ML19224D714

Transcript of 790629 Public Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Briefing by EPA on Radiation Stds & Criteria for Waste Mgt. Pp 1-32

ML19224D714
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/29/1979
From:	Ahearne J, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7907160172
Download: ML19224D714 (33)

Text

.

{

NUCLE AR REGULATO RY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING 3RIEFING 3Y EPA CN RADIATION STANDARDS &

CRITERIA FOR' WASTE MANAGEM.ENT

(

\\

Place - Washington, D.

C.

Octe-Friday, 29 June 1979 Pcsts 1-32 w:-

e4 ccre:

c2::c r c ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, DC.

Offic:al Repor:ers

.t.u Ncr-h C::itel Street

[

717 Wcshingien. O.C. 20C01 NATICr4WICE COVERAGE DAILY 7907766

1 CR5686 D _J. 3 C,o.d _.y-9 C.

s u.a.

r._4 _ a A 3 u.a. r a.

n...e :_ 2_ _4

_4.m 4 u _,..m C _ _4 -.

~

d.

~... e a. ~. 4.n n

m..%. _4S _4S n-v.

w y

v-3 v_

w Cw.....4 3 S _ c n

..o.1 A n o..

r. e_ _i d = v., 29 J"*.e 19".9

+.1 d

4 b

1.m f

N. L. n l e.2,.

n..o.

u vgau._..;

9. e.

m..u. g

_3 ~t /1~

u.

q a_ o,..,

v. 4.

• q.,

( w-

"1_4 -

_4 n, n g n:

4_ag e-ed v

m.

so a

e_

..g a

• _4."."3 'da S C *y *..*. " ".

"y C h l.4 ^ a ". " S.". A a ". "w *.

."".#. C'"S e"_'/* *.i ^ "

"."._#5

" " " ". S " " _# "y w_

a A _4 ~. a f,

1.. A

_4.... -a.7 c n.. a s. 4. 4

..o

% o a.... a.<,* 4 gr.g A, c o. _ a c ~. a. A,

a -

e-

'.e. n g s

w-

_ a C,.., a C _,.a,. S.

m..w$ e '... S v" '" _4 ',' *

.#. S

.#.**. * *.".d a d,

.C C _' ' ' ' r C '" '"' c ".. a.'." $ '

.'.".#_^~.'"-# C.". " 1 y

v yu-yogne.

.a..=.

~,7 AaA M,y

_1 0 C r n..

9. _7 0 a

_4

• _S

" C ". "ya * *. ^ #

1. ". a

1. .C"'.'.'."'

4 s,

w-g r.z

-a 3 _4 n.g w_4 cu gA.

A A

n fect5 _4 o.~. a : _ %. a u.

a,. 4

n..~1_T a n. n,

...n.

a.

S

-.y.m w.

m aa -

v_

3. 5 a" a.". _# ' */ ". a # '

• C ".

,.,., y.i. _4C ".. '. ".

"."._4-

". '" '-.". S C " _' "ft

O

". C ".

e e

i. s d a +. a.,,4..2

_4 ^ "..S C '" " e.'. _d a # ~.

N. C ~' i A S C'.#..". '" C '" C * ". e _" " a _ e _*...". '/ a-

_ _ _7 e d w

-a y_

y v _4

n. w.

sqA-agegA u'.g

_ a_ g o '_.~.

eg 4. h.

s 'q a ( m.... 4 m

.4.

4..

.m...,7

-wgcacA4..c m

-.a y

' k. o-

- _ - e.7 *' C ^w *'. "..'. '..e d

b.. o.'.' a _4."., e.'< ",

'y *."

b. e.

3.7 g 4 m 4 c"...e "s ". C '"

S'""*"*

a

' _ ~ =.

C ^w m...'. a s _' ".".

.~..=',t w

7cn 71n s i O JJu

f l

2 s

l I

RS686 1'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t

2l NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC501ISSICN i

i i

3i i

i 4.I l

PUBLIC MEETING 5

3RIEFING SY EPA ON RADIATION STANDARDS &

6 I

CRITERIA FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT 7!

i i

8, Rccm 1130 9'

1717 H Street, N.W.

10 l Washington, D.

C.

Friday, 29 June 1979 jj The Ccctission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:10 a..m.

BEFORE :

13,

l 1

DR. JOSEPH M.

EINDRIE, Chairman RICHAPS T. KENNEDY, Comrtissioner 1:,i JOHN ?. AHEAFSE, Ccenissicner 17- -'c 0 > ~., e s'.,., :

3 Messrs. Egan, Smi d, Rosenbat=,

va-*4 n, and Wcif 19 j 20,

21

,e 23 21

,1c-7r 1

s secerat Aeocr en, l. e.

J 'j J Jt 25 '

CR.5686 3

i ss r -rLa. -

a

-1 mte 1 1

1l PROCIIDI NGS I

i 2'

(11:10 a.m.)

i 1

CHAI?2A'.; HENDRIE:

If we could come to crder.

i 4

The first item of business is that, in accordance I

I I

3:

with the Sunshine Act, I will ask Commissioner Ahearne and 1

i 6

Ccmmissioner Kennedy to join me in votinc to hold this meeting, i i

7' a briefing by the Environmental Protection Agency on radiation

+

i.

3, with less than a i

standards and criteria fcr waste manacement, t

9i one-week notice.

t 10 These in faver?

11 COM_MISSICNER KENNEDY:

Aye.

l i

12 CO V'd'S S 7 "N# 7u--- AFEAONT-

^ "; a -

l I

CEAv'N 'JrNDo'r-A7a I

13 i e

t 14 So ordered.

We have a meeting.

l 15 This started cut as a briefing for Cc=missioner Ahearn 16 but scme cf the rest of us indicated interest, and he was glad 17' to have us 4-co it turned into a meetinc of the Ccmmission.

I t

1 I am glad it has.

It gives me an opportunity to welcome an 19 old friend to see us, Dave Reserlawn, who has taken Over the 20 EPA -- what is the name?

91 MR. RCSEN3 ACM:

Office Of Radiation Programs.

i

,2,

CHAIRMAN HINDRII:

Thanks, Dave.

i 1

23 And I am just elated to see him there.

And I m:

24 sure that we will work very well together.

So I welccme feu,

s Federal Aeoor srs, Inc.

25 Dave, and the other pecple frca EPA, and thank you f or ccming, 350 320 a

I te 2 4

4 l

1 !

and please go ahead.

1 i

i 2l MR. ROSE:13AUM:

Why don't you start?

i e

3i MR. SMITH:

Al' ght.

i i

4 As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, this was to be an i

S:

informal meeting.

It has grown rapidly.

t i

I 6l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, let us keep the informal i

1 7 !

air to it.

l S'

MR. SMITH:

As you cointed out, Dr. David Rcsenbaum

{

i 9

has tf en over the Radiation Of fice, with the title of Ceputy I

10 Admi.iis tr a tor.

He has been vn board a week and has becn i

11 involved with the high-level standards, and net all of those i

12 '

things we will be discussine. tcday.

l l

13.

So I thought I would run through, first, the things i

l I

la we are active in new in the wastes, in the broader sense, the i

15,

things we see cc=ing up as a result of the IRG recommendation 4

16 !

on waste.

And then I am sure Dr. Ecsenbat= will have sc=ething i

i 17' to say abcut your mest recent cc=ments on cur high-level wastes 18 l standards specifically.

I 19 '

Mr. Dan Egan has been working as co-project leader 20 on the high-level waste standards and w:.ll be able to help with l

21 any of the details on that, 4"-

-- - " = -

a-'ce, p.

-. " 4."..k

?.

s..cu--

• =

'd

,v c u, ;

a"-

1 23 am in charge of the Technolcgy Assessuent Divisicn, and mcs:

24 i of the work and consideraticns en technology devoted :c waste

, w,,3, a.comes, m,:

25 r that were discussed in the IRG report, the shallcw land burial, iJJU 32!

i

i 5

te 3 1

l' l

l 1l decontamination and so on, have been sithin tae purview c:= my i

2, group.

3 As we get to specific regulatory actions, we have 4

the Criteria and S tandards Division under Dr. William Mills,

i S'

and he is intimately involved at the mcment with the developmen:

6 of high-level waste standards, the mill tailings and phosphates i

7 So if there are any details on scme of these recent negotiation S

I wou_dn't be able to -- we have a third fivisica on the 9'

anvironmental assessment divisica, Mr. Floyd Galpin, who has 10 the lead in developing information for mill tailings under the f

Il

• Mill Tailings Act.

12 So what I thought I would do would ba run through i

13 '

what we have engoing and whct we see ccming up; and then, as l

14 you recuasted, where we migh-see prchlems if they indeed or where I tn.. ink we woulc. come to a resolution or. tnem.

o!

exist, 16 l And then I leave it to you to bear in en any part o f tha t 17 ;

prcgram in detail.

I think the very first point I would like to make is 18 ;

19 there has been confusion in correspondence and discussions,

20 both between the agencies and internationally, about 5 tandards 21 for waste disc.asal.

And v. c u h '.ve.c re c e riv. c.ointed cut in your 22 i letters that the dispcsal encc= passes both che release of i

23 effluents, in hhat sense the loss of control, and the dispcsal "4 a of retainwJ waste.

So we need to define and distinguish betwee

s :ero a oort.,s.inc.

w 25 '

those two.

)gn 7 7c, JU s c. f-i i

i te 4' l

l I

i l

The things I will be talking about here and things i

i 2, we are working on in our program do not address the releases 1

I 3

of radioactive material under our existing standards al.d 4

cuides and vcur centrols.

What we are talking about is trv. inc.

i 1

5 to establish a new basis for coals for those materials we have i i

I 6'

retained.

i 7!

It is not un-obvious to us er the other pecple we l

3 dealt with that the existing standards for control of ef fluents 9

apply on a one-to-cne basis with what we are trying to do for a

10 the discosal of discrete materials.

So if I c.o through what I Il am going to talk about -- first of all, the development of 12 rederal guidance or gcals :cr waste management to retain waste, '

i i

13 !

which we have published f or comment and vou have commented on, 1

I 14 '

and we have been activelv involved in redraf tinc that.

That is '

15 i one of the fundamentals.

16 !

We have ongoing the activities in developing specific 17 standards under 'he Atomic Energy Act for higP-level waste.

i 18 In addition to that, we have other regulategy authcrities.

The 19 '

first two are being -- would come from the Atcmic Energy Act.

20 We have additional regulatory authcrities under the Rescurre 21 Recovery Act, the tailings, the ocean disposal.

There the I?A 22 has a =cre direct regulatory function than we have in the first

,i

'3 two.

So that we have these activities u.nder way.

i 24 '

Draft guidance -- we have addressed cur high-level

.+;,wse neoomn, une.

25 draft standard, very much en schedule, for the mill tallings.

i

'J\\

{

JJJ La J

/

-a j

i v*

i t

I 1'

CC.wLr S o r C3.LrR A.22,,Rv;.

C =..

r.

4.,. *e e3.., - -,

u.

2 i The cecple in the back, can you hear?

I i

3!

VOICE:

No.

t 4l MR. SMITH:

If I could just discuss the kinds of i

dhings hhat were laid cut in the IRG report as specific actions!

S I I

l i

i 6

by EPA.

Thev had uointed cut the necessity for a memorandum i

7 !

cf underscandinc. between our ac.encies, who would be doing what h

3 to who and what time.

Thev. have also reccenized a need for 9,

sc=e rationale document, it is called, a policy paper Ehat would 10 '

la out for ever1one hcw we are c.oinc. about es tablis hinc.

11 s *e a.d a. d s u~k s e"e" a... *-

.". e "...i.: "..' a v e ' was a s.=..A=.4, w".. a -

~^

o 12 '

information base we need:

Is it technology-based?

Is it 13 '

entirely based on risk?

i 1'

i 1

s ' a a.

s c..a_

o.e u".e k._4. go-

..w. a. u e _- a 14 7

c=..

o_4n ct,*-

c

=

r a. u.w. _e.,.

-w

..=

4.. n a.' e C r C _..a..,. w.

m. w.a.. o-w e d-..a 4

15

.eo. 4 n

'12 -

ie v

w v

16

.e.t _ s ~

u..u.- a e...o.~ w. s, a.. A Wa n

.,.s _4 ; e.

_i u n e.ny c-.....

u.n se.

v f

- ww m

w v

17

~a.e s

'-e

1. c a..v,

..e...c

=.. A "_... o#

"..c' e _ a-..=..m" _'.. c..

3 13 7..

ad d _4 ~__4 c n

.o *_"_ a -, ae ".. ave " e a_.. - e c.i #.i. a _' _' v " e^.' d.

or I

i 19 1 to estab_ish standards'for decct=issioning, and by that we mean 20 'l

..c he

_=c.

c_e A a_ c -.....4 a o _'. 4.. c,, " u,. s.,..ea_->

_# - -..'. e..,. a _ _4 2. _' a-a-

m w.#

w__.

e a__e. 4..

_1 = c a_.

.'s.' w o,. o 1 c.'. 2...". e

.. ' _' _=.m.

21

-k=~

c

" e m 4 _# _# a_ _- a_...

A 22

• ".e

__ _=..s u_ _=...i - wa s. a s

.4.. 2 0.# =.-.= s

.4.

...av.

23 the high-level waste standard.

,d Another one is the shallcw land burial optien for

s Feceral Recornes. inc. ;

'=~

25 'l.

o c.,e.c_..asc# w a o _ a_ s,-.'. A. "'.a..- a s. = ~" _' _' a.". - ". a_

_- a. c '.' - -. - v, c

)

l i

te 6 I

8 l

i t

u I

framework :.cr ccean disposal as anotn, er option :cr certain I

i 7i i

wastes.

3 So these are the things that we will be working on, i we have developed plans for, and we will have to get together 4

5; with you en in the future.

But I just want to set the tone in 6

terms of where we are going in this overall thing.

i I

7; I don't think it is surprising that we have had i

i i

I 8

dif ficulty in establishing where we are going, because no one l

9{

has really established standards for dise.csal of wastes.

His-J i.

torically, the standards apply to controllable sources.

If 10 II scmething goes wrong, y:. u can turn it o f f, or if the pecple 12 receiving the benefits are the ones receiving the risk -- and I

I I

I3 !

there is a dif ferent set of Ocnditions.

i i

I Id There is a need cc think cut what it is we are trying 15 to do.

But I think I will wait preil I get to the guidance to I4 give you a status report on where we stand on that.

i 1 "' '

But alone. witn-tne :eceral c.uidance and what we I

18 hope is an agreement among the agencies as to what One President would tell them, with a large degree of flexibility ne ce s s ar.v, as you pointed cut, we will have set the stage and

'O, 21 we knew what we are trying to dc.

And I think we are well along on tha'..

_-..d =.a..-_= _'

4..... v,

..".".A

~.... e 2

3,. 0. ". a -,- c _4.. *- " " a - ' o-

~.

~

m --

2#

IRG report, in terms of other than high-level waste, what was ca.s :.,S a.oc,ws. inc.

a ec greatly needed in the country wa,s scme agency -- we felt, the jbd UdU

I te 7 9

l t

l, 1

members of the IRG working on it, semebely had ec be locking l

2!

at all of tha waste being generated and all of tne options.

t t

r 3

And it really didn't seem to fit in with EPA's role, or NRC P

i I

4 and DOE were not explicitly tesponsible for lccking towards the ;

\\

I f

5 succort of the nuclear industry.

And bv. that I mean verv.

i 6'

definitely not only nuclear pcwer industry, but the use of I

7 institutional waste as well, which is a very large problem.

3 So we have to make sure that _:are are enough viable options en,

i I

9 line n an orderly fashicn.

I I

10 '

And we reccmmended that COE have this responsibility. -

1 11 So that these standar -setting er:cr:s af ours are only interim how many dif#a-a -

12 until that total national plan is laid cut 1

i 13 :

cetions do we need -- and so, we have subsequent review or I

i i

14 where we stand, what are the standards and what other options 15 might be available.

l lo So if I could get bacx to -- and I wi'T

' eave it to i

17 you to cut in and emphasize any one of these specifically that h

13 ycu may want to address.

But I wculd like to give you scme 19 background on uhat f edemal guida nce r: le.

20 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Would ycu explain a little 1

21 bit mcre about what yc' mean by youm standards will be interim i

22 until COE develops a national plan?

23 MR. SMITH:

I didn ' t mean to say that.

• dnat I T.eant,

*3--

2 a

3-e nc.<-..g.n

-.=..da A-a o-----,--

4 24

"" a n b.. - 1e n e n ' '.' x

'4 Co-Etdef11 RecCr*ers, It'C.

25 land burials, we don't envision that all of the sc-called

}EQ 5 7. b s

s<

q

t 10 ite 8' i.

f f

If low-level waste will be ccmpatible with Ehat option.

There 1

2l will have to be developed additicnal alternatives.

It will 1

3:

not be interim.

But I can't visuall:e that it will ancccpass i

4l all of the waste.

l I,

5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

So you would envision establish.

i l

6; ing additional standards for other offices?

i f

7' Mh. S MITH :

Yes.

l S!

If I could go back, five years age we were developing '

l

?

draft plans for establishing standards within the Of fice as to 1

10 what information base we wculd need to see what we micht obtain' i

11,

from tne ot' var agencies and where we should be spending cur i

12 '

=cney.

i t

13 '

It seemed rather obvious that if we received --

14 l obtained all of the information available and we could spell 15 out the efficiencier, of the varicus control systems, for 16 !

example, there was still no agreement as to what we were trying 1,/ l to achieve.

That,s wny some c:. t_gese issues in terms c:.

18 '

reliance en institutional controls, the necessity for establish-I 19 N ing scme upper limit for waste disposal that would be considered i

20 accep table, dictated that we get together with people lad say, 21 what are we t r v. i n c. to do.

f 22 Sc that when President Ford told IPA to establish 1

i 23 high-level standards in

'76, we felt enat in parallel with that

.I 24 '

we should try to be developing federal guides tha t wculd be

.c..s mo n.cor m inc.

federal agency.

25 issued by the President in guidangeJ J l to yac" j

Jc

1 te 9.

i 11 1

1 1

And in doing that we had several, I think, very fruitful i.

2l meetings with the public and the other agencies en what pecple i

3I were concerned about and with the agencies, all of the agencies, i

4,-

=.artici ating, and what is it we are trv. inc. to do in waste e

j 5!

disposal.

i I

6 So we at that time met with all of the states.

Just i

i 7'

ac an example, in 1972 we met with all of the states that have i

I 8;

shallcw land burial sites and just asked them:

What do you 9

think the site will do for you?

The answers ranged all the t

10 way frca, it is there forever, to, well, it is sort of a delay j

Il

line, Sat allows the material to leak cut at a given rate.

12 And regardless of what ycu think the answr is, it was cbvicus to us 13 it did not bring h.at w ersal cf a shallcw land burial er any ot".ez cctic i

l I

14 '

Sc that we have worked in trying to develop these 15 criteria.

They were published back last fall, and the 16 Commission cctmented on these.

And :.f you care to, we mignt i

1,/

ta<e scce or_ t.w.e.ceints v. ou,navc. ra' s ed and c.c :.nrou n :nem.

18 I would l'ke to say that we have me with CCE, we 1

19 have talked to other pecple who have ccamented, and at the 20 l =ccent we have a revision and, subject Oc Dr Rosenban='s 21 review and concurrence next week.- we ' rope to get bacr. together 22,

with the Cc==ission and the OCE and see if we haven't addressed 23

=any of the concerns you have, because many of us shared the

,4 4

enes that vcu curlined.

M49deral R eDC,*ers. I nc.

25 And if you care :c, I can iust,t[pch upon sete of JJl

/g

,L

I 12 te 10 i

I.

I i

those that you indicated in your letter cack in March.

CHAIPlGN HENDPlE:

Goed.

2i i

t i

4'

(

l I

c i

t l

6' I

7:

i 8

l 9

t 10 i

11 12 l

13 i I

la 15 16,

17 18 19 20 21,

b 23 6'

..;.e.<c a.mn.rs. i ne.

25 :

7LI)

J.).. C,

?*

JJL

v e, coco +_

WHITL/ov 13 i

i, i

lj MR. SMITH:

The term "ccmplete isolation" would I

i 2; precl:Me de minimis.

There has to be a recognition there are l

3i exempt quantities and concentrations, that indeed there are seme i

6 4l extremely long half-life materials -- 10 for which isola-1 5'

tion is meaningless, a better definition of what it was we were I

t I

i 6

trying to do.

And we did have to clear up that we were not 7;

talking effluent control; we are not talking about releases to i

8l the environment.

We want to 1121:

nis to disposal or retained l

9' material, and we prefer not to discuss some of these things that; 10 were in the draft that addressed operations of waste management 11 operations.

12 We think the real need is to define disposal goals.

i 13 '

The term that Dr. Rosenbatm would be able to address when we got.

i I

14 to the high-level -- if I can qucre you in regard to the 15 ;

risk assessment.

Your recommendation was that it should include 16 an assessment of risk, rather than being based primarily on an 17 assessmert of risk.

I think, again, we share the view that 18 there are other considerations besides mathematical treatment i

19 of the probability consequences.

20 I have just one note here in No.

3, that the words 21,

were vague.

We agree.

There were two sets of criteria and 22 '

some inconsistency between the two pages listing chem.

We hope 23 '

we have cleared those up.

24 CHAIF31AM HZNDRIE:

Me would like tc cc= ment

.n other

, 5,cers Recor ers. tec.

25 '

people's certain lack of distinctness in c her pecple's i

,-)

w

, L,

. s e

p;4 14 i

1l documents.

But at the same time, why, we are one of the primary i

I 2l producers of documents that are less than absciutely clear-cut So, we are sort of the pot-and-the-kettle situation. '

3 ourselves.

4 i MR. SMITH:

You said it.

No comment.

l 5:

This 100-year criteria that you ccamented on, three i

I 61 different versions of what we intend have been kicked arcund 7;

since they have been published.

We really intended to addra"s I

i 8

the post-disposal, once you close up a site that you ought to i

i 9;

face up to the problem that you just can't ignore and rely en 10 '

institutional contre' allcwing the deed alene, for example.

11 You should face up to at scme tine, whatever that time may be,

'2 you are going to lose track of d t, and there are plenty of exam-i i

13 cles of that.

i 1

i i

14 i The original intent was post-disposal, how long 15 should you rely cn institutions.

There was the thcught included.

16 in that criteria in the managenent section that savs vou should 17 get on with the job of disposing of waste and you shouldn't t

13 delay the decision.

That.was confusing.

And so people using l9 that as 100 years, you have to make a decision of this on dis-l

• 0j posal within 100 years.

1 21 !.

The thir one I found scme pecple in industry ; sing 22 i and I was surprised -- was interpreted to mean you don' t have 22 to think abcut disposing for 100 years, just store it -- which l

24 was obviously nct the intent.

But we are back to the thing we

,c3JtCtral A fDQMrt, lPC, m

4-tried to do, and that is face up to the institutional question.

7c-

'h J.

pv; 3

i i

s i

l!

Another one you addressed was the econcmics and the i

2l ef f ects of control --

f 3

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

You say " face up to the 1

I i

i 4'

institutional question."

Where do you see taking that at this 1

i I

5 ! point?

6' DR. ROSENSAUM:

Since this is my first week on the 7l job, I am not up to date on all that is going on in my office, 1

3 by any means.

But I have been around this area for a whd_le, and:

f l

t 9

I think I have not made any decisions about that.

I think it a

10 may very well depend on the specific case and one shouldn't talk l 11 about institutional controls in the abstract as if the same sort, 12 of logic applied to everything.

i i

13 ;

One thing that bothers me which has implications in i

14 ;

scme situations for institutional control is the problem of the 15 possibility of making scmething which can't be rectified in the 16,

future.

This is possible with scme high-level waste disposal 17 things, so that if we are not all wise right at this mcment, in 18 100 years frca new semebcdy finds cu that we miscalculated or 19 '

neglected to think about scmething which turns cut to be a very 20 serious problem, which, in my view, has a very high probability 21 there has to be --

22 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Cr alternatively, ecual-f 23 important, the possibility we can learn :: do seme:ning a 10:

,s ue+- e-.

i

~,

..;.cerm a.mmn. inc.

25 DR. ROSENEACM:

There has to be some way that pecple

., 7 a

e >

J~-

cv4 t

i 1

l o-l can then decide to go back and do things differently.

It can't i

2l be trivial.

It has got to be a fairly difficult way; otherwise, 3,

vou ocen vourself to all kinds of intervention in the s.vstem, 5

I 4

which vou don't want to encourage -- sabotage, for example.

But:

1 l

5*

it still has to be feasible.

And in some cases, that has to be 4

i 6!

balanced against not having to worry about institutional con-i l

7:

trols.

i l

8 I am skeptical that we have the knowledge to make, i

i

~

9 it seems to me, decisions :cr recole for all time.

And it l

l 10 implies to me a kind of arrogance which makes me very nervous.

i 11 And I think if one looks back in time 100 years or even 50 years, 12 one can see a very large number of examples of things that were i

i

+

13 !

=. erf ec tiv. obvious to people which are perfectly obvious to us 1

14,

now, were wrong.

I don't think we ought to i.mpose an unchange-i 15,

able situation unnecessarily for the futtie.

i 16 MR. ECAN:

One other direction this takes is the 17 developing of the high-level standard is the concern should a la disposal system be implemented that would be perfectly adecuate 19 '

if and only if you could rely on people to keep intruders cut of' 20,

it or rely en people to maintain it.

The institutional is in 21 that respect as well.

Say you have a repository that was fine, n

22 l It would be perfectly proteccive of the environment unless some-l 23 bcdy drilled into it and then a very severe consecuence could 24 cccur.

I think that is one perspective ve were also locking s Kaceral Peconers, Inc.

3.

u w, o.

you, o-w.C. 7 4 5.

A_4syose n.

C w..*

o _1 v

o. m s. _4 u..d. _4

..a _7 3

mm

.w w

w

.w 7b 77 J 6\\

pvo t

3i i

1 something where you rely en prevention of human intrusion as the 2; key ingredicrt in maintaining the environmental protection frcm 3

that particular depository concept.

That is one of the direction 4

it takes us, and that can have scme consecuences in designing i

5' your repository, not just for high-level, but for other waste 6'

categories as well.

j i

7' It is, as Ir. Rosenbaum says, an important concept a

that we need to lock at very carefully in the criteria as we 9

develop both high-level and the other standards, as it can have 10,

signi:1 cant ramifications.

11 MR. SMITH:

As you can see, there is agreement on the 12 need to lay these things cut.

That was our criginal intent:

i 13,

What are we trying to do.

14 The remaining two items I believe you have in your 15 letter regarded, I think, more -- ic addressed operations.

We 16 were talking about additional controls, passive signs, et cetera.

17 I think we have cleared up the language.

These have been remote 18 as specific items.

The numbers have changed.

You did raise a 19 You did raise a very interesting one, and one that 20 i is a problem in terms of consistency with the way we approach 21 nonradicactive across the board.

I think the age ey is struggi-22,

ing. with that in terms of their controls and waste dispcsal.

23 There have been efforts in che agency trying to ccme up with a i

24 consistent approach.

muere aecomes. me.

25 '

Specifically, you mentioned that monitoring is only

,,h f JJ s

't

.a v o 18 i

I l

Ii required for 20 years for hazardous waste.

That's true.

Thit 2;i is exactly what the draft reculations would require.

However, i

3 there are additional conditions in temnc of the plat plan and 4;

modifications to the deed, so there are institutional controls i

i 5

extending be.vond that 20 v. ears which we consider in defininc.

1 1

6',

institutional control as being part of it.

It doesn't mean t,

t 7!

active surveillance.

There is not that great an inconsistency I

3 but neverthe' ess i c leaves us with the problem nationally are I

1 9'

we being consistent.

I 10 !

COMMISSIONER AREARNE:

Is it your conclusica that i

11 '

fundamentally they are consistent?

12 '

MR. SMITH:

In regard to that specific item you men-13 tiened, they are not inconsistent.

The question is:

Ecw long i

14 l do ycu think you could rely on the deed and a registry at the i

15 :

state office and a plan with the regional administra:Or beyond i

16 the monitoring period?

17 '

COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Let me ask it a different way:

18 !

Would that provide the adequate institutional protection you 19 think would be necessary for radiation material disposa_?

20 MR. SMITH:

Back to the time I can visuall:e a large 21 '

fraction of the institutional waste presently being disposed of 22 '

in shallow land burial can go down to levels that is innccucus 23 after 100, ears and you wouldn't care if someone could -- you 24 would feel quite ccmfortable.

When you get to sc=e:hing on :he es-Fec6ral Reoorters, Inc.

25 30-year half-life, a different class of waste, it is not going i

350 335

pV7 19 i

l l

1l to change significantly in that period of time.

I wculdn't feel-i i

2 ccmfortable if people go back in high concentrations that that i.

i I

i 3I would be sufficient.

l 4i I think we are going to have to do more with material 5l-of that class in the way of different types cf burial packaging,'

I 6.

scme additional protection.

I I

7l DR. ROSENBAUM:

'et me say scmething about at least i

3, the feeling on our part of the agency.

I haven't gone beyond i

i 9'

the -- not just radiation, but the part of the who.'e agency.

I lo i There is no obvious and unicue way to make two different things I.

11 l consistant in some absolute sense, but we are going to try very i

i 12 hard to make things even-ended and consistent among the dif-1 I

I

!3 l ferent kinds of danger.

It is not our intention to treat cancer-la l caused by one thing differently than cancer caused by another l

15 thing.

Our attempt will be to make daen consistent.

I0 l It is a lot easier to say that than in practice to 17 make two things consistent which -- it is hard to compare' the 1

18,

two things.

l l9 '

COMMISSICMER AEEAR'II:

Right.

20 CEAI.?:A:I HENDR'? -

7

• b4

> the ntatutory authorities 21 under which you regulate are different in different areas.

I i

22 am not familiar with the -- let's see, you regulate the hazard-23 cus ncnradicactive wastes under what?

Is in the Rescurce and i

24,

Recovery Act or Hazardcus Waste Act?

w s:ersi 9.comes, inc. '

a

+c M2. SMITH:

Resource Conservation Recovery Act.

i 350 136

. ov 8 20 i

i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And you get a certain amount of l

I l

2; sense -- well, you will get the statute, the language of the I

1 3

statute, in a ce.tain sense of the direction of things contem-4' plated by Congress in the legislative history, and that colors I

i the wav v.ou go about it.

i 6;

My guess is that when we, a few years down the line, what we will probably find is that the way in which we are.cro-

/

I a

posing, hopefully, our disposing of radioactive wastes will set i

9 a pretty high and tough goal for the other materials, some of 10 which are exceedingly toxic and a 3 cod many of which have, con i

li sidered in that light, have infinite half-lives.

12 I think that is sort of intrinsic in the, you know, 13 '

the framework of laws, and people's sense about wnat they mean, 1

14 and so on, that we work in.

So, I think consistency is a great 15 '

objective, but I suspect there isn't going to be consistency 16 here in a real sense.

. _2 + t e _ _4...e.

3, -

.u n.

.e d. r. u..

ru.a_41_1

.i 13 CHAIRMAI HE:iORII:

And it is a societal judgmen:

19 l which, hcwever imperfectly in our system, is at least reflected i

20 ' through the Congress and its actions.

And if ycu have got 21 great masses of ugly-locking chemicals over there and you decide 22 to bury them with a 10-meter cover and you want radicactive 20 wastes at 3000 meters tur 100,00 0 years or whatever, that is a 24 d-..en".

mav...-. *.e c n o-"o_.._, ' u" 4 -

a a e c.4 a u2, 4"

o

_a 3

_wf eceral Recorwrs, !nc.

mg t a.a: we are :ree to make.

a JuCgmen:

7 JJ. [ [v-]

-(

.a v e 9.1 i

I i

I il MR. SMITH:

Well, then, on ene criteria, I think we i

t i

2; have been responsive, trying to be responsive, and we are anxious l

3 to get together with your staf f in the next couple of weeks t

l 4,

af ter looking at our latest one.

And I em octimistic that not i

I i

5:

cniv ;eh staffs of NRC and COE, but the public comments as well,l l

r 6

are looking for scmething that defines what we are *.rying to do,!

l 7

equally responsive to them, we hope.

i 8

I think the next major item that you may want to talk l I

9 about or cne that is the most visible new and sets the stage for.

10 '

subsequent action is work on the high-level waste standard.

l i

11 ;

In your letter to EPA on that standard, if I may, I 12 '

think, in trying to set the stage for waste-disposal standards, i

13,

it is different frcm what the people have viewed the standarcs I

i l

^

ul for effluent.

We are really trying to back off and icok at all 4

15,

of the possible impacts, no t j us t a plan or most probable releace 16 People are asking:

What if this happens?

And there does nc:

17 seem to be disagreement between agencies and the public that i

i 18 that is what we have to address enccmpassing all of them.

You 19 can' t go to infinity, but you have got to try to enccmpass all 20,1 of t tse different initiating events.

21 '

So, I think we are down to the point of, it is how 22 dc we put these into a regulatory framework.

There is not disa-I l 23 !

greement concerning what we are trying to do.

24,

I will let Dr. Rosenbaum talk, and any questions you J Keceral A oorTers, Inc, t

have or_ Dan, who have been more intimately invo_,vec. in tne star:

- 7,Jj 7 EI

~~

3J end42 in these conversations in the last weeks.

2

,R oce,6 4

i eitlock.

i jl 1 1l DR. RCS E. _.. '! :

Cn the hign level standard, I hope 2.

that we tand together.

I 1

3,'

I read your letter, Jce, and I had a suspicien it i

1

.t i was written about six mcnths ago; that it was a 1;.ttle cut c:- cate.

i, I5' There is nothing in it that either hasn' t been changed or that i

+

6' I dis agree with.

There is ncthing in it th at I disag ee with.

i 7!

I think

't is well taken, and I think that the I

a>

current draft, which we sent over he re a couple cf days 7.go --

9i which I have a ccpy cf here, is close to meetiac. acst cf the I

10 concerns th at you have, wh ' & I think were well taken.

11 S o I tni._k th a t - - I hope that the issues brought 12 u n. 4..

' b. a la-'a-u'.e ce...ad.

j

l C'.".a.'.c."_'-u'T

.u.r'.w' o 7 7 -

Gecd.

I f

i CC.v.u...r o-Co.r u. r,u.r A.e.sLr.

e 4..e.

1.,

e A r.

15 MR. SMITH:

En - - - was going to do in de remaining 16

. time --

17' CCMMISSICNER AHEAR'!E :

Do we have a ccpy cf that 18,

draft?

If it is in cur building, I can find 1:.

19 ;

MR. SMITH:

I will give you a rundcwn en where we l

2,,, i g u,.a e.,

.w.e a e -

u.o

.. r...s,

..4.' '

=i '4

- -.. c. s - - '~ e a < a. c ". =

w.

1 i,,

a,. -, - ~

sec.e.

a.

..a a n.

a,.a

.i..

u.. a..w- _

,c n-ro-t m-

.u.-

i 1

e4,, -.

o

,e-a-a wy s; c,,.e.. u., p_.-

e9 w-.e 1.,.ac.._4 7a_ o-o.

-.3

-4 z.,

e

-a

)

,3 ;,

.."se ac~i"e oi'as

.-=.---.4..

.'4 av.

^#

'0 3,

=.a.d

~. =. '.

+=

1 21 assured by Or. Resenba'un they will.eet these da:es.

.w; :erm Aecorters, lec.

25 C'.3. A =..v.n'.'I u.r'. I D o 7 r..

.v. = v.c.#

_I J ~b f.J

' 'l

?,,

I

2, i

4,,

Ja e

I 1;

MR. SMITH:

For -- of 19 30 -- for the active sites.

6 4

2' The remaining items are the entire list of things Ehat I r

i 1

3' mentioned that are ccming the IRG reporr.

You mentioned in your letter it is not tco early to 4

I f

5 get en with the memorandum of understanding, and I teck that t

6' to mean, since it is wrap.eed ue. intimate lv. with Ehis rationale 7i document, that what we have got is agreement en the cri.te ria i

where we are tryi ng to go, th at the rationale for EPA develop-9 inc s candards and addressing the cuestions raised on the IRG i

10,

report -- and then to put it on paper as to where we are going i

11 i frem here is necessary before we get into the mechanics of each 12 one cf these.

l le i DR. RCSEN3ACM.

In v. cur letter ycu s a.v that in 14 ;

develcping a memorandem of understanding, we shculd give the 15 highes t priority to in understanding of high level waste i

16 s tandards.

17 I think the easiest way to give the highest pricrity is en high level waste standards is to finish the high level 19 :. waste standards, so Ehat that wculd take -ha-cc: of the issue.

.I I

MR. SMITH-Other than answering any specific 7.1 c.uestiens.vcu have cn our activities develcping the shallcw I

r 7,,

land, de ccmmissicning oce an dispcsal standards, I iust wanted s

23 to add --

, " ^ u

. ca a M., ~, 4.. "e C. '".. m" C.'F_.o. e._.n.'

w 0

^

7.,.1

~-.

w

~ =eu. a.oe m,s. ec. '

350

10 25 ocean dispcsal?

y

24 I

, j l '3 i

l l'

MR. SMITH:

There are three --

2:

CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY :

Against what are vcu measur-1 3 ',

ing?

What are these standards going to do?

What kind of i

environment are we talking ibout?

4 i i

j 5

MR. SMITH:

It is a cuantum stec ccmcared to what m

6, has been done in the past.

i 7

" irs t of all, the basic framework for the use of I

i i

a',

ccean dispcsal in the EPA regs at present, and censistent i,

i 9

with the international activities we have been involved with,

i i

10 '

will be isolatien of the source and packaging.

It will not 11 1 he that kind of mechanism where you cbtain enough weight to 12 get it to the bottcm and then allcw dilution.

i t

13 That was -- and is,in scme countries -- the way t

la it has been accroached.

We are iust t a lkinc. oce an dispcs al, i

15 containerized waste to be

-a*M ed.

16 CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Thesa are impervicus r

I 17 containers then ?

i la MR. SMITH:

Nhat we have been dcing, j us c che 19 te chnoloc.v.

20 CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY :

Are there any?

21,

MR. SMITH:

There are scme pretty gccd cnes we 22,

brought back from the Ocean, by no me ans all.

We have 1ccked 23 ;

at three different dung sites and lccked for gced ones.

We 24 have had Sreckhaven Lab -- excellent cooperacien with CCE in

...,e.rai a.ocrun. me.

25,

icing analysis of these, and so we knew that s cme o f the s e

, p. 1 7 L l.,i s

JJU s

t i

ji 4' 25 I

I i

i1i can be retained for 100 years or more.

I i

2!

And if we lock at it I

3!

CHAIFF.AN HENDR'E :

We are talking about low level i

4 ~

material, limited half-lives, so your aim is not e t e rnity, b ut 5

to make sure it doesn't go anywhere untcward for a reasonable 6i of half-lives.

7l And j ust to get the activity level dcwn Icw enough t

8i so th at it is of pretty much no --

9l MR. SMITH:

We can visualize tradeof fs between -- of 10 '

pcssible cccupational expcsures of accidents with short..alf-i, 11 lives with the ocecn, but it is a limited cotion.

i l

12 There are three specific.--

i i

'- a d. wb.7'.

13 '

CN.N.'S S T C'ir o..

E."uM r D V.-

u e

I i

la '

MR. SMITH:

In te rms of -- I really can ' t see us 2

15 i cbtaining the technology to assure that all icng, half-life i

16 !

materials in very large bulk wculd be accep t ab le.

It is 17 '

limited in terms of its usefulness.

13 There are three specific steps called for in the i

19 '

repcrt and by the regulatien.

20 The. firs t one, we are working cr ncw, i

21 designation.

What are the criteria for determining a particu-22 l lar site?

23 '

S ubsequentiv., packaginc requirements, monitorinc,-

i 24 l and the fcurth step is site designaticn, where we wculd go 2A? der 34 A tOCr'ers, IPC.

and designate 25!!

out -- either curselves or othe r agencies r

., a c l.

g

26 j l.5,

d l

I 1

spec 1:1c sites.

i 2'

We hope to have that entire thing ope cational, at 3,

least in one site, by ' 83.. f or the number of regulatory s teps.

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

These would be international 5

waters, I assume, wculdn't they ?

i i

e:

MR. SMITH:

Probably within the 200-mile limi t, with ;

7 domestic control, but still within the f ramew o rk o f the o ce an-I a'

dumping treaty, the guides of national and nuclear e

_vy i

9' agencies, IAEA.

10 l CHAIRMAN HINDRII:

Because one is talking accut icw 11 level mate rial, this is really only marginally connected with 12 i s cme of the s chemes that have been propcsed to go cut and i

13 1 find a place in the oce an bottcm where the plate divides, i

14 l and drop it there so it disappears dcwn into the -- that is 15 '

s till a screwhat speculative and rather lenger-ranged propcsi-

.4 16

..cn,..__

o_

,x 17 CCMM'SSIONER KENNEDY:

Imaginative, too.

18 CHAIP31AN HENDRIE :

it may be a good iead, you knew, 19 but you have a _ct of trouble kncwing enough about it at this 20 point to be ve ry s ure o f wh at you are doing.

21 MR. SMITH:

We do distinguish he: ween Sr. a t p rcgram 22 of DCE, in terms of the sea bed, where they are addressing 1

23 1 high level waste as a long-tern cption.

24 Presently, that would not be alicwed under detes tic

<cs S deral Aeoo,ters, Inc.

t 25 regulations, and we are not addressing that.

We are addressing d

1 t

,vi

< j,I i,

S-il 6 a

i i

I i

1' low level waste.

CHAIPS.N HENDRIE :

?cu have 2.uthc.-ities under scme 2 i 1

i s o.-,m c Ma au.a.e

.ssc..

u i

4 MR. SMITH:

The Ocean Disposal Marine Sanctuaries 1

5, Act.

6 CHAIRMAN HENRI2:

Which means you centrol any ocean l

i 7

dumping, as I recall, the scrt cf regulatory configuration --

i a

vou have that centrol unde r that act.

But acc. arentiv. for anv-9 ene to carry cut Ehat kind of cperation, they would also have 10.,

to have a materials cessessicn license from us to have the 4'

_=.. d - a _~ '. 4.~. ~ -. -

11.

..a' a.i a '

w".4'e b.e"2 we-a-y -. c a s o.i.. -

u-v 12 u..w.a a.

13 I guess once it hits the water why it is your baby.

l 14 '

MR. SMITH:

With tha cssible exception scme of the

". c * ' i ca.. s ab ' a.

a c. i v. ". 4 a s,.i # 4 "..' a Aa c.i de d ' b.a v 4

u-

, -~~

s..e r.s C T a-a

1. 6 CF.n' 7.. MAN

'.3.r'.ru. 7 7.

7. 4.* '.

7. x. a.. *. ac'- 4 "4 '4as

^#

~ ". e o

w 1e,

,C.e.

18 MR. SMITH:

I wanted to end on two thoughts, while 19 we are talking abcut this interf ace and how we are establishing a1 a anga.a.

m. u.a..c

.v. c n.,.,..:c....,-a

..a u.

,,.a :a - u a..,p a.n.

..u. a-

-u n

a--

n

-a 9.1 ac.encies, including CSGS -- we have had a program of informa-t 22 tien exchange the past cwo years on shalicw land burial,

-.sa =- -.".,-

"..d

.'. "..=s

- c. "- - - - e ".. s a.n d-s*anda di'4..c,

- t c.- '.4.7 c.

-a

-a

'-a-

-s u

t 24 been wer. king.

xTaderal Aeooners, me.

a dd -a s s i

.c.

.". a m.' '- ' 4 ". a d 25 ;

" b. a.

C e c a - -a.7 *. c# 7. a.- ; v,,

4

-.6 s

m ? 5 b

l f

l

3 28 i

l t

J _,

i 1l assignments in CCE, h ave been in te meet with us.

We are 2l expanding that.

i 1

3 I have got ncthing except an irdication everybcdy i

i 4<

wants to work together and get on with rietting informatica.

3 We realize we can set standards without information frem both t

voc.r contractors and CCE, and -- being cptimistic, it seems 6t 7 i tc be working.

i a

f 9

And I think -- just one other thought, we have had 9

the same sert of contact, addressing many of de same issues 10 i on the international arena, too. within the nuclear energy 11 l agency, IAEA, along with the State Department.

I think we I

12 i have been working i egether to try to get the same goals i

13 i established.

j

\\

l 14 i I am very optimistic.

If we can get agreement en i

l 15 these ea_-lier things, we can truly get en with ".he schedule.

16 CHAIRV.AN HINDRII :

Gecd.

1 ',

CN. 'd.7

< 7 C'ir 7.' u. r.'...' F...

Wb. a * '.'..'.". A.

^#

a s c.".a d ".' a w.

jS g c u.1 4. t7 e b, S e o..

.# ^ " ' h e

"."..e."..C c.#

'w'.". d '.' s~ "- S.".d.# ". C,

1. ~ "w ". 'I ^ b'."

"s C.4.". "-

,v w

w w.

-~

19 of view?

. " '. "s','

.#, # "y *w "-.".." A-.".

90

. ' '.. '.. S *' F* '....'

7 w o u _' '.'.'.. a.

"w ^ ae'"

~

6

• • a

? -n a,/en

• w -a.i '<.a d 2.s o u.

k. ; a-9 au.

2..C s e.".b~ a '-.., '^

i k

4 u'

C, C.4.". "

• ^

4.1

-. A d

. u

.- A.

a r. d a C, ". $ ^ #-...".";

"w.* 4 ' o.".i a,

".". # Wa ha*<**-

', 4 - k.. l o,s,p.i a w.,.:

ru 2*

em w

g,4 w3 v..

.J.477s e a g c..'L..m. e e %.

. h. o,.

..a4.4,= p.a _1 o d e g o *. g.m. *.

4.m. s gm..p

---

.I M a 4=,4 M

S 4

a w

g s

y w

m

-.w ov "w. a "

'w.4.~..e

.# " ' ~..e.

h. C"y e.# ".' 'u 6 C^wuid do. ' ". 4.".

b 74

__ T me

.~

ca.4M**rJi d ecor7rs, Irc, u- - s 4.". V C u." "e " '"' "' w a "

"y'"

d'"'"^#

a c, b C..e

'v.# *"-

^"

t.

j,F f,

-7 f

a g

/

t.

JJu J

3 so t

• s I

1:

getting started in

'79, were predicated en the present signing 9 ',

back in March.

,c,a.

CC.v.m SS Cu R

e. rA.nLr.

vy er

,i t

i.

A n

i 4

DR. RCSENBAUM:

I haven ' t had enough time to lock i

5 into that, so I don't really have an opinion =yself.

We will i

(

6' t rv. to do it as quicklv. as ecssible.

i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :

I think vcu are richt.

I chink

/

I a

the kev thing be f o re us is the s tand ard. -

'.r our s o rt o f 1

9 governing standard en high level was te disposal.

10 If we can : cme to reasonable agreemenc cn that, 11 while the MCU is still important and use ful, formalication 12 of cur relations as you knew, neve rtheless in dealing with the 13,

standard, we have accc=plishe_ wn at is scrt of the gut issue i

14 '

in there, I think, between es.

15 And f rom then en, why the MCC -- as I say, we cught 16 cc have it, and it is useful, but its main use may be for each 17 cf us on occasion to prcduce it in che presence of congression-U la al questioners to shcw that each of us kncws what the othe r 19 is doing and we hava agreed en cur respcnsibilities and the 20 dividing lines and sc on, as to who does what.

21 1 DR. RCSEN3ACM:

I agree.

22,

C9AIP31AN HENDRII:

Could I.ake ycu inco an area 1

23 rahher away frca waste and ask, as I ask cur S taff pericdically,

24 hcw we are ccming en the Clean Air Act amendmenes?

Is that

1. s :.r.i a.xm,t in:.

w 25 any part are you f a-iliar with ahac is geinc cn there?

Is jl -

(~

J' a,

i

30 jl 9 i

1i that f ar enough away frem your area to --

i 2l MR. SMITH:

Far enough away that we didn' c bring 3l' Dr. Mills, anC

- has a group including people frcm each 4!

division, and they are really working on that one.

I didn ' t l

Si come prepared to address th at.

I 4

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :

I didn ' t expect you to.

i i

7 MR. RCSENBAUM:

We would be willing to ccme back, i

3, howe ve r, und address Ehat if you feel it is necessary or 9'

useful.

i 10 CHAIRMAN HENDR2s:

ne have been talking -- once in 11 awhile Dcug and I get toge ther from -- for lunch.

It is not i

12 tco often new.

Things seems to have been cretty busy around l

1 13 l here recently.

And also, it seems to me it is his turn to i

14 c cme ove r he re, and I ccn' t think he wants to be seen arctnd 15,

here for a little while longer.

16

( Laugh te r. )

17 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Ccnsidering us like the wa.e '.e 18 disposal.

19,.

CHAIP2Gli HENDRIE :

Yes.

And an unlicensed cne naybe 20 at that.

21 CCM2dISSICNER KENNEDY :

Right.

22 (Laughter.,

23 CC.NC4ISSICNER KEN'!E7Y :

But I have talked tc him 24 about the Cle an Air Act amendme nts, and we agree ch at at scme a-4:grat Recor'ers, tec.

25 time it would be useful for him and Dave Hawkins, and all of h

7 r. q 7 j; 7

31 j). J.0.

i f

i1' you in the Cc= mission, and our staffs en hand to sort of sit i

around the table and say, "Here is what we have done, and here 2

l, 1

3 is hcw it in going to work and where we are going," and sort i

i i

4 of so we can all -- all the principals -- between us can hear i

I 5~

the same discussion and conclusions at the same time and hope-6; fully understand one another fully and be sure we knew where l

7l We are gcing and so cn.

t 8

And the apprcpriate place for that ciscussion, the i

9 timing of that discussicn has been -- I thought we were going 10 to do it right after the first of the year, but it didn't 11 '

quite seem to settle dcwn between the staffs.

I 12 And then, of ccurse, once both you and we got i

t l

13 i started en the authcrizatien hearings, that made it a little l

i i

la '

difficult.

And then came Three Mile since, but I think we 15 l cughc to keep in mind dat d at continues to be, in my view, 16 '

a useful sessien, j us t s o th at we can all hear the same 17 explanaticn of how it

.s all going; and any of us that hava 18,

questions can voice them, and everybody can hear what.hese i

19 are and what the answers are.

I 20 You have got -- EP A h as an encr cus range ef i

21 responsibil. ties; and in f act, 9.e Cle an A'_ r ame nd.e n cs o n the 22 '

total EP A dining table are pretty small -- are a pretty small i

23 )

relish dish of f in the corner. so -- whereas

1. ,r s it is a t

24 pretty important piece of business, and we are already -- we M89deral R eco,*1f t, I FC. l 25 have already long since ccmmitte J cwc

ns wi d *-.'.censees i

I i

j 7 E fi 7j0 f

, 1 4,

J-32 j

+

a l

1, that are appropriate, provided we unders tand each other che 2;

way I think we unde rs tand each other.

But if we den ' t, then i

I 3

wE are headed off in a track that can lead to problems.

4+

Are there other questions ?

i i.

5, CCMhlSSICNER AHEARNE :

I want to thank you very J

6 much for coming.

7 DR. RCSEN3AUM:

It is a pleasure.

3 CCMMISSIGNER AHEAFSI:

This is the kind of informa-i l

9 tien I have wanted to get, and I appreciate it.

It certainly 10 helps that we can continue to work effectively together.

11 DR. RCSENEAUM-I put a high priority on this kind 12 of ccmmunicatien, and we would be happy oc dc :.t in the futun.

13,.

CHAIPMAN HENDRIE :

Thank vou very much.

t 14 '

MR. SMITH:

Th ank y ou.

15 (Whereupen, at 11:57 a.m.,

the hearing was l6 adj ourne d. )

, a

.J l/

...w 1v0 1

20

,j A

L 1

49$b l

4 99b 24

..;werat a.oerurs, inc.

'4 eG

~l (l

l!

~)

l J{

't JU s 4 (,/