Attendance was augmented by Robert Neuhold (DOE), William Magwood (DOE), and Daniel Horner (Nuclear Control Institute).
W. Magwood briefed the committee on several issues related to the committee's task.
The schedule for the EBR-II spent fuel demonstration project has slipped because of National Environmental Policy Act considerations. DOE is preparing a supplemental Environmental Assessment, and is hopeful that an agressive schedule will lead to a Finding of No Significant Impact by late February, 1996. If this occurs, the electrometallurgical technology demonstration project could begin in March, 1996. In response to a question of how this schedule related to plutonium disposition, Magwood suggested that while it is important that electrometallurgical treatment technology be fully evaluated as an option for Pu disposition, he recognizes that the development schedule for this technology might find it to be more applicable for disposition of a variety of small quantities of plutonium scraps (with differing extents of chemical contamination) or as a backup to other technologies than for the more immediate problem of disposition of pits.
The internal relationships in DOE between Nuclear Energy (NE) and Materials Disposition (MD) were clarified. An overall Environmental Impact Statement (for plutonium disposition) is being prepared by MD, and it is expected to include at least one technology option (electrometallurgical) from NE.
The committee spent much of the day working as small groups to develop completed draft chapters for the report. These were assembled and discussed by the committee as whole in mid-afternoon, and the commitee reached consensus on the content, conclusions, and recommendations.