and would 3 all be condemned as low-level waste and hauled out to the 4 dump site. Now they are prohibfting that. So the waste 5 has gone down.
6 DR. SHEWMON: Is this storage that you are 7 suggesting illegal?
8 MR. SALOMON: No. Utilities-can store up for a 9 certain amount of time. Up to five years, according to NRR 10 generic requirement. After that they would have to get 11 approval. But they thought that they might be doing it 12 just for some interim period.
() 13 DR. SHEWMON: They are with fuel, as you know.
14 MR. SALOMON: Right.
15 DR. MOELLER: And if they had short enough life 16 activity to where it would decay, and if they knew what it 17 was, they could then declare --
18 MR. SALOMON: They could segregate it.
19 DR. MOELLER: Declare it nonradioactive.
20 MR. SALOMON: Apparently some hospitals, for 21 example, wa have been interested in how Puerto Rico, since 22 they are considered a state, like the legislation, how they 23 are going to handle it. They haven't been sending out 24 anything. They just have hospital operations. They store 25 it all, whereas they used to send to Barnwell, they are not vl I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationdie Coverage 8(0-336-6M6
- _ _ . . _ , _ . . _ . , , _ . . . , , , .._,___.m. -
238 REE 1 sending anything now.
2 MR. PARKER: You mentioned that you were asked 3 some questions about hazardous chemical waste. How do you 4 respond to questions when they ask you about the different 5 time limits of regulation about hazardous waste versus 6 low-level waste? Is that a rhetorical question?
7 MR. SALOMON: It is a difficult one. In waste 8 management there has been a lot of struggling with that.
9 There are divergent views on basic philosophy. Perhaps 10 Bill ought to address that.
11 MR. DORNSIFE: We just had taken the long 12 process of getting siting criteria for hazardous waste
() 13 facilities adopted. A lot of the specific regulations or 14 criteria you see from our screening had taken from that 15 document. It has affected us.
16 If you look at the hazardous waste, the double 17 liner, you look at technically how that performs, I think 18 you can show very easily that the kinds of concepts we are 19 proposing in our criteria will outperform those things.
20 From an institutional standpoint, technically, RCRA says 21 you can walk away from that site in 30 years. And you 22 can't do that.
23 We are saying our compact requires that we 24 maintain institutional control for the hazardous life of 25 the waste; not just 100 years, that is 500 years in the o)
%- l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
239 REE
. iq Q.- 1 case of class C.
2 You assume that -- in fact, you can show that at 3 some point it is less toxic than soil, the concentrations 4 are very low. It is stuff that really isn't going to go 5 away.
6 DR. MARK: Are there in the regulations you 7 speak of provisions for reaching the point where this is no 8 longer of concern?
9 MR. DORNSIFE: Yes.
10 DR. MARK: Like in radioactive content per cubic 11 foot.
12 MR. DORNSIFE: These are not regulations but
(} 13 they will be. They have to be regulations.- We can't 14 propose them until we get the implementing legislation 15 passed right now.
16 The way we addressed that in fact, the concept 17 of hazardous life is included in our compact. We say that 18 class A has.a hazardous life of 100 years. Class B as a 19 hazardous life of 300 years. Class C has a hazardous life 20 of 500 years and also mixed waste has a hazardous life of 21 500 years.
22 DR. MARK: Are A, B and C separated by isotope 23 type?
24 MR. DORNSIFE: Yes.
25 DR. MARK: Because if you have only a little r)
- s. ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .
202-347-3700 Nationaide Coserage 8aL33& N46 1
240
.REE-V)' 1 500-year stuff, you reach the point where.it doesn't matter.
2 MR. DORNSIFE: In fact, I have done calculations 3 which show that you take typical waste streams and after 4 500 years, you compare it with the radiotoxic soil, it is 5 no more toxic. That is how we substantiate that 500-year 6 lifetime. It decays to natural background kinds of levels, 7 background toxicities.
8 DR. MOELLER: Okay. Mr. Salomon, how much more 9 do you have?
10 MR. SALOMON: Well, I think that I have covered 11 the highlights, certainly. If you have any --
12 DR. MOELLER: Well, a couple questions. Again, 6)
(
13 in your review, in several of these compacts, the host 14 state indicated that they would withdraw from the compact 15 once they found out they were selected as the host state.
16 It seems that that would destroy any arrangement that they 17 might have hoped to set up.
18 MR. SALOMON: Yes. Under the Midwest, the 19 provisions of the Midwest Compact, for example, after the 20 Compact Commission. designates a host state, they have 90 21 days to withdraw if they so wish. And the approach that 22 they are following there in the Midwest is to designate 23 four host states for successive terms as being host for the
- 24 { site. And they do have the provisions, or they do have the i
25 l possibility to withdraw. However, if they withdraw, there C) !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
210-347-3700 Nationwide Cmer age Mn336-6M6
241
.REE
\-)
1 is a lot of penalties. They then would have to establish a 2 site for itself, each state. And then they would have that 3 host state. It couldn't be rotated to other states because 4 they.would have to serve for always as long as low-level 5- waste was generated within the state. I think that is one 6 of the main factors that will probably keep a state from 7 dropping out.
8 However, another example that North Carolina is 9 pushing in the Southeast Compact -- in fact, Captain Briner 10 is a commissioner, there has headed up.an ad hoc sanctions 11 committee. And North Carolina would like the compact 12 amended to include a provision that if a state has-used a
(} 13 facility in another host state for up to six years, within 14 that six-year period they could withdraw without any 15 penalties, but after six years, they could not. :And if 16 they did withdraw afterwards then there would be 17 compensatory and punitive damages and a court of competent ,
18 jurisdiction would rule on what they were.
19 The compact -- the reason why North Carolina is 20 concerned -- in other words, what Carl is saying, well, if 21 we serve for the next 20 years, what happens at the end of 22 the 20 years? Will some other state -- like
'23 Governor Wallace of Alabama has already said if it were 24 chosen, it would drop out. I don't know whether they would 25 or not. But that is what he said anyway.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationaide Cos erage 80tk346646
- - , . . - - , - - . , - . , - - - - _ .. - . . , ------,.--._,----n.---...-n.-
242
.REE b'
v 1 DR. SHEWMON: He may not be governor in 20 years.
2 MR. SALOMON: Right, his term expires anyway.
3 but this is the kind of situation they face. So North 4 Carolina would like to insure if they serve that there 5 would be a successor host state at the end of the 20 years.
6 And the Compact Commission voted unanimously to accept the 7 concept of this sanction and they are working on the final
, 8 wording. Then it will have to make the rounds of all of t
- 9 the state legislatures, the seven states and presumably 10 have to be consented to by an amendment to the Southeast
't 11 Compact constitution which requires that.
f 12 DR. MOELLER: Are there additional questions on i ~
13 this topic?
].
14 MR. DONOGHUI': Has North Carolina made its final 15 decision?
[
16 MR. SALOMON: No, they probably won't make it 17 until the end of 1987. They are out of session now, 4
18 although the committees are working. They come in to --
19 they come in to the session in February and we are working 20 with a number of the legislative committees and the 21 Governor's Waste Management Board to have some workshops in 22 January with the various committees so we can apprise them j 23 and bring them up to speed on NRC's position in all of 24 l these areas and try to present as much technical i
25 information as possible and prevent them from making 4
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
' 202-347 37(U Nationwide Coserage 8(n346M6
243
'REE' q
U 1 decisions without the adequate technical basis for them.
2 So we hope that that would enhance the possibility that 3 they would not shirk their responsibility.
4 MR. DONOGHUE: The 90-day period that you were 5 talking about, what was that?
6 MR. SALOMON: The 90-day period only applies to 7 the Midwest Compact. In the Southeast Compact.there is no 8 specific provision for withdrawal at all. It is just 9 silent on the matter. Midwest is the only one to my 10 knowledge that has that provision.
! 11 Now, there was a somewhat different provision in 12 the Northeast Compact because initially when that was
() '13 consented to by Congress, Maryland and Delaware were 14 members of the Northeast Compact. Then they decided, when 15 Pennsylvania gave them an offer that they couldn't refuse, 16 to join the Appalachian Compact because they wouldn't 17 subject themselves to being the host state because under 18 the Appalachian Compact they wouldn't qualify as long as 19 they didn't generate more than 20 percent of Pennsylvania's i
20 waste.
21 So they chose to do that. But there was a 22 penalty provision in the Northeast Compact, but it was set 23 up, if a state had, if there were a host state already 24 serving and other states were putting waste, sending waste 25 to that host state, that there would be financial penalties
() ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Sk336-6M6
. , . . ~ -- -
244 REE L.Y 1 and other kinds of things. But they didn't try to push any 2 of that kind of penalty provision and they thought that if 3 they forced them to stay in the Northeast, they would just 4 be a thorn in their side and if they really wanted to get 5 out, now is the time to get out. So say good-bye and that 6 was it.
7 MR. ORTH: Do these states that keep talking 8 about withdrawing if they are selected really understand as 9 far as you can tell that if they withdraw they have to 10 provide something for their own anyway, or do they think 11 they are just going to abolish nuclear waste?
12 MR. SALOMON: Well, the proponents of North
/m 13 Carolina that were saying that North Carolina ought to (a) 14 withdraw from the Southeast Compact and solve the problem 15 themselves, they were pushing for legislation which would 16 have allowed the state to build a facility for nonutility 17 waste and require the utilities to store indefinitely 18 low-level waste on site. But of course that didn't pass 19 a muster. Nor did they recognize the fact that there was 20 probably no way or a difficult way of prohibiting 21 out-of-state waste from coming in.
22 There ate two states that are pursuing the
]
23 go-it-alone approach where they are hoping to, by setting i
24 L up through the state government itself, public services --
25 they are offering waste disposal as a public service rather
(~ , -) I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202-M7 37(X) Liiona hie Cm erage 800-33MM6
245
, REE-1 than a regulated commercial venture to prohibit 2 out-of-state waste. That is Texas and New York. And they 3 are basing that on Supreme Court case law, Reeds versus 4 State. Because they are saying that it is a public service, 5 it is not really a commercial venture. Therefore they are 6 not subject to the interstate commerce clause of the 7 Constitution. But that has yet to be tested and we will 8 see whether that holds up.
9 In review of compact case law, most political 10 scientists that read this stuff say that you cannot make 11 forecasts in-this area. It is very subject to the politics 12' at the time and quite fickle. So they may be lucky and
() 13 they may not.
14 Maine's attorney general advised the Radioactive 15 Waste Commission there that they thought that the Texas 16 approach was viable. So they are going it alone or if they 17 can't solve it some other way and they have to build the 18 disposal site, they will create such a waste authority 19 similar to Texas and go it alone.
20 DR. SHEWMON: Public service means then the 21 state would pass legislation and write their own laws and i
22 regulate their own site; is that it?
23 MR. SALOMON: Yes. They would set che rates.
24 ,
They could contract certain services out, but the contracts 25 would be completely managed by the state. In Texas it is l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-3%O Nanonwide Coserage 4 0-33 4 446 '
. ._ . _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - , . - _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ l
246 REE
- n. ~
l the Texas Low-Level Waste Authority. In New York, it is 2 'the New York State Energy Research and Development Agency.
f 3 In Maine they haven't decided which agency would be the 4 appropriate one.
5 DR. MOELLER: Are there additional questions?
6 Okay. There being none, let me thank you both
- -. 7 again for your oral presentation and for the written 8 material because, again, it was. fascinating.
9 Thank you very much.
j 10 I think with that then I will declare that
! 11 today's formal session will come to a.close. I will 12 announce or remind those in the audience that we will be i
( )' 13 going into executive session. You are welcome to stay if- .
14 you desire, and tomorrow morning at 8:30 we will reconvene 15 in open session to begin a discussion of rulemaking to
}
j 16 conform Part 60 to the EPA standards.
17 With that, I declare today's session recessed.
{
18 (Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the meeting was 19 adjourned.)
~
20
- 21 l 22 l 23 l
24 ;
l 25
!O i
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-347-370) Nationwide Coverage RXI-336-6M6
.._., . . _ . - . . . . _ _ . - . , . . . _ . _ _ _ . - . . . , _ . - . . . . _ . . , _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . , _ . _ , . _ - . _ . . , . . - - _._.,,,m.._.
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMIITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEfENT DOCKET NO.: ,
PLACE: Washington, D. C.
DATE: Thursday, December 4, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) C(t?
r (TYPED)
REBECCA E. EYSTER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS , INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
O n NUCLEAR WAS V DISPOSAL o'
u A. SAFETY PROBLEM: (HIGH LEVEL WASTE) l 0 HLW MUST BE ISOLATED FROM THE ENVIRONMENT FOR AT LEAST 10,000 YEARS.
o GE0 LOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES OF A REPOSITORY SITE MUST BE INFERRED l FROM A RELATIVELY FEW SHORT-TERM FIELD MEASUREMENTS.
l B. RESEARCH/ REGULATORY APPROACH:
l o DEVELOP THE LICENSING TOOLS TO ASSESS THE ABILITY OF DOE'S WASTE PACKAGE j DESIGNS TO CONTAIN WASTES.
o DEVELOP THE LICENSING TOOLS TO ASSESS ABILITY OF ENGINEERED FACILITY TO CONTROL RELEASE OF WASTES.
2 o DEVELOP LICENSING TOOLS TO EVALUATE CAPABILITY OF-GE0 LOGIC SETTING TO ISOLATE WASTES FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
i FUNDING TRENDS: FY86: $3.0 FY87: $3.0 FY88: $5.0 FY89: $5.0 l C.
1 l 0 FY '86 AND FY '87 LEVELS REFLECT CUT FP0M FY '85 LEVEL OF $4.8M (PROGRAM BARELY VIABLE).
! o INCREASE IN '88 AND '89 TO PARTIALLY REC 0VER FROM EARLIER CUTS.
1
\
- ~
o o o'
! )D . HLW ACCOMPLISHMENTS i
i GE0 HYDROLOGY l
I
'l 0 IDENTIFIED TECHNIOUE FOR CHARACTERIZING FRACTURES, MEASURING l
INFILTRATION AND PERCOLATION, AND MEASURING PERMEABILITY OF UNSATURATED FRACTURED ROCK (NUREG/CR-II655).
O DATA INPUT GUIDE AND THEORY AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE TO NRC DEVELOPED SWIFT II, A HEAT, GROUNDWATER, AND BRINE TRANSPORT COMPUTER PROGRAM j ,
(NUREG/CR-3162 AND NUREG/CR-3328, RESPECTIVELY).
l WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE '
4 l o NEW MODEL 0F LOCAL (PITTING) CORROSION OF CARBON STEEL IN REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENT ("EFFECT OF PIT WALL REACTIVITY ON PIT PROP 0GATION IN t
! CARBON STEEL," CORR 0STON, TO BE PUBLISHED),
i
o o
~
! oa 1
GE0 CHEMISTRY o DEMONSTRATED THAT DOE NEEDS TO DEVELOP THERMODYNAMIC GE0 CHEMISTRY DATA FOR
! RADIONUCLIDES AT REPOSITORY TEMPERATURES (T 25*C) (NUREG/CR-4582),
i
)
o DEMONSTRATED THAT SURFACE DIFFUSION INCREASED THE RATE OF RADIONUCLIDE i
TRANSPORT THOUGH BENTONITE, REQUIRING AN UPWARD CORRECTION TO THE BULK l
l DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT FOR BACKFILL MATERIALS (" CATION DIFFUSION THROUGH COMPACTED SODIUM MONTMORILLONITE AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES,"
l I JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE, TO BE PUBLISHED),
i
. B0PEH0LE AND SHAFT SEALING o EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TESTING THE PERFORMANCE OF BOREHOLE AND SHAFT SEALS IN FRACTURED ROCK WAS COMPLETED, RESULTS, WHICH INCLUDED EFFECTS OF l
TEMPERATURE, PLUG SIZE, AND MATERIAL COMPOSITIONS, WERE PUBLISHED IN j NUREG/CR-4642.
i
~
O'
~
O O E. PROPOSED INITIATIVES:
) o INTEGRATED WASTE PACKAGE EXPERIMENTS (TUFF) o THERM 0 HYDRAULIC LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS.
O HYDROTHERMAL ANALOGS.
O SEISMIC AND GE0 TECHNICAL RESEARCH RELATED TO REPOSITORY DESIGN.
F. UNFUNDED PROJECTS:
o STUDIES OF THE EFFECT OF MINERAL VARIATION IN HOST ROCK ON HLW OVERPACK CORR 0SION.
o STUDIES OF HYDROGEN EMBRITTLEMENT OF HEAT-AFFECTED WELD ZONES OF HLW OVERPACKS. i t
] o RESEARCH INTO REPOSITORY BEHAVIOR UNDER OFF-PORMAL CONDITIONS (SAFETY
! MARGIN STUDY) - POSTPONED. l l '
o ANALYSIS OF COUPLED THERMAL HYDRAULIC-GE0 CHEMICAL PHENOMENA IN HLW REPOSITORIES. !
l
~
O O 05 i
I I flLW RESEARCH I
f FY 87 FY 88 ANALYZE HYDROLOGY AND GEOCHEMISTRY OF REPOSITORY 900 1550
' 1 ENVIRONMENTS, DETERMINE INTERACTIONS IMPORTANT i TO CONTAINMENT OF WASTE o GE0 CHEMISTRY OF TUFF AND SALT 350 350 1 0 ACTINIDE GE0 CHEMISTRY AT REPOSITORY TEMPERATURE 150 200 i
o UNSATURATED FLOW IN FRACTURED MEDIA 200 200 ,
I 0 OVERPACK/ BACKFILL CORROSION INTERACTIONS 200 500 l
o HIGH-IONIC STRENGTH GE0 CHEMISTRY 0 300 I
O . O O' I
HLW RESEARCH t
FY 87 FY 88 ,
i l IDENTIFY PERFORMANCE FACTORS AND FAILURE MODES FOR MATERIALS 1000 1700 AND ENGINEERING 0F MAN MADE STRUCTllRES I
o LONG TERM PERFORMANCE OF WASTE PACKAGE 500 500 o EFFECTS OF MANUFACTURING PROCESS ON OVERPACK PERFORMANCE 200 200 i
o INTEGRATED WASTE PACKAGING EXPERIMENTS IN sal.T 300 500 o INTEGRATED WASTE PACKAGING EXPERIMENfS IN TUFF 0 500 1
i i
4
'. ~
O O O' .
HLW RESEARCH FY 87 FY 88 IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY SYSTEM SAFETY FACTORS AND RISK 1100 1750 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES o RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY IN TllFF 450 450 o THERMAL-HYDROLOGIC SIMULATION EXPERIMENTS 0 250 0 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT IN FRACTUPED SATURATED MEDIA 350 350 NATURAL ANALOGUE MODEL VALIDATION EXPERIMENTS 300 500 o
o CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT IN CLAY INTERBEDS (SALT) 0 200
o o
3 08 l
j i RULEMAKINGS o FINAL PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60 DEALING WITH SITE 1
CHARACTERIZATION AND STATE AND INDIAN TRIBE PARTICIPATION IN HLW DISPOSAL WERE PUBLISHED IN JULY 1986, i
o PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60 CONFORMING THE NRC'S HLW REGULATION TO THE EPA HLW STANDARDS WERE PUBLISHED FOR COMMENT IN JUNE 1986, i
l t
1 .u x
~ ~
o o ,
lloTy
, w
\N NIALEARWASTEDISPUSAL -
[ %
4 i
- A. SAFETY PROBl.EM
- (LOW LEVEL WASTE) ,
~
o THE LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS OF ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVES TO St! ALLOW l'AND BURIAL OF LLW HAS NOT EEEs DEMONSTRATED. !
O AS0llRCETERMFORUSEINASSESSINGPERFORMANCEOFLLWDISPOSALSITESdND FACILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
c MONITORING STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES TO ASSURE CONTINUED PEPFORMANCE OF LLW DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ARE NOT IN P1_ ACE. , ,
B. RESEARCH/ REGULATORY APPROACH: STATES AND STATE COMPACTS WILL BE LICENSING AN1i REGULATCING FUTURE LLW DISPOSAL, NRC LLW RESEARCH Will' HELP ASSURE CONSISTENCYs AND UNIFORMITY OF LLW REGULATION BY STATES AND COMPACTS.
4 o ASSESS SAFETY OF ALTERNATIVE F,0R SHALLOW LAND BURIAL DISPOSAL OF LLW.
o DEVELOP EFFECTIVE SOURCE TERMIFOR LLW DISPOSAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT, i
o DEVELOP LICENSING TOOLS FOR ASSESSING POST-CLOSilRE PERFORMANCE OF LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIES.
~
C. FilNDING TRENDS: FY86: $1.6 iFY87: $2.8 FY88: $4.0 FY89: $4.0 o INCREASE REFLECTS CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION TO SUPPORT STATF AND COMPACT LLW ACTIVITIESINCLUDINGEVALUATibNOFALTERNATIVEDISPOSALMETHODS.
O O O' D. LLW ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
ENGINEERED ENHANCEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO SHALLOW LAND BURIAL o IDENTIFIED ENGINEERED FEATURES COMMON TO SEVERAL ENHANCEMENTS / ALTERNATIVES AND ASSESSED THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO SAFETY (NUREG/CR-4701).
i TRANSPORT MODELING I '
o COMPLETEDANEXERCISEINCOMPARINGMODELPREDICTIONSOFRADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT BASED UPON FIELD MEASilREMENTS OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS WITH OBSERVED RADIONUCLIDE MOVEMENT AT THE SITE. THE WORK ASSESSED THE r*9)VIDUAL CONTRIBUTION OF MODEL UNCERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY IN FIELD DATA 70 OVE9ALL UNCERTAINTY IN PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS (T0 BE PUBLISHED AS A hust6/CR).
HYDROLOGY o- BASED llPON LABORATORTY STUDIES, MODELING WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED TO DESIGN FIELD EXPERIMENTS TO TEST AFD VALIDATE STOCf!ASTIC THEORIES OF NEAR-SURFACE GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT IN llNSATURED SOILS (NUREG/CR-4622).
' 3
/
E. PROPOSED INITIATIVES:
o CHARACTERIZATION OF PERF0PMANCE OF ENGINEERED BARRIERS IN AN LLW DISPOSAL FACILITY, o THE EFFECT OF ORGANIC COMPLEXANTS, MICR0PARTICULATES AND RADIONUCLIDE RETENTION MECHANISMS, 4
F. UNFilNDED PROJECTS:
1 0 DEVELOPMENT OF SITE-ENGINEERING COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SLB (DROPPED).
O SIGNIFICANT DELAYS AND STRETCH-0VTS ON THE FOLLOWING LLW RESEARCH HAVE BEEN NECESSARY.
DEVELOPMENT OF A WORKING SOURCE TERM F0P. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT, CHARACTERIZATION OF LWR DECONTAMINATION WASTE AS AN LLW WASTE FORM, MONITORING STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES FOR LLW DISPOSAL PERFORMANCE,
O'
~ '
i O O ,
i LLW RESEARCH FY 87 FY 88 IDENTIFY SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS OF ENGINEERED LLW 1100 1450 DISPOSAL IMPORTANT TO SAFETY o LOW LEVEL WASTE PACKAGE AND ENGINEERED 500 500 BARRIER STUDY o CLOSURE METHODS ASSESSMENT 300 450 0 SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES TO SLB 300 500 4
- - g e
i 1
.i
^
LLW RESEARCH FY 87 FY 88 DETERMINE APPROPRIATE SOURCE TERM FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS 1100 1550 o LLW SOURCE TERM 500 500 o FIELD VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MODELS 400 500 0 PROPERTIES OF SOLIDIFIED LWR DECONTAMINATION WASTES 200 150 0 400
! o ENGINEERED COMPONENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ,
)
1 I
O O O'
) LLW RESEARCH FY 87 FY 88 DFVELOP STANDARD LONG-TERM MONITORING METHODS FOR ASSESSING 600 1000 l CONTINUAL PEPFORMANCE 0 SLB MONITORING PROGRAM - LESSONS LEARNED 300 500 l
o SITE CLOSURE AND MONITORING FOR SLB AND ALTERNATIVES 300 500 l
', O O O .' 4 I
.1 HLW TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM I
AND INTERFACE WITH RESEARCH l
le i
! ri ..
a l' .
ACRS Briefing: 12/04/86 l, '
P. Justus j .
W. Walker 1 1 1
s
, O O O. L l
l . DOE'S JOB ' /. .
1 I ,
)
2 0 DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH 10 CFR 60 REQUIREMENTS IN A COMPLETE LICENSE APPLICATION DOE ASSUMES THE BURDEN OF PROOF -
0 FULLY DOCUMENT ALL LICENSING / PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE, AND ASSESS UNCERTAINTIES IN:
- BASIC PHENOMENA AND PROCESSES
- CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONSHIPS, MODELS, AND CODES
- PARAMETERS AND DATA-GATHERING METHODS t - SCENARIOS
, - PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY i DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS OF INSIGNIFICANCE OF UNCERTAINTIES BASED ON:
- HARD DATA
- ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS
, PROVIDE FULLY 00CUMENTED QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
, i D
n, .
O O O' s NRC STAFF'S JOB
.i
! d . PROPOSE FINDINGS TO ASLB
- i,
- ESTABLISH ADEQUACY OF LICENSE APPLICATION l
- ESTABLISH THAT REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE EXISTS I
- 0 DEFEND PROPOSED FINDINGS ,
" PERFORM INDEPENDENT DATA REVIEW
- ESTABLISH ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF RELEVANT DATA '
i ,
'. REVIEW DOE'S PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
- ESTABLISH ADEQUACY OF: ,
t -
MODELS, INPUT PARAMETERS .
SCENARIOS ..,
2 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENTS INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED REPOSITORY SYSTEM COMP 0NENTS 0 NRC STAFF DOES NOT ASSUME ANY PART OF THE BURDEN OF THE
- APPLICANT TO PROVE ADEQUACY OF LICENSE APPLICATION 0 NRC STAFF DOES NOT FILL IN GAPS / DEFICIENCIES IN LICENSE APPLICATIONS
,b
.O O O'
,' NRC RESEARCH i
0 , PROBES HIGHLY UNCERTAIN PHENOMENA AND PROCESSES OF POTENTIAL IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE ,
- EX., COUPLED PROCESSES (T-H-M-C) 0' EVALUATES UNCONVENTIONAL APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING MODELS OR COLLECTING DATA-
- EX., GE0 TOMOGRAPHY f
0 CONFIRMS DOE CONCLUSIONS IMPORTANT TO NRC'S FINDINGS
, - MAY INVOLVE INDEPENDENT COLLECTION OF DATA IN SELECTED CRITICAL AREAS 0' HELPS DETERMINE WHAT IS AND IS NOT SIGNIFICANT
~ ,
s0 SUPPORTS INDEPENDENT LICENSING REVIEW CAPABILITIES
" USER NEED STATEMENT" (7/23/84) 5
- , O '
SUPPORTS NRC'S EVALUATION OF DOE'S COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS REQUIRED BY 10 CFR 60
I j
i
! RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE -COORDINATION I
e i
i i
I '
t
- RES TA 1,
! i :
) UNDERSTANDING PHENOMENA LICENSING QUESTIONS LONG-TERM RESULTS SHORT-lERM RESULTS GENERIC GENERIC OR SITE-SPECIFIC 1 '
.1 i
l l .
I' '
e' .
I..
i .
l ,
l
)
i i
- - . - . . . - . _~ . - _ . _ _ - - - -. __ . - .. - _. ..
t 1
4 l
i l
AREAS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE -HIGH LEVEL WASTE .
e o HYDROLOGY
\ .
o GE0 CHEMISTRY l ,
l', o GE0 LOGY /GE0 LOGIC STABILITY ,
I o WASTE FORM AND PACKAGE PERFORMANCE ' ne .
o REPOSITORY DESIGN / ROCK MECHANICS
~
- o PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT o QUALITY ASSURANCE j ', -
i o LICENSING SUPPORT .
! I L
i e
O~
i, O O
, HLW Contracts l6 l Technical Assistance Technical Methodology Confirmatory 1 Area - Expertise Development Data Gathering Hydrology 60% 40%
. Geochemistry 50% 20% 30%
Geology 100%
! Waste, package 50% 30% 20%
! i
! Des.i'gn/ Rock i Mechanics 100% -
- Technical Integration /
Performance
- Assessment 30% 70%
, QA , 100%
. Licensing Support 100%
4 .
! I l t ' ' /.
1
- O' O O P
I '
TA FOR HYDROLOGY -
j, .
j .
o GROUNDWATER DATA GATHERINGS (FIN D1020 WILLIAMS)
SATURATED FLOW UNSATURATED FLOW I.
! o GROUNDWATER MODELING (FIN D1020 NWC A1158 SNL)
SATURATED FLOW e
l' l UNSATURATED FLOW i
I i
, I
,t .
l
'1
O' O O 1
i -
TA FOR GE0 CHEMISTRY .
i i
I
! o GE0 CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT j .
ROCK / WATER INTERACTIONS (80290 ORNL) i i .
RED 0X CONDITIONS 9
(80290 ORNL) ,
t J
i, ,
f 1 i i
- 4
)..
1 i '
,t f,*
1 1 ,.
.... O O O~
I o RADIONUCLIDE MOBILITY t
, SOLUBILITY (80287/B0290 ORNL)
S0RPTION .
(80287/B0290 ORNL)
TRANSPORT PROCESS t
GE0 CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (A1756 SANDIA)
MATRIX DIFFUSION
, . (80287 ORNL)
BRINE MIGRATION (80287 ORNL)
. t
~, .
h t
. .I t
. I
~
i O O O'~
j ..'.
! l TA FOR GEOLOGY AND GE0 LOGIC STABILITY ,
i j l o GE0 PHYSICAL METHODS (FIN A0297 LLNL) i o STRATIGRAPHY j (FIN A0297 LLNL) il i ', o GE0 LOGIC STRUCTURE AND TECTONICS
! (FIN A0297 LLNL) 1
! o SEISM 0 LOGY l (FIN A0297 LLNL)
'. o NATURAL RESOURCES i
(FIN D1018 B0M) of I
r i !
t l'
! t I,
i
$ 1 .
' s a
o a 6--
- i TA FOR REPOSITORY DESIGN / ROCK MECHANICS
!i ,
l I
o MINING, GE0 ENGINEERING AND FACILITY DESIGN l , (FIN B6934 B0M & FIN D1016 ITASCA) ,
- i o ROCK MECHANICS AND IN SITU TESTING i ,
(B6932 NCRM)
. t
!, o COUPLED THERMAL EFFECTS
!' (FIN A1755-SNL) i i i i
l In L ,
i, 4
4 t
f i ,
1 2
i l
i ~
O.
O O -
? ,
l .
le i
TA FOR HLW WASTE PACKAGE i , .
, 9 I't
,' o WASTE PACKAGE EVALUATIONS (A4171-NBS) i ;
' ,' . o WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT t .
e e j.
I t e t t l 1 I *
'1 !
!! I _. _ __
\
i; D O O' .
j . ,
~
s... . '
l i, l
TA FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT .
i ... .
4 l
\*
i o BROAD METHODOLOGY (A-1165 SNL) -
i o SCENARIO PROBABILITIES
. (A-1165 SNL)
, t i
i k
3 1
, r.
l l
. f 4, '
I i
j . l 1
l- -
i . --
l- O O O 2.
. s i
TA-FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE .
i I ,
i .
l o AUDIT DOE QA PROGRAMS FOR SITE CHARACTEP,IZATION i
6 9
. .?,
't
!.1 .
i i i .
' 's, . .
I 1
d I I
i af O
1 O O O' i , ,
i
!' '. TA FOR LICENSING SUPPORT ,
i
~
o LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM 4
j '
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING i (FIN D1056 WALC0FF) 1- -
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT i
ISSUE MANAGEMENT 1
(
) st , 3 i '
i 6
j i I
l 4 .
r lie j i l i
i
- . - - - . . = - - - - . . .. - ._ _ . _ .. - . .
o' A o 0 i
i
)
l ,
'I i
$UMMARY OF NRC'S WORK ON ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL METHODS '~
s TO SHALLOW LAND BURIAL REVIEW ALTERNATIVES -
t PURPOSE OF FRN ,
i ;
i -
RESPONSE TO FRN j
STATUS & PLANS e
l l
1
! t i
! l l.
l l _ _ _ _ .. _
O c')
l LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT (LLRWPAA) 0 BY JANUARY 15, 1987 NRC MUST:
l l IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR DISPOSAL (SEC. 8) l I
ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND DEVELOP TECHNICAL CAPABILITY TO j PROCESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS (SEC. 9(A))
l BY JANUARY 15, 1988 NRC MUST:
I IDENTIFY TECHNICAL INFORMATION AN APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE F i A LICENSE IN ORDER TO PURSUE SUCH METHODS (SEC. 9(B))
}
)
l 9
i
O O O' .
l I
I l DRAFT ItLHhlCAL POSITION ON ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS
' (FRN MARCH 6, 1986)
A 3-YEAR STUDY CONDUCTED BY NRC STAFF WITH CONTRACTOR ASSISTA
=
l IDENTIFIED ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED AS DISPOSAL OPTIONS; LLRWPAA SEC. 8 REQUIREMENT 10 CFR PART 61 IS APPLICABLE TO ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS '
l .,
i 1
O O O' .
}
i i
I i
1 10 CFR PART 61 i
, SUBPARTSAl&B: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS (APPLIES TO ANY
! METHOD OF LAND DISPOSAL)
I .
i SUBPART C: PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES (APPLIES TO ANY METHOD J OF LAND DISPOSAL) i SUBPART D: TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS (APPLIES TO NEAR-i SURFACE DISPOSAL METHODS)
I SUBPARTS E, F, & G: ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (APPLIES TO ANY l
METHOD OF LAND DISPOSAL) '
i
) .
o O O
~
1 1
I i
1 i
SPECIFICALLY EVALUATED TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, 10 CFR 61 SUBPART D j .
l SITE SUITABILITY (61.50)
SITE DESIGN (61.51) l SITE OPERATIONS AND CLOSURE (61.52) l ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING (61.53) 1 1
1 l
l 4
l O , o O SECTIONS 10 CFR 61.50, 61.51, 61.52, 61.53 ARE f
J DIRECTLY APPLICABLE I, BELOWGROUND VAULTS i
i AB0VEGROUND VAULTS -
i, EARTH MOUNDED CONCRETE BUNKERS i
4 i AUGERED H0LES/ SHAFT DISPOSAL MINED CAVITY IS SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER NEAR-S HOWEVER, IT IS LICENSABLE UNDER PART 61.23 DN i DISPOSAL OPTIONS:
1 A CASE BY CASE BASIS l
8 i
l I
l i
- l
? _
O e
MOUNDEO SOfL COVER VAULT COVER AND
.c INTRUDER BARRIER MONITORING STACK
~ ~.
' s 'g\
's J k '
- , 4.'he ^ d N
,, ?- . r
\ a l
- s. '
h - iN . Tu A,sJs 's y N
.s SOIL N
O 'N.
N N
N s.
s N.
N N
N, g
h.*
e, '
VAULT WALL
" AND POOTING xyN 'l
~
.. p. :.gg$(?
x s, N ss N
. ~.e
- !! ?,N-s
'% % s
.. ' ._ gy * ..
DRAIN AND SUMP l .
N ! 9s* .. , 9 [,4 %..
,A T' yf[(*' y FLoon.NATUaAL s OR ENGINEERED
.I
. +
CONCEPTU AL CUTAWAY VIEW BELOW GROUND VAULT DISPOSAL lO i
1 i
i I
I, t
i
Slopee y Stepee '.
Away fmem 4 Away front Sensetye Strveture (,
^ 'I* * .* . '
.. ..e,..
s'V: '.'se.
L.' h't . *. ? . ;.i.,* .' .*
. .G .*;t * *!.*.':.
h;;** e .'. ..?.
? *. *:*.. . :;*..... '.. .."'= . , *.L'*
- ; v;s.'.
- *d .i .:.. . .e . . t ;*V. .;... v .
.s.e'.
t sl.:.;?. .. ;' . s. ' ..e . *. ~;?. . .:4.-
..*. . .'s-;:;;.
^
o*...;...,*.
.\. .... .:. . ..
.. . ,;'; '.. v.9s.
? .e
- .=. ;
. . * * ;t*-
- .. .x.1, . t.*.W; .:;7.
.- . ..*:r'. *. =;4. ... . *:. *..e* : c* . .? y .-; .?v.. * %. . *. s. ,. . .'
. . . ,'-l,.
J LewgenneebEty Membrane Slope Under Gravel ** ShWe Drett Generic aboveground LLW disposal vault and foundation crose section shewleg yevel creenage layer, low permeaNitty meetunne.
eloped eaeayatloa, ene per6pheral euteurf ace ersin y
i e
O to -um . ...
r r;M... . ...... ... . a m ...... i
.. ,.. . co... m .6.c..
~. ,
...aet.&, . a. .
y,
~%.-^ s ,g\....
4 -
g<g g
- . s N \
N NN s.
4
/ e yd^ -
s k' M A T-N k - , ' q'S \ h uI
@s{ %' A\
y\ i
\p: . l lt I, lg .gq. .N..
.. ![J....
....\ N 0 ' ,11 (
( K Q x s N 'N s ~ .. .....,o 91 . 484..... .vg6 ,
..ek....g.,segg gagtgg
....s. . y g gges EARTH MOUNDED CONCRETE BUNKER O
a -
0 .
e G
O
,.=:::::=..
e osv nwswg gp;~~mv-IN SITU SOIL AK 1
_ = ..
g N
%W//4vww/hA vee <
' CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION VIEW AUGERED HOLE DISPOSAL l
0 l
~ ~
O O O l CONCLUSIONS OF TASK 2, VOL. 2, BELOWGROUND VAULTS i
i I LICENSABLE UNDER PART 61 00LS NOT RELY AS HEAVILY AS AB0VEGROUND ON DESIGN FEATURES AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FOR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE l NO LONG-TERM EXPERIENCE (CURRENTLY USED FOR STORAGE O LIKELY TO PROVIDE IMPROVED SHORT-TERM PERFORMANCE (100 YEARS) .
EXPECTED LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE SHOULD AT LEAST EQUAL SLB POSSIBLE HIGH EXPOSURE OF WORKERS i
l t
~ ~
O O O CONCLUSIONS OF TASK 2, VOL. 3, AB0VEGROUND VAULTS LICENS6BLE UNDER PART 61 .
N0 10NG-TERM EXPERIENCE WITH DEMONSTRATING PERFORMANCE 5LR10US DIFFICULTY MEETING:
- 61.51(A)(1) AVOIDANCE OF LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE . .
- 61.52(A)(2) 500 YEAR INTRUDER PROTECTION '
CANNOT RELY ON SECONDARY CONTAINMENT BY GE0 LOGIC MEDIA .
LIMITED SHORT-TERM EXPERIENCE DIFFICULTY IN DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM DURABILITY OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS REQUIRES WELL DEFINED QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM POSSIBLE HIGH EXPOSURE OF WORKERS A
- ~
O O CD l
l l
l I
CONCLUSIONS OF TASK 2, VOL. 4, EARTH MOUNDED CONCRETE BUNKER l
LICENSABLE UNDER PART 61 l -
l ONLY ALTERNATIVE CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR ACTUAL WASTE ,
(FRANCE SINCE 1969)
POSSIBLE DIFFICULTY DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE .
j CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CORPS RECOMMENDS SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS OVER FRENCH S INTERNAL PROBLEMS I
\
~
. O, o O i
1 i
i CONCLUSIONS OF TASK 2, VOL. 5, SHAFT DISPOSAL /AUGERED H0LES l
LICENSABLE UNDER PART 61
! 1SHORT-TERM EXPERIENCE (APPROXIMATELY 25 YEARS) i INITIAL USE HAS BEEN STORAGE MOST LIKE SHALLOW-LAND BURIAL EASILY CONSTRUCTED AND ADAPTABLE TO LINERS IF DEEMED 1 APPROPRIATE EXPECTED LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE WOULD BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN SLB I
I l
O O O l
t THE DRAFT TECHNICAL POSITION SOLICITED ANSWERS TO FOUR QUESTIONS
(
SUMMARY
STATEMENT OF EACH QUESTION AND RESPONSES)'
i QUESTION 1: SHOULD ANY ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES BE CONSIDERED .
RESPONSE: FRN IDENTIFIED ALL ALTERNATIVES QUESTION 2: WHAT ADDITIONAL REGULATORY GUIDANCE IS NEEDED i RESPONSE: REQUEST VARIED i
i QUESTION 3: D0 YOU SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDIZED DESIGNi STANDARDIZATION WAS SUPPORTED
! RESPONSE: BEST APPLIED ON A REGIONAL BASIS QUESTION 4: DO YOU FAVOR PRELICENSING REVIEWS TO EXPEDITE THE LICENSING PROCESS RESPONSE: FAVORABLY SUPPORTS PRELICENSING REVIEWS Wl
~ '
O O Cr ADDITIONAL WORK ON ALTERNATIVES DRAFT STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT OF LICENSE APPLICATI NEAR-SURFACE DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE (FRN MARCH 14,1986)
STANDARD REVIEW PLAN (INTERNAL DRAFT AUGUST / SEPTEMBE REGIONAL WORKSHOPS OUTREACH PROGRAM FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONCENTRATED EFFORT ON SELECTED ALTERNATIVES BELOWGROUND VAULTS EMCB f
o O O' i
i
) NRC FOCUS ON BELOWGROUND VAULTS AND EMCB i
PREFERRED OPTIONS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED l
. LIMITED RESOURCES l CRITICAL TIME SCHEDULE !
I l
i 1
i i
,w-.-
~
O O O' A
LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT (LLRWPAA) 0F 1985 BY JANUARY 15, 1987 NRC MUST:
IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR DISPOSAL (SEC. 8)
FRN IDENTIFIED ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND DEVELOP TECHNICAL CAPABILITY TO PROCESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS (SEC. 9(A))
- STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT GUIDE AND STANDARD REVIEW -
PLANS MECHANISM PROCESS APPLICATION BY JANUARY 15, 1988 NRC MUST: .
IDENTIFY TECHNICAL INFORMATION AN APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE FOR A LICENSE IN ORDER TO PURSUE SUCH METHODS (SEC. 9(B))
- REGIONAL WORKSHOPS PROVIDE INPUT
' .. f
>:?
l T ;
IQ LOW LEVEL WASTE l TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PRESENTED TO ACRS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMITTEE DECEMBER 4, 1986
.O i
i i M R KNAPP l NMSS/W LO
-... -.-..- ..,-.- - -._-. . - _ --,-- --- ---... ...,..._.....-.... . - - - - - - ~ _ - . - - - - -
4 1
O l
4 LOW LEVEL WASTE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BUDGET
$K FY87 FY88*
LLRWPAA 1,540 1,100 OTHER REGULATORY ACTION 240 100 _
CASEWORK 290 870 LOW-LEVEL WASTE TOTAL 2,070 2,070 0
- ESTIMATES i
lO 4
o 4
6 O
LLRWPAA
$K FY87 FY88*
GREATER THAN CLASS C 50 50 600 ***
ALTERNATIVES TO SLB 15 MONTH LICENSE REVIEW CAPABILITY 409 ***
LEACHING SOURCE TERM 250 ***
SITE SCREENING 100 100 DATA BASE 131 ***
4 TOTAL LLRWPAA 1,540 1,100
!
- ESTIMATE i
i O
I i
l
. . ~ .- _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . , _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . .___, _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ , _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _
o
.g O
OTHER REGULATORY ACTIONS
$K FY87 FY88*
- 100 MIXEDWASTE(CHEMICALLYHAZARDOUS)
- 0 MIXED WASTE (BIOLOGICALLY HAZARD 0US)
TOTAL OTHER REGULATORY ACTIONS 240 100
- ESTIMATE r
O i
l 4
i i
1 i
O i
~
=
CASEWORK
$K FY87 FY88*
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES 0 250 TOPICAL REPORTS 290 200 DESIGN REVIEWS 0 250 0 ***
BRC PETITIONS 0 ***
WESTVALLEYREVkEWS TOTAL CASEWORK 290 870
,
- ESTIMATE 1
i O
o*
l
. O i
FIN No TITLE CONTRACTOR LLRWPAA LICENSING REVIEW CAPABILITY A6188 LLW Data Base Development-EPICOR EG&G B2483 Def. of Solute Trans. Mechanisms PNL B2485 Performance Assessment PNL ALTERNATIVES A3176 Dev. of Criteria for Materials BNL B2484 Environmental Monitoring Battelle D1071 TA - Dev. Eng. Criteria and Reqs COE O DATA BASE A6190 Common Data Base - Disposal Records EG8G B6999- LLRW Records Chem Nuclear B7000 LLRW Records USE OTHER REGULATORY ACTIONS TBD Bichazardous Waste TBD CASEWORK A3175 Analysis for Special Waste Problems BNL A3174 Dev. of LLW Form Criteria BNL t
O 1
O o O 'N b
SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES TO
~
i SHALLOW LAN D BURIAL OF LOW LEVEL WASTE OBJECTIVE:
- 1.) IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN FEATURES IMPORTANT TO SAFETY DF THE ENGIN'EERED ENHANCEMENTS / ALTERNATIVES TO SHALLOW LAND BURIAL 2.) RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE "IMPORTANT" DESIGN FEATURES i
( identify failure mechanisms and relevant environmental conditions, estimate performance lifetimes)
O. O O' .
CONTRACTOR: INEL FY 1986 WORKSCOPE TASK 1: ALTERNATIVE ftTHODS REVIEW LITERATUPE REVIEW OF THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS OF THE FOLLOWING FIVE ENHANCEE NTS/ ALTERNATIVES TO SHALLOW LAND BURIAL: MINED CAVITY, ABOVE GRADE ENGINEERED VAULT, BELOW GRADE ENGINEERED VAULT, AUGURED HOLES, AND CONCRETE BUNKERS TASK 2: IDENTIFICATION OF IPPORTANT DESIGN COPPONENTS IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT DESIGN FEATURES " HAT CAUSE AN ENHANCENNT/ ALTERNATIVE TO DIFFER FROM SHALLOW LAND BURIAL AND THE RELATIVE ENHANCEE NTS AND/OR DETRIE NTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IDENTIFIED FEATURES TASK 3: RANKING OF IMPORTANT DESIGN COMPONENTS i RELATIVE RANKING OF THE DESIGN FEATURES ACCORDING TO THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE OVERALL DESIGN PERFORMANCE i
FY 1987 WORKSCOPE QUANTIFICATION OF THE BENEFITS / RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN FEATURES DETERMINED TO BE IMPORTANT TO OVERAll FACILITY PERFORMANCE I
.l
O BASIS OF TECHNICAL APPROACH o IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN COMPONENTS DERIVED FROM "SufflARY CHARACTERIZATION OF LOW-LEVEL RADIDACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES," ROGERS & ;
ASSOC. ENGINEERING, TIM 8504/1-1, JUNE 1985. l o DEFINITION OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES l FOLLOWS 10CFR61 " LICENSING REQUIREENTS FOR LAND D'ISPOS ,
Q OF RADIDACTIVE WASTE" SUBPART C - PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES.
o ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES BASED ON FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS (FMEA).
FIGURES OF ERIT ARE CALCULATED FOR:
RELATIVE PERFORMANCE OF EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EACH COMPONENT WiTHIN EACH ALTERNATIVE.
l l
l O
l
O FUNCTIONS OF FOUR DESIGN COMPONENTS COMPONENT FUNCTIONS COVER BIO-BARRIER DIVERTS INCIDENT WATER PREVENTS AIRBORNE RELEASE SHIELDS DIRECT RADIATION STRUCTURE ASSURES STABILITY PREVENTS RELEASE TO AIR, WATER SHIELDS DIRECT RADIATION O FILL ASSURES STABILITY SHIELDS DIRECT RADIATION ,
CONTAINER ASSURES STABILTIY
- PREVENTS RELEASE TO AIR, WATER SHIELDS DURING OPERATIONS O
l
O SETS OF DISTINGUISHING COMPONENTS FOR SELECTED ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS Relation -
Alternative to Grade Baseline case Enhancement Shallow Land Burial below Cover Cover (SLB) Fill Fill Container Selow Ground Vault below Cover Cover (BGV)
Structure Structure Fill Augered Hole below Cover (AH) None Structure Fill Earth Mounded Concrete above Cover Cover
. Bunker Tumulus (EMCS) Fill Fill Container
' Above Ground Vault above Structure #1 Structure (AGy)
Cover
- 2 Structure !
Cover Container O
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FOR DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND RELATED DISPOSAL SYSTEM- FUNCTIONS O
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES (10 CFR 61 Subpart C) O!$POSAL SYSTEM F11NCTIONS (Failure Analysis) 61.41 Protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity Concentrations of radtbactive material o which may be released to the general Prevention of radionuclide release to the atmosphere environment in ground water. surface water, air, soil plants or animals o
must not result in an annual dose Prevention of radionuclide release to surface water exceeding an equivalent of 25 millirems to the whole body. 75 millirems to o Prevention of radionuclide release to ground the thyroid, and 25 milltrems to any water other organ of any member of the public. Reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as is reasonably achievable.
61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion.
Design. operation. and closure of the o Prevention of inadvertent intrusion during land disposal facility must ensure the post closure period O protection of any individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal site and occupying the site or contacting the weste at any time after active institutional controls over the disposal site are removed.
61.43 Protection of individutis during operations.
. Coerations at the land disposa? facility must be conducac in compliance with a Minimization of radiation dose to workers during the operational period the standares for radiation protaction
! set out in Part 20 of this chapter.
except for releases of radioactivity in effluents from the land disposal facility, which shall be govern 9d by 61.41 of this part. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain i radiation exposures as low as is i
reasonably acnievable.
61.44 Stability of the disposal site after closure.
The disposal facility must be sited, designed. used. opers tad, and closed o Maintenance of stability of disposal site to acnieve long-term stability of the disposal site and to eliminate, to the extent practicable. the need for ongoing active maintenance of the disposal site followine closure so that only serve 111ance, monitoring, j or minor custmaial care are required.
i
9
.t HAZARD CATEGORIES APPLIED TO FAILURE MODES HAZARD CONDITION OF CATEGORY WEIGHTING DISPOSAL SYSTEM FACTOR IA NOMINAL. System performs as designed. All components function. 5 IB NOMINAL. Loss of a component function has no immediate effect on system but may degrade performance of other components 4 IIA MARGINAL. Performance is degraded. The system still resists hazard generation.
A second failure moves the system to
, Category III. 3 IIB MARGINAL. Performance is degraded. The system still resists hazard generation.
A second failure moves the system to Category IV. 2 III CRITICAL FAILURE. Performance is degraded Q and hazards are generated, the rate of which is limited by the function of some component. I IV COMPLETE FAILURE. Performance is degraded and hazards are generated, the rate of which is not limited by any system component. O O
I O
FUNCTIONAL FAILURE MODES -
ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS MODES
- COVER STRUCTURE fjlL CONTAINER 1 + + + + SUCCESS 2 -
+ + +
3 + - + +
4 - -
+ +
5 + + -
+
6 -
+ -
+
O 7 + - -
+
8 - - - +
9 + + + -
10
+ + -
11 + -
+ -
~12
+ -
l
. l 13 + + - -
14 - + - -
15 + - - -
16 - -
CATASTROPHIC ,
lQ * + = FUNCTIONS AS INTENDED
- = LOSS OF FUNCTION l
l t
COMP 0NENT RANKING FACTORS Function #3: Ground Water Release (Post-Closure)
Cover FID Structure ConLeur SLB BoseRns .80 .40 SLB Enhanced .50 .10 .40 W Bosenne 1.00 W Enhensed #1 .50 .50 ,
o W E ,.n.ed a m . m m ives sosans .n m
~
t_WCB Enhensed .40 .20 .40 BGV Basenne .50 .50 BW Enhor.ced .40 .20 .40 -
AH Boesnne .
.40 .20 .40 0 -
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS: PREVENTION OF GROUND WATER RELEASES
O ~ COMPONENT RANKING FACTORS Function #6: Stability (Post-Closure)
Cover FE Statwo Container SLA Basenne .80 .40 SLB Enhanced .58 .22 .22 ,
ACV Boss 5ne 1.00 ACV Enhanced it .40 .40 O ACV Enhanced M .24 .40 .40 l
EM .87 M i
l DA::8 Enhoneed .58 .17 .28 l
I sw soodne .50 .50 i !
80V Enhor _:ed
.50 .10 .40 l j
l l
l l
AH Besenne .47 .05 .47 l l
O FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS: MAINTENANCE OF STABILITY 1 l
, . ~ . - - . _ . _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ , _ _ . . , _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ , , , _ - - , . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . - . _
O MPONENT: COVER Atmospheric swface Ground htnmion 1/ verker2/ mabany nesses. m water noe.
Reisees Release
_SLS Boselbe .80 .75 .80 .70 .50 .50 SLB Enhanced .40 .44 .50 .40 .40 .56 A0V Basenne A0V Enhanced #1 .5J .50 .50 .40 .40 .40 A0V Enhensed #2 .24 .C4 .33 .24 .20 .40 DICOideenne .87 .f7 .87 51 _
.50 .47
-- =
BICE E4. anced .40 .40 .40 .37 .33 .56 EmtBeseens .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 BGV Enhanood .33 .33 .40 .40 .24 .50
- 1 Bosmane .M .47 .40 .40 .40 .47 M Wseurs W wh O # " * *
COMPONENT ANALYSIS: COVER
t Q COMPONENT RANKING FACTORS AGV - Bose!ine 1
Atmospheric Surfone Water Ground Water intnmion Worter StaniRy I l
Release Releone Releoes Does CCMR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
pig, ___ . ____ _ _ . - . . _ _. _ _ __ _ __
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 12 STRUCTURE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 COWADER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - -
O AGv - ennoncea 2
- s.,,.oo Wei. - Wei, m We, , si ,
Releone Release Reloose Does
.33 .33 .33 .20 .40 CCMR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.24 .24 .33 .24 .40 plu __ _ __ _ __ _ ___
.33 .33 .33 .40 .40 STRUCTURE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.43 .43 .33 .43 .40 .
.33 .33 .33 .40 .20 COEADS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.33 .33 .33 .33 .20 upper vahn - op=*rm Q Laser vaka - post-closurs
.. h . .
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS: AGV e
COMPONENT RANKING FACTORS BGV - Baseline Atmosphwie Swfoon Water Ground Water intnmion Workar Stat @ty Asiones Raisons Reisone Does
.50 .50 .50 . .50 .50 cm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ ------ - - - - - - - ------
.50 .50 .50 .50 .50 pu, -.-.- -- ------ --_-__ ---_ _ - --- ----__
.50 .50 .50 .50 .50 STRUCIURE ------ ------ - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - ------
.50 .50 .50 .50 .50 CONTADER ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O BGV - Enhanced
_t _;' 1 -
Safase Water Ground Water Intrusion Worker Statsty Releone Releons Relenos Does
.40 .40 .40 .24 .52 CDER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - ------
.33 .40 .40 .40 .50
.20 .20 .20 .33 .14 l
pu, - - . - - -- . - -- -- -- . - -_---- -__---
l
.24 .20 .20 .10 .10
.40 .40 .40 .43 .33 STRUC1URE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
.43 .40 .40 .50 .40 CONTADER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - ------ ------
upper value - opwouene l
Laser value - post-closure ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS: BGV l
l O
CONCLUSIONS 1.) The cover design component is one of the most important design components regardless -
of the presence of other components 2.) Engineered enhancements that improve the O performance of ine coyer ongfor proy;ge redundancy with the cover can significantly enhance a disposal system 1
3.) The above ground vault is unique among the alternatives due to the reliance for system ,
performance resting on one engineered component O
N O
E _A3 _ ~Y AN A _YS S 1.) Identify relevant time scales 2.) Identify benign and detrimentol environmental O conditions 3.) Develop a data analysis method to accurately estimate performance lifetimes attributable to the "important" environmental conditions 4.) Present results in a form which will support the development of design criteria and performance assessments O
O -
r^t'uat acca^atsas 'taotaa To toss or coaTataacar av staucTuat IV: LOSS OF CONTAINMENT OF STRUCTURE Failure Contributing Mechanism Cause Factors
- 1. Concrete Cracking a. Loss of Stability of Cover (!!)
- b. External Loads Dead Load Live Load Seismic Flood Ponding Expansive Soils
- c. Shrinkage Drying Mixture Size of Member Restraint
- d. Temperature Internal Environment External Environment
, Fire
- e. Settlement in Plastic State
, f. Degradation of Concrete Failure of Coatings
- Freeze / Thaw Chemical Exposure Reactive Aggregates Corrosion of Reinforcement Electrolysis
- g. Foundation Settlement .
(II-1.e)
- 2. Seals a. Installation Doors & Portals Vents Construction Joints Espansion Joints
- b. Degradation of Seal Chemistry inside Chemistry Outside Failure of Coatings
- c. Overpressurization Failure of Vent
- 3. Barrier Penetration a. Corrosion Failure of Coatings !
Chemistry Outside
,. , Chemistry inside Dissimilar Metals -
Motsture
- b. Degradation of Failure of Coatings Materials Chemistry inside Chemistry outside Moisture
- 4. Leaching a. Concrete Cracking (IV-1)
- b. Seals (IV-2)
- c. Infiltration (1-2) l
e r
O
_- g ____
100 8 8 i Data available
---Insufficient data available Environrnental b Benign attack O7,C 50 -
environment _
Q 0
1 10 15 100 3 Time (yr) S3410 I
- O Graphical Representation of Expected Component Perfomance
\. )
Current Status of Each State in Providing Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Prepared by Office of State Programs - Current as of December 1, 1986 For further information, contact Dr. Stephen N. Salomon, (301) 492-9881
- 1. Chart entitled, " Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compacts Consented to by Congress as of December 1, 1986."
- 2. Compact status map as of December 1, 1986.
- 4. Discussion of the following:
. A. Meeting the Congressional Milestones o Compacts and States Covered by Congressional Milestones o Milestones and Penalties
,o o Meeting the Congressional Milestone of July 1, 1986 Compacts consented to by Congress o Central-Midwest Compact o Midwest Compact o Central Compact o Northeast Compact Compacts requiring CongressJonal consent o Appalachian Compact o Western Compact Unaffiliated States B. ProgressintheSiIedCompacts Note: New information since the last status report dated October 6, 1986, is highlighted by a bar in the left column. Also, where possible information on compacts and States is organized following the draft
()
-s 00E Generic Plan for Development of a New LLW Disposal Facility.
O O O INTERSTATE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE COMPACTS CONSENTED TO BY CONGRESS AS OF DECEMBER 1, 1986 Northwest Rocky Mountain Central Midwest Central-Midwest Southeast Northeast Alaska Colorado Arkansas Indiana Illinois Alabama Connecticut Kansas Iowa Kentucky Florida New Jersey Hawaii Nevada Idaho New Mexico Louisiana Michigan Georgia Washington, DC (2)
Montana North Dakota (1) Nebraska Minnesota Mississippi Oregon Wyoming Oklahoma Missouri North Carolina Utah Ohio South Carolina Washington Wisconsin Tennessee Virginia
, COMPACTS REQUIRING Unaffiliated States Maine
$ CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT Massachusetts (4)
Appalachian Western (2 options) New Hampshire (5.2679; H.R.5338) New York (4)
Rhode Island Delaware Texas (4)
Puerto Rico Maryland Arizona Arizona
- Pennsylvania California (3) North Dakota (3) Vermont West Virginia South Dakota Notes:
(1) ND membership effective July 1, 1987. Rocky Mountain Board must approve.
(2) Washington, DC has enacted temporary legislation and must petition to join the compact. Northeast Commission must approve.
(3) CA and ND must enact legislation to become members of the compact.
(4) MA, NY and TX are each planning to dispose of its own LLW.
O O O LOW-iLEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACT STATUS DECEMBER 1988 ,
NORTHWEST MIDWEST UNAFFILIATED STATES >
- WA is host State
- No host State selected
- 21% National LLW(10 States) 1 AK
- 5% National LLW
- 7% National LLW
- NY to host site - 6% National LLW- SLB banned
- SLB . SLB banned
- MA to host site - 4% National LLW - SLB banned
.
- e 1 WA MN HI%o e MT wg A :
l O ) ND V- f'M OR I g j l -
Mi MA NORTHEAST IN OH (Q ~ h
- NJ and CT are party States
-I a NJ
- No host State selected k{
i-l SD 3 '
- Burial technology to be determined by host state
)
/ / DC g CALIFORNIA ! '
/ /r / CENTRAL MIDWEST . Introduced in 99th
- h'ai '
N
- # WY w' a
- IL is host State , or Congress,2nd Session, i
- 14% National LLW consent
.g AZ NE ll i
- 1% N iona L W
- SLB banned WESTERN NV CO
)
KS ,
- Not yet in,troduced Congress or consent into
- _ _
- YA
- AZ is host State J
i
- <1% National LLW
- SLB ROCKY MOUNTAIN NM OK i AR f TN [ NC SC b
- SOUTHEAST l
- NV current host State f LA AL GA i
- CO next host State
- SC is now host State 1 * <1% National LLW - -
- NC selected by SE Commission to replace SC as host State I
- SLB //-
FL with operating site by 1991 l 4 TEXAS ' CENTRAL
- NC must still accept responsibility l
- 33% National LLW
- TX to host site
- No host State selected
- New burialtechnology to be
-l
- o**'*'*e a o a sa. * <1% National LLW
- 3% National LLW determined by NC
- SLB restricted
- SLB restricted QeR
^
Not.: N.tionai LtW .oium. ,o, ,9 2. mimon cubic ,..t. Source: 0,, ice o, Sisie e,og,a,ns. NRC l
L L- _. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _
! , , l ll ,l1 6 ,
' i
)
. , f t I
.i .
O 6 d
f s
s 3
4 9 H; .
s 9 l v
1 I c 9-5 , -
9 * -
9 .
1 -
F..
4 .
- 9 .
9 .
1 .
.m a 9 3 s 9 .
i -
s 9
1 S: 1 i Y ,
< VIy r .
T , - _
I 2 I - -
L 9 ,1 -
I 9 - y W C 1 1 -
g _
E A t r H F r e a
, n A L e , E A Y 1 ,
F S 9 , f O O r 9 , .o T
P S
a 1 ,
, U . t' ;
_ N d
E I
D n 0, n
e M e P E l
a 0 0 . t m
O O L
E V
T S
A W
C 9 9
1 I
1 e
a p
r e
E D E V n D _
V V t o .
R O
I T
9 8
U s S F C 9 l e .
A 1 i
U N 0 M A I l
L D 8 a :
P A 8 4 n e R : o c C 8 1 i r I L 9 1 s u R E 1 1 s o E V , g e S E
N E L
V t 9
G - 8 - n
_ W 7 8 8 -
o .
_ O L 9 8
1 C -
1 /
T 7 U- s _
_ t e
_ W D 6 U o n
8 e 9 D _
1 Q
y y n e g n _
a t
i s o l i o y-t i
l i
l p
i o y a t a
t h c _
l a n t h
t n c i c f a _
t h e c.
i l 4
n s c i
- p. a rof:. -
e n e ep e a m p f l a
m e t f n a l s _
e t i
p a o a o 1
y t g a hs l a
l a r e s p s _
t c :; a t
s g s s i
v s o s o _
o . _
i v a p: n n e o nt n p i p
e ne O i A
t c mn oi c
d a m
t h
s o
i t
i s t i
e s
i z
r e 6 p
s s 6s p
em t s i
l e
c d e d t
c u
6 y p p t c n es t e s r e
_ yi f
l o t c l o t c a t c g l
pes i m n t s
d i
f ir l
e e e v e r a e i s ms b ec n v o
ase t v l i l e e oa u o e e e e h i r C
R D S D S C S D C S L P i
, i1 4 !l 1 i,il . 1i l <l
O O O i
MEETING THE CONGRESSIONAL MILESTONES COMPACTS AND STATES COVERED BY CONGRESSIONAL MILESTONES COMPACTS (Those non-sited compact regions)
Central-Midwest Central Midwest Northeast
. Appalachian
. Western (Arizona / South Dakota) 1 i STATES (State that is not a member of a compact region) i California District of Columbia
- Maine .
! New Hampshire I New York i North Dakota Puerto Rico ;
Rhode Island -
Texas '
j Vermont SITED COMPACT REGIONS l
Southeast Northwest j Rocky Mountain l
i O ,
l l 7
O O O RE.ESTODES AND PENALTES UNDER LLRWPAA OF 1985
// '...
.)
/
/
/ ,
// / lf No disposal rights after 1 2'f ,
. ----) --> ---> ---> ---> ----+ ! > </' --->
$ State takes title or forfelt's' State takes
- , Deny Double Quad. Deny Deny Triple ,' title Double I Surcharge Access Surcharge Access Access Surcharge /[/
/ - surcharge (s5d(2)(c))
rebates 'f' f E (s5e(2)(A)) (sSe(2)(B)) (sSe(2)(C)) (sSe(2)(D))
8
-[- f
. 7 ..,,- / ,/% -
. 87 88 89 90 91 92 9 1/ , ,' , , ' / b E m n -
n -
n n - -
t i
0 License appil- Disposal '
Disposal
$ Ratt fy compact 5tting plan License site 5 legislation or (go-it-alone) cation or Governor's application site assurance to NRC (sSe(1)(D)) operational operational E Governor certi- or host state fles intent to and siting that state can pro. (s5d(2)(c)) (s5d(2)(c))
develop own plan (compact) wide for management site (sSe(l)(B)) of LLW after 1992 (sSe(l)(A)) (sSe(l)(C))
1 Prepared by Bill Newberry Governor's Office South Carolina -
May 1986 i
e
O O O MEETING THE CONGRESSIONAL MILESTONE OF JULY 1, 1986
- 1. Requirements for Access to Regional Disposal Facilities o By July 1,1986, each such non-member State shall ratify compact legislation or, by the enactment of legislation or the certification of the Governor, indicate its intent to develop a site for the location of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility within such State.
o South Carolina, Washington, and Nevada (the sited States) detennined that Washington, DC, Vermont, and Puerto Rico did not meet the July 1, 1986 milestone. Subsequently, the sited States detennined Vermont to be in compliance. Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Low-Level Waste Management Program National Status Report dated 10/31/86.
]
- 2. Requirements for Rebate of Twenty-five per centum of all Surcharge Fees of $10 per Cubic Foot o July 1, 1986 milestone same as item 1.
[ o The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy is the trustee of all funds.
o Recipients of payments.
- If the State in which such waste originated is not a member of a compact region, to such State.
- If the State in which such waste originated is a member of the compact region, to the compact commission serving such State.
- o DOE determined that 16 States, currently members of non-sited compact regions approved by Congress have met the milestone. Also determined to be in compliance are the members of the Appalachian Compact and the States
); of Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas. DOE determined that Rhode Island and Washington, DC did not meet the milestone. Other States have been asked to formally request a rebate and to supply appropriate
! documentation or to clarify documentation already provided to D0E. During the first milestone period, no money was deposited to the Escrow Account for Puerto Rico; therefore, no milestone compliance evaluation will be perfonned by DOE. North Dakota and New Hampshire, at their request, will not be evaluated for the same reason. Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Low-Level Waste Management Program National Status Report dated 10/31/86.
o Rebates example. Midwest Compact *$109,000 as of October 15, 1986. The rebates will be used to fund site selection and characterization activities in the host State. The 1988 rebates are estimated to be $787,000 t
for the Midwest Compact.
l
i O O O.
I CENTRAL MIDWEST COMPACT j As of December 1,1986 t
Activity Description Timing 1
- 1. Compact Consented by Congress January 15, 1986 Congressional milestone July 1, 1986 j
On schedule
Plan an interim plan in May 1985. Five public meetings Behind schedule 2 were held to solicit comments. Final report was issued November 1985. The Compact Comission released on May 16, 1986, a draft scope of work for the Regional Management Plan for public comment due July 1. The i plan identifies the number and types of facilities to '
j accommodate all LLW forms generated within the region i and addresses other policies and procedures. A j ,
request for proposal (RFP) for the management plan i . to develop technical support was issued in September j ,
with the award scheduled for January 1987. The RFP calls for a study on the effects of source volume reduction; 4
analysis of source and waste volume reduction techniques; and the options for a LLW tracking system. A contract was let with Sargeant and Lundy for waste stream i characterization and standards for treatment of LLW. ;
i
- 3. Host State Illinois designated as host State because the Compact DOE target'- March 1987 Selection excludes any member State as being designated as a On schedule host State for a regional facility unless that State l produces more than 10% of the total regional waste volume in any year. Kentucky generates only 1% of the total region's waste, j 4. Siting Plan The Illinois State Geological Survey and the Illinois Congressional milestone
- State Water Survey have submitted a number of reports January 1,1988
- required by State law -- mapping of suitable geological On schedule j regions; proposed siting criteria; and the method of characterizing a proposed site. ,
t .
- 5. Site Selection A contractor will be selected to identify 4 DOE target - September 1988 l
alternative sites. IDNS will make selection.
O O O i CENTRAL MIDWEST COMPACT (Cont'd.)
As of December 1,1986 Activity Description Timing
- 6. Site By contractor. IDNS estimates the cost for characterizing DOE target - September 1989 Characterization each site is $2 million. Development cost for the selected site is estimated at $2 million. Total cost is $10 million.
i
- 7. Technology According to the compact, conventional shallow land 00E target - January 1, 1988 Selection burial is banned. IDNS formed a task force to provide technical guidance to IDNS on the selection of an alternative method of disposal of LLW. IDNS sponsored
- an international symposium on alternatives in February 1986.
- 8. Facility By developer DOE target - September 1989
, Design
) 9. Environmental By developer . DOE target - January 1,1990 Assessment
- 10. Licensing By developer Congressional milestone Application January 1,1990
- 11. Licensing By Illinois. The State has applied for Agreement DOE target March 1991 State status; anticipated to become effective January 1,
- 1987.
- 12. Construction By developer Congressional milestone January 1,1993 Public Involvement: IDNS sponsored a Public Participation Workshop in April 1985. A final report,
- "Public Participation Plan on Low-Level Radioactive Waste management in Illinois," was issued November 1985. A
! citizens' advisory group was established by IDNS to review and provide comments on IDNS plans concerning LLW management.
i N2xt meeting: Not announced. ,:
I
. e
O O O MIDWEST COMPACT As of December 1,1986 Activity Description Timing
+
- 1. Compact Consented by Congress January 15, 1986 Congressional milestone July 1, 1986 On schedule
- 2. Management Draft Regional Management Plan completed. The Plan DOE target - September 1986 Plan covers three primary activities -- identification and Behind schedule j characterization of current and expected future waste l
quantities; identification and assessment of technologies and systems for LLW management; and development of criteria and procedures for determining which State would host the first regional facility. The Comission will hold public hearings in November on the Plan.
Response document to be issued January 1987.
I o 3. Host State By policy of the Compact Comission, host State selection DOE target - March 1987 is determined first by volunteers deemed acceptable.
- Behind schedule The Regional Management Plan determines the number and kind of facilities. If there are no volunteers, the Compact Comission may designate a host State. A party State which is designated has 90 days to withdraw from the compact. The Comission adopted a policy resolution 1 that the 90 day period for State withdrawal from the compact begins when 4 host States are designated. If .
no State volunteers, the Comission will designate one of the host States for the site by May 1987. Incentive package was developed to encourage volunteer host State that would provide the host comunity $40 million and the host State $?0 million over approximately 20 years.
- 4. Siting Plan The draft Regional Management Plan includes broad Congressional milestone guidelines developed for formulating site selection January 1,1988 criteria. Host State has responsibility to develop siting plan.
- 5. Site Selection By host State determination ,
DOE target - September 1988 i
_. . - _ _ . - - - . . -- -. = - . . - . .. .
O O O
! MIDWEST COMPACT (Ccnt'd.)
As of December 1, 1986 ,
f i
! Activity Description Timing
! 6. Site By host State determination DOE target - September 1989 l Characterization 1
- 7. Technology Commission resolved that shallow land burial as DOE target - January 1, 1988 Selection currently practiced is unacceptable but should be retained only as a base comparison technology.
Draft Regional Management Plan recommends disposal alternatives be the prerogative of the host State.
! 8. Facility By host State determination DOE target - September 1989 r j Design j 9. Environmental By host State determination DOE target - January 1,1990 t
i Assessment
'[ 10. Licensing By host State determination , Congressional milestone Application January 1,1990 '
i i 11. Licensing By NRC because no State in Midwest Compact has. DOE target - March 1991 l
an Agreement with NRC for licensing a low-level i disposal facility. 1 i
l 12. Construction By host State determination Congressional milestone '
j January 1,1993 q
Public involvement: A bi-monthly newsletter is published by the Commission. Extensive mailing lists including special interest groups are maintained. All Commission meetings are open to public.
l Next meeting: St. Louis, Missouri, December 4-5, 1986.
I1 l
l 1
O O O CENTRAL COMPACT As of December 1,1986 Activity Description Timing
- 1. Compact Consented by Congress January 15, 1986 Congressional milestone July 1, 1986 On Schedule
- 2. Management Limited regional plan to analyze waste stream DOE target - September 1986 Plan characteristics and generation rates, the Behind schedule development of criteria to be applied to the selection of a site development fim, and a limited analysis of alternatives to shallow land burial.
- 3. Host State Because no State has volunteered, a draft request DOE target - March 1987 Selection for proposal (RFP) for a potential developer was Behind schedule issued September 1986. A revised draft is scheduled N for January 1987. The site and therefore the State i will be designated by April 1987. The Commission ,
- v. 11 announce the host State by June 1987.
Because of the small amount of LLW (3% of National LLW-1985) and the fact that the Compact Consnission is pursuing an agreement with another compact or state for disposal, developers appear to be cautious -
about bidding. -
- 4. Siting Plan By developer Congressional Milestone January 1,1988
- 5. Site Selection Phase I - siting study completed which eliminated DOE target - September 1988 broad areas of the five-State region from Phase I - July 1985 consideration using 10 CFR Part 61 siting criteria. Phase II - November 1986 Phase II - siting study initiated to better define Phase III - April 1987 those areas thought to be suitable for a site. On schedule Seventeen candidate areas will be reduced to ten.
Phase III - a private developer-contractor will complete site selection process, characterize the selected site or sites, and develop a facility.
The contractor is the same one responding to the RFP 7
in item 3.
- O O O CENTRAL COMPACT (Cont'd.-)
As of December 1,1986 4 Activity Description Timing
- 6. Site By developer DOE target - September 1989 Characterization
) 7. Technology By developer following guidelines of management plan. DOE target - January 1,1988 i Selection Should be kr.own by June 1987. The Compact Commission On schedule
! has expressed interest in greater protection than shallow land burial and criteria exceeding 10 CFR 61.
! 8. Facility By developer DOE target - September 1989 i Design Ip 9. Environmental By developer DOE target - January 1,1990 j ,
Assessment ,
- 10. Licensing By developer -
Congressional milestone Application January 1,1990 l
! 11. Licensing By Agreement State except for Oklahoma where by NRC. DOE target t March 1991
- 12. Construction By developer Congressional milestone January 1,1993 ,
l a
l I
- Public involvement: No formal activities are planned or have been conducted. The RFP will ask the developer to ,
! describe plans for public participation. Comission meetings are open to public.
4 Next meeting: January 1987.
I
' [-
p
l i O O O I NORTHEAST COMPACT As of December 1, 1986 Activity Description Timing l
- 1. Compact Consented by Congress January 15, 1986. Congressional milestone District of Columbia's petition to become July 1, 1986 a party State was received by the Compact On schedule Commission.
- 2. Management Plan Compact requires the Comission to develop a regional DOE target - September 1986 management plan which determines the number and type Behind Schedule of regional disposal facilities, and other management i
facili ties. The request for proposal (RFP) for i development of the plan is out for review and is expected l to go to bidders in January 1987.
- 3. Host State A State may volunteer to host a regional facility subject DOE target - March 1987 Selection to approval by the Comission. Otherwise, the Comission j % shall designate the host State.
! 4. Siting Plan Each party State under the Compact must be able to host Congressional milestone j a regional facility in a timely fashion and is January 1,1988 i responsible for developing and passing ' legislation on j the siting process to be followed. In New Jersey, siting legislation has been introduced and one 'i
! legislative hearing held. Additional hearings are -
1 planned. In Connecticut, siting legislation is being '
drafted for introduction in the near future.
- 5. Site Selection By host State determination DOE target - September 1988
- 6. Site By host State determination DOE target - September 1989 i Characterization 1
- 7. Technology Under the Compact, no specific disposal technology DOE target - January 1,1988
! Selection is either identified as preferable or prohibited, i' The regional management plan required by the compact will determine the type and number of regional i facilities which are necessary. By host. State j determination.
i O O O' NORTHEAST COMPACT (Cont'd.)
4 As of December 1, 1986 i
i
- Activity Description Timing i
! 8. Facility By host State determination. DOE target - September 1989 j Design
- 9. Environmental By host State determination. DOE target - January 1,1990 Assessment i
- 10. Licensing By host State determination. Congressional milestone Application January 1,1990
- 11. Licensing By NRC since both States are non-Agreement States. DOE target - March 1991
- 12. Construction By host State determination. Congressional milestone
- ' January 1,1993 l$.
i
- Public involvement
- Public meetings are to be included in Compact activities. Ai1Commissionmeetingsareopento public.
j i :
i Next meeting: Not announced .
O i
i e
l l
l
\ .
O O O APPALACHIAN COMPACT As of December 1, 1986 i
Activity Description Timing
- 1. Compact Introduced into 99th Congress, Second Session, Congressional milestone S.2679 and H.R. 5338, but no action taken. Party July 1, 1986 States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and West On schedule Virginia have enacted compact legislation.
- 2. Management Not applicable. However, Pennsylvania must enact DOE target - September 1986 Plan enabling legislation. Draft legislation, " Low-Level Behind schedule Radioactive Waste Disposal Act," dated September 24, 1986 has been prepared and was introduced into the j Pennsylvania House of Representatives on November 20, 1986. The draft legislation calls for an operator-licensee designate. Congressional milestones are not incorporated.
- 3. Host State Pennsylvania is host State according to the Compact. DOE target - March 1987 Selection . On schedule
- 4. Siting Plan By host State determination. Dr' aft area screening Congressional milestone criteria prepared dated October 3,1986. January 1, 1988
- Contractor shall do actual screening.
1
! 5. Site Selection By host State determination. Operator-licensee DOE target -September 1988
- designate. *
- 6. Site By host State determination. Operator-licensee DOE target - September 1989 j Characterization designate.
I 7. Technology The Compact and Pennsylvania draft legislation DOE target - January 1,1988 Selection prohibits shallow land burial and require that i the host State develop alternative technologies.
These must incorporate monitoring and recoverability.
1 8. Facility Draft technology perfomance and design criteria DOE target - September 1989 l Design prepared dated October 23, 1986. By host. State determination. ,
1 1
. O O O i
APPALACHIAN COMPACT (Cont'd.)
i As of December 1,1986 Activity Description Timing
]
2 i
j 9. Environmental By operator-licensee designate detemined by host DOE target - January 1, 1990 l Assessment State.
1
! 10. Licensing By operator-licensee designate determined by host Congressional milestone j Application State. January 1,1990
- 11. Licensing By Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania intends to become DOE target - March 1991 -
i a limited Agreement State.
i 12. Construction Operator-licensee designate by host State Congressional milestone determination. January 1,1993
'C Public involvement: Public Advisory Committee called for in draft Pennsylvania legislation. It is already meeting to
- help the Department of Environmental Resources draft requirements for the disposal technology. Six public meetings
- planned to review the proposed siting process, scheduled for Novemoer and December 1986.
i :
Next meeting: Public Advisory Conunittee, November 6,1986, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. ,
l i
I l
l l
. 9
Western Compact (Congressional consent needed.)
There are 2 options at the present time.
O A. Party States: Arizona and California (*).
(* California must enact legislation to become a member of the compact.) There is some interest among various parties of extending membership to include North and South Dakota.
Operating disposal facility: none Host State: California according to the compact.
Site selection process: See California.
Disposal technology: The technology proposed by U.S. Ecology is shallow land burial.
B. Party States: Arizona, North Dakota (1) and South Dakota Two States have enacted legislation. (1) North Dakota which is initially eligible is studying possible membership.
Operating disposal facility: none Host State: Arizona according to the compact.
O i
D
/
O
O O CALIFORNIA O
As of December 1,1986 Activity Description Timing i 1. Compact or Currently unaffiliated. Western Compact legislation, Congressional milestone Legislation or which was enacted by Arizona in 1984, may be revived July 1, 1986
, Certification in the California Legislature in early 1987. On schedule l' California is proceeding with siting activities based on legislation enacted in 1983.
i
- 2. Management Plan California's approach to site development is to DOE target - September 1986
! designate a contractor to select a site and to design, On schedule 1 apply for a license, construct, and operate the disposal facility. U.S. Ecology, Inc. was selected in 1985 to develop the facility.
- 3. Host State California is host State under the proposed Western DOE target - March 1987 Selection Compact legislation which requires that the member On schedule
~
s
! m State generating the most waste be the initial host State,
} ,
- 4. Siting Plan Regional screening carried out by Harding Lawson Congressional milestone i Associates under contract to U.S. Ecology. January 1, 1988 On schedule
- 5. Site Selection To date, 18 potential basins in Inyo, Riverside, DOE target - September 1988 and San Bernadino Counties have been identified. -
All of these sites are located in the southern desert of California. They will be narrowed to 3-5 in 1987. The legislation requires that at least 3 sites be considered. A citizens advisory comittee under the auspices of the League of Women Voters has become part of the siting process and gives advice to U.S. Ecology. Second round of public meetings held.
{
! 6. Site By U.S. Ecology DOE target - September 1989 Characterization *+
j 7. Technology The technology proposed by U.S. Ecology' s DOE target - January 1, 1988 l Selection shallow land burial. The firn is willing to On schedule
! employ enhanced technology if directed to do so j by the Department of Health Services. .
- _ = -. -- ... _
j CALIFORNIA (Cont'd.)
As of December 1,1986 i
- Activity Description Timing i
- 8. Facility Bechtel National, Inc., under contract to DOE target - September 1989 Design U.S. Ecology l 9. Environmental By U.S. Ecology DOE target - January 1,1990 Assessment
- 10. Licensing By U.S. Ecology Congressional milestone Application January 1, 1990
! 11. Licensing By California Department of Health Services DOE target - March 1991
' which will write an Environmental Impact 2 Statement.
! 12. Construction U.S. Ecology has Bechtel National, Inc. as designer Congressional milestone l constructor. This site is expected to receive waste January 1, 1993 1 in 1990. On schedule i
)
- i j Public involvement: Both the State and the contractor have held and will hold a number of public meetings. The i California Radioactive Materials Management Forum has been active since 1983 in organizing meetings as a technical i support group composed of education, research, medical and industr!al interests that are concerned with the safe management of radioactive materials.
l 4
l +
l
. _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ .. _ _. _. _.._ _. - _ _ _ __.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ . . - _ _ _ - . _
! O O O
! TEXAS j As of December 1, 1986 1
1 i
Activity Description Timing i i j 1. Compact or Not in a Compact. Legislation enacted in June 1981 Congressional milestone '
! Certification or to establish the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste July 1, 1986
! Legislation Disposal Authority with the responsibility of On schedule j developing a LLW disposal facility for. Texas waste i only. The Act was amended in 1985.
- was completed and published July.1985. This study Behind schedule t
' addressed currently available waste processing and disposal technologies and public perception about
! the acceptability of those options. Additionally, j the Authority in conjunction with the Southern j ' States Energy Board initiated a task to develop a ,
{g detailed project management plan for developing a
- j ,
f 3. Host State Texas is host State. DOE target - March 1987 ,
Selection On schedule
~
i t
! 4. Siting Plan In 1985, the Authority proceeded with site screening Congressional milestone
? and qualification activities.-concentrating on January 1,1988 !
3 candidate areas in western Texas. Two of these On schedule areas are located on State-owned lands in Culberson i
- County, while the third is located on State-owned !
- land in Hudspeth County. The Authority has performed l
} ground verifications, developed geologic maps, and i
! obtained well data for these candidate sites. i i 1 i
I i
}
i .-
O O '
O TEXAS (Cent'd.)
As of December 1, 1986 Activity Description Timing 4
1
- 5. Site Selection Since December 1986, the Authority has continued DOE target - September 1988 evaluating the three potential LLW disposal siting On schedule areas in West Texas. All field investigations at
- j. the three sites have been completed and a final
- report has been prepared by the University of i
Texas' Bureau of Economic Geology. Indications show that the Hudspeth County site appears to be suitable for a facility. The two potential sites
, in Culberson County are questionable. The existence i of shallow groundwater and potential inability to provide the required long-term stability may disqualify these sites. The Board of the Authority shall nominate i
two or more sites November 21, 1986. Then there will be
' socioeconomic, economic and risk studies conducted.
g These will be presented to the Governor and Legislature in January 1987 with the final site selection made in .
June 1987 by the Authority.
- 6. Site By the Authority DOE target - September 1989
, Characterization i i
, 7. Technology In 1983, the Authority completed an evaluation and 00E target - January 1, 1988 conceptual design of a shallow land burial facility On schedule Selection in Texas. In 1985, the Authority issued a RFP to develop conceptual designs of 3 alternatives pursuant to amendments to the Act pertaining to alternative burial methods. In May, 1986, the Board of Directors of the Authority directed the staff to pursue 3 alternatives to shallow land burial--above ground vaults; below ground vaults with some use of modular canisters; and above and below ground vaults with .
some use of modular canisters. The design basis document and draft conceptual design report for the. 3 alternatives a was completed by Rogers and Associates in September 1986.
Final report is due December 1986. Prior: studies
- indicated that shallow land burial is preferable on
! the basis of technical considerations only. However,
! that technology is not publicly acceptable.
O O O TEXAS (Cont'd.)
As of December 1,1986 Activity Description Timing
- 8. Facility By the Authority DOE target - September 1989 Design l
- 9. Environmental By the Authority DOE target - January 1,1990 Assessment
- 10. Licensing By the Authority Congressional milestone Application January 1,1990
O 12. Construction By the Authority. Projected time to open 1992. Congressional milestone
, . January 1, 1993 On schedule 1
, l l
Public involvement: The Authority has an active public infonnation program. A number of educational brochures have been prepared with regard to understanding the issues, site selection, disposal methods, citizen participation, transportation and packaging, uses of radioactive materials, and frequent questions and their answers. The Authority has a Citizen's Advisory Panel and is sponsoring a Policymakers' Forum. The Forun evaluates, analyzes and develops local public policy related to the Authority's activities in West Texas. The Forum will bring together influential citizens, elected officials, and recognized experts.
O O NEW YORK O-As of December 1, 1986 Activity Description Timing
- 1. Compact or Not in a Compact. Legislation enacted August 1, Congressional milestone Certification or 1986, to establish the process for siting a LLW July 1, 1986 Legislation disposal facility for LLW generated.in New York On schedule only. Although New York has no present plans to join a compact, the legislation would not preclude it from forming or antering a compact.
+
- 2. Management Plan State Energy Office published management study in 1984. DOE target - September 1986 Update of LLW dispsoal in 1984 and 1985 and future Behind schedule projections published in September 1986. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYS ERDA) has the responsibility for the management and planning according to the legislation. Proposed regulations for
- reporting requirements for generators were published g November 19, 1986.
- 3. Host State New York is host State unless access can be found ' DOE target - March 1987 Selection outside the State. On schedule
- 4. Siting Plan Sites cannot include the western New York nuclear Congressional milestone service center. Final siting regulations shall be January 1,1988 promulgated by the Department of Environmental On schedule -
Conservation by December 31, 1987. -
- 5. Site Selection A five member Siting Commission shall complete its DOE target - September 1988 site selection by December 1, 1988. The Department Behind schedule of Environmental Conservation must certify the Commission's site selection within 180 days of December 1,1988, or about June 1,1989.
O O O NEW YORK (Cent'd.)
As of December 1,1986 Activity Description Timing i
- 7. Technology Under the legislation, disposal by shallow land DOE target - January 1,1988 Selection burial is prohibited and alternatives that must be Behind schedule considered include above ground, engineered, monitored disposal and underground mined repository disposal.
Regulations must be promulgated for the siting of these facilities by the Department of Environmental Conservation by December 31, 1987. The five member Siting Commission shall complete its disposal method selection by December 1, 1988. The Department of Environmental Conservation must certifiy the technology selection within 180 days of December 1 l 1988, or about June 1,1989, s
- 10. Licensing NYS ERDA shall submit all applications for State Congressional milestone Application licenses, permits, etc. by January 1,1990. January 1, 1990 On schedule -
- 11. Licensing By New York Department of Conservation and other DOE target - March 1991 State agenices
- 12. Construction By NYS ERDA completed and operating by January 1, Congressional milestone 1993 according to legislation. January 1,1993 Dn schedule Public involvement: The legislation has provided to the Siting Commission for an advisory committee on permanent disposal facilities,' siting, and disposal method selection. Also, there are provisions for an information program to inform and educate the public, and to aid local governments. A public hearing is scheduled for December 23, 1986.
'e Note: Initial appropriations to NYS ERDA, Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Health, and the Siting Commission total $3.5 million. Utilities will be billed 'for upfront costs and will receive credit for amount paid.
/3 Massachusetts V
Site Selection Process: Legislation has been introduced to establish the process for management of LLW generated in Massachusetts. The legislation is expected to be passed by the Senate in October 1986. Although Massac'nusetts has no present plans to join a compact, the legislation would not preclude Massachusetts from forming or entering a compact. (See Rhode Island below.)
Through the legislation, waste management is structured into six phases:
(I) Planning, (II) Site Selection, (III) Operator / Technology Selection, (IV) Facility Approval and Licensing, (V) Facility Operation and (VI) Institutional Control. No action toward site selection will begin until planning requirements are completed. The act allows 15 nonths from the time the planning process starts until completion of these planning functions.
The legislation (629) also incorporates provisions of the 1982 Act requiring legislative certification to approve the license and voter approval to authorize construction and operation of the facility. The Senate, as part of its consideration of the legislation, asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for an advisory court opinion on the constitutionality of the 1982 Act provisions. On June 17, 1986, the Supreme Judicial Court determined that State wide approval of a selected site is unconstitutional. The State legislature can now establish a procedure for siting a LLW disposal facility without requiring prior voting approval. Enabling legislation to enter into a full agreenent with NRC has also been introduced and is under consideration.
Disposal Technology: Under the legislation, disposal by shallow land burial is prohibited.
' Site Selection Process: Maine has enacted legislation, on April 16, 1986, Public Law Chapter 708, entitled: "An Act to Provide for Development of a State Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, if Necessary." The act sets out the present intent of the State to locate a site for a disposal facility which would be constructed and operated if other means are unable to satisfactorily manage the State's LLW. Also, under the referendum passed in 1985, statewide approval will be required on any plan for the storage or disposal of LLW in Maine. Maine has not enacted any legislation to enter into a compact, but the Governor has authdrity to enter into such arrangements.
Maine is now developing siting criteria. Maine's effort to seek an agreement with the Northwest Compact for disposal by contract failed. (See Northwest Compact.)
Disposal Technology: Under existing laws, disposal by shallow land burial would be prohibited. . ,
December 1, 1986
('
Three bills were considered in the Vermont legislature. The legislature is out of session. One deals with establishment of a New England compact with Maine and New Hampshire. Under this compact, the party States would employ the use of onsite storage, and other steps intended to delay final disposal within the party States, to permit more time for the development of a satisfactory resolution to the disposal of LI.W. This bill was submitted to Committee but was not reported out for floor action. A second bill, which passed, sets up an advisory comnittee to study and develop plans for the mar,agement and disposal of LLW including evaluation of methods and criteria for the siting of storage and disposal facilities. Finally, legislation was passed indicating that Vermont will have a disposal site if no other arrangements can be made.
New Hampshire A bill to establish a compact with Maine and Vermont, which banned shallow land burial, passed in 1986. This is the same bill that was under consideration in Vermont. Neither Vermont nor Maine passed this legislation.
The Northeast Compact bill was introduced. The State also plans to explore contracting with other compacts or States for disposal of New Hampshire's waste.
Rhode Island Rhode Island legislature has passed legislation for a Massachusetts /Rhode Island compact. The legislation is consistent with the revised compact bill developed by Massachusetts in 1985 with one notable change. The bill includes
'a; provision similar to that found in the Appalachian Compact on host State
- ' selection based on volume and activity of waste generated. Linder this provision, Rhode Island would be exempt from serving as the initial host State. Rhode Island intends to open negotiations with Massachusetts.
Puerto Rico Informal discussions have been held with representatives of the Southeast Compact regarding possible membership. No formal or official connunications have been received by the Southeast Commission.
December 1, 1986
Progress in Sited Compacts Southeast Compact Party States: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia Operating disposal facility: Barnwell, South Carolina Closing date for operating disposal facility required by compact:
December 31, 1992 New disposal facility required by compact: By 1991 (no day and nonth specified)
Status for selection of next host State:
- 1. Conpact requires all States eligible except South Carolina.
- 2. Management plan performed which specifies number of sites and analyzes alternative disposal technologies.
- 3. One new disposal site recommended with choice of technology to be determined by host State.
- 4. Each State submitted a State plan required by the Compact Comission.
- 5. Potential host States were ranked as follows: North Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida and Mississippi. North Carolina and Alabana fall in the first group and have scores that are close together.
- 6. Public meetings conducted in 4 States: May 6, Georgia; May 7, Virginia; May 27, North Carolina; and May 29, Alabana.
- 7. On June 13, 1986, the Comission met and reaffinned its previous positions and directed staff to draft white papers to respond to public coments regarding (1) the data ,used in calculating waste volumes; (2) regional siting versus a site in every State; (3) on-site storage; and (4) the disposal technology to be used. The Comission asked the Technical Advisory Comittee to review public coments and provide recommendations pertaining to potentially suitable areas (PSAs),
population density of PSAs and neteorology.
- 8. Host State designation was scheduled for July 14, 1986, Colunbia, South Carolina, at a meetirig of the Compact Comission. However, the Comission recessed without voting on designation of the host State. The Comission voted not to open the LLW volume generation issue in spite of the assertion by North Carolina that the latest and most reliable data is not being used (1983 LLW data was used by the contractor, Dames and Moore, as a baseline, with the agreement of the Comission). North
(] Carolina maintains that 1985 data should be used and that North Carolina has nade significant reductions in the amount of LLW generated within the i
December 1, 1986 i I
(l last 3 years. The Comission directed the contractor to review and V correct as necessary data on wetlands and geology.
- 9. The Commission voted 14-2 to select North Carolina as the next host State, at a neeting held in Atlanta on Septenber 10, 1986. The two votes cast against the selection were from the Comissioners from North Carolina. The Comission did consider additional technical information on LLW volume generation presented by North Carolina. The State still has to accept the nomination and will not consider it until 1987 when the legislature convenes starting in January. The governor has no veto power but is preparing a policy options paper of the pros and cons of withdrawing from the Compact versus accepting the responsibility and has retained Ebasco to assist in this effort. Alabama's Governor Wallace is on record stating that his State would pull out if the Comission designated it as the next host State since it ranked second.
- 10. The Conpact Comission voted unanimously to approve the concept of sanctions for a party State that may wish to withdraw from the Southeast Compact, at a meeting held in St. Petersburg, Florida, November 20-21, 1986. As currently proposed by the Ad Hoc Comittee on Sanctions, any party State could withdraw from the compact by repealing the compact except that no withdrawal would becone effective during the period beginning six years after the opening of the second and subsequent regional facilities. If there were withdrawal after the six years the Comission would submit to a court of competent jurisdiction punitive and compensatory damages. After approval by the Comission, the language would have to be passed by the respective party State legislatures as an anendment to the Southeast Compact and presumeable consented to by Congress. The Comittee will present final language at the next Comission meeting scheduled for January 27, 1987.
On another matter, the Compact Comission adopted another recommendation by en ad hoc comittee to accept additional party States only if such State were willing to become the next host State after North Carolina.
Agreenent State status may be required by compact: All States are Agreement States except for Virginia which is considering pursuing this status with NRC.
The Compact Comission voted on Janua'ry 17, 1986:
o Inportation: Authorization given for inportation for applicable LLW generated in non-party States for the period January 1 to December 31, 1986, in an amount equal to the difference between the amount of waste received at the regional facility from generators in party States and the total amount of waste which the facility is required by the host State pursuant to the LLRWPAA to receive during the sane period.
o Exportation: A ban authorized by the compact, effective March 1, 1986, applies to all LLW generated within the 8 party States which meets the licensing requirements in the regional facility or which could meet such requirements through processing by availabH O nethods. Consequently, Southeast waste could be sent outside the j l
December 1, 1986
)
e O
'd region for treatment, but must be brought back to the Southeast for disposal.
Surcharge: South Carolina has instituted a $10 per cubic foot surcharge on LLW generated in States which are not members of the Southeast, Rocky Mountain, or Northwest Compacts pursuant to the LLRWPAA. Effective date is March 1, 1986.
Expected actions of South Carolina:
- Maintain the annual limitation of 1.2 million cubic feet per year with a mechanism to raise this cap in 10% increments in any calendar year in which all 3 disposal sites reach 100% of their volumes required to be accepted under the LLRWPAA.
- Limit the disposal of reactor waste during the 7 year period once the total volume of reactor waste buried at all 3 disposal sites has reached 11.9 million cubic feet authorized under the LLRWPAA.
- Establish procedures for granting reactor allocations and monitoring the assignment of these allocations anong utilities.
- Insure preference for Southeast regional waste.
- Establish procedures and criteria, in cooperation with the Southeast q Comission and the other 2 sited states and compact comissions, for Q monitoring compliance with milestones and instituting penalties for failure to comply.
- Establish procedures in cooperation with the Southeast Comission and the other 2 sited states and compact commissions, to monitor compliance with waste volume limits and allocations.
Additional guidance: Expected at next scheduled meeting .lanuary 27, 1987.
Northwest Compact Party States: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington Operating disposal facility: Richland, Washington Closing date for operating disposal facility: None required by compact Implementation of the Amendments Act: The Washington Department of Ecology, pursuant to SB 4876 enacted. February 13, 1986 and Governor Gardner's Executive Order of February 21, 1986, will administer the collection of surcharges and penalty surcharges. Effective March 1, 1986, all LLW originating from outside the Northwest Compact Region and disposed of at the site at Richland, shall be subject to these surcharges at the maxinum level allowable under the Amendments Act. l 1
O On April 22, 1986, the Compact Committee voted on the following:
I
- 1. LLW generated within the region will be given priority for disposal.
December 1, 1986 I
e
- 2. Imposition of an annual volume cap of 1.4 million cubic feet.
pJ
- 3. No further access be permitted when the volume reached 9.8 million cubic feet.
- 4. No further nuclear reactor waste be permitted when the reactor volume reached 11.9 million cubic feet.
- 5. No further access be permitted when a utility reached its limit allocation.
- 6. No access be permitted unless milestones had been conplied with.
- 7. Information needed to monitor the volumes would be requested from brokers and generators as a condition of access.
On July 7,1986, the final rules were adopted for LLW generators and brokers and the disposal site operator.
On, July 23, 1986, the Compact Comittee voted to turn down Maine's proposal for a contract to dispose of LLW at the Hanford site. Such a provision for agreement is possible pursuant to Section 5(e)(1)(f) of the LLRWPAA.
Additional guidance: Expected at next meeting scheduled for January 9, 1987, in Utah. Other scheduled meetings are for April 23, 1987, in Oregon; and July 23, 1987, in Idaho.
O Rocky Mountain Compact Party States: Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota (*), and Wyoming.
- -(* Membership effective July 1,1987. Rocky Mountain Board must approve.)
Operating disposal facility: Beatty, Nevada Closing date for operating disposal facility required by compact: Not specified.
New disposal facility required by. compact: By May 1989. However, Beatty is expected to operate through 1992. ,
Status for selection of next host State:
- 1. The Compact requires that any member State which generates at least 20 percent of the region's waste neasured by radioactive content or volune to host the-LLW, disposal facility.
- 2. At this time, Colorado qualifies to become host State. Forecasts show that no other party State will generate more than 20 percent of the region's waste.
- 3. Site searches going on in Colorado for appropriate one. No projected
(] date for site selection at this time. The Colorado Geological Survey completed an initial siting study of the entire State in April.
Co-location with radiun from West Denver is being considered.
December 1, 1986
t
{ 4. The Compact Board is pursuing reciprocal agreements with California and possibly other States that are shipping to the Beatty site. The agreement would require these States and compacts to accept LLW from the Rocky Mountain region in volumes equal to what they dispose of at Beatty during the next 7 years. Such an agreement could delay the need to develop a new disposal site for up to 20 years.
Surcharge: Nevada instituted a $10 per cubic foot surcharge on out-of-region waste received at Beatty pursuant to the LLRWPAA. The effective date is January 16, 1986. All LLW generated outside the Rocky Mountain region will be subject to the surcharge unless a specific agreement to the contrary has been entered into. The Rocky Mountain Board has imposed a $.75 per cubic foot surcharge on all waste received at Beatty to support compact activities. The effective date is October 15, 1986.
The Rocky Mountain Board voted on February 16, 1986:
o Importation: A rule sets forth the procedure for approvin0 the importation of out-of-region LLW for disposal at Beatty. Import applications will be approved by the executive director of the Board if the LLW is in an amount and of a type required to be accepted under the LLRWPAA and if the importation would not cause the Beatty facility to receive in excess of the 200,000 cubic feet allowed pursuant to the Act. The rule covers conditions for excess of the 200,000 cubic feet and for import to facilities other than Beatty.
O V o Exportation: The Compact prohibits the export of LLW generated within the Rocky Mountain region unless approval is obtained from the Board or the executive director of the Board (for small quantities). The Board has adopted a rule setting forth the process for obtaining approval. Normally, an applicant must demonstrate a compelling need.
The Rocky Mountain Board voted on May 6, 1986:
o Beatty will not accept NARM, except for discrete sources.
o Generators with good track. records will not be required to undergt third party inspection.
At the June 20, 1986, meeting, the Rocky Mountain Board discussed an informal request from California Assemblyman Peace for consideration of California as
. an eligible State in the Rocky Mountain Compact. No decision was made. The Board modified its import rules to establish fees for the importation of waste to facilities other than the regional facility, such as waste going to brokers. The brokers would pay. On July 31, 1986, new rules were adopted by the Board for blanket authorization to Nevada for import of LLW for disposal.
The Rocky Mountain Board voted on September 12, 1986, to permit State and NRC licensees to return medical generators (Technecium-99) and sealed sources of Iridium-192 to suppliers or manufacturers. Previously, the Board had taken O the Positioa that the export of these materiels from the re9 1oa was in violation of the requirement to send all LLW generated within the region to the Beatty site. Also, the Board gave the authority to the Executive December 1, 1986
o Director, in consultation with the Chaiman, to pemit expert of other sealed O sources that are typically returned to the manufacturer cnd that constitute very small volumes of LLW.
Additional guidance: Expected at the next meeting to be held December 10, 1986, Stateline, Nevada.
O Decenber 1, 1986
o O O
LSW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACT STATUS DECEMBER 1998 NORTHWEST MIDWEST UNAFFILIATED STATES
- WA is host State
- No host State selected
!
- 5% National LLW
- 21% National LLW(10 Stateel AK
- 7% National LLW
- NY to host site - 8% National LLW- SLB banned
- SLB + SLB banned j
- MA to host site - 4% National LLW - SLB banned
I
! WA MN !/
OR ND g j MI Q~
l
- r - IN OH NJ and CT are party States i
, 1I SD l t t
hJ ** No host State selec D"E
/ / y DC g determined by host state I CAllFORNIA /
/
/ APPALACHIAN
- / CENTRAL MIDWE8T . Introduced in 99th l
Na o -[ WY
- IL is host State Congress,2nd Session,
- SLB //
- 14% National LLW for consent
/
1 Az - " 5'" """ d WESTERN NV CO L NE T il
, :L^%aira'tW
- SLB banned 4
- Not yet introduced into KS Congress for consent
- _'
~
! VA '
,
- AZ is host State NM OK t
- <1% National LLW
- SLB ROCKY MOUNTAIN :
AR f. TN / NC SC f
- NV current host State F j.MS SOUTHEAST
! LA AL GA
- CO next host State ~ j/. g I
- SC is now host State
- <1% National LLW
- SLB v
/
1
- NC must still accept in: .dbility
- TX to host site
/ CENTRAL
- No host State selected
- **'% tm w sa. * <1% National LLW '
- 3% National LLW d b N
- SLB restricted
- SLB restricted
@PR Note: National LLW volume for 1985 = 2.88 million cubic feet. Source: Office of State Programs, NRC G
0
O e
.0 E
- h. ,
g .
j]
wes
$wk so O A N A
,u x .
yot
. R b
%kNf I
k --
4 O
i
-w- - , - . . . , , , , _ , . - - - , . - , ---
1 O O -
O i
. . i ,,
ENERIC PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 4 flEld 4
LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY l
1 i
Calendar Year u .it, i... .. 7 i... i... i. i...
.... i... i... i... ..
j Ratify compact et ,
l serufy independent M II1888 ,
U Deveiop manageme.t plan f Select host state i U. . . . . < ,
i Develop siting pie. j 17174.
Select site U Characteriae siisp. sal site U Select despo.a8 technolo.y U
! Desi.n sdeposal f.cleity Complete environmental essessment U
- Sutunit licen.e appucalion QU.I.#.' <
..=...1 r Ilif.2 ;
License deposal' facility U .......<
-V.
yU k..... . . . . . . .. P i Construct disposal facility '
~, -
Ilwee Provide disposal ~ '
p': itil.3 ...... 9 -
o o. . .e Co r.ssio.a =ie.io Source: U. S. Department of Energy l
cwe asse,
i .% .
V RE.ESTODES A8D PENALTES UpWER LLRWPAA OF 1985 * *,
. . - ./
/ / / ./.' *. //'.
~
/ / /.
/ .
/
no disposal rights after 1
/.2- ,
.,. -----> M ===> --> ----> > > '
State takes 2 State takes title er forfelt's b Double Deny Double Osad. Deny krny Irlple / / sorcharge rebates / title g Surcharge Access Surcharge Access Access Sercharge //.'(s5d(2)(c)) , /f (s5e(2)(A)) (s5e(2)(8)) (s5e(2)(C)) (s5e(2)(D)) / .- '
. 87 88 89 90 91 92 1 3 ',-
[ , 96 x - - - -
s -
x - -
x ,
h Disposal Ofsposal
$ Rattfy compact Siting plan Lfcense app 11 License 5 legislation er (go-it-alone) cation er Governor's appittation site site er host state (s5e(l)(D)) operational operettenal E Governor certi- assurance to IntC fles Intent to and siting that state can pro. (s5d(2)(c)) (s5d(2)(c))
develop een plan (compact) wide for management site (s5e(l)(8)) of LLU after 1992 (s5e(l)(A)) (s5e(l)(C))
Prepared by Bill Newberry Governor's Office South Carolina May 1986 ,
O I
I l
l SPECIFIC EXANPLES OF SURCHARGES AND REBATES FOR PENNSYLVANIA Based on an assumed annual waste generation of 225,000 ft3 In 1986 dollars Generator Pay State Rebate Scenario (million $ ) (million $ )
ABC3D 30.83 7.71 (meet all milestones)
ApCD*
3 38.75 6.62 ABC C D 32 43.72 5.78
- ABg C D 65.10 1.09 32 ABgig2p 84.07 0
~.(mi.ss all)
ABC3 9 26.10 3.00 MILESTONE CODE:
A = 7/1/86 - ratify compact B = 1/1/88 - host state identification C1 = 1/1/90 - license application C2 = 1/1/92 - late license application D = 1/1/93 - site operational
- A slash through a letter indicates that particular milestone has been missed. The next column ind,1 cates the penalty a generator will pay for a missed milestone. The last ~ column indicates the rebate dollars received by the state, the dollars decreasing as more milestones are missed.
O Prepared by William Dornsife, Chief, Division of Nuclear Safety, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Radiation Protection, Harrisburg, PA.
.__ _ ._ . _ . _ . .