ML20246K343

Forwards Info for Preparation of ACNW 890629 Briefing on Cement Workshop

ML20246K343
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/23/1989
From:	Tokar M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Parry S Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8907180141
Download: ML20246K343 (41)

Text

_ __ ._ _ _ _ _ _

r.

- JUN 2 31989 JACK PARRY / WORKSHOP /2 MEMORANDUM FOR: Sidney J. Parry, Senior Fellow Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards FROM: Michael Tokar, Section Leader Technical Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS

SUBJECT:

ACNW BRIEFING ON CEMENT WORKSHOP Per our earlier telephone conversion regarding the cement workshop, I have enclosed an information package which will help prepare the ACNW members for rqy presentation on June 29, 1989. The enclosed information includes 1) ahardcop)voftheoverheadsformyACNWpresentation,2)aworkshopagendaan package, 3 outlin the paper on my presentation given during the workshop plenary session.

If you have any questions or comments while reviewing this information, please call me at 492-0590. I am looking forward to seeing you on the 29th.

Original Signed By Michael Tokar, Section Leader Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning ENCLOSURE: As stated.

Distribution:

>Centralfiles:

KMcDaniels' LLTB

% JSurmeier, LLTB NMSS r/f MTokar, LLTB LLTB r/f JAustin,L(RB PLohaus, LLOB MBell, LLWM PDR Yes:/ g / JGreeves, LLWM PDR No:/~~'~7 Reason: Proprietary / / or CF Only / /

ACHW Yes:/ g / No:/ /

SUBJECT ABSTRACT:

OFC :LLlB > ;L ~ '/:LLWM :LLWM :hM55 :HM55

........ g _p21..... __?:f_.....

e .LLT F.........___.......___.....................

j NAME:KMcDaniel/lj :MTokar :JSu eier:  :  :  :

....................__ .....____ ._______............__.____________..._______. 1 DATE:6 //2/89 :G /n/89 :[/2J/89 : / /09: / /89 : / /89  : / /89 :

71g 890623 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY g)). 3  !

WM-3 PDC z}[y tf c

- -- A/Ll4 j

=

-_ S O

L I

C E

_ D I

M F

_ I E S C N U

A T T M I

W M O

A I

N A R S

T Y W

E O O R F F K O S R D

r H M O

J uAM n C e N ch i

P 2 Wa 9 e

, Ml e T 1 e o t

9 ik 8 n a 9g r

, j

> k!L ll llll l;tll

~

W O

L R O K S

W H L O E P V

E O L N R C A E 2 D I

O M O F E A N C T T

I S

S G V p a O ot M i

E L nh s erya I

o D -

r s W I e b 3 A F du1r S I

b g -

T C y

M J E A Nor nu T I

R r e Ci o O _

t ,2 N .

&t N H1 I o 9 _

St e8 .

Tl 9

- 1Il1 l )

_ F W S O

- o o t

r v r GG r r GGr r r u e r

m o o k ct a o o i a

_ l u u u u n u l

l

- p p p p g r P e O W

- r 4 3 2 1 G  :

b O

- o . . . . r j R

d o e u C WSt Pr aL ep L u c K ct o a aob s s t i S v

H n

t r e s b b or t i l o

s :

e O e P l

R o i an P

- e p

l Cez mto s Wl oe T r n t t t O o P h d h h e o B r r a Wyr eL k a oa c or Wa J i

s h o t

T a n yr c a t

E e c a s t r g e n b C t e h d t st e st e n S witc a T a u e Ge c i l

I V

i a

r r e S o n l

t d r s l i

E o s n E e z t l

c e s o S w

i a Fr o x Fr ep u i o e a i

l t p s n l ir aer o s n r d u S s om n mim s n s e i

T T s e t

u ,

o s m R n S p U m Se c r aro m os l t e m a g e n C

T a

i d

i n d ve U r al l u

i ig f n/ l t d R z i dF a o E e c G u t

u o

t au t Al l y

r d n e

A N

h i i

p - d e o d v e D n an p S l

i c r

e e

l r

s d cala s o P i ac op t

a R s

c ne t e i

l n O d o u i d D u n s P nW t i i oiagt n

i U

s r a C i

t s n T o o o t t n c e o v i

o S s e f e f

. s F s s o t r h e

m s

I p 6 5 P o .4 a3 s b oe he t

2 cw .1 r .

o s

n. l oa cW W iW t

d W

i d c iC r

a ms B p et a e h h ih o hh i

f h d a a oa ie wn a s ut t n a t cc t st e r wt oke sa( i br d e f f o c t e ea o l

w t s u e nh s t m

l a h a o d es us n a

ns l

t u Wn ag a

ot s u e n

(

p pp ) t /m i

n s l dc r l r r r c a e s e d s a s o e ow i

o ob c

r e l

s t s s, t r h e t

c s r a ee s mr or p

wta i i ew t h o

F f o y e a s nt t sie c o e a ao t

r a r a m b ts y r i

i u n sg as mn b s

? d o en l

g ee o l

t d ?y e I

s e l

, r i h f b p q e ed e w c b K e s ni f r io s E oo h r

eu t y a t n e u r i o t i i

f i t h c r Y l

d m n u r r e e i

e no g r e v c l d c na Q bp l

d a p  ? s et t u U mr a o t i 4 eos d b e r d et a d E e e nIf o et n ut -

s d ( r d no is S e s a t

T e s i n .m c h a q ?n a I d o l a t u ,o b l n O

?i d d em a e e d i

a e me n v N f

i g c tn i t w" et t e f l i S c o t

o i

f h r s e o a i l t o l l p e al a d t

d t y r d t o p e o h i ) b n P e e or i

n p x n bg o e p C a r e t 1 e P d t e r f 9 f e r s

t

? 8 /o o

o r

d c t e i

i n 3 r s o

e e ha i

o nc g T l n r p i it b e ,e e

c h d i

ns ac i

y f t t h s c is w ah re i

n i t h i

c c a i oi z a at g ui n t a l i

o d gn l

l l

y

)

n

?

T T P K s P o e a i t o r p c r c l

i o t

i h h d b c

a ni 6 e i

f l

e l

c .

1 n i e

a m r t d s e

l s e p

o p

o t

a st we a n r b t s i l s c B i

t o A

i t

r i t

y e u e

v o

n f n C i r e o t

e K e t q r r G e

5 w

s t

u i

me s d R

st s r .

O e

a a

w U t m i t

N u n e h s d n D t

s c c e r

i t m e e r

i n

t a -

i l1

=

P

?

R O

B F E D L W W o x i E a a a p s M st st i S

m a n e e n t i

n d e E f f g o o g e r N

- r d a C c t O

m m a ( e U s s u s d s w N p n e o T r w E o d l

a e t l

e R s E m c b n t a o y ) e D t

f u

l m e i o W r p x n I e l o e r T y

l e t r m H t

h s s e e s y l

C o r a E l

i s m n M d

i o c i

d E f

i l

i s

N e d r p T d

i f

e l -

i a i t S

( e ct O b d i l

o i

L e n I f n e D o r I

F r s I e E a D l

l L

c O e W m -

e L n E t V E

a L d

d e

W A

d S

) T E

l

mar ws s t 1 o i t 0

a t i ad t e a n n i i o e b S C s

i t t r l e F r e n i o yt c u r u t t R o

d a c i

i t

h - n o P e

l r n i t

a s c e d h at e s e s t 6 d r o a 1 e c iwn b

. 6 d a s ac i 7 1 u n s l

t e i c t h e e y "

t e b u d e s c mo A "o ap f v mn ah oc l

t C

o i c r in d i b e e n O e e N d

7 e

d m wr a s C ima z

E n s t

e i o

a d nid e t n P n, e T d m l

o ic a S p n z o n o e v d f og d er t t . t e t e h h n e d e e t r M, a

i mi s l g a dy r c s s i

e a a cp t

x ct i t e o e p i v n o s s m o e s a s l i s

u o o r f f

e s

] l

' l llll!ll z

~ '

6 6 6 -

1 1 1 5 5 4 6 6 4 -

C C W W A .

L L A A C A A S S H S S T T I

E S S E E V E

P B A C C A H L L

& A A O R C R S S

N T A I G C F T 6

T I str itds s (e S f s o n M sM E C E 1 ge e t

a g. a r a u R A R up s l T

col b. b e n ns r e I S M -

t se cy i

l at i

f e t t g

et T

I O R u

r a os r eh l

am s I N S T E e

l f ot a t s i

C

(

oes vc cr i

aa 3t i

v esss i S A B

Q

e. n g t (

n t n e

0se 0p s d, e u

s 8

t J

U I

e e ng a e. sd be i

y yhr u t s r

T Y R n re.

e n

ep e sc ai ct q e E _

g i st r r

s. a ra u u M _

n (e kaoao

e. ,) v l

i l

i r

e E eg s d d l

r .

i f

p e i e m N gn i i Hcr mt e T

ao d ea n I

a ,)Coey t cb i

n b si l t

s S 8 i l

t ns ot ny -

e r o r

,) sw i

na s u

n g s g s a

t i t e t ae nn u

a v o de r l e f yi s aor a

)

l l

r a y

- i I1l I

T E

oS cU PPr C f h o

ris t t a o r

H l

ot r ea r

t v k N n i f I g

t e

am

.e 8e 1 s C t r er r a t

h sg t

A o u L mte d r

ui ss s ct ad t t r a o u cn P u

c a f

r ae O t

u r e

t a

st l

st on SS I r

a u a T T l

s a b h AI 9

s t

ad e n d

l t

i i

y w o

BON I

b a i

l a

c r t

o L

I i

s e t

y l

n

~

p c

e q

u m TO Y

d i t ie r

e N c a n

et a m t c eh t W

o e n r e a

t s.

A S

T E

_F O

R M

i g

l

01

.elpmas eht ni nobrac latot fo ssol tnec

-rep 01 a naht ssel ecudorp d

-opartxe ssol thgiew latot a ,luohs sraey tset siht 003 ot.dohteM morF smrof etsaw ezis-lluf rof remarP-ahtraB eht detaT gnisu

,rof dellac si )noitarud shtnom 6 tsael ta ro"f( gnitset sret regno"l ,tset 22G MTSA detaeper a gniwollof devresbo si htworg yna ro ,tset 12G MTSA detaeper a 1 naht retaerg detar htworg erutluc devresbo fi :gnitset gniwollof devresbo si "rof erudecorp p"ets-itlum a rof sllac PT 3891 ehT )b(

noitadargedoib

• .)teef 54 morf( teef 55 fo drofnaH ta htped lairub mumixam desaercni na etadommocca ot isp 06 ot desiar neeb sah sihT .isp 05 fo htgnerts evisserpmoc muminim a rof sllac 'PT 3891 ehT )a(

stluser tset ezis bal ot setalerroc

& suoenegomoH )PT 3891 eeS( stseT elacs-lluF .8 tnecrep 5 0 1 55 SNA diuqil eerF .7 selcyc 03 retfa

.rts .pmoc isp 06 355B MTSA gnilcyC lamrehT .6 syad 09 ratfa

.rts .pmac isp 06 )PT 3891 eeS( noisremmI .5 6 fo xedni hcaeL 1 61 SNA ytilibahcaeL .4 isp 06 ).rts .pmoc

& )b( htworg oN 22G & 12G MTSA noitadargedoiB .3 sdar 8+E01 retfa

.rts .pmoc isp 06 )PT 3891 eeS( ytilibatS noitaidaR .2

)a( isp 06 47010 ro 93C MTSA ntgnertS evisserpmoC .1 airetirC sdohteM stseT ECNADIUG TCUDORP DEIFIDILOS

c c ama ag f "

h n o n e A e c o t id n d n s

mo s d e t c

ir t i i r r c s u o t t s a u i

a r o l l

s e mn f y l

c t

u p s o u a

c h

c h n a,

c s r

ma mr a a d t u , i l

l n a o i

c ny 1 g

e s mn i

h u n

t a st 0

s r c i a C a r qe a d e

n F

d o s b r R b u il i t e a ap iw e i

e s 1

t 6 1

x i

o l

mi g p p w

a .

1 n a e h e yh s 5 c n c t 6 e t ,

t t

t s i e (

f i

v o e c b f d e y it t f a f )

h l o (

c t e o d r 1 v d )

s a i

s m  :

np e p i

a d r r o

m n e b e w s u s n i

l d i n e r a s l

n d l t i e c e o r e n n n s a

l o

f

c s ws "

o t r

d oF m" e M i t S

1 v r e a t r 9 p n me e l

e t t n h e n

o i

l 8

r gt d 3 i

o h ny Ag i e h p e g S ht f s s e s s T s e i

T si, d e o t

h l M d e v t c e d i

o c e n o oas i f Cf 3

w h st t 5i a n r s c s a e 0 ac 9 at s

. t i

e ih, t

. l e c C p i "e a n

g p mi ep s o in a s l O t v r s p M e o l

hy t e P P l

c i o c mg "t t e 5i o R o he s s ie t 0m s E n

_ i e S t

a f t p i 1 c mc o s s n

s o S 2 h o r i n

I ia n w V e x t p i w

s v i r r l

l h

h S E e o mol u po b n

e u t

a S t

e e l h mp d t T e a r e t

e R e h l

p r y a s E mra a r

n s

t i

t e v a m e N st oy i l n c l d e n G it i mic er d c i c t T

a i

f a n o H u s ip ml c s e

d ab a

cp m

a oh c r we l

c mo o e c p u a

- s e

l o d s p re d st f i a v e n e a s b t

s c +

s e .

b i e l

v e

e 4

s wg T e e 1 f F aWa i

t o e h x x 8 o R n e u n e p p r N d st s l e i i t r r o r d r N a a p e w e i

c R t t i p a m

b i i a f C o o c o s e r .

n n a r d or e h l t i e

a v s s m p ia oor s a R

e s f f e s u E p

w p u v s l

i b t t e at a P c o e h h or b d i l

O a f e e e t min a b b n s i b

i l R T

i t

l e

t wf e i l

ey t

b p a e w e S p r e d t

i v e t T R oc r i

o a v e we p p

t

.o P E 1 al d i

.r a i

s r /

i t

h w VN v u I

o 8 l

3 i l

r n e b r 3 e a E e g r s t

hp e o a -

m t

o t

p u c WO r

i h t

- t t

J a b o P d s c e t l R

c pm i

i e

1 d u s t 3 n OO p h n e w l o t b a i

n e C s a r a e i t t a f f 3 v e E a l t

0 ed J d S l

e o , u r r e n M S 1 f e 9 ee /y a 8 s 8/

4

. 3 8 3

l i

. l! lIi ttilllf, ia 1 ia 1 nc 0 nc 0 c c 6o C 6o 1r F 1r C

. d( R . d( F 5i3 5i1 R 6n) 6n) g 2 g o 0 o 2 ft " .

f t " 0 oPr 3 oPr 1

t 6e t 3 h 1p 1

( h 6e 1p 1

i. 1 s 5ra f

)

i.

s 5r a (

d c5e  :

c5e )

ha ha  :

ana pdl r "

ana pdl ( tor t l eA t l 8hra em pn em ) e d re ay re ai" ew "ta c

k

.e "ta w orl oA s st a l s st feiqc an cy g i te e c te tu hini vg et s e hs hs ir e n s e se se ee n

semd we ws w ws ao a ed ao 1 s s t s enwar ctasa 4 t t ew t t tsstt eh s as eh i tei c ta c at oie n h st h nn tg a he a

a .

.po co

.r t rt ah lp ah .al al ce l r ce . rl i t

e

o "c

t e

"gael c ac e rw ia e

s rw ia rtnn aods ss s o

ss pr h de e

t t t t ie r ie s si c c (

hs a pw _

si w si l d l oh r s h o r s ) so e

qc e

qc

(

ca ul t ul 1ol

) t r m i a i a pfr rs e rs t l aa es a es hy c n mi t mi r is ef s ef owl f ni ni uiie te o te gttr sd r sd hhys _

ll!

i 51 l

9891,3 hcraM gnidne raey e rof maerts etsaw elgnis rof devorppa neeb daH *

.weiver rednU )leets nobrac detaoc( CIH 59-MW xocliW & kcocbaB

.weiver rednU )ylop/ssalgrebif( CIH 49-MW ocidnoB

.weiver rednU )nemutib noitacif;tdiloS 001-MW )ygolocE.S.U(ITA

.weiver rednU )tnacc noitacifidiloS 64-MW namttiH

.weiver rednU )noced/tnauc noitacifidiloS 99-MW seigolonhceT NL

.weiver rednU )tnemec(noitacifidiloS 02-MW seigolonhceT NL

.weiver rednU )3#tnemec(noitacifidiloS 89-MW raelcuN-mehC

.weiver rednU )2#tnemec(noitacifidiloS 1 veR 79-MW raelcuN-mehC

.weiver rednU 2# tnemec noitacifidiloS 79-MW raelcuN-mehC

.weiver rednU 1# tnemec noitacifidiloS 101-MW raelcuN-mehC

.nwardhtiW )ylop/ssalgrebif CIH 74-MW raelcuN-mehC

.nwardhtiW )enelyhteylop CIH 75-MW seigolonhceT NL

.nwardhtiW )SDS/sselniats-613 CIH 78-MW gnigakcaP raelcuN

.nwardhtiW )59-GS noitacifidiloS 97-MW namttiH

.nwardhtiW tnemec noitacifidiloS 69-MW raelcuN-mehC

.nwardhtiW tnemec noitacifidiloS 91-MW raelcuN-mehC

.nwardhtiW )mus yg/tnemec( pacnE/diloS 17-MW gnigakcaP raelcuN

.deunitnocsiD )tnemec(noitacifidiloS 29-MW kcotS

.deunitnocsiD )tnemec(lio/noitacifidiloS 31-MW MEKIV

.deunitnocsiD )nemutib( noitacifidiloS 19-MW )ygolocE.S.U(ITA l l

.devorppA ton *)muspyg(noitacifidiloS 15-MW muspyG .S.U i

.devorppA ton enelyhteylop CIH 67-Mn raelcuN CFY

.devorppA ton enelyhteylop CIH 08-MW namttiH

.devorppA ton enelyhteylop CIH 81-MW raelcuN-mehC

.devorppA )ylop/sselniats CIH 1 veR 39-MW seigolonhceT NL

.devorppA )ylimaf/muilarref CIH 58-MW gnigakcaP raelcuN

.devorppA )05-LF/muilarref CIH 54-MW gnigakcaP raelcuN

.devorppA )etercnoc/gerpmi ylop CIH 2 veR 18-MW ubihcihC

.devorppA remylop noitacifidiloS 28-MW W00

.devorppA remylop noitacifidiloS 88-MW cirtcelE lareneG

.devorppA nemutib noitacifidiloS 09-MW mehC etsaW noitisopsiD M .oN tekcoD rodneV sdraugefaS dna ytefaS laireta'P raelcuN fo eciffO f

9891 ,13 YAM f

)sCIH( SRENIATNOC YTIRGETNI HGIH DNA MROF ETSAW DEIFIDILOS l YRAMMUS SUTATS WEIVER TROPER LACIPOT l

T a c C R Q C C C W h n r o e u h e d o o e

i d te m v a a in r i

s l r m a c k s r pr e i l t

i i i

f a oe s h o e o i c n g n m n c t h e o n s a t

e u s o u, s r i

e u p l i c t i

i s s h d b v o o z i a u e n n a a n w s b t

/ t d w e e s t i o v i a n c s t w e i c s t s n a b h re a i

o l t

o l i b t N w m a u gn n c e l

e e c l b e

g a e dO T l

l k d t h n st f e a o d b & b a o r e i

s m e c n a P b a w d i

o is C l o

mb i i i r t n t e P z c h c i m

h r l

l t p a t

mje i

v st e o m r i o ct a a a u o o n a s v i

t n v l

t ie u h s t e o l e s st d s e d i:

p i e b m t y

c f t e e h e f u e d c a r c o o i

l o l c

i u f w

h m

e d mac n i

o u m v iv e

a c p e e n t 6 c a ( ,r s a0e l l

e t w p e s p a t p d c s o h in s n c i o

e t i

l o o n g i

c a

l l

y

)

0 o

~q

~R

. C R C 4 3 2' 1 o e o

_~

) ) ) ) v m i s m

&c f a i e a sp p

o o p f' xp e l e l u r p te e a mpr d sp i

t t r p a t r ae e e c

l u o t i

o r c i

n ac

=

. h n l v a g i v t h s

- i g ai n n ie n u v

t ig a dg

~

n m i

c a q o r g m l

n e a e a u

p s a s n -

i t s t _"

a e p "nt p

l m

a F i

) a r l

ep

.e i

f .w r a s r oo t o y U c i h i y s T ic ma t i

l e

mr.

e s " bp l

e i

c i

t i

o p r

e U R

e i

( f

~

1 n o n

f l i o o r

ma l n o r E 7 u "

n r mn m r i

n t

e t

e t i h te d u wp e b A e s e d f i l a t y C a s or h d t i r f t e e T s n -

i i t t e

I d c c a g o O i

a o u n r n r n, -

t n l t_ s s e e l y N oc t r v a c'

i a h e f f e e r A n an aw a o i r f u y r t r s

a a

r e r a m t ms s

u t

g u

ct t u ( A u s p o i r t p e b o l

a b f S e r r t t a r A o

i z a )n i

i o

s e

oP v a n n m at d b l i e s oy s o ,

~

d o -

n

, - n t

h e

P r C s Pi c <

-=

.j Rj .

E t-

i.

1.

GPENT MRKSIOP I Jy WEEtKIPG Git 00P APO DISCUSSI(N TOPICS WORKIPG GROUP 1 1FKSCNS LEAltPED MtOf SMAr1-APO FUIL-SCAIN WASTE FGtMS APO j OBSERVATI(NS AT P@rYFAR POWER STATICNS Working Group 1 will address issues encountered is comparing small-end-full scale test results using laboratory and actant sol Jified low-level radaste-af well as problems encountered with solidifying rad =3ste at the nuclear power stations. Some of the topics expected to be diseassed include:

1. The relationship betweca small-and-full scale 1csting

2. Full-scale testing of solidifled low-level radwaste

3. Additional testing to be performed on actual waste solidified at the suelear stations

.-4. Problems encountered with solidifying actual low-level radwaste at nuclear power stations including problems identified with the verification samples

5. Small-scale testing at IMEL on actual solidified radwaste collected from operating nuclear stations

6. Mechanisms, including chemica! causes, for. tbs observed deteriorations and unsuccessful solidification

7. Testing solidified waste in drums and liners to be performed at the power stations to casure complete solidification ( e.g. ..

I nondestructive testing and archived samples) 1 1

1

)

1

___-_m-_____ . . _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ - . - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ - _ a_

GMNr WORKSR3P i

WORKIN"s GROUP AND DISCUSSIGN TOPICS VORKITs GROUP 2 - f.ABORATGtY TEST EXPERIENT 20 APPLICATION TV) PRORf_FM WA m STRg6lig i

Working Group 2 will discuss laboratory tests and waste streams solidification where problems with the solie 'ication process have occurred. Topics to be discussed include:

1. Problems encountered with small laboratory tests performed at IPEL u s i ng a c t ua l s o l id i f i ed LLW f rom powe r s t a t i on s and Bt4., u s i n g simulated wastes

2. Identification of possible waste streams that perhaps should not be solidified or which waste loading should be limited

3. Experience with cement solidification of low--level radwaste f rom IXE's ope ra t ions a t the West Valley Demonstration Plant; lessons to be learned on the sensitivity of the effects of organic materials on the strength of the stabilized waste a;::! the scope o.f testing performed

4. Experience with cement solidification of lo wlevel radwaste from DCE's operations at the Savannah River Laboratory l

l l

l l

PENT M IDP WORKim GROUP AFO DISCUSSICN TOPICS WRKING GRGUP 3 - STABILI7pn WASTE futM TESTIPC GUID4NCE Working Group 3 will address regulatory concerns and technical information developed from laboratory testing programs for preparing Topical Reports.

Items expected to be discussed include:

1. MtC Brauch Technical Position (May 1983) waste form testing, revisions, and changes to the evaluation criteria l

2. Modification and/or elimination of any tests

3. Proposed new tects that would address long-term stability concerns

4. Guidance on specimen preparation, present practices of using different sized specimens in different tests, test specimens from different batches of six, minimum number of tests for the results to be statistically significant. (Define standard testing program to attain uniformity in testing so that data froe different licensee programs and laboratories may be evaluated for a pattern in test results.)

5. Different waste streams from nuclear power stations solidified, including the use of ion-exchange resins solidified in cement

6. Quality control and assurance in laboratory testing I

QMNT WORKSIM MI?G GROUP APO DISCUSSIm TOPICS i

MIPC GROUP 4 - 00rmtOf,WAS'm PitQsAMIM'P)

GARACTBtIZATIW. SOLIDIFICATI@. APO PROiP:S  !'

1 i

i Working Group 4 will address low-level radioactive waste stream characteristics and their impact on the cement solidification process at uuclear power stations. Issues expected to be addressed include:

1. Low level radioactive waste stream characteristics, including chemical and radiological composition and other constituents  ;

present

{

i

2. 1 Retreatment of waste streams such as pit control, additives to the <

solidification process, and physical treatment to waste streams such as tcsin dewatering / recantation, volume reduction, and ios-exchange depletion.

3. Characteristics of decontamination wastes.(Decontamination wastes are uniquely chemically and radiologically different from routine low-level radioactive wastes agents because they contain activated saetals, chelating agents, and metals removed f rom nuclear station piping and reacter components. Ther,e wastes are expected to increate in volume in the future as nuclear stations implement full-system decontamination practices.)

4. Adequate pretesting of the cement solidification formulations using actual wastes at the power stations

5. Parameters of the low-level radwaste to be monitored as part of the process control program for cement solidification at the nuclear stations l

6. The effects of composition of the low level radwaste streams that 1 either accelerste or retard the setting of cement. Admixture effects to counter the above. l l

. __________--______----a

1 )

CDENT WORKSIM MAY 31-JLbE 2, 1989 GAIT 11ERSBURG MARR10!T IUTEL Gaithersburg, Maryland WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES:

To discuss and identify possible solutions that may be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resolve administrative and technical issues regarding the use

]

of cement for the solidification and stabilization of low-level radioactive waste.

AGEN)A IMY 1 - Wednesday, May 31, 1989 PENARY JESSICN 7:00 Registration 8:00 Workshop Welcome: National Institute of Standards and Technology James Wright 8:10 Welcome by 14C/tNSS Senior Management Richard L. Bangart 8:15 Workshop Introduction Michael Tokar 8:40 Remarks by IXE National Laboratories (IN,, IPEL, SRL) and WVDP Brookhaven National Laboratory Barry Siskind Idaho National Engineering Laboratory John Mandler Savannah River Laboratory Christine Langton West Valley Naclear Services Co. Cl rles McVay 9:45 IREAK 10:15 Remarks by Nuclear Utilities Representative Les Skoski 10:30 Remarks by Cement Vendors Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. Michael Ryan IN Technologies Corp. Regan Voit l

Westinghouse Radiological Services, Inc. Bryan Roy

,6 2 l 4

11:15 Presentations group by Technical Coordinator of each workshop worf Working Group 1-Lessons Learned f rom Small-and Full-Scale se Wa t Forms and Observations at Nuclear Power Stations.

John Mandler, Idaho National Engineering Lab Working Group 2-Laboratory Test Experience and Application to Probles Waste Streams.

Barry Siskind, Brookhaven Nationa.1 Laboratory Working Group 3- Stabilized Waste Form Testing Guidance .

Peter Soo, Brookhaven National Laboratory Working Group 4-Weste Characterization, Solidification , and Process Control Program (PCP). i Blays Bowernan, Brookhaven National Laboratory ,

12:15 e

Closing Comments for the Morning Session Michael Tokar 12:30 IING MEKSEP 1:30 Working Group Discussions Working Grour, 1 and 2 will begin discussions this afternoon .

Working Groups 3 and 4 will begin discussions tomorrow morning .

3:15 istEAK 3:30 ,

Continue Working Groups 1 and 2 Discussions (Closed Sessions) 4:00 Status summary by Technical Coordinators of Working Groups 1 & 2 4 The rest of this afternoon will be open for discussicas in the form of a question and answer session. Questions and comments will be directed to specific working groups. Unneswered on the following day. If there is no time for all of theques!

questions to be answered, the attendees will be asked to give their questions in writing to the respective ' Working Group Chairman or Technicet Coordinator and they will be discussed by the technical working group tomorrow morning.

5:00 Adjourn

~ ,,y 1 3

.\.

EVENIRi Differ 6:00 Cash Bar 7:00 Di!@ER Dinner Speaker Robert M. Betacro, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission DAY 2 - Thursday, June 1, 1989 1GKSIDP 8:00 Coatinue Working Group Discussions All~four working groups will be in session today.

10:00 BREAK 10:15'- Coatinne Working Group Discussions 12:00 LINOI 1:00 Coatinue Working Group Discussions 3:15 BREAK 3:30 Continue Working Groups Discussions (Closed Sessions) 4:00 Status summary by Technical Coordinators of each Working Group The rest of this afternoon will~be open for discussions {

l in the form of a quertion and answer session. Questions and comments will be directed to specific working grosps. Unanswered questions will be taken up for discussions in the working groups os the following day. If there is no time for all of the questions to be answered, the ataendees will be asked to give their questians in writing to the respective Working Group Chairmam or Technical Coordinator nud they will be discussed by the technical working group tomorrow mornin5-j 5:00 Adjourn

4 4

Day 3 - Friday, June 2, 1989 WIDP 8:00 Continue Working Group Discussions 10:00 BREAK 10:15 Coatinue Working Group Discussions 12:00 LINGI ON11]DiT, SESS10i4 1:00 Summaries and remarks by the Technical Coordinators of each working group.

After all the technical coordinators have prescated their summaries to the attendees, the workshop will be open for comments by gescrat members attending.the merkshop. Most of the comments, if of a question in nature, wi!! be answered by the working group members. If not, they will be addressed prior to documenting the workshop proceedings.

'3:45 Closing remarks Michael Tokar 4:00 Adjourn ir.

i DIAIRMAN TFDNICAL mnRDINATM APO OMS  !

OF COffT tORKSHOP WORKIfG GROUPS 1

WORKIPG GROUP 1 - ESSONS EARED FROf SMAf f-APO FULL-SCAIF WA OBSERVATI(NS AT NUrrFAR POWER STATICNS OIAIRMAN:

Phillip R. Reed, Nuclear Regulatory Commission TEONICAL COORDINATOR: John Mandler, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

1. Everett Wick Nuclear Regulatory Commission

2. Chuck McIsaac Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

3. John Remark ARC, Inc.

4. Regan Voit LN Technologies Corp.

5. James Jeffrey Chem Nuclear Systems, Inc.

6. Paul Desault PN Services

7. John Bishop Consultant

8. Alan Campbell Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.

9. Steve Davis Commonwealth Edison Co.

10. Pete Mays Carolina Power and Light Co.

11. Andy Young New York Power Authority Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Station

12. Mike Dragoo Philadelphia Electric Co.

Peach Bottos Nuclear Power Station i

I L  ;

_ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ b

OIAIRMAN TEDNICAL 030RDINATM AtO PEMBERS OF PENT M)RKSHOP M)RKIPG GROUPS J

i DORKIPG GROUP 2 - LABORATORY TEST EXPERIENT Af@ APPLICATI04 TO PPNR4  !

WASTE STREAMS l

l i

OMIRMAN: Banad Jagannath, Nuclear Regulatory Commission TEONICAL CDORDitMTOR: Barry Siskind, Brookhaven National Laboratory l

1. Derek Widmayer Nuclear Regulatory Commission f

2. Mark Fuhrmann Brookhaven National I.aboratory

3. John McConnell,Jr. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

4. Christine A. Langton Savannah River Laboratory

5. Russ Stimmet West Valley Nuclear Services Co.

6. John Carlson Chem-Nuclear Systems Inc.

7. Gene Smeltzer Westinghouse Electric.Co.

E. Paul Piciuto Eco!cgy and Environment, Inc.

I J

l

~

b i

l

r i

. . j 1

OMIRMAN TEONICAL 000RDINNTOR APO CAS OF O! PENT WORKSHOP WORKim GROUPS

)

i I

WORKim GROUP 3 - STABILI7m WASTE FORM. TESTING GUID4NT

]

OMIRMAN: Michael Tokar, Nuclear Regulatory Commission I TEONICAL COORDINATOR: Peter Soo, Brookhaven National Laboratory .

1. Jake Philip Nuclear Regulatory Commission

2. James Clifton National Institute of Standstds and Technology

3. Peter Colombo Brookhaven National Laboratory

4. Robert Neilson, Jr. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

5. Robert Rogers Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

6. Gregory Boris Westinghouse Radiological Services, Inc.

'/' William House Chem 41uclear Sys tems , Inc.

8. Angela Valvasori LN Technologies Corp.

9. William Phillips Stock Equipment Co.

10. Richard Blauvel! Mound Laboratory

11. Russell Propst Duke Power Co.

l i

v.

e GAIRMAN. 7 WICAL CIXEtDINATUt APO PEP 85MS j

. . . OF (BENT 4GtKKIN 10tKIPG (WWP$

9 1

40tKIPC GtOUP 4 - WASTE M*_*_^CIERIZATICN. sr_v_IDIFICATICN. APO PRfY_T_q carmt0L PROGRAM (PCP)

OIAIPtMAN: Keith McDaniel, Nuclear ?.egulatory Commission i

1EONICAL CXKELDINAltEL: Blays Bowerman, Brookhaves National Laboratory

1. Frank Cardile Nuclear Regulatory Commission

2. Charles Willis Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

3. Geoffrey Frobasdorff National Institute of Standards and Technology

4. William Serrano Idaho National Engiacering Laboratory

5. Steve Duce Idaho National Engiaceria's Laboratory

6. Lyna Maycaux Ches 4 clear Systems, Inc.

7. Rick January IN Technologico Corp.

8. Bryan Roy Westinghouse Radiological Services, Inc.

9 Tom Oliver Pacific Nuclear Services

10. Charles McVay West Valley NucIcar Services Co.

11. Bruce Watson Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station

12. Channing Gerber Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Nine Mile Point Nuc! car Power Station

1

.g  ;

SUMMARY

ITNRT Otm,TNE FOREWORD l

PROGRAM EXEC (frIVE

SUMMARY

WORKSHOP WE[ DOME Cu"l2CH Richand Wright, NIST NRC WELCOME SPEECH John T. Greeves, NRC WORKSHOP IlfrRODUCTION Michael Tokar, NRC REMARKS BY DOE LABORATORIES Brookhaven National Lab Barry Siskind Idaho National Engineering Lab John Mandler Savannah River Lab Christine Langton West Valley Nuclear Services Co. Charles McVay RE%RKS BY NUCLEAR UTILITIES REPRESENTATIVE NUMARC Les Skoski REMARKS BY CEMENT SOLIDIFICATION VENDORS Chem-Nuclear Services Inc. Michael Ryan LN Technologies Inc. Rwan Voit

' Westinghouse Radiological Services Bryan Roy SikMARIES OF WORKING GR(XTP DISCUSSIONS Working Group 1 John Mandler, INEL Working Group 2 Barry Siskind, BNL Working Group 3 Peter Soo, BNL Working Group 4 Biays Bowerman, BNL SUtEARIES OF PLENARY SESSION DISCUSSIONS Wednesday Afternoon Thursday Afternoon Friday Afternoon CLOSING C0ttENTS LIST OF ATTENDES

o 1 <

INTRODUCTION TO CEMENT WORKSHOP l by Dr. Michael Tokar, Section Leader Engineering Section Technical Branch .

Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Materials Safety andSafeguards(MSS)

I. Welcome Welcome to the Workshop on Cement Solidification and Stabilization of Low-Level Radioactive Wasta. My name is Michael Tokar. I am the Section Leader of the Engineering Secticn in NRC's Division of Low-level Waste Managem nt and Decommissioning, and I will act as your main Master of Ceremonies for this and the other plenary sessions that will be held over the next three devs.

This Workshop is being co-host 6d by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)., NRC Offices participating in this effort include the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards ( WSS), the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of Research (RES). Because NMSS has the primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of NRC's regulation,10 CFR Part 61, for the land disposal of low-level radioactive waste, that Office, which I and several others here represent, established the need for the Workshop and requested assistance from the other NRC Offices and NIST in setting up the Workshop.

NIST, NRR, and RES have all played major roles in structuring this meeting, in setting up the logistics, and in identifying significant technical issues. I want express sy gratitude for their hard work, the results of which are readily apparent here today. I anticipate that the representatives of these organizations will continue to make very significant contributions to the technical discussions that will take place over the next three days.

II. Purpose Why are we holding this meeting? What is there about the use of cement to solidify and " stabilize" low-level radioactive waste that would lead us to convene this gathering of experts to discuss the technical issues involved? I talieve I can best respond to these questions with a little demonstration.

Here is a specimen of mixed (40% cation /60% anion) bead resin solidified in Portland cement. The specimen was prepared approximately fifteen months ago in February 1988. As you can see, it is a perfectly intact, monolithic right circular. On the 6th of March,1989 (over one year after the specimen was prepared) I took a similar specimen (identical except for having a s'ightly

l 2

higher cement content) and placed it in a glass of water for a week. This is that specinen as it exists today. As you can see, it now consists of a loose granular mixture of resin beads and cement powder. Please note that this is a waste form recipe that had passed all the qualification tests called out in the 1983 Technical Position on Waste Form (which I will be speaking about in a little more detail in a few minutes). If this is what can happen to a supposed

" stabile" waste form after one week of exposure to water, what does it portend with regard to the ability of a real cement waste form, contained in a carbon steel liner and disposed of in a shallow land burial disposal facility, to possess the long-term (300-year) structural stability required by 10 CFR Part 61?

This is but one illustration, albeit a rather dramatic one, of problems that have been encountered with cement-solidified low-level radioactive waste in laboratory testing as well as in the field. Many of you are already quite familiar (and if you are not already familiar with the details you will be by the time this Workshop is over) with reported cases of full-scale and lab-scale waste forms that have disintegrated like this one, or that did not fully solidify, or that foamed up due to an exothermic reaction, or that solidified too rapidly, or that swelled and bulged their liners, and so on. These cases demonstrate that there are complex chemical and physical phenomena involved in the use of cement ta solidify low-level waste streams. A basic objective of this Workshop, therefore, is to exchange information concerning these phenomena and to discuss approaches that can be used to mitigate their effects on the cement waste forms.

1 III. Part 61 Requirements and the 1983 Technical Position on Waste I Form I have alluded to the Part 61 requirements for low-level waste forms. Those {

requirements, contained in subsections 61.56(a) and 61.56(b) (for " minimum" and l

" stability" requirements, respectively), are coupled to the waste l classification system called out it subsection 61.5. As noted in subsection  !

61.55, there are three classes of low-level radioactim waste, called Class A, j Class B and Class C. The minimum requirements apply to all three classes of waste while the startlity requirements apply only to Classes B and C (unless Class A waste is comingleo with Class B or Class C waste). One of the most pertinent minimum requirements for a cement-solidified waste form concerns the allowable amount of free liquid: in no case shall such liquid exceed 1% by volume (0.5% if the waste form is stabilized; i.e., Class B or Class C). Thus, cement is used to solidify liquids and slurries so as to satisfy the free i liquid limit as well as to meet the long-term structural stability requirement ,

of Part 61. l Waste form " structural stability" is intended to address two concerns in Part  !

61: (1) the need to minimize " access of water to the waste" so that " migration of radionuclides [to the environment] is thus minimized" (see 10 CFR 61.7),

and (2) to need to limit exposure to an inadvertent intruder by providing a recognizable and nondispersible waste (see 10 CFR 61.56(b). A stabile waste j

i 3

form contributes to the overall stability of the site by helping to preclude slumping, collapse, or other failure of the disposal unit. In so doing, the waste form itself helps to minimize contact of water with the waste and migration of radionuclides off-site. The waste form's ability to contribute to the prevention of trench slumping and to be " recognizable" are characteristics that are relatively easy to attain in the sense that even a completely disintegrated waste form could possess those characteristics. However, a disintegrated waste form would not be expected to contribute effectively to the minimization of migration of radionuclides. This is true because the increased surface area of the disintegrated particulate material would, if it were in contact with water, be subject to increased leaching and release of the radionuclides contained in the material.

The " minimum" requirements for low-level waste forms are relatively I straight-forward and require little elaboration. The main concern here is with the requirements for " structural stability." Though Part 61 provides the basic licensing requirements for structural stability, the regulation does not i indicate in any detail how those requirements should be demonstrated to be met.

That type of detailed guidance is instead provided in the " Technical Position on Waste Form" (TP), which was issued in May 1983. For solidified waste forms, the tests (see Table I) essentially involve subjecting the waste specimens to conditions of compression, irradiation, biodegradation, lasching, issnersion, and thermal cycling. Most of the tests, which were selected for their relative l

simplicity and reproducibility, are based on American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Nuclear Society (ANS) standard methods of test that were originally developed for specific non-radioactive material applications. Though it is not explicitly so stated in the TP, these methods of to test are intended relatively short-ters to provide (minutesconfidence} by means of or weeks conditions, exposing that test specimens low-level radioactive waste forms will'have the desired long-ters (300-year) structural stability. It is important to remember in this regard that there is a major difference in time scale between the periods of time allotted for the tests and the period of time of concern for LLW disposal. Therefore, the test conditions cannot match, and are not intended to exactly duplicate, the conditions that might actually exit.t in the disposal facility at the time of disposal or which might exist at some point in time following placement of the waste in the facility. For example, the irradiation test calls for the specimens to be exposed the wasteto forms a minimum after (300 of years 10E+8 of rads,)which diposal; this is the arximum requires the testlevel of exposure for specimens to be exposed to a much higher gamma flux than would actually oe encountered under real exposure conditions. Thus, in some uys (some of) the TP tests can be considered to be accelerated tests, while in a more fundamental sense they are actually screening tests that are used to weed out material formulations and designs that do not exhibit sufficient assurance of long-ters stability.

It will be noted that the principal acceptance criterion parameter for most of the tests is compressive strength. The compressive strength criterion and the tests are related to Part 61 through the statement Un 10 CFR 61.56(b)(1)] that "a structurally stable waste form will generally maintain its physical

_ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - l

r ..

4 4

dimensions and its form, under expected disposal conditions, such as weight of overburden and compaction equipment, the presence of moisture ([a rationale for the innersion and leaching tests) and microbial activity [a rationale for biodegradation tests) and internal factors such as radiation effects [a rationale for radiation stability tests] and chemical changes." In the 1983 TP, a cover material density of 120 lbs./cu.ft is assumed, which yields a pressure of approximately 37.5 psi at a burial depth of 45 feet (the then-maximum burial depth at Hanford). Taking into consideration potential j-additional loads from trench compaction equipment, waste contents, etc., the compressive strength criterion was set at 50 psi, which was raised to 60 psi when Hanford increased the depth of its trenches to 55 feet. Thus, the compressive strength criterion was not established as a result of some direct correlation of an intrinsic material property to long-term structural stability, but was instead intended to accommodate the environmental or in situ loads at the bottom of a disposal trench. For certain types of solidification

' media such as Portland or Pozzalonic cements, which typically have compressive strengths on the order of several thousand psi, a 60 psi compressive strength criterion does not appear to have a strong correlation to long-term structural stability. However, it shculd be noted that.the waste form TP indicates that for solidification agents that are easily capable of meeting the 50 psi limit, process control procedures should be developed to achieve the maximum practical compressive strengths, not simply to achieve the minimum acceptable compressive strengths. This recossendation seems not to have received much attention (mainly because of economic considerations and competive factors that have led to lower and lower cement loadings), with the result that in some waste forms the waste loadings are so high that the radioactive waste ingredients comprise the overwhelming bulk of the material. In such cases there may be so little cenertitious material in the waste forms that they may, because of physical and chem mal interaction between the waste material and the cement, be

intrinsically unstabile.

IV. The Topical Report Review Process As noted earlier, the purpose of the 1983 Technical Position on Waste Form is to provide guidance on an acceptable approach for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR' Part 61 requirements for LLW structural stability. Under current procedures, the outlines of which were established in an agreement reached with the current-sited States (Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington) in late 1983, the NRC provides a " central" review of topical reports on waste form stabilization media and high integrity containers (HICs). The centralized review is intended to be generically applicable to all disposal sites.

Waste generators and processors must satisfy the provisions of NRC regulation 10 CFR 20.311 concerning the need to certify that the waste form requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 have been met. The most straight-forward way for a waste 4 generator or processor to satisfy 10 CFR 20.311 is to use a stabilization medium (or high integrity container) that has been reviewed and approved by the NRC. In stating that an NRC-approved medium or HIC was used, the waste generator or processor also simplifies the task of the NRC inspector who audits

.~ .

5

.the licensees' activites to ensure that they are safe and in compliance.

The current status of the topical report review program is shown in Table II.

Since the program began in 1983, a total of 32 topical reports have been submitted for review. Of those, 7 are approved, 4 were disapproved, 3 reviews were " discontinued" (disapproved with the option of resubmittal), 7 were voluntarily withdrawn by the vendor, and 11 are currently under review. It will be noted that, while there are seven cement topical reports' currently under review, no commercial cement formulations have received approval. In the six years that NRC has been reviewing cement-solidified LLW formulations and topical reports, the only formulation that has received approval is the West Valley Demonstration Project's (WVDP's) decontaminated supernatant waste. The WVDP decontaminated supernatant waste, which has~ a relatively uniform

' composition very extensive comp and (ared to typical expensive) commercial qualification low-level program thatwaste received streams, required a a rigorous review by the NRC staff and consultants. You will be hearing more about the WVDP. cement qualification testing program and licensing review from Charley McVay of West Valley Nuclear Services later this morning. The point to be made here is that it required a massive testing and review effort to determine the acceptability of this.coment-solidified, relatively uniform waste stream. It is, therefore, not surprising that no commercial waste formulations have yet received approval, and it raises questions concerning what can be done in a practical sense to qualify cement-solidified wastes.

The NRC topical report review program has two parts. The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards-(NMSS) reviews the stabilization media and formulations from the standpoint of product compliance with the long-term stability requirements of Part 61. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, however, has been reviewing generic and Plant-specific Process Control Plans (PCPs). The generic PCPs are normally reviewed as topical re arts in a manner analogous to the IMSS reviews of product topical reports. NR1's reviews tend to be focussed on the systems interactions of the solidification equipment with plant systems and operation. Inasmuch as the PCPs also address the procedures used to prepare the waste forms, we intend.in the future to merge the process procedure reviews with the waste form product reviews; i.e., there would be only one topical report submittal that will address both product testing as well as the procedural recipe that is needed to ensure that the actual waste i form will possess the qualities demonstrated in the laboratory test program.

Information on the details for the new PCP review procedure will be provided in the near future and is outside the scope of this Workshop. However, the relationship.of the PCP procedure to the qualification testing used to )

demonstrate the adequacy of the waste formulation is an important issue that i needs to be addressed in this Workshop. I V. Workshop Objectives, Structure, and Products As noted in the announcement you all received concerning this Workshop, the -

overall objective of the Workshop is to exchange information on the technical issues in cement solidification of LLW and to develop initiatives that will

.~.

I 6

lead to regulatory resolution of those concerns. Thus, it is our hope and expection that we will be able to use the information shared in this Workshop to make some near-term, perhaps interim, decisions on the issues involving cement stabilization of LLW (e.g., to approve, on at least an interim basis certain waste stream formulations and concentrations) while longer term solutions can be sought for the more difficult areas of concern.

The Workshop has been structured into " Plenary" and " Working Group" sessions.

During this opening plenary session we will hear presentations from representatives of the radwaste treatment vendors, national laboratory researchers, and utilities. We will then break for lunch. After lunch we will reconvene with the start of Working Groups 1 & 2. . There will then be a Stati.s

. Summary Session later this afternoon. At that session the Working Group l Chairmen and Technical Coordinators will report on the activities taking place during their sessions and will field questions and comments from members of the l

audience. There will be similar summary sessions at the conclusion of each day's Working Group meetings. Please check your copy of the agenda for the time and place of the planned sessions for each day of the Workshop.

You will note from the Meeting Announcement and Agenda that there will be four Working Groups, as follows:

1. Lessons Learned from Small/ Full-Scale Waste Forms

2. Laboratory Test Experience and Application to Problem Waste Streams

3. Stabilized Haste Form Testing Guidance

4. Waste Characterization, Solidification, and Process Control Procedure We have structured these Working Groups in such a w e that the first two groups are intended to be " problem identification" oriented, whereas the second two are considered to be " regulatory pathway" oriented. Clearly, it would be desirabletoconductthegroblemidentificationsessionsfirst,asthe information received and lessons learned" from such discussions could be factored into the regulatory pathway discussions. Unfortunately, time constraints do not allow us to run the sessions consecutively. The best we can do timewise is to initiate the discussions for the first two sessions first (this afternoon), and to start the second two Working Group (3 & 4) sessions tomorrcw morning. Members of Working Groups 3 and 4 will, therefore, have the benefit of listening in to some of the " problem identification" discussions before undertaking their tasks tomorrow and the next day. And, should Working Group 1 & 2 members complete their activities before the wrap-up plenary session on Friday afternoon, they can listen in on the " regulatory pathway" discussions. In this way, we can make the best use of the time available and maximize the benefits that may accrue.

We envision that the Working Group session discussions will be conducted by designated members of the Working Groups. There will be ample opportunity for questions and comments for all attendees during the plenary summary sessions

M

, .i .

7 each afternoon. I strongly urge all of you, whether you are a Working Group member or observer, to voice your opinions and to speak freely and openly about the issues at the appropriate time. The one thing we want to avoid is a situation where people are afraid or reluctant to speak candidly. If everyone

. simply sits and listens, hoping to obtain information without sharing any of their own, we will accomplish very little. Be aware that in general, the less information there is available upon which to base a regulatory decision, the more conservative that decision is likely to be.

The main product, in the sense of a document, that will ensue from this meeting will be a Summary Report. The report will contain the presentations made during this plenary session and will suiunarize the discussions, including the data presested and opinions expressed during the Working Group sessions. (Note that the ssJsions will not be transcribed, taped, or otherwise recorded). The most important benefit to be gained from this meeting will be the information shared that will provide the basis for resolving issues and reaching regulatory decisions concerning the use of cement in solidifying and stabilizing low-level radioactive waste. In this regard it must be recognized'that'this is not a

" Concensus Conference." The intent is not to deve"op a Concensus Document, but is rather to share information, experience, and data that will enable the regulatory authority (i.e., the Nuclear Regulatory Cossifssion) to reach decisions on how to deal with the use of cement to solidify and stabilize low-level radioactive wastes.

With regard to the issues, each Working Group member has received well in advance of this meeting a list of potential issues and questions to be addressed in his/her Working Group. In some cases, depending on the nature of the issue, more than one Working Group may be involved with a given issue.

Different Groups may address different aspects of the issue. There are also certain issues or questions for which we would like input from all attendees to this Workshop. For those issues, we have provided you with questionnaires that we would like you to fill out and return on your way out from this session to the cafeteria for lunch. We will tabulate the results. This is an opinion survey only and is intended only to serve as a means of ascertaining if there is e preponderance of opinion on some of the key issues.

Some of the key issues / questions that we would like you all to address are as follows:

1.(a). Based on laboratory observations and field experience, what waste streams or waste concentration levels appear to be compatible /

incompatible with cement?

1. (b). What additional R&D, if any, is needed to answer Question: la?

2. (a). Can (must) waste generators do a better job of characterizing their wastes prior to solidifying the material?

(b). If the answer to 2a is "yes," what ingredients should be checked (presence identified and quantified)?

(c). if the answer to L is "yes," how should this be factored into

.= .

8 the qualification and PCP programs?

3. What waste streams require retreatment prior to solidification and how should they be pretreated (chemically and/or physically)?

4. What changes, if any, should be made to the 1983 Technical Position on Waste Form?

5. (a).WhatfeaturesshouldbeincludedinagoodPCP?

(b). How should the PCP be related to the TP qualification testing?

6. What post-solidification testing procedures and criteria should be used?

(a). For post-solidification / pre-shipment examinations; (b). For archival specimens.

The issues listed above are ones that will require ra Iulatory decisions in the .

near futurf , It is our urgent hope and expectation taat this conference wiil, at a minimum, help point the way to the regulatory pathways that can be followed to resolve these and other issues to be discussed over 1.ne next three days and that the information exchange during the conference will further our efforts to produce stabile waste forms that will allow safe operation of disposal facilities and the long term protection of the environment.

VI. Summary In summary, this Workshop is being held because cement is known to interact adversely chemically and physically with some waste stream materials. Such interactions can be quite complex and can be adverse to the extent that the resultant waste forms cannot readily be demonstrated to have the long-tmn structural stability required by Part 61 for Class B and Class C wastes. And yet, cement is the medium most widely used to solidify and stabilize low-itvel radioactive wastes. In an effort to provide NRC licensees with a mechapir.m for demonstrating compliance with Part 61 and the provisions of 10 CFR 20.311 that require waste generators to certify that the Part 61 requirements have been satisfied, the NRC provides a centralized review of topical reports dealing with the stabilization medium or high integrity container. In performing the technical reviews NRC staff utilize acceptance criteria established in Technical Position on Waste Form that was issued in May 1983.

The relevance and relationship of those tests and criteria to the need to ensure that the waste forms will possess long-term structural stability, the need to establish whether certain waste streams / compositions / concentrations are incompatible with cement, the need to address what, if any, pre- and post-solidification tests and criteria should be developed -- these will be among the major issues that n will be addressing over the next three days. I believe that this will a an interesting and productive workshop, and I thank you all for your active participation and cooperation in making it a success. ,

'W TABLE I SOLIDIFIED PRODUCT GUIDANCE Tests Methods Criteria

l. Compressive Strength ASTM C39 or 01074 60 psi (a)

2. Radiation Stability (See 1983 TP) 60 psi comp. str.

after 10E+8 rads

3. Biodegradation ASTM G21 & G22 No growth (b) &

comp. str.) 60 psi l 4. Teachability ANS 16.1 Leach index of 6

5. Immersion (See 1983 TP) 60 psi comp. str.

after 90 days

6. Thermal Cycling ASTM B553 60 psi comp. str.

after 30 cycles

7. Free liquid ANS 55.1 0.5 percent

8. Full-scale Tests (See 1983 TP) Homogeneous &

correlates to leb size test results (a) The 1983 TP' calls for a sinfaus compressive strength of 50 psi. This has been raised to 60 psi to accommodate an increased maximum burial *depth at Hanford of 55 feet (from 45 feet).

(b) The 1983 TP calls for a multi-step procedure for biodegradation testing: if observed culture growth rated " greater than 1" is observed following a repeated ASTM G21 test, or any growth is observed following a repeated ASTM G22 test, longer tem testing (for at least 6 months duration) is called for, using the "lartha-Pramer Method." From this test, a total weight loss extrapo-Tated for full-size waste forms to 300 years should produce less than a 10 per-cent loss of total carbon in the sample.

r ,

. !J-4a TABl.E II 4

TOPICAL REPORT REVIEW STATUS SUWARY SOLIDIFIED WA5TE FORM AND HIGH INItGRITY CONTAINERS (HICs)

MAY 31. 1959 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Vendor Docket No. M D,isposition Waste Chem E 90 Solidification bitumen Approved.

General Electric WM-88 Solidification polymer Approved.

DOW WM-82 Solidification polymer Approved.

Chichibu W-81 Rev 2 HIC poly impreq/ concrete) Approved.

Nuclear Packaging W-45 HIC ferra11um/rL-50) Approved.

Nuclear Packaging WM-85 HIC ferralium/ family) Approved.

LN Technologies 6 93 Rev 1 HIC stainless / poly) Approved.

Chem-Nuclear WM-18 HIC (polyethylene Not Approved.

Hittman WM-80 HIC (polyethylene Not Approved.

TFC Nuclear WM-76 HIC (polyethylene Not Approved.

U.S. Gypsum W-51 Solidification (gypsum)* Not Approved.

ATI (U.S. Ecology) WM-91 Solidification (bitumen) Discontinued.

VIKEM W-13 Solidification / oil (coment) Discontinued.

Stock WM-92 Solidification (coment) Discontinued.

Nuclear Packaging E71 Solid /Encap (coment/gy sum) Withdrawn.

Chem-Nuclear WM-19 Solidification cement Withdrawn.

Chem-Nuclear WM-96 Solidification cement Withdrawn.

Hittman WM-79 Solidification SG-95) Withdrawn.

Nuclear Packaging W-87 HIC Withdrawn.

LN Technologies WM-57 HIC(polyethylene)

(316-stainless /SDS)

Withdrawn.

Chem-Nuclear W-47 HIC I, fiberglass / poly) Withdrawn.

Chem-Nuclear 6 101 Solidification (coment #1 Under review. 1 Ches> Nuclear E97 Solidification (coment #2 Under review.

Chem-Nuclear W-97 Rev 1 Solidification (coment#2 Under review.

Chem-Nuclear E 98 Solidification (cament#3 Under review.

LN Technologies WM-20 Solidification cament) Under review.  !

LN Technologies E99 Solidification (cament/decon)Underreview.

Hittman W-46 cement) Under review.

Solidification (dbitumen) i ATI(U.S. Ecology) W-100 Solidification Under review.

Bondico WM-94 HIC (fiberglass / poly) Under review.

Babcock & Wilcox E95 HIC (coatedcarbonsteel) Under review.

• Had been approved for single waste stream for one year ending March 3,1989.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _