ML22230A126

Tran-M790802: Briefing on Resins from EPICOR-2

ML22230A126
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/02/1979
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
Tran-M790802
Download: ML22230A126 (34)

Text

RE1URN TO SECRE1ARlAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:

BRIEFING ON RESINS FROM EPIC OR-2 Place - Washing t o n, D. C .

Dote - Thur s day , 2 Augu s t 1979 ?cges 1 -32 Te lepho n e :

(20 2) 3A7-37C0 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Official Reporters 444 North Cap ito l Str eet Washington , D.C. 20 001

/

NATIONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY

1

• *DISCLAD*1ER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Thursday, August 2. 197 9 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. The, meeting*was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript*

has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain*

inacc11racies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informationpl purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9~103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Connnis s ion in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Comiuission may authorize.

2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 PUBLIC MEETING 4

BRIEFING ON RESINS FROM EPICOR-2 5

6 Room 1168 1717 H Street, N.W.

7 Washington, D. C.

8 Thursday, 2 August 1979 9

The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.

10 BEFORE:

11 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman

,J i.L JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 13 ALSO PRESENT:

I 14 i Messrs. Collins and Dircks.

Ii I

151 161 ii l ,'

I!

!j 18 !I II,.

19  !!

Ii 20 iiI!

I\

21 11 II 11 22 i1 11 23 ii,1

- ""'J

-<C'-t

.'1.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 II ii

CR 6288 3 HOFFMAN t-1 mte 1

- 3 2

P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

(2:05 p.m.)

Why don't we go ahead. It's 4 your meeting. Why don't you chair it? It's not a formal 5  !

meeting of the Coromission, but Vic is interested in the 6 transcript, so we've got a transcrip~ being made.

7 COJYf. .MISSIONER AHEARNE: The question really came up, 8 I got the memo, John, and that made me realize that I myself 9 needed to understand better a couple of things. One of the 10 I questions was, why doesn't someone from NMSS come up to also 11 sit here.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How come you wore your green .coat, 12 13 Jack?

1 A

. MR. MARTIN: The wearing of the green, closeness to 15 Mother Earth.

16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: One of the questions was the 1

' I

~

technical issue and related aspects of whether or not the 18 resin should be solidified. There were arguments for and H against that.

JO The second question was, what kind of reg-qlations "11 might we have, either in place or thinking of putting in place

~,{.

in the future, about the solidification of resins.

Then a third question was, what's the relative rules 23 24 of NRR and NMSS on that subject.

,.\c::-F~c2ral Reoort'?rs, Inc.

25 It appeared to me that I didn't really understand

me 2 4

- 2 3

those three pieces, and it might be useful just to have a short discussion of those.

MR. COLLINS: I guess perhaps a good starting point 4 is to start from the last one first. We view our role in NRR 5 as having responsibility for the review and evaluation of 6 radwaste treatment systems, liquid, gas and solid, for all 7 nuclear power plants. Under that responsibility we have 8 developed certain guicance for what we believe is necessary 9 to satisfy general design criteria 60 and 64.

10 In our safety evaluatQon of an SAR with regards to

, 1 I* solidification or solid waste systems, I guess prior to about i

ii p 'I 1974 there was no real formal guidan_ce as to what the staff

-'- II l .) would look for o'r what they would evaluate in a safety evalua-I

] ,1

• Ii I

tion. By 1974 we initiated the development of a standard

!i l5 !I I review pl2..n, accompanying branch technical positions and 16 I regulatory guides to implement the standard review plan, which '

,~

'I at that time was really a guidance document for the staff.

18 These are the things we will look at. Of course, n we've taken a somewhat different posture since that time. It'si 20 become a posture of becoming more a regulatory guidance,

')-1 unfortun.ately.

22 In 1 75, when we issued the standard review plans, 23 we did come forth with a position on solidification that 2,1 essentially told the OL and CP applicants that, you are no

-' r--o-F~eral Reoorters, Inc.

25 longer going to give lip service to solid waste systems. I

mte 3 5

- 3 21 I

I I

guess the attention prior to that time didn 1 t give the attention to it because our staff was occupied with trying to implement Appendix I, which took care of the gas and liquid, 4 but never addressed the solids question. Host of the plants i

~

..,) prior to '74-'75 either did not have solidification systems or,:

I I

6 if they did, they were certainly not what we would refer to as 7 state of the art.

8 II In our application of the position paper or

!I Ii 9 j development of the position paper, we tried to visualize what 1

10 'the indus:try was capable of doing. We felt that it was down 11 the road. We felt the criteria would be developed by either 12 the Federal Government or by states that would implement a 13i\ more restrictive criteria on what would be buried and in what

!I I'

1:1 1 1

form.

I I

15  ! There was no criteria outside of the criteria to be I

I 16 I,I imposed by the states. There is no NRC regulation that says

i!,

17 !i what form the wastes must be in. The branch position essen-ii

\1 13 ii tially said, all wastes, including the s 1 udges in, ievapora tor

!iII ii 19 :I bottoms and the resins, should be solidified. And we have, in

?Q !I

!I

- ii the process of review of all applications that were submitted

') , 11 Ii after 1975, we have imposed that condition on plants.

II il

.., ., 1;

.t.. .l. \ For the operating plants, it was a different story .

Ii 23il For the operating p Bnts, we did not take a position. You

• 11

• ,I 2t.! '.! have to recognize the standard review plan was really a

-*:.c::;~f=*~::::ral Reoorters_. ! nc. '. I 251 I forward-looking document. It was not ever intended to be a

mte 4 6 backward-looking docurnent. It was not required to be back-2 fitted.

3 COMMISSIONER AHEARi"\fE: Was this position on 4 solidification, though, taken for reasons of available techno-

...,<:: logy at that stage was that it could be solidified easily, or b*

i that you concluded that solidificat~on had some significant 7 advantages?

8 MR. COLLINS: Both. Certainly the technology 9 existed to do that. We felt that solidifying certain wastes, 10 particularly the 1fesidues 1n 'the evaporator bottoms, which 11 ~eally contained concentrated materials, and then packaging 12 them in 55-gallon drums was a much better way, to transport 13 the materials and .. to bury them.

14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Transportation and burial was a better mechanism.

MR. COLLINS: It was a better way to do it, but there was no formal regulation that required anyone to do it.

Burial grounds have and continue to accept dewatered resins.

19 The only restriction of the burial grounds is that they do not 20 'I bury liquids or gases.

~ i l So, as I mentioned, we looked at it as forward-i 2:2 ;1 looking. We applied it in the licen~ing process with all kinds 1:

ii 23 II of new constructions.

- 24111 COMMISSIONER ~_HEARi"\fE: So as far as new plants --

/'.c2-Federal Reoorrers. Inc.  !

25 j MR. COLLINS: They would have to demonstrate through I

rote 5 II 7 II their own safety analysis that they had the capability.

2 COMMISSIONER AHEA.RNE: To solidify.

3 MR. COLLINS: That's right.

i I

4! Very few of those plants, by the way, have completed I

I i::

II their OL review .

• I ii

, 11 c: Is it only for plants where COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I 7 they filed construction permits at that stage?

8 MR. COLLINS: That's correct.

ii 9\ CO.M.MISSIONER AHEARNE: So a plant that was already I

I lO !I in the process of being constructed, that wasn't?

11 i

MR. COLLINS: It really depended upon at what point I

12 !I in the OL review, at what stage ~hey reviewed it. If they Ii 13 l were early into the review, we tried to, I would say, coe~ce 1d iiq them into doing it.

15 ' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Even then, it wasn't made a I

161 regulation?

[l 1; ";I

'i  !! MR. COLLINS: No, it was never made a regulation.

ii

!I 13 i

II And the reason, in addition to it, in the past the whole solid

,'1 Ii II

,,11 waste program has not received the emphasis that it should have:

'I 20 ii received.

ii 1

1

?l :1 We have required, in 5036(a) that they present Ii Ii,,

")"') ,.

,_ ;/. :I prelirninary designs and they show us how they're going to ij 23 Ii handle the packages of solid wastes. So there wasn't much

!I 21l li guidance. And this was a first attempt to try to give the

,.lc,;-Feceral Reoorters. Inc. ;j 25 i industry some guidance as to*what we're looking at, pulling

mte 6 8 together what the technology could do.

I 2p ,, As a result of that branch position paper, we then II 3 I I considered how we might assure that the program carried I

41 through in the licensing of the plant, and we had developed 5 then the technical specifications that are out now for irnplemen- ,

6 tation of Appendix I of 40 CFR 190, the first time any techni-7 cal specification contained requirements on the operability 8 of solid waste systems and what they must do. We had a basic 9 problem with the solidification question, that has been, what 10 is acceptable, what form of the waste and what agents are 11 acceptable?

1:2 We took the p~sition that.we wanted a solid reass, 13* a solid matrix with no free-standing water in it. That's a 14 very difficult thing to feed. As a result of that position of j

1:; i

~

1 no free-standing water, I met with all of the principal 16 solidification vendors, told them what was forthcoming, told

-: i I! t

' them that they had better develop what we like to refer to as l

12 [

a process control program, which is nothing mor_e than a good I

19 I QC program, to assure that you end up with a solid mass.

i I

20 I

! You can perform in the laboratory no a small-scale 21 II solidification, but when you take that to a power plant and I

22 : you turn it over to an unskilled operator, you have a lot

.A.ce-Federai Reoorters, 231 24 I Inc. i 25 i I

I different problem.

So we went the round of our conscious control program, which says, here, vendor, you try to bound those

mte 7 9 conditions under which the system must be operated and under 2 which the agent must be used.

3 Principally, today, there are three types of I

I

.1

.I  !

solidification agents: cement, which has been used for years l

5 !1 and years and years; the urea formaldehyde; then the asphalt.

, 11 QI We now have a system being installed at Midland. The most 7 recent has been the polymers that have found their way onto 8 the market.

9 Each one of them has an inherent problem. Each one 10 has certain bounding conditions. Some are plagued by concen-11 trations of various chemical additives. In my opinion, really, 12 there is no one good solidification agent* that is going *to

, ~

..) solidify all types of wastes in a power plant. The wastes

14. vary on a power plant considerably. I think it's up to the 15 vendor to establish this process of a total program to at::..

16 least bound those conditions. Then you turn it over to the i

17 i I

utility, and at least then we have a mechanism to inspect, to I

13 ,I assure ourselves that what waste is being solidified will end ii I

] I I

up being a solid mass for transportation.

Hopefully, with that type*of a program we can get I

?l I,j a*way from the kind of problems that we've encountered recently IIi*

22 11 at Bailly, which is nothing new. That problem is quite i'

ii

-I ll 23 typical of U.S. systems.

11 iiI 2,~ I So this has been something that has been evolving I

.c.c,;-F,,ceral Reoorters, Inc. '.

i 25 I over the last couple years. -We have yet to implement any of I

mte 8 10 the Appendix I technical specifications. But we should be, 2 between now and the end of the year; implementing those.

I!

11 3 Now, with regard to the operating reactors it was 4 a different story. We recognized there were certain costs

~

,.; involved in making the plant backfit. In our implementation 1j ii rS,I* of the tech specs to the operating plants, we requested of them'

-, I i I a description of their current system, the capability of that I

I I

8 i system, and what it would take to upgrade their system to 9 solidify all types of wastes. And this is where we asked them 10 11I to do a value impact assessment.

!I I,

ll I! Again, all of this work was without any regulation iiii l '.2 to guide us. It was a condition that we felt shouid at le'ast II I!

1,, 'i be imposed.

~ l!  :

H Ii'i And we received nothing but harassment from the

I

I

'.,_.-"' ,i!l utilities on that question, because they kept coming back to

I Ii 16 Ii us, and still are, saying, show me a regulation that requires

,,ti me to do l

• J..

L.. Of course, that has not altered our course .

J ,1 Basically, that is where we are. Most of the plants

i II 19 ii,, today -- I would say of the 70 operating plants, probably 2n ,

two have solidification systems that are capable of solidifying*

ii

,i

,..,, ii all the types of wastes. Many of the plants. have installed n solidification systems that have never even turned over the material, because they learned that, for various reasons, either that the system design was inadequate or that there was a large potential for increased occupational exposure, because

mte 9 11 they were not designed with the maintenance in mind, or that 2 the materials, there was no good QC program to assure 3 I I solidification. So many of them have never operated.

I 41 The sol*id wastes systems have always been kind of s:I a stepchild in the treatment system. They certainly did not 6 ' receive the attention in licensing, nor int.he whole NRC.

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: John, if I interpret correctly!

8 that this is NRR's view that what process is applied at the 9 reactor is really part of the reactor licensing process?

10 MR. COLLINS: 1 That's certainly NRR's position, yes, 11 because it's in our standard format and content that that is 12 our*basic responsibillty. It is part of the safety evaluation.

13 CO:MrHSSIONER AHEARNE: Can I ask Jack to tell me as*

he sees the problem?

MR. .tvr...ARTIN: I would draw a parallel to the discus-16 sion we had in the licensing of DOE facilities. I don't want

, 7 to go too deeply into licensing systems, but I would like to 13 have the products leaving those pl.ants meet certain require-19 ments .*

20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Furthermore, you've been trying I

21 I 11 to come forward *with some new standards on low- level burial IIi" 22 d grounds.

1,'i

'I 23 MR. MARTIN: Not only burial grourlds, but also the 24 form of the* wastes in: general. That's the t.i.t-irust of it.

Aeo-Feoeral Reoorters, Inc.

25 CO~.MISSIONER AHEARNE: How about in the

mte 10 12 transportation?

I 2 j: MR. DIRCKS: I don't think we I ve establi_shed any I

3 I standards with respect to transportation, although I guess I

4 in conversation with Dick, we will move away from the liquid

5. state to the solid state. I think Jack is also in the 6 process of developing a waste regulation that requires 7 solidification for low-level sites.

MR. MARTIN: It will basically put into regulations all the things that John described, for all the same reasons.

COM1-1I S SI ONER P..BEARNE : Except, will i t have the same l1 type of grandfather proposal?

• riT..R. MARTIN: I guess we haven't worked that out yet.

13 I would think that we would want to put a time limit, so we 1.1 I can get there as soon as possible, or to have some scheme for II 15 !\ going through this on an orderly basis.

i!

16 li I! MR. DIRCKS: I think the proble~ is we're losing I!

i7 I low-level sites that pick up material coming in there.

13 I! COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: To what extent has there ii 19 :i been interaction, though, between the regulations being 20 developed for the low-level site and the existing proposed

'2 1 changes in design in the branch technical position on reactors?:

!I 22 li,, MR. COLLINS: Certainly NMSS has been awa~e for a i:

23 il long time, the low-level waste branch has certainly been

- 2411 aware and. has made copies of all the license and topical

,;ce-Federal Reoorrers. Inc. I':j 25' reports of the various solidification systems. So I think

mte 11 13 for the most part they are pretty much up to speed as to what 2 the capability in the industry has. That must be recognized 3 in the development of any criterion, any regulation, what is 4 the capability, and recognize the impact that it may have on 5 the industry; if we're going to require a certain form of

-I

() i waste, that we recognize what the cost is when compared to the I

7' benefit that we gain from it. And it could be very costly for a ,,I many of these plants to backfit to meet this type of require-i 9 ment.

And NRR, and myself personally, I'm not opposed, so long as we have a firm foundation as to what are we going to require and why are we goiDg to require it.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think one of the sort of dragging points at the moment is that, of the three, or I guess maybe it's four, solidification schemes that are around, there isn't, I would say, a body of experience with any one of them that gives you full confidence that you've got it completely in hand and that it 1 s fully satisfactory. In turn, that affects, then, the ability to get specific on waste forms I

.., ('\ i

-~ ,1 i!

for the low-level burial gro~nds.

'1, i II Clearly, what you would like to have and must have Ii I!

'1 ii 1,,_L *I

'i is a fully compatible system, what they're doing in reactors

1 23IJI, and what transports and what goes into the burial ground. And

,1 I'

people, even . operators that might be inclined to say, yeah, I

~cs-Fecer3! Reoorrers, Inc. :1 25  !! I think that's a good idea and I'm willing to go with you, are 11 Ii 11

mte 12 14

- 2 I, 11

,I 3 ij as yet and probably for some time yet don't have a clear guidance from us as to what the requirements are.

MR. COLLINS: I don't think we should limit it just ii 4 to the reactors, too. Many, many other licensing facilities that are producing large quantities of wastes, too.

e-1 MR. DIRCKS: That's where the rules merge.

7 Bl 9

70 11 12 i

'I I o 13 l i

1A

• ~

iI 15  !

16 II 13 19

'i ,

22 23 24

,".c::-Fec2r2I Reoorters, Inc.

25

CR 6288 #2 DAV/PV 15

- 2 3

tors.

It's not a control of just having control over reac-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: My concern, Bill, though, is l 4 that I don't want to get us into the si tuation.wnere i t is., almos:.

iI 5 like the NRC and some other federal agency are* having di-fficul t:/;

61 coordinating the efforts, because clearly the material that I

7 11 leaves the reactor is ending up going to the low-level site.

8 You guys have to be concerned about the licensing of that low-9 level waste site, and John and his associates have to be con-10 cerned with the licensing of that reactor.

11 MR. DIRCKS: The factor is the availability of those I

I 12 I sites.

13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I understand that. But the specter I was beginning to worry about was the situation where 15 we might end up having one office saying this is what you have 16 to do in the plant, leading to one form of waste, and having I

• i 17 ,

another office saying but in order to get that waste anyway 18 you've got to do sornething/~lse with it.

MR. MARTIN: I think that's where we have to define these rules. I think we're sort of stickin~ our nose in this thing, saying that we're going to define the form this thing 22 ,,. takes in all these generator before it leaves your facility and 23 on the road, not with the details of how you do that.

24. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are you working with NRR?

1~<:'9-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. MARTIN: Well,* not as well as we'd like.

pv2 16

- 2 3

MR. DIRCKS:

MR. MARTIN:

any business doing that.

I think it's sparring.

I don't think they admit that we have 4 MR. COLLINS: I'rather take**issue with the statement.

5 I think we had a meeting several weeks ago in which our people

!I I

I 61 participated, and we discussed very much the same subject that 7 we 1 re discussing now. The meeting adjourned with the idea that 8 we'd have similar meetings like this in the future.

9 So, I don 1 t really consider that a true statement.

10 I think our problem at the present time is that we're working 11 on a course that we believe is acc$ptable, in view of the fact 12 that we have no regulations or no other guidan_ce *-for what is

- 13 14 acceptable in burial grounds. Are we saying that the container~

the material to be packaged in the container, is the ultimate 15 barrier; or are we saying that the burial grounds is the con-16 tainer and the ultimate barrier? And are we recognizing that 17 there are different forms of material to be solidified, and are 18 we recognizing that what we're asking the industry to do in 19 terms of backfitting these systems to meet that kind of cri-20 terion? I -think that 1 s a big question.

21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There are a number of those 22 related issues that, obviously, we're not going to hash out 23 this afternoon.

- 24

• • .:;$-rederat Reporters, Inc.

25 My concern -- I would like to shift over to TMI-1 for a minute.

pv3 17

- 2 3

MR. MARTIN: May I make one other point. From the merits of the technical standpoint, our draft regul~tions have much the same position.

4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think all of us would tend I

i:;

I to agree that the two offices have to work perhaps more closely ..i 611 I MR. DIRCKS: I think it's a recognition of each 7 other' s roles.

8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But_the best way to recognize 9 the role is to have the two offices working together.

10 MR. DIRCKS: I think we're greatly in favor of cooper -

11 tion. Both have to recognize the need that they have for each 12 other, and both :i;ecognize each other's mutual benefits.

1"3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: If we could move to TMI-2 for 14 a minute, because that's really the more specific problem that 15 came up, I guess I would like to know, John, why, if we have 16 concluded that,for all future plants, solidification is the 17, thing, and here is really a new system in the sense of EPICOR-2 18 going into TMI-2 is a new system, and while we didn't think i9 solidification should be in place.

20 I And then, second, is it correct, Jack, that NMSS' 2~  ! expressed view is that those resins must be solidified?

22 MR. MARTIN: If itis a new plant, why isn't it being 23 solidified.

i 24 I CO~.MISSIONER AHEARNE: It's hardly unique. It's

• 'r:-9-federnl Reporters, Inc.

25

• not really a new plant.

pv4 18

- 2 3

MR. COLLINS: It's hardly a new plant.

construction permit and licensing.

year aqo.

There was a The FSAR was submitted a It did operate since 1978, so I don't consider it to 4 be a new plant.

5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But the EPICOR-2 system 6

MR. COLLINS: The EPICOR-2 system, you have to under-7 stand, at the time the EPICOR-2 system was designed it was 8 designed and constructed under an emergency condition, and with 9

I 1

full expectation that we had to process that,material as quickll 10 as possible or have the capability to do it and to remove that 11 potential hazard to the heal th a.nd safety of the public up ther .

12 And. the methodology

. and the design criteria' were the current I

e. 13 criteria the plant was licensed*under.

I 14 And it is a common practice in fue industry to ship 15 material as it's being shipped up there.

16 COMMISSIONER A..'9:EAR...'I\JE: How long would it take to put 17 in a solidification system?

18 MR. COLLINS: Anywhere from six to 10 months to do itJ I

i 19 It certainly would not be consistent with the schedule we have 20 for processing. It would entail a whole new system for which 21 there is no system up there right now.

I I

22 i CO~..MISSIONER AHEARNE: You mean you couldn't go I I

23 directly to EPICOR-2 system?

24

\*=s-i=ederal Reporters, Inc.

MR. COLLINS :. You. would have. to do that, to design anl I

25 install and purchase the equipment on an escalated scale, easil1

pvS

• 19 six to 10 months. It would cost several million dollars, and 2 that is the reason that I have requested the Metropolitan 3 Edison Company to produce a value impact assessment to look at I i

4 that problem of trying to design a system and install it, versu~

5 the increased benefits or lack of benefits, and also the cost  !

I

..,.t. and the potential for increased occupational exposure because I I

7 you are going to now be handling that material at another time, 8 and every time you have to handle that material you present a 9 potential for increased exposures.

10 It's going to be a system that's run differently 11 because of the higher activity levels which are going to requir~

12 ,remote-handling systems moreso than you would require in a

- 13 14 normal operating plant.

You have to factor all that in. I felt that, lacking 15 any specific regulations, that was a course that was prudent, 16 was to have them develop that information, present i t to the I

17 staff. That gave us the basis upon which we could make a 18 recommendation.

19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What position. do you think NRR 20 would end.up*taking if the three low-level waste sites were to

?i just say, *"We won't accept TMI-2 resins if they' re not solidi-22 fied 11 ?

MR. COLLINS: I am sure that if that's the position 23 24 taken by the three low-level waste sitesy we would have to come

• '_,:,a-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 up with a*long-term interim storage facility and then construct

Pv6 20

- 3 2

that facility on site to do it.

We have installed an interim staging area because of the lack of a sufficient number of transport casks to make the 4 trip to Richland and back again. It's a question. You're not C:

.., I going to go there, it's either Beattie or Richland. I j I i

6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So you have someplace that youi 7 store them now?

8 MR. COLLINS: We have an engineering storage facility 9 that we could store them in. The design criteria for that was 10 up to two years. If that were the position that Richland were 11 to take, my last discussion with them, they gave me that indi-12 cation --

13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But you're saying there is a 14 place there that you could store the resins for a period of 15 time?

16. MR. COLLINS: For a period of time.

I!

17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That is longer than the period 18 of time. it would. take to build a solidification system?

19 MR. COLLINS: That probably could be done. Well, I 20 didn't-want to say that, because it was anticipated that a num-

.., , I ber of those casks would be shipped out of there and some of 22 that space would be made available for when we start processing 23 the water from the containment building from the primary system 24 So, we'd have to go back and reevaluate the capacity of that

• ':,:-?-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 engineering system to handle both the high-level waste in

pv7 21

- 2 3

containment and in the auxiliary building.

say that.

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I wouldn't want to Bill or Jack, your position on 4 the resins ought to be solidified, was i t focused in any way 5 specifically on TMI-2, or was it primarily with the view that II lj 6 II since you were planning regulations and since we have future 7 plants, that requirement ought to be done here sort of as con-8 sistency?

I 9 MR. DIRCKS: I think we started off with the view thait 10 solidification, the timing of the facility falling under that, I 11 I think,* should-be subject-to*soine provisions in the regulationj. I p* The ~uggestipn that TMr-2 wastes be soJidified,af~er some con-

-

• J 14 versations that we 1 ve had wi.th the vendor, he indicated to 1 I

I carry on our discussions on solidification, *I was not awar.e thati:.

I 15 firm decisions had been made either way. I 16 I think we I re still, as ,'far as I am concerned, dis-17 cussing that subject.

18 I think what we did take a look at is the view of the 19 very long distance on the low-level waste sites, that we didn't 20 think a.3000-mile journey would be good .. Harold explained i t 21 to me. Hes-aid, "Given four truckloads, we thought the poten-22 tial exposure would be too harmful to the public, and the fact that we were-essentially building a waste-handling system at 23 24 TMI, and we might as well_ do i t to meet the regulations."

'l;,;e-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What was your argument on the

pv8 22 six to 10 months?

2 MR. DIRCKS: I had-mot been faced with the six to 10 3 months construction,.1.time. I don't know whether Dale or Bob had 4 heard that estimate before. We have not heard the six to 10 5 months, nor had I seen any from cost estimates.

I 6 I think, as you said, you are still in the discussion!

stage. Dale, Bob, and John Davis we were up there in June I 7

i 8 -- correct me if I am wrong, John but we asked how soon woul4 9 you have to know if that was the way that the Commission 10 decided to go. You had indicated we'd have to know in about 11 a month.

12 _MR. COLLINS:. We'd have to-know i t to begin the 13 engineering on it.

14 MR. BROWNING: But the question was: When would you 15 have to know in order to avoid not delaying. The idea was 16 about a month. This projection of two months from that time --i 17 MR. COLLINS: That wasn't the staff's fault. We had 18 been in the process of trying to get out an environmental 19 assessment, and had that gone out in the time frame that we 20 originally had considered, we would have had a month.

21 MR. MARTIN: I think one further thing: The way this 22 first came to my attention was in April, when I was giving a briefing to the ACRS. We took a tour of the burial grourlds, 23 24 and the operators explained how these resins came in, just in

..!,ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 general. This got to be a big issue with the Committee, and

pv9 23 it certainly brought home to me that it was an odd way to do it 2 and caused me to go back and look at it harder. That's sort of 3 how we stuck our noses in in the *first place.

4 MR. CUNNINGHAf.1: I think we haven't talked very much 5 about the transportation of these wastes. I understand the 6 TMI-2 wastes, or a large part of it, will go out in Type B 7 containers.

8 MR. COLLINS: That's correct.

9 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Which are fairly well tested. We 10 haven't had them leak on crashes and so forth. We have had 11 Type E containers leak. But we don't have any information 12 I about the Type B containers* they're using, but generally I would . i i

13 guess that they're using an inner package that goes into this '

14 outer package. It's a Big Ben-type thing. You put the inner 15 packages in there.

16 Now, if you have dewatered resins, as transported 17 before, there is a very good possibility that the air packages 18 will leak. We have experience in that happening.

10_.

When these arrive at the burial site, the over pack 20 is safe. This is where we: run into problems: at the burial 21 grounds. These things are perhaps leaking. They create prob-22 lems at the burial grounds and handling problems, dealing with 23 the higher specific activity list, such as in TMI-2 waste is 24 probably going to be more difficult.

/',ca-federal Aaporters, Inc.

25 And if' these things are contaminated, as they might

pvl0 24 well be, the probability is that they won't be allowed in the 2 burial ground. They have a truck out there, 3000 miles away 3 from TMI. That is not accepted. You'd be faced with this 4 problem of what to do with that truckload and perhaps have all the other wastes barred from the burial ground.

It just seems to me that without taking this extra 7 step, you're placing at some peril your total capability to do 8 anything with these wastes.

9 MR. COLLINS: I think our problem, Dick, has not been 10 so much leaking containers with resins, but leaking containers 11 with unsolidified material or solidification agents which did 12 not solidify the mater~al properly. In most of the cases 'we've

• I 13 had have been with UF-type systems. You have a UF system, you*-, 1 14 end with two, three, or four or five gallons of free-standing 15 water in there. It's not going to last in a 55-gallon drum, 16 not at a ph of two.

i7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It endp up with a highly acidic 18 product.

19 MR. COLLINS: Here you have an essentially neutral 20 solution.

21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Also, it's not a 55-gallon drum 22 pack.

23 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I understand that.

24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: These are weld steel vessels. I

,\cs-Federal Reporters, Inc; 25 started out myself in initial casual discussions on the subject

l pvll 25 thinking that solidification was a good way to go, and in 2 principle I think it has the merits that you cite.

3 I have gone down and looked at EPICOR-2., and the way 4 they're set up to handle these immediate vessels in which the

.,,:: resins are placed. I was very curious about how well they coul4 6 actually dewater those things, whether it was just a matter of 7 draining back against the screens and the fabric mesh, but they 8 pump on them, pull a vacuum on them, and you get a product of 9 which that is a specimen, scooped out of one of those drums for 10 practice.

11 I would think the contact level is over 100 R per hou.

12 (Laughter.)

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Just enough to cure your summer 14 cold. And it comes down fairly dry, actually.

15 The transportation aspect has been given some careful 16 consideration~ I think the shipping, first of all, the kind of I

17 vessel in which the resin is placed in the beginnin.g is much i 18 better than normal quality, which is a 55-gallon drum situationl

- I 19 and the Type B casks are a considerable help and give some 20 assurance th~t transportation is not a problem.

21 They're also going to coromit to sending a GPU repre-i 22 sentative with each truck, which?has the benefit that it providJs 23 additional control on drivers, stretching out, you know, trying 24 to make i t across the state by dawn and exceeding speed limits

"'se-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 and so onr which has been a problem in some of the accidents

pvl2 26

- 2 3

that have occurred.

ble system.

Overall, I have concluded that it looks like a reason -

I am concerned about the extended time before one 4 could begin to process into the solid form. That doesn't mean :

5 II you start EPICOR-2 processing, but it does mean that the storag~I I

I 61 is a more extended one, and you're going to have a lot of stuff 7 on site _in the storage pits, and it will be at least a year 8 later than otherwise would be the case in moving the stuff off I

I end#2 91 site to final disposal.

10 11 12

• 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 1

I 20 21 22 23

- 24

-~-::;-F'"°ern! Reporters, Inc.

25

r 16288.03. 1 27

~sh I think there are some accupational exposure 2 considerations. You know, you take reasonable measures 3 shielding and procedures to keep these down. But there are

...,.11 bound to be some occupational exposures in the additional 5 steps.

6 So --

7 MR. MARTIN: I have some interesting information here.

8 At Barnwell, the efficiency reports between April 10th and 9 June 5th of this year, I don~t know how many shipments 10 arrived, but there were 30 defective shipments of sludges and

.11 re~ins from the power plants, of which 12 were resins, 7 12 of which leaked, 2 of which conta~inated the truck and 0

13 tra il e r.

i4 CClMMISSIONE~ A.HEARNE,; How many of them were 15 solidified?

16 MR. MARII~: This was interesting. The ones that 17 seemed to be, although they had problems with placarding and 18 bolts, resin in cewent 9 resin in cement, resin in ce~en~,

19 resin in cement, they all seemed to be okay.

20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: H.ow about the ones that were 21 problems?

22 MR * .MARTIN: They~re not solidified.

23 MR. COU.INS: Recognize that a lot of them put in 24 .55-gallon drums are not handled with this type of a liner.

25 MR. MARTIN: When we 1 re talking about occu~3tional

28 62-38.03.2 ash exposure, the guy that receives this stuff has to deal with 2 this water~

3 Low level burial grounds have the highest

,1

~ occupational exposures. Of course, they don-'t employ many people

• 6 C0MMISSI0t--JEa AHEARNc: Bill quoted a number of 24DO 7 truck-loads.

8 MR. COLLINS: Well, L think that"s rather high. ~fa CJ would expect.

JO CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How many of those th.ings ---

11 MR

• CO U. I NS : \fa-" 11 p rob ab 1 y pro du c e ab out 5 0 l i n e r s 12 from the EPIC0RE system, 2,)J trucks. We have approximately

,e 13 14 on hand right now about 700 55-gallon drums.

some liners that ilere -alre2dy processed throuqh the E?ICCJRi:-l 1

And ~e haye 15 system.

16 'i'/e anticipate another 50 liners from EPIC0r<E-2 17 process. On top of that, we would have some liners from the 13 system, but process the higher level wastes. So you"re talking 19 on the level of l 00 to 2.00 shipments ov_er the next couple of 2:J years-.----------

21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Does that take out the containment?

22 MR. C0LLIJS: That.,s included in that 200.

23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The whole schmeer?

24 i'ML COLLI.\JS: The whole schmeer t1hich we were talking 1

'"") -

L.J about over a two-year period.

29

-sh 62 88 .03. 3 2

COMi'v\LSSIO.:-/ER AHEARNE: From :rry view, I would like to at least urge NRR and NMSS to get together and try to 3 reach some agreement on whatJs the appropriate way to go about 4 talking to the transportation people across the country and 5 to the waste disposal site about what's going to be done and 6 why on TMI-2.

7 It certainly canJt help us any to have two different 8 views going out. ItJs not going to help the public any.

9 MR. COLLINS: I canJt emphasize enough that if weJre 10 going to require TMI --- we ought to be prepared to lay that l1 same type of condition on other plants because they.,re all 12 doing. the same._thing.

13 MR. MARTEN: I would agree. That's the point I 14 wanted to bring up.

15 MR. CCl.LLINS: And not just pick on TMI-2. i1e donJt 16 want to make it look as if it appears we/re doing it just 17 for TMI-2 because the same level of activity c.ould be on the 18 resins from any other reactor. All you have to do is 19 pro c e s s the wate r a l i t t 1e bi t 1 o ng e r , a n d in .man y pl a n ts ,

20 that is being done.

21 ThatJs why we have spent resin storage tanks.

22 CO MM LSS I ONER AHEARNE: What I guess U'd like to s,ee, 23 if I canJt urge, Bill, to s.e.e if you and Harold can.,t reach 24 some sort of agreement.

25 MR. DIRCKS: Harold and l had talked. The talks were

30 6288.03.4

-sh going on. I don...,L think we/ve broken down any negotiations.

2 CO.'AMI.SSIONER AHEARNE: But there are two, really, 3 sets of negotiations. One is wh.at is to be done w.ith all the 4 operating plants? .The other is what is to be done with TMI-2.

5 MR. DIF?CXS: Oh, yeah. I think: 1 Jack, your people 6 are working with them on that. Th'3re.,,s day-to-day contact.

7 COMMISSIONER .t1.HEARNE: Maybe some of the dav-to-day a contact isn.,t as clarifying.

9 MR. DIRCKS1 I think that there is a recognition 10 CO MM LSS I ONER AHEARNE: For example, there.; s a J l fundamental disagreement.

12 MR. MARTIN: We keep wor:<i'ng and then we keep saying 13 that it..,s settled.

14 COMMISSICbER AHEARNE: No, there_,,s a'fundam.ental 15 disagreement. You've got two offices taking two different 16 views. And it might be nice if the two officBs tried to 17 reach an agreement.

1,3 That...,s what I was thinking.

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And for TMI-2, as soon as we can 20 accompliSh some ag~eement, they need to know down there.

21 MR .. COU.INS: Absolutely.

22 I have received as of last ~ight, 2nd I reaily have 23* not had a chance to look at it ~yself 1 I did receive fro~ GPU 24 the information about the cesspool. And as soon as we get 25 back up there, we'll begin our evaluation on that.

31 6288 .03. 5 esh In addition, we have corning to you an information 2 paper outlining pretty much the shipping program which we 3 discussed last week, so that the people will be informed of 4 the program the Chairman mentioned to you.

5 CHAIRMAN ~ENDRIE; GPU is negotiating to make a 6 cross-county tour checking states along the way, which I ve 7 been discussing with Washington authorities, the burial 8 ground.

9 So, they--'re doing their homework on it.

10 MR. COLLINS: NECO has no problem with accepting it.

l1 Just the State of Washington.

12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think it would still be nice i:t: our two offices worked ' out *some sor-t of agree;nent as. to 13, 14 what the be5t a~proach 15.

15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Fine, jolly good.

16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Did you ever get down and ses 18 that thing? John sent us soms pictures.

19 MR. COLLI i'-IS.: :Nhy don--'t_ you take a qu.ic k run up 20 there.

21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Take your dust b.oo ts.

2,2 MR*. COLLINS: It doesn"t take too long. Just a couple 23 of hours. That stuff--'s not bad.

24 25 MR. GUIBERI: I just thought that I~d add one point.

32 6288.03.6

-sh Mr. Kennedy and I visited there not too long ago, two weeks 2 ago, and we cha+/-ted with the manager of the health and safety 3 operation.

4 As it turns out, originally~ before coming to work 5 for Chem Nuclear, they worked with the guy who licensed the 6 facility for the state. I asked them about this question of 7 the resins, and it was interesting because as it turns out, 8 I gue~s Chem Nuclear is actually involved in welding steel 9 liners and the services of vacuum dewatering plans for 10 cleaning up the epicore system.

Jl And I guess the general impression I got frorm them 12 is that they weren..,t concerned at all. Obviously, they..,re 13 not going to receive it now. So you can_..,t discount that,.

But they ,:1ren..,t concerned a*t all that there.,,s any 14 15 problem with the amount of free-standing water that might 16 shake out using that kind of a system and that kind of a 17 liner.

18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. I~ e 11, I think that this 19 has been very ,useful.

20 COi\.\r,I ISSI ONER AHEARNE; Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN HE NOR IE: And we_.., 11 go our assorted ways.

22 (Whereupon, at 2:55 p.~., the hearing adjourned.)

23 24 25