9:45

Discussion of Key Issues for Plutonium Disposition

  • How does the Introduction of Plutonium Change the Technology?

  • How does the Introduction of Plutonium Affect the Committee's Outlook?

11:00

Discussion of Key Issues, cont'd

  • Potential Obstacles in the Electrometallurgical Technology

  • Possible Reasons for Considering the Electrometallurgical Technology

  • Waste form Suitability

  • Zeolite Chemistry

12:00

Lunch

1:00

Discussion of Key Issues, cont'd

3:00

Development of Specific Project Plan

  • Preliminary Writing assignments

  • Timetable

  • Next Meeting

  • Drafting Plutonium Disposition Report

  • Review and Production of Report

5:00

Adjourn

FIRST MEETING, OCTOBER 4-5, 1995
Washington, D.C.
MEETING SUMMARY
Executive Session (Oct. 4)

Attendance: G. Choppin (chair), J. Ahearne, M. Apted, S. Burstein, E. McNeese, R. Osteryoung, J. Sherman, J. Williams, R. Wymer. NRC staff: E.W. Colglazier (executive session only), D. Raber, S. Weidman.

Unable to attend: P. Baisden, E. Flanigen

Choppin convened the meeting at 8:30 with introductions and a general discussion of the committee's task. He introduced E. William Colglazier, Executive Officer of the National Research Council, who explained the committee's task in the context of related work recently finished by the Committee on Security and Arms Control and the Panel on Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems.

Open Session (Oct. 4)

Attendance was augmented by guests John P. Ackerman (ANL), John Baker (DOE), Robert W. Benedict (ANL), Alice Caponiti (DOE), Yoon I. Chang (ANL), Leonard W. Gray (LLNL), Daniel Horner (Nuclear Control Institute), Christopher Karis (DOE), James J. Laidler (ANL), William D. Magwood (DOE), Charles C. McPheeters (ANL), Robert Neuhold (DOE), and David J. Wronkiewicz (ANL).

William Magwood of the Department of Energy (representing the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology, which requested the study) complimented the committee on its previous reports and described what his office hoped the committee would accomplish in the continuation of the work. He answered questions about budgets, explaining that DOE's FY96 request to Congress was for $24.6M for Argonne electrometallurgical R&D and $24M for demonstration of that technology as part of the EBR-II shutdown, and the time line for beginning the demonstration at Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho. He indicated that the Department was considering what type of NEPA analysis is required before the demonstration can begin. If it turns out that an environmental impact statement is needed before the



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement