NUREG/CR-0895, Responds to Re NUREG/CR-0895, Solidification of High Level Radwaste. Commission Recognizes Rept Controversy,But Considers Conclusions & Recommendations Sound
| ML19296C914 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/06/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296C905 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-CR-0895, RTR-NUREG-CR-895 NUDOCS 8002290058 | |
| Download: ML19296C914 (3) | |
Text
-
pfLFiEQq
'o UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 2
9, J 8
February 6,1580 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chainnan Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
[
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of September 14, 1979 regarding the publication of t
the contractor report, " Solidification of High Level Radioactive Waste,"
NUREG/CR-0895, prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the Panel on Waste Solidification of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
While we recognize the controversy about the report, we consider that its basic conclusions and the reconnendations are sound.
In fact, similar recommendations were made recently by a U.S. Department of Energy (D0E) peer review panel that met in August 1979, and by Sandia Laboratories in its report SAND 79-0531, " Immobilization of Defense High-Level Waste:
An Assess-ment of Technology Strategies and Potential Regulatory Goals," dated June 1979.
We believe much more emphasis should be placed on the performance of the waste form and its packagc as a barrier to the release of radioactive materials, and that a more aggressive waste form and packaging development and demonstration effort should be undertaken.
If these measures are under-taken now, we foresee no delay whatsoever in DOE schedules for operation of the first repository or the proposed solidification facility'all price to pay at the Savannah River Plant.
Even if there were delays, we consider it a sm for the added confidence the waste disposal system will perform in a safe and acceptable manner during the period when the greatest potential hazard exists.
You asked why the criticisms by the DOE, by Dr. Pigford and by Dr. Staehle were not included in the report.
In DOE's case, we were concerned that the inclusion of their comments could compromise the independence of the report.
Furthermore, this was a contractor report, published exactly as. received, and NAS did not choose to include DOE's, Dr. Pigford's ~or Dr. Staehle's
[
criticisms in the manuscript submitted to us. Had Dr. Pigford's, Dr. Staeble's or D0E's remarks been included in the manuscript, the NRC would certainly have published them.
In order to full' address the concerns expressed about the re' port's final content, we have included the following brief history of the events that led up to publication of the report. The contract for the report was awarded on January 11, 1977, and was to have expired on January 11, 1978.
Four no-cost 8 00e 29 0 058
The Honorable Morris K. Udall extensions were requested by NAS and authorized by the NRC contracting officer. Thus, the contract expired on August 15, 1978.
By letter dated July 26,1978 to NRC (Enclosure 1), NAS transmitted a prepublication copy of the final report. The report had gone through the entire normal NAS review process and was about to be printed by NAS in early September 1978, when it was withdrawn at the last minute due to intervention by a DOE representative.
On October 30, Dr. Handler of NAS wrote to inform then NRC Chairman Hendrie that printing of the report had been delayed because some aspects of the data base used in the report had been questioned.
He also requested that a copy of his letter (Enclosure 2) be attached to all copies of the prepublication report that we distribute.
It was also in late October that the NRC staff first became aware of the controversy surrounding the report.
On November 6, 1978, we were supplied a camera-ready copy of the prepublication manuscript by NAS.
On February 5,1979, when a final report had still not been delivered, NRC's Division of Contracts requested a final report from the NAS and noted our objection to incorporation of the DOE comments in the final report (Enclo-sure 3). As noted above, this concern was based on our apprehension that, if comments from DOE were incorporated in the final report, the independence of the research performed by NAS for the NRC would be viewed as having been compromised. On April 10, 1979, Dr. Handler wrote to Chairman Hendrie again and enclosed a statement from the Commission on Natural Resources (Enclosure
- 4) which addressed certain questions concerning the report.
Copies of Dr. Handler's letters and the Statement of the Conmission on Natural Resources were included in a revised camera-ready manuscript transmitted to the NRC staff on May 4,1979, and are contained in Appendix E of NUREG/CR-0895. A record of all comments made by the reviewers was requested from the NAS on September 24, 1979, and has been placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
As with all contractor reports, we did not include any special reservations or disclaimers when we published this report. The document was not edited but was published exactly as received from the National Academy of Sciences, with the standard disclaimer on the front inside cover. Contractors' reports are published to make available to the public the same information which is available to the Conaission for consideration when formulating a position.
Finally, in order to minimize any confusion over the status of the NAS panel report and to point up the availability of comments and critiques on the report, we have prepared an addendum (Enclosure 5) to be sent to all recipients of the original report.
.Thank you for the opportunity to clarify these issues for you.
S#ncerely, p'/ nbQ
[ John F. Ahearne v
Encicsures:
See 'next page
The Honorable Morris K. Udall
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr fm P. Handler dtd 7/26/78 2.
Ltr fm P. Handler dtd 10/30/78 3.
Ltr fm D. Dougherty to NAS dtd 2/5/79 4.
Ltr fm P. Handler dtd 4/10/79 5.
Addendum to original report s
e
%