ML19260A766
| ML19260A766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7912030213 | |
| Download: ML19260A766 (73) | |
Text
.
,I tb Cso" ^
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY ', O M M I S S I O N IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON SECY-79-580 - PROPOSED NEW 10 CFB ' ART 60,
" DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES'IN GEOLOGIC REPOSI-TORIES - PROCEDURAL ASPECTS"
(
Place - Nashington, D. C.
Dcte - Monday, 19 Nove. der 1979 Pages 1-64 1461 001 r.i. phen.:
(202)347 3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReporters
- *144 North Capitol Street Woshington, D.C. 20001
'213 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. D AILY 791203o e
3336 1
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclea-Regula:Ory Commission held on Mondav, 19 NOV. 79 in the Commissions 's of fices at 1717 H Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C.
The.
neeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been rev cwed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational
, 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 deterninations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any stateme:10 cr argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
1461 002
2 3356 TH:fr li UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
i 2,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
3 !
l PUBLIC MEETING 4-5, BRIEFING ON SECY-79-580 - PROPOSED NEW 10 CFR PART 60, i
6
" DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN GEOLOGIC i
7l REPOSITORIES - PROCEDURAL ASPECTS" l
8 9!
l Room 1130 10 :
1717 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
11 I Mcaday, 19 November 1979 ii 12 i
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m.
i 13 l
)
SEFORE :
14 ;
DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman of the Commission 15 l I
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 16 '
RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner i
17 '
i PETER A.
BRADFORD, Commissioner IS '
JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 19 f
PRESENT:
20 ;
Messrs. Martin, Dircks, Bickwit, Cunningham, Hanrahan, 21 +
I t
and Malsch.
I i
22,
i Ms. Comella.
ni 1461 003 24,
a. werai R eocrters, ix. '
25 !,
i
I CR'8356 3
NEITLCCK t-1 mte 1 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The Chairman is going to 2i be delayed and asked me to get the meeting going.
l i
3 We are here about a staff proposal for a rule to i
4) be published for comment on the procedural aspects of the l
l 5!,
disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic reposi-i 6(
tories.
It dif fers in some respects frca earlier proposals, 7!
and I expect those differences to be detailed for us.
I i
3 Flease proceed.
9!
MR. DIRCKS:
Let me say that this is a long-awaited i
10 ;
regulation.
When Jack a nd I came on board, we were told to Il get this thing out.
After 11 months, here it is.
i 12 I think it is a regulation that sets the bJs1c i
l 13 framework, not only for our agency, but it does lay out a 14 framework for the program on a national level.
We are going i
t 15 '
to follow this regulation with a proposed technical regulation i.
16 after the beginning of the year.
And then e will be issui.g i
i 17 !
a series of guidance documents that lay out specifically what f
I 18 we are talking about with this regulation and with the techni -
l 6
5 I9 :
cal regulation.
l i
20 l We are asking in a respectful way that the I
I 21 Commission allow us to publish the rule for comment.
The i
22 sooner we get it out, the sooner we will know whether we are 23) on base or off base.
24 '
Jack will introduce the subject today, what we want Aa sevai amonen ine.
25 to achieve, and then Pat Comella will give us the details.
I46I 004
i 4
i mte' 2 1
1 l
I I want to say, it was listed as a standards --
l l
2!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I have a feeling cecole 3
can't hear you back there.
Can you hold it a little closer?
4f MR. DIRCKS:
Jack will lay out the basic briefing I
I 5
program for the day.
Pat Cemella will handle the details of l
6 the presentation and will compare it with the previous general 7!
statement of policy that you already had last year.
I do want 8!
to say that this has been an example of a joint effort on the j
i 9
part of both Standards and NMSS.
I think it worked out, it 10 just worked out very well from our standpoint, the two staffs t
l Il !
a'nd Research working very well in this endeavor.
12 '
Jack?
i I3 !
MR. MARTIN:
Can I have the first slide, please?
Id (Slide.)
i 15 MR. MARTIN:
Can I have the next one, please?
l 16 (Slide.)
l l
17 l MR. MARTIN:
This is an outline of what we hope to I
i 13 ) cover today.
We would like to review the general starement j
i I9 l of policy briefly that was issued last November for public l
i 20 l comment.
We would like to review the state and public ccaments i
i 21 l received on it, and then move to a comparison of the proposed 22 l rule before you with the general statement of policy and move l
i 23 l through that fairly quickly, and then get to the provisions l
i l
l of the procedure, followed by some discussion of costs and 24 sa.;were 9.mmn. ine.
25 l multiple-site characterization issues.
1461 005 I
i
.. te' 3 5
1 (At 10:40 a.m., Commissioner Bradford left the room.)
l l
2l MR. MARTIN:
I will turn the first two or three i
i 1
3' topics over to Pat Comell review with you briefly, and l
4l then we can proceed with points four and five.
i 5l MS. COMELLA:
May I have the next slide,'please?
l 6-(Slide.)
i 7!
I am going to very quickly review certain highlights 8
of the proposed general statement of policy and go over with 9!
you certain of the comments which we received that influenced l
10,
our thinking in terms of the evolution from the proposed policy 6
11 to the rule as it is presently drafted.
i 12 As you will recall, there was a multi-sti.ge licensingj 13 approach that was put forth in the general statement of policy.
14 In the first stage, NRC would informally advise DOE on site l
i 15 ;
suitability after DOE had selected its site.
It was based on 16,
considerations that the integrity of the site is an essential i
17; conponent to achieving containment of the wastes for the long 1
IS I periods of time required.
19 Secondly, there would be a formal licensing process 20 l that woul/. cegin with the filing of the application for it, i
21 for the licensing by DOE.
Prior to construction of the i
22 i repository's main shaft, the.2 would be an opportunity for a l
23l hearing.
The information on site suitability, repository l
t design features, would be specified as part of the application, I 24 '
co Federal Reporters, leic.
25 and the ER would be submitted by DCE.
1461 006 i
i
mte 4 6
l I
Construction could be authorized after a finding 2!
of reasonable assurance that the types and amounts of wastes t
3 could be stored in the design outli.ned in the application.
l l
4 Third, prior to receipt of the wastes, DOE would 5
file an updated ap;1ication Tnd the Commission would review I
6!
it in the light of any new information.
And again, receipt 7
of wastes would be authorized if a finding that possession S
and use of the material at the repository would not constitute i
9 an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety.
I I
10 i
(At 10:42 a.m., Ccamissioner Bradford returned to thei 11 1 room.)
i i
17 :
MS. CCMELLA:
They would be required to changc.either' l
the repository waste levels that were originally specified or l
I3 l-14 I
to commit the waste irretrievably, if retrievability were a condition on the original license.
l 15 i i
16
- And lastly, prior to repository closure, NRC would i
17i review an update of application before the repository could 18 '
be closed.
There was provision for early and continuing i
i 19 state and public involvement.
There was notification of the i
20 i l
public and states whenever DOE submitted its license applica-21 ';
tion or requested a site review.
Also, letters would be sent I
22 !
to the states asking for either ccmments on particular issues 1
23 f or asking for ways in which states could participate.
l 24 'l Lastly, the preferred site, it was assumed, would ice Federal Reoorters, lec. ;
25 '
be able to be identified through surface exploration.
This i
1461 007
mte' 5 7
1 was a key point of the earlier general statement of policy.
2 A ncmber of comments were received, mainly from l
i i
3!
utilities and utility representatives, environmental groups I
i 4'
and from states.
The utilities and utility representatives l
5 generally focused on the DOE responsibilities under the 6,
Energy Reorganization Act, namely "he responsibility to develop l
7.
the waste repositories, rather than on NRC's licensing 8,
authority under that Act.
9l The environmental. groups and states supported the I
10 l objectives of extensive state and local participation, but II I they wanted greater definition of th,=.t and procedural require-12 ments; and they also wanted earlier and fuller participar1on.
l 13 j There was a good bir of discussion in the comments l
14 I that we received concerning the construction authorization 15 !
step, but the commen':ers did not criticize in any way the I
16 '
finding related to it, but rather expressed concern over the i
17 l appropriateness of having a provision of construction authori-.
l IS zation.
I9 COMMISSTONER GILINSKY :
Which finding are you 20 referring to?
21 l MS. COMELLA:
The authorization finding up there.
I 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am a little concerned 23 about -- I am maybe taking this out of turn -- about the way I
24 that is phrased.
It seems to me to have too many, quo te,
m awere aeoerm s.inc.,
25 '
" reasonable's", quote, in it:
reasonable assurance and no 1461 008 i
8 mte 6 1
unreasonable risk.
Wouldn't you want assurance or reasonable 2l assurance and no risk?
3l' COMMISSIONF.R AHEARNE:
But Pat is reviewing i
4 something that we approved and put out for public comment 5
before.
I think they are going to go through and end up 6,
saying that they are changing.
j 7;
COMMISSIONER G7LINSKY:
I am asking if that is 8,
getting retained.
i f
9li MS. COMELLA:
Yes, that is.
The construction i
10 '
authorization finding is retained in the draft rule.
It is 11 felt that that indeed was an appropriate finding to make, i
12 Perhaps you want to change the phrasing of it somewhar.
But i
13 in terms of the scope of the finding, it was deemed that that 14 was indeed appropriate to make at that point in time.
15 MR. BICKWIT:
I think it is defensible to have 16 :
" reasonable."
In ene case you are talking about state of I
17 con:1dence, state of assurance; the other case you are i
I l
18 talking about the kind of risk that you want to run.
The l
19 ;
second " reasonable" brings into the picture some degree of l
20 '
interest balancing.
The f irst "ress:rmble" doesn' t.
The first 21
" reasonable" has to do with how sure are you.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If you drop the first one, I
23 then it is absolute assurance.
If you drop the second one, 24 then --
Ace-Federsi Remrters, Inc.
25 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And then you could say "high" 1
1461 009 i
mte 7 9
1 1
instead of " reasonable" in the first one.
I I
2'l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is a definition that i
I i
3i what is reasonable is hig l
I l
4 MS. COMELLA:
The way I would summarize the comments 5
was a concern that you need to go down to the depth of the 6!
repository.
I am not using words necessarily that were in 7
the comments, but trying to capture the sense of it.
If you a
know that you need that, you know that the information that i
9) you need to have to submit with the construction authorization i
10 application, then why have that as an optional step?
Based 11l upon this --
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before you get to that, f
l 13 l could you review again -- I wasn't clear on what the utilities '
14 ccmments were.
I am sort of surprised, I ga ss, that the i
15 :
utilities even felt that this was a significant issue for 16 them to be commenting on, rather than hurry up and get on with I
17l it.
}
t IS MS. COMELLA:
If I read their comments correctly, I i
19 i sensed a concern that NRC would be introducing a licensing I
1 20 step,.that they felt an additional licensing step concerning i
21 l the provisional construction authorization that would really l
22 '
be in a way umvressury, in the sense that you have to develop j
i 23 !
this information, so why have them tender an application, i
l 24 l review it, and then say, come back, and say, no, there is not W.FMeral Rnorters, Inc.,
25 l enough information.
I46l 010 l
y l
l
mte 8 10 1
I think there was a sense, let's get on with the 2
solution of the problem.
l I
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Okay.
I i
l 4
(Slide.)
5 MS. COMELLA:
Based upon, I think, very thoughtful 6
consideration of the comments received, coupled with further 7
discussions with members of the technical community, parti-8 cularly those in the earth sciences area, a number of things were either retained in the present procedural rule or changed.I 9
i 10 l First, the multi-stage licensing approach was retained, although i
II !
there is a change in the sense that, although NRC is still 12 informally involved during the site characterization phase i
13 l of the repository development, it is not a mandatory role that l
14 i
NRC will have.
i i
15 '
The other formal decision points are retained.
j l
16 In terms of state:;and public involvement, there is I
1 17 '
much greater roles under the proposed rule.
There is the 13 opportunity for state and lo-al governments to become involved I
i 19 in the site characterization phase, nd for extensive public j
20 participation during that point.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Will either you or Jack 22 go into that later in detail?
23 MS. COMELLA:
Yes.
l l
24 In terms of the construction authorization finding, Ate.Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 that is retained.
It is the same under both the general 1461 011 i
11 j
mte' 9 1
utatement of policy and the draft, the procedural rule.
In i
2l terms of site exploration, the sta.1 believes that exploration i i
3l and in situ testing at the depth of the repository will 4
probably be necessary, and therefore allows the site charac-5 terization program to include that sort of exploration.
6 Furthermore, the -taff believes that that extensive explora-7, tion will be necessary in order to choose the preferred site 8'
from among the alternatives.
I would say that is a significent I
i 9l new development in terms of the evolution of this rule.
1 10 i (Slide. )
11 I would like to now get into the licensing approach r
12 !
the site characterization phase.
As soon as possible adter 13 the commencement of planning for a geologic repository opera-14 tions area and prior to site characterization, COE will submit 15 a site characterization report that will describe the sites 16,
to be characterized, how the sites will be characterized, the I
17i criteria to arrive in identifying those sites that will be I
13 '
characterized, and thc means used to involve the state and 19 local and public in the site selection process.
20,
Also, they will identif;* the alternative media and 21 sites to characterize, as well as any other issues that COE i
22 might request NRC to review.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are we going to be placing 24 l requirements on them) for example, how they must involve the i
sase.rai neoorms. ine. l t
I 25 '
lpublic?
1461 012 i
i
12 mte 10 1
MS. COMELLA:
We are not, to my knowledge, at this 2l point in time going to place require.ents on them, because m
1 3!
really, that is part of their programmatic activity, although l
the NRC is very anxious to encourage the proper kind of parti-l 4
l f
5-cipation, and that is why that discussion would be requested 6'
as part of the site charccterization report.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When is the site character-7 1 i
I 8;
ization report actually expected?
How much work will DOE have l
9l done in putting that report together?
i 10 l MS. COMELLA:
They would have gone through some 11 sort of screening program in order to identify the s tes which d
12 they would wish to characterize.
l e
13 l MR. DIRCKS: 'This would come a'c a very important I
1 i
point.
Now they have narrowed down the sites to probably the 14 l-five sites, any one of which could qualify as a repository.
l 16 So -- technically there should be enough justification that i
17!
from the surface, at least, they could move on any five.
13 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is just surface at this 19 stage?
20 MR. DIRCKS:
Right, at this stage.
And institu-i
'l 21 l tionally, they have cleared themselves with state and public l
I 22 l involvement, and this would be described in the characteriza-l l
23 tion.
24 i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :
Do we have a rough outline 1
w.e.i n.-,.
25 j of just what we are talking abouu?
We keep using words like, 1461 013
mte 11 13 1
well, this would be, and this could be, this will be.
What are I
2 we talking about in actual time frame?
3 MR. DIRCKS:
The time it will take?
i 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Today being zero, at what 5
point in time are these various steps presumed to have taken 6
place?
7, MR. MARTIN:
They are talking about having two l
8j sites ready for detailed characterization in fiscal '82.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Characterization completed 10 l o r --
i 18 MR. MARTIN:
Where they are ready to sa7 that these l
12 two sites are worth pursuing seriously;
'82.
Two in '82, a 13 third in '83, and the remainder there is some question.
I 14 guess it is not clear to us just how the last two or three 15 stand.
There is a bit of a question as to hot; far those cou.d 16 ;
be pulled forward if there is a real serious effort to do it.
17 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You would expect that the 18 '
earliest they could come in with a site characterization would 19 then be in '83?
20 MR. MARTIN:
'82, two in '82.
21 COMMILSIONER AHEARNE:
I know, but I thought you 22 said at an earlier stage -- I thought Bill said four or five 23 sites, they would come in with four or five sites?
24 MR. DIRCKS:
The regulation is three to five.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But you are saying four to l461 014
I 14 mte 12 1
1 five.
Then the earliest they can come in with the four to I
2 five is
'83.
3 MR. DIRCKS:
We will not require the.m to gather all 1
i 4
five together in one basket and then come in with five.
When 5
they get ready to start characterizing the sites --
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The earliest they could have 7
completed that site characterization report would be af ter 8
'83?
e-1 9
MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
10 11 l461 015 32 i
13 14 15 i
16 l l
17!
IS 19 20 l 21 22 l
23 l
24 Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 ;
I l
i I
i l
15 l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What will be the nature of
- r. 8356 1
our involvement in their processes between now and then?
1s-1 2
l MR. DIRCKS:
Very much, I guess, along the path 3'
of where the involvement has been up to now it will intensify 4
as they get closer to nominating a site for characterization.
5 Then it will be pretty intense during the whole characterization 6
7 program.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you intend to have them 8
submit a site screening plan of some type?
9 10 MR. DIRCKS:
No, we did not.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me ask a little bit more about what happens if you have any reason to feel that 12 13 their program is in some way going astray.
14 MR. DIRCK^,:
We tre kept informed of where they 15 are going in their program.
We participate in the Earth 16 Sciences Technical Planning Committee.
We have frequent 17 meetings with them.
The Earth Sciences Technical Planning 18 Committee is a group of agencies designated to sit as a 19 screening group for this activity.
Recommendations and 20 comments are freely given so we are informed.
The Department 21 of Interior is informed and several other agencies are 22 informed and comments and exchanges take place during this 23 sort of gross screening activity.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As far as any formal m49deral Recorters, Inc.
25 requirement on how to go about screening the sites, you have i461 016
16 s-2 not intended to --
MR. DIRCKS:
No.
As the applicant it is their 2
bligation to come up with some sites.
3 MS. COMELLA:
Of course the information requirements that they would need to submit and describe in their 5
site characterization report will be developed as well as the criteria by which the NRC staff will evaluate.the information 7
submission. So, in that sense guidance will be provided.
g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does it mean when you 9
say three to five sites?
Does that mean, in effect, that you 10 are requiring three?
i j ;I' MR. DIRCKS:
We are requiring a minimum of three.
12 They can go up to five, and it is not only science but differen:
13 media.
ja COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
They can go up to as many 15 as they want so it is really three or more.
16 MR. MARTIN:
We prefer more than three for the first j7 go-around, maybe five.
18 19 MR. DIRCKS:
From the indications, the latest indications in the IRG they are saying how many?
20 MR. MARTIN:
Four or five.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Site screening.
I had 22 thought that perhaps earlier in the summer that you had been 23 24 considering the idea of requiring the DOE to come in with some co receren necomes. Inc.
25 kind of site screening plan.
1461 017
17 1s-3 i
MR. DIRCKS:
We were considering it as a precept 2
to the characterization program.
Then we didn't pursue it 3
because that was getting too deeply into the program.
It is 4
up to that department to look at the sites.
When they get to 5
that critical point, when they get into characteriaations as 6
discussed in our regs as in the IRG, we thought at that 7
point they should explain to us what they want to do.
And we e
should explain to them.
And we would have been doing this 9
right up to this point for the guidance, specifically what 10 might be troubling us.
And once the characterization progrmm 11 begins we would be involved deeply in it with the view of 12 i why wait until construction authorization comes in here to ask 13 what can easily be expectod; hundreds of questions we would 14 have during this program.
15 MR. BICKWIT:
We couldn't find other -- where other 16 than in the preamble there was a requirement for three to five 17 sites.
We may be just missing it.
18 MR. MARTIN:
Page 33, the first -- it might not be 19 a bad idea to put it there, too.
20 MR. BICKWIT:
That relates to construction 21 authorization, not to site characterizations.
22 MR. MARTIN: I am sorry.
At the top of the page 23 wherc it says discussion of alternatives shall include safe 24 characterization data for a number of sites.
That is to be co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 required as part of the application under site characterization?
1461 018 l
18 MR. BICKWIT:
It doesn't say what number.
LS-4 1
2 MR. MARTIN:
Perhaps that same footnote there might 3
be an order.
4 MS. COMELLA:
Fine.
Picking up thcagh on the --
5 COMMT:SSIONER GRADFORD:
Before you pick up,let me be sure I understand how the site characterization plan --
6 7
at what stage of the proceedings we will be when that comes 8
in.
DOE then has a minimum of two to three more years of work 9
to do before they have any sites.
Any idea how much money is 10 involved?
11 MR. DIRCKS:
In this aspect of the program?
I don't 12 think we have -- we haven't broken that down into those 13 numbers.
We have some idea what they are doing.
It varies 14 tremendously from site to site.
Iney have to some extent
, looked at some of them on their own reservations.
They haven't 15 16 cer ainly given sny estimates of what it might cost to move 17 off and into other areas.
Jack, have we broken that cost 18 estimate down?
I don' t believe we have.
19 MR., MARTIN:
Not for the-site screening.
I am not 20 sure what amount of money they are spending on the dezen or so 21 sites they will have to screen.
I am not sure that is easy 22 to back out of their total budget.
For example, they have 23 spent like 70, 80, 90 million dollars on WPPS so far.
I hope 24 that is not -- what I am after is avoiding the NRC posture of
== F.emi a.comn, Inc.
25 first having a significant voice in projects when tens if not l
146i Ol9
19
\\
l hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent in 1s-5 1-2 narrowing the alternativas to one or two are very few.
I 3
think John was af
- the same thing with his questions on the 4
site screening plan.
I am asking you to be a little more 5
specific as to why it is a bad idea for the NRC to at least have some sort of informal comment on this site characterizaticn 6
7 process sometime between now and the two or three years from 8
now when the first". characterized si es come in.
9 MR. DIRCKS:
If you look at it in the context of 10 our proportion of costs, that is what we.were driving at with 11 the characterization program.
That is when the big dollars 12 are going to be spent when they get to that phrase.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Big being bigger than tens 14 to hundreds of millicas?
15 MR. DIRCKS:
Oh, yes.
And you screen them to do 16 some testing to do other types of work.
This is not a 17 significant commitment of funds.
It certainly wouldn't fore-18 close options.
It is when you -- it is when you get down to 19 the one site and statt digging main shaft tunnels and other 20 activities that would happen if you had only one site that 21 you were committed to and then had to back out.
That is --
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When you say it wouldn't 22 foreclose options, what assurances do you have?
For instance 24 if they came in with five sites that were of basically the same co-Focecal Reporters, Inc.
25 type and you really thought it was a different type altogether 1461 020
20 1s-6 1
that you would like to see characterized as well, aren't you 2
fairly well foreclosed at that point?
3 MR. DIRCKS:
You are narrowing it down, but 4
certaitly you haven't foreclosed the options.
We are estimating 5
the co st for a characterization program and we will get into 6
- this, The digging of a shaft at some tunnels, some in situ 7
testing at around 20 to 25 million dollars per site per 8
characterization.
Screening to get to that point over a larger 9
number of candidate sites per site would be significantly less 10 than that.
And we aren't even saying that the 20 to 25 per 11 site that investment should commit him to any one to a specific 12 I site among those five.
It is very conceivable you will do the 13
$20 million program, and it is conceivable you will do five 14 of those, but what you are ta. king about is an investment of 15 one billion to one billion and a half and the cost of one 16 single repository, that number does not 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If you are in some funda-18 mental way dissatisfied with what the characterization process 19 had laid before you as of Fif 83 or 84, and you at that 20 point have to tell DOE to go back and do some more, are you 21 then talking about another year to 18 months and another 20 22 to 25 million dollars?
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think the time is probably 24 even more significant than necessarily the money because Jack l
co Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 has already said that to even get a third site ready, this i461 02i
21 1s-7 1
characterization isn't going to be until FY '83.
Anything 2
additional may be longer than that, so you are talking two or 3
three years for a new site to be -- reach that characterization 4
level.
5 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
But we are thinking of time 6
savings of this program significantly better than if you 7
waited for a single construction authorization.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Isn't the point of getting 9
several sites characterized to reduce the probability of 10 finding yourself up a blind alley?
11 MR. DIRCKS:
We are not saying in the regs that all 12 five sites have to come across the finishing line.
It is 13 conceivable that -- and maybe probable -- that of the five 14 one or two may not just make it when you get down there and 15 view the testing and the tunneling.
You find that what you 16 thought was a good site didn't pay off when you got down there.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
One of you mentioned you had 18 hoped that when the DOE comes in they will have also done --
19 they will have done surface characterization but also will 20 have worked out the institutional questions.
Do you mean do 21 you hope that they will have reached agreement, what kind of 22 agreement would you hope that they would have reached say 23 with the state where: particular sites are located?
24 MS. COMELLA:
I didn't mean to imply that they had co Federal Reporters, Inc.
necessarily worked out the institutional arrangements, but thatl 25 1461 022
22 I
ls-8 they would have to discuss in their report what sorts of 3
working relationships they had developed with the states.
It 2
is not necessarily resulting in resolution, but hopefully it 3
would provide an impetus so that they would move forward in 4
terms of resolving those issues, 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You would have as a part of 6
this site characterization report they would have done at 7
least some bore holes; is that correct?
8 9
MR. MARTIN:
Problems like access to the site they 10 would have done preliminaries. Hopefully that would have been 11 resolved.
12 MS. COMELLA:
The site screening process by which 13 they arrived at their sites to characterize would be discussed l
14 in report two.
JS Now, -- so there would be opportunity albeit perhaps 16 a bit later than you would like to look at the adequacy of that 17 site screening process, 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is not looking at that.
19 That is, if you only look at it -- if you look at it at the 20 point when the sites themselves are already characterized 21 and you discover hhat youare dissatisfied, that you have all 22 of the problems.
23 MS. COMELLA:
Then one would have to inform the 24 DOE and indeed the site screening process was not likely to co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 result in a slate of sites that would be only the best that we 1461 023
23 1s-9 would wish to be found, but hopefully the sort of discussions j
that Bill and Jack were talking about a few minutes ago 2
that are going on right at this moment and will be continuing 3l over the next several years as well, will cause any sort of 4
flaws there to be noticed quite early.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When is the first point as 6
you understand i't now at which public comment is sought in 7
this process?
8 MS.. COMELLA:
In terms of NRC's process --
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just in general.
10 11 MS. COMELLA:
Well, DOE says that it is having discussions with the state -- with states and the public at 12 13 present.
14 MR. DIRCKS:
There is a whole series of opportunities 15 that come along.
Most likely it is highly probable that sites 16 coming up that would be followed up intensely probably are on 17 govainment land already.
Now, in order to get that land accessed to or land withdrawal proceedings begun, the Interior 18 19 Department would have the lead in getting public comment.
If 20 DOE wanted to go elsewhere, then I gather they do advance their notions to move elsewhere through some sort of public 21 22 proceeding mechanism.
The states are involved.
A year or so 23 ago'.very intensely when DOE wants to move in and do some
\\_
24 testing.
So, there is a whole series of ranges of steps by w-Federne Reporters, Inc.
25 which the public enters the proceeding.
1461 024
24 1s-10 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
For example, on the site 2
screening process, do you know whether public comment is 3
going to be sought?
4 (Chairman Hendrie enters the hearing room at 11:11 5
a.m. o' clock.)
6 MR. MARTIN:
The state's technical plan, they have done that on one round of comments and they intend on getting 7
8 more as you move more specifically.
I think they will rely 9
on those sorts of mechanisms when they get down to screening, 10 let's say several thousand mile areas, down to several hundred 11 mile areas, and I think that there would be probably more of f
12 that involvement.
And we do not, as part of the characterization l
l 13 work, which is down to a few square miles, we would expect to h've public meetings on their proposal before we acted.
14 a
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why would we do that?
16 MS. COMELLA:
I mentioned earlier that some of the 17 comments that had been received on the general statement of 18 policy asked for earlier public participation and earlier 19 participation by the_ states in NRC's process.
And after 20 reflecting upon that we decided that it was appropriate to 21 during the NRC's review of the site characterization report 22 to inform the public and the states as soon as that report was 23 received.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Wouldn't the public in the WFederal Reporters, Inc. l 25 '
states have participated during the preparation of that report?
l I46i 025
25 1s-ll MS. COMELLA:
Possibly, not necessarily.
Their input would ha':e gertIinly been MR. DIRCKS:
2 brought into it to the extent that DOE is putting together a 3
piece of paper, a report.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are also doing an EIS.
5 MR. DIRCKS:
This is not an EIS, this is what we 6
call the site characterization report.
It is a document that 7
is going to be submitted to us that will lay out the reasons 8
why they want to go at depth at a particular site and how they 9
got to this point and what they plan on doing, their 10 11 characteri stion programs.
It is not an EIS.
We are looking I
at this document as a means of doing an EIS.
This gives us 12 13 the information --
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aren't they required to do an 15 EIS on each site they propose for licensing?
16 MR. DIRCKS:
Not at this point.
17 MR. MARTIN:
They are not proposing it yet for 18 licensing.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But whatever site they do 20 propose for licensing they have to do an EIS.
How many EIS's 21 are we going to have?
22 MR. DIRCKS:
We wculd hope that we would do one.
23 I don't know the provisions guide.
24 MR CUNNINGEAM:
They may do a series complimenting e Federse Reporters, Inc.
25 EIS's.
But when they come forward with a specific licensing i461 02:
26 Ils-12 proposal the probability is that they will do a separate EIS on that proposal.
2 MR.'DIRCKS:
That's when they get down to the one 3
of the five they say, okay, of these five this is it.
They use the information that they have gathered from this 5
characterization program to do that EIS.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You do not see them being 7
required to do an EIS for this site characterization?
8 MR. DIRCKS:
Not in our terms.
We won't require it.
9 MR. MARTIN:
The whole purpose is to gather the 10 basic information one would need to do an EIS.
ij MR. DIRCKS:
It would defeat the purpose to do an 12 EIS in rder to do an EIS.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me ask the question ja you though'c I was asking before and Jack may have answered.
15 What is the first point of which the NRC then solicits public 16 17 comment?
MS. COMELLA:
As soon as NRC receives DOE's site 18 characterization report it would publish a note in the Federal 19 Register as to its availability.
It would notify the states 20 that the governor of the state in which the site was located 21 22 plus multiple officials, local officials and the governors of 23 states.
We would expect to hold public meetings in the vicinity of the site and to take comment in preparation of 24 a Feeerai Recomrs, Inc. '
25 staff analysis of DOE's rersrt.
We would also expect to seek 1461 027
27 1s-13 1
public com: rent on the staff's analysis itself.
And these companies would be considered in developing a final opinion by 2
the Director of NMSS as to his position with respect to DOE's 3
4 site characterization plans.
nd t-2 5
6 7
8 9l 1461 028 10 11 1
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2
es Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
28
- r. 8356 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You see two rounds of the 1
115-1 2
public comments?
3 MS. COMELLA:
Yes, with public meetings being held 4
both.to inform the public as to what is going on --
5 MR. DIRCKS:
The first round would be this site 6
characterization report.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand that.
I am 8
trying to -- the next question I want to ask --
9 MR. DIRCKS:
That is the characterization.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand you have a 11 characterization report or series of them as it sounds like 12 you are holding rounds of public meetings.
Clearly you aren't going to issue your advice or your position until you have 13 got -- if you have told them that they are going to need five 14 15 sites.
16 MR. DIRCKS:
We're not.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, you will go ahead with 18 site by site?
19 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I see.
So, if they only come 21 in with one site you will review that and get their advice 22 on that one site?
23 MS. COMELLA:
Yes, because they would be 24 identifying a process.
They would be identifying in that firsy co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
I report the process which they would be arriving at at 'he othez 25 1461 029
29 1s-2 i
sites so that one would be --
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What is this year's approxi-3 mate estimate if the -- if they came in in '82 with respect 4
to those two sites that you would ce able to go through all 5
of those rounds and gone back on those two?
6 MR. DIRCKS:
On whether they should go ahead and 7
start digging the shaft?
8 COMMISSIONEx AHEARNE:
Yes.
9 MR. DIRCKS:
I would say that we could have our 10 comments back within 60-90 days; is that right, Jack?
11 MR. MARTIN:
I think that is about how long it would 12 take us to do our thing.
I think you would have to add about 13 60 days on pither end o' that for the public comments.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You have got two rounds of 15 public comments -- they cone in with their site characterization 16 by '82.
From what Pat said you get a round of public comments 17 on their submissions, then you reach your staff advice and then 18 you get a round of public comments on your staff advice before 19 you go to DOE.
That is the description.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The first round is in parallel 21 with the staff work.
22 MR. DIRCKS:
This is similar to what we do on 23 uranium licensing.
24 When you get the thing you nctice the comments sco Federal Remrters, Inc.
25 parallel with the review.
I46l 030
30 1s-3 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your estimate is, if I 2
understood, was 60 days on either end.
So, they'll have 90 3
days.
You a re saying like seven months you would expect --
4 MR. MARTIN:
Hopefully, we should have been close 5
enough to it.
6 MR. DIECKS:
I would hope the seven months is the 7
outside.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You realize the first two 9
sites which are going to be going up for public comment is 10 you're giving approval for them to sending down the shaft for 11 the first high level waste permanent repository in the United 12 States.
And I think if you believe the public comment period 13 is going to be closable in 60 days you are wrong.
14 MR. DIRCKS:
Sure.
As we get to it we will find 15 this, but we shouldn't lose sight of the main question.
The 16 main question is the main characterization program and not 17 whether there is going to be a repository there.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, I understand.
1' MR. MARTIN: I would like to pick up one more thing 20 on what Commissioner Bradford has said.
We feel that we are 21 elose enough and will stay close enough to the screening 22 program going from large areas down to small areas that 23 certainly we saw that we were heading towards recommending some 24 sites or a suite of four or five sites that were wrong or 9-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 included the wrong makeup, we certainly wouldn't be 1461 03I
31 shy in telling you about it and we have plenty of opportunity 1s-4 1
2 to do that.
We are reluctant to make that a formal step in 3
the licensing procedure.
We just don't -ee thnt that is 4
necessary.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Pat, do you see or Jack or Bill, how would the state be involved in this -- in providing 6
7 you advice on your advice to DOE?
Is there any separate formal mechanism for the state to be informed?
8 9
MR. MARTIN: What we have done here is structured 10 and putting the role almost exactly the same thing as we put 11 in our report to Congress earlier this March that it remains 12 the same as the general policy statement, only it activates 13 earlier at the time that we would get the site characterization 14 report and it allows the state to participate really to the 15 degree it desires.
There is provision for them working with 16 us to submit a proposal on what extent they would like to 17 participate.
There is provision for us reviewing and agreeing 18 with the proposal which contemplates things like perhaps doing 19 part of the reviewing cooperation with them, interpersonnel 20 transfers, mechanisms of that sort that we could work out with 21 them to whatever degree they would think they desired.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you, to use a word that 23 is in vogue, the state concurs on -- before you giving DOE 24 approval to go ahead with their further work at the site?
sco Federal Reporters, inc.
25 MR. MARTIK:
We aren't giving an approval, we are i461 032
32 l
giving an opinion as to whether the program they propose is 1s-5 j
complete, is worthwhile and will yield the sort of information 2
that they need.
3 MR. DIRCKS:
That is important.
This is not 4
approval or disapproval.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They could go ahead and dig 6
their shaft even if you didn't say anything.
7 MR. DIRCKS:
Right.
I don't see it happening.
They 8
could just ignore whatever we say, but we will see them again 9
at the construction authorization point.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Certainly you are really 11 giving them advice on what steps you believe they should 12 follow if they really hope.o get a construction authorization.
13 MR. DIRCKS:
Well, we think the question should be ja 15 answered.
And whatever questions we have we prefer to have it done now than at the construction authorizatian point.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There is no step down in thag 17 18 process.
The question then of a state concurrence is not really relevant in that -- at least as far as our side of the 19 20 process.
MR. DIRCKS:
Yes, this is another step that DOE has 21 taken to get to submission of the construction authorization 22 23 request.
24 MR. MARTIN:
The whole thrust is to promote data co-Federal Reporwrs, Inc.
gathering, not trying to come to conclusions prem,aturely, and 25 i461 033
33 sis-6 we just don't have the information to conclude the questioning.
MS. COMELLA:
On the next step it would be the 2
submission of the application for the construction authorization 3
and we would anticipate that in reaching its finding the 4
Commission would hold a hearing on the application.
The 5
applicati n w uld consist of general information and in SAR 6
as well as -- and that ER would accomplish the app'lication.
7 The application would describe detailed site specific g
information.
It would tell the kinds and quantities of 9
wastes that would be received, possessed, stores, disposed of 10 11 at the site.
It will provide design information, construction 12 procedures.
It would address the subject of decommissioning.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You say that you have 13 reviewed the characterizations as they come in one at a time.
14 If the first one turned out to be -- let me ask it this way:
15 Would you expect to wait until you had seen them all before 16 17 making a decision or might you decide that the first one was in satisfactory?
19 MR. MARTIN:
The way it is written we will not act on a construction authorization until we see them all.
20 MR. GILINSKY:
That is the meaning of the minimum 2j 22 three.
23 MR. MARTIM:
That is right.
I 24 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's distinguish that, because
.ceJederal Reporters, Inc.
25 you said site characterization, which is different.
1461 034
34 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which is different?
sis -7 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I understand they will 2
3 review the characterization, but the ques tion is will they 4
then consider --
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Suppose tney have just one?
6 MR. MARTIN:
You just wind up, perhaps, with some 7
sites having more test time on them than others.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But the site characterization 9
is the previous step.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Right.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They were, as I understood 12 it, they did envision giving approval after they finished each 13 site characterization review, but that isn't formal approval 14 and that enables them -- that essentially is the advice.
- Yes, 15 we think it is appropriate for you to go out and now drill i
i 16 that first shaft and do soma horizontal testing there.
But it 17 is to develop the information that would be needed to come 18 in for the construction authorization.
19 MR.'DIRCKS:
I understand your question, though.
Will we require each of the five to be characterized up to the 20 21 same limit of characterization before we give them -- before 22 DOE can submit a construction authorization?
The answer to 23 that is no.
I think we are going to have varying sites I think what 24 subjected to varying degrees of characterization.
c 4.eers a.comn, inc.
we are looking for is at what point can we first of all the 25 1461 035
35 information we would like to have in a construction authoriza-1s-8 tion application and two, at what point can we come up with 2
Some Conclusions about one side versus another side.
I don't think you have to come across the finishing line with all five 4
sites before you allow a construction authorization.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you think you would have to drill and put the shaft down in all five sites?
7 nk dat WG WaQ be 8
required.
There are so many unknowns on the surface.
We 9
learned some lessons in the past eight years.
What is on the 10 top does not always pan out below.
- j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY
Is the presumption that there 12 w uld only be one site that will ultimately be approved or is l
13 it possible that all five sites would be approved?
ja MR. MARTIN:
Hopefully all five will work out.
We 15 certainly wouldn't approach them as throw-aways.,
g COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You're not choosing the best 77 am ng all acceptable ones, 18 MR. MARTIN:
No.
j9 MR. DIRCKS:
Scme may not be used.
They may not 20 need all.
The point is that you have made known a revocable 21 requirement to do this.
22 1
COMMISSIONER AIIEARNE:
That is an important point.
23 Your approach is not to choose to sa,' of this set, here is the 24
.ce Federal Recorters, Inc.
best and that is the only acceptable.
You did have in mind 25 l
1461 036
36 somehow having an acceptable threshold in a site above th'at 1s-9 i
2 is now acceptable.
3 MR. MARTIN:
Undoubtedly when it comes to balancing 4
a lot of subjective f actors other than just strictly safety, 5
some will look more attractive than others.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is not for us to decide; 7
is that true?
8!
MR. MARTIN:
True.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How long do you expect it 10 will take between the point in all of the -- I guess I am not 11 sure what it starts with -- when do you expect that DOE will 12 be ready to come in with their request for construction 13 authorization?
14 MR. MARTIN:
I think that is a bit fuzzy being that 15 it is not yet clear to me. what they can do to pull back their 16 last couple.
I don't think they have really faced up to that 17 yet as to how far you can pull back the last two sites.
We do 18 not contemplate -- one arrangement is that we do not contemplate 19 all five having to be completed -- and fully accepted a can le of the last ones could le done 20 applications.
So, e
21 in parallel.
I would imagine --
22 MR. DIRCKS:
I think also what needs to be 23 discussed here is what we require as a characterization effort 24 and what DOE might have in its mind as a characterization co Federes Aecorters, tre.
25 effort.
We are talking about a limited bare bones work going 1461 037
37 1s-10 1
down at depth and doing some limited work.
We are not talking 2
about developing the skeleton of a repository down there.
I 3
think when they sor= times ta~t
.]"t the length of time it may 4
take them to get to the su t two of their range of five they a pretty shaft with lots of S
are talking 2 bout ivin e
s 6
options, optional equipment.
We are talking about a pretty 7
stripped down model.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But let's say that they just 9
-- obviously one of the great uncertainties is the additional 10 two, but let's just focus "pon the first three which you say 11 ther ought to be able to come in for their site c'haracterization 12 in FY '83.
It takes you seven months to review, so that is
(
13 in FY '84.
When would you expect them to be able to come in 14 with a license application, construction authorization 15 application based on those first three?
16 MR. MARTIN:
Within three years of the characteriza-17 tion start, probably less than that.
But certainly three years 18 would be ample.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So scmewhere in FY '87, 20 MR. MARTIN:
I say three years because we did visit 21 a test facility of about the right size and shape and composi-22 tion.
They had the whole thing built in less than a year which 23 included moving the drill bit for four months.
Our feeling is, 24 though, that that is not really time necessarily added in os-Federes Reporters, Inc.
25 series, because the degree to which you can resolve the issues 1461 038
38 1s-ll i
that are likely to come up in a hearing that we start on 2
the previous basis with a lot of vague loose ends, that may 3l well wind up with no loss in time.
4 MR. DIRCKS:
So, the amount of staff time that is 5
required to review the application --
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am not talking about time 7
lost.
8 MR. DIRCKS:
But one doesn't end and the other 9
begins.
There is a lot of parallel work going on.
When they 10 are doing a characterization program, they are in effect 11 writing their application for a construction application and we i
12 !
are in effect reviewing such application, i
13 COK4ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, but Jack has given an 14 estimate of roughly three years.
So, it still ends up being 15 roughly FY '87 that you would expect.
That would be the earliest l
16 that they could ccme in with their application.
17 MR. MARTIN:
That's right.
And that --
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And that is when we would go 19 to public hearing?
20 MS. COMELLA:
That is when we would expect to go, yes.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That would be a construction 72 permit type?
23 MR. MARTIN:
The review time, and that point would 24 be a year to a year and a half, ceJaderal Rooorters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Including the hearing?
I461 039
39 I
is -1.2 1
MR. MARTIN:
No.
When you add tha hearing in there 2
I have been very unsuccessful in predicting in how long that 3
takes.
I would say a year to a year and a half of having the EIS written safety report done and ready to go to the public 4
5 proceeding.
I do believe that the numbers of issues that are left open to speculate about at that point should be relatively 6
7 quantifiable.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We would do an EIS.
They 9
would have also done an EIS; is that correct?
To come in for 10 license application as a major federal action?
11 MR. DIRCKS:
They would have to do an environmental 12 report submitting the data to us.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would they.not have to do Id an EIS?
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
If their thinking is the same as with respect to the INFCE they do envision the applicatien as 16 17 that.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Then why do we have to do 19 another one?
20 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The major Federal action is 21 different....It:is more than just a question of labels.
That 22 perspective is different.
There has to be a hard look at their,
}
It is not at all 23 application and the alternatives thereto.
clear that we can preserve our regulatory independence and 24 co-Federal Mooorters, Inc.
There parM.cipate in a joint statement all the way through.
25 1461 040
40 would undoubtedly be areas of overlap in which we could accept 1s-13 i
2 as given their data on certain parts of it.
I 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You would see the possibility 4
of using certain amounts of their EIS?
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Like how much?
A major 6
portion?
7 MR. MARTIN:
I would think almost all of the data.
8 We would not anticipate -- that is one of the reasons for being 9
involved in this earlier so that we wouldn't be out independ-10 ently developing data and alternatives, all of the tough issues
'll that come up at the EIS, like alternatives and that sort of 12 thing we would have been involved in from the very beginning.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The year or year and a half 14 the EIS and then the hearings, they are -- they would be 15 tied somewhat to your getting at least some additional 16 informatior. on those other t.io sites; wouldn't the~y?
cnd t-3 17
'8 1461 041 19 20 21 22 23 24 Co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
CR 8356 41 WHITLOCK t-4 mte 1 i
MS. COMELLA:
Yes, site characterization would be 2
proceeding during that time.
So one could reasonably expect 3
that there would be further information on those other sites 4
available.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have in mind requiring 6
that before -- before going to a hearing, that the DOE have 7
come in with their remaining information?
8 MR. DIRCKS:
They have to have enough 21 their 9
application to show us how they got to this alternative 10 versus some other alternative.
Il COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So if I understand it 12 correctly, you are going to require them to have gone beyond i
13 those three sites?
14 MR. DIRCKS:
We require a minimum of three.
I 15 don't know how much further they will be forced to go beyond 16 the three.
17 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
A final coment on that.
My IS understanding is, at least from reading the newspaper, that 19 Senator Hart was introducing a bill today which would mandate 20 action on our part if the license application was not 21 received by FY '85.
22 MR. DIRCKS:
Was it received or approved?
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Approved.
24 MR. DIRCKS:
1985.
The newspaper said no construc-co Feceral Reporters, Inc.
25 tion permits after '85.
l4fl Qd}
mte' 2 42 1
COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
Unless an application were 2;
approved.
3li MR. DIRCKS:
1992 if --
l 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
1992 if the facility is in 5
operation.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Right.
I 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The earliest that you could 8j get approval is around 1989.
I 9'
MR. DIRCKS:
Well, I think that is why -- a couple 10
'of points.
I think it would be good if we could get the --
11 '
if the Commission goes with this approach, to get it out, 12 l so that the Committee, the Congress, would know what we are 13 doing.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am sure Congress knows, but --
15 (Simultaneous discussion.)
16 MR. DIRCKS:
The terminology might be helpful, too, 17 when we talk about the characterization program.
I think that is is a major step that might influence the thoughts in the 19 legislation.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On this business of 21 accepting basically the data as filed by the applicant, what 22 will be the extent of your ability, as this project goes 23 along, to do independent research if you feel it is necessary?
24 MR. DIRCKS:
That is the intent.
First of all, co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 during the whole characterization program, we would be 1461 043
43 mte 3 1
directly involved.
We would be observing on the scene, 2
giving them questions to answer where we thought there was i
3 !
need, during this whole characterization program.
We would i
4i be -- the whole agency would be involved in honing up the 5
research requirements, the technical assistance requirements, 6,
to. independently verify what we think needs to be verified.
7 MR. MARTIN:
This is a subject I am going to get 8
into in some detail during Wednesday's briefing.
It is a 9
process that has to start now of taking the various DOE i
10 l research programs as they are formulating them today and Il making sure that they are conceived and directed in such a 12 sense that they will yield the kinds of information we are 13 going to need in the late '80s; at the same time making Id conscious decisions now as to which pieces of those -- which 15 types of tests, which sort of research we should do indepen-1 16 dently, because of a variety of reasons:
that their work is 17 too fraught with judgment, or it is hard to check, or that 18 we should do some similar work to have a body of expertise 19 here internally.
20 This is something we are very much eigaged in now, 21 to make sure that it does come out right, and not wait until 22 then to sift through what they are doing.
I think in our 23
' 81 budget submission we contemplate actually having personnel 24 in the field observing the site characterization program as Ace. Federal Recorters, Inc.
25 it unfolds.
1461 044
mte'4 44 1
I think we recognized from the very beginning that 2
the vast majority of information developed in these programs l
l i
3 will have to be developed by them, not by us.
Therefore, j
4 it is incumbent upon us to make sure that it is conceived 5
and executed in a way that we can use it, and not get into a 6
big hassle at the hearing as to whether it is legitimate 7
information.
8l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is the vehicle through i
9l which you could express misgivings in the next year or two I
i 10 if you thought you were headed for a problem later on?
Il l!
MR. MARTIN:
Well, I guess the most direct way is 12 :
to write them a letter and say, I am concerned that --
13 MR. DIRCKS:
And that hat been happening.
We have 14 been writing them letters.
We.have alerted them to certain 15,
ways they want to go -- here we have alerted them to the 16 l thinking, the thoughts that we have been expressing on waste i
17 form characterization.
And they have been picking it up.
We IS I have seen changes in their budget propocals that reflect the 19 thoughts on-waste form.
20 Waste form certainly will be discussed when we get 21 to the technical criteria, when we are coming up with the 22 waste form requirements.
They already have the benefit of 23 these thoughts, i
24 We meet with them in the Earth Sciences Technical Acs Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 -
plan Committee, and there is a cross-current of thoughts, not 1461 OL5
mte'5 45 1
only our agency but DOI is going in, because the USGS is very 2
much involved in this whole program.
It is not only direct, i
l 3
but indirectly through these inter-agency groups.
4 CGMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me ask a personally 5
embarrassing question:
Does the Commission get copies of 6
those letters?
7 MR. DIRCKS:
Sure.
8 MR. MARTIN:
This came up last time I was here and 9' we sent you copies of everything in case we hadn't the first 10 time.
I hope you do.
11 MS. COMELLA:
The next step would occur when the l
12 construction is subatantially complete and DOE ccmes in with i
13 an update of its application, in order to request a license 14 then to receive and possess wastes.
If NRC, if the Commission 15 finds that there is no unreasonable risk to the public health 16 '
and safety following a review of the updated information and 17 considering how closely the construction conformed with the 13 design as proposed, then a license could be granted.
19 We anticipate, again, the hearing would probably 20 occur at this point.
There would be two further steps.
One 21 would be when the repository has been essentially filled, wasre 22 emplacement complete, and there would be an amendment to the 23 license to permit decommissioning.
24 And again, once decommissioning had been satisf ac-i
{
AO.FWwsl Reorun, lm.
25 torily completed, DOE could request termination of the license.'
1461 046
mte 6 46 I
(At 11:45 a.m., Commissioner Bradford left the room.)
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Changing the license or to 3
a different status?
Is it necessarily clear at the moment i
4 that we would --
5 MS. COMELLA:
Return it?
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
7 MR. MARTIN:
They could apply for termination or 8
propose a lingering monitor program.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand that the bands 10 of uncertainty keep going out when you reach this.
But what 11 is your estimate of the possible -- assuming that the proce-12 l dures work and that there are no fundamental flaws that develop) 13 that would mean -- the answer would be that there would never I4 be the empla ement if there is fundamental flaws.
But assuming 15 that there aren't those, what is your range of when you think 16 the first facility could be operating?
l 17 MR. MARTIN:
Well, when a test facility shades into 18 an operating facility, I guess, is a question of perception.
l 19 It would seem that it could operate on a limited basis pretty 20 quickly after approval to construct.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They need a license.
22
'IR. MARTIN :
That's what I say.
Within -- if one 23 were to build the entire facility, I think DOE has estimated l
24 on the order of four to seven years to build on the median.
co-Foce;si Reporters, Inc.
25 But that conceives or contemplated mining out the entire 1461 047 l
47 mte'7 1
2,000 acres, which I am not clear they are planning on doing 2
that any more.
That was in the GEIS.
I think current j
l 3lopinionisperhapsnotdoingthat, because of the enormous problems with storing all of the spoils on the surface 4
5 somewhere.
6 I would imagine in the order of four years, perhaps.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To construct and get the 8
license, or to construct?
9 MR. DIRCKS:
Construct and emplace wastes.
10 MR. MARTIN:
I would say to construct, and at some Il point during the end of the construction that would be done 12 I in parallel.
I would think that would be a rather perfunctory --
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have in your mind an 14 earlier stage?
In other words, no earlier than 19 -- fill in 15 the number (Demonstrating)?
16 MR. MARTIN:
I am thinking four years or so after 17 construction.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But you don' t have in your 19 mind some --
20 '
MR. DIRCKS:
We have kicked around the date of 1992, 21 something in that area, 1992,
'3, or
'4.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would be the earliest 23 operating?
24 MR. DIRCKS:
That wastes could get down into it.
Acs Federat Reporters, Inc.
2$
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Does that mean that they i
1461 048
48 ate *8 1
would continue mining operations while they were filling the 2
repository?
3 MR. MARTIN:
That is unsettled right now, what is 4
the right way to do it.
There are two schools of thought.
5 One is to mine the whole thing out so that you know what you 6
have and you don't wind up emplacing 60 percent and find out 7
there is a fatal flaw.
8 The other thought is to mine as you go, so that you 9
can just shuffle the material around in the mine and not take 10 it up to the surface again.
Now, which one of those is the 11]
right way to do it is not clear to me at this point.
I think i
I 12 that is still being debated internally.
13 MS. COMELLA:
Well, that finishes the basic part 14 in terms of discussion of the procedural aspects.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
A question.
The license 16 ! that you envision them getting, which I guess is corresponding 17 to an operating license, they can now operate the facility, IS do you see that as a permanent operating license or is it a 19 provisional operating license, in which they put in wastes for 20 a couple of years and then, based upon what has happened in 21 that couple of years, they get a permanent license?
22 M.<..
MARTIN:
The way it is written, I think it is 23 a; permanent license.
24 MS. COMELLA:
It is a permanent license.
We can AceJecersi Reporters, Inc.
25 get into the costs of exploration now.
That seems to have 1461 049
mte'9 49 1
been a point where there have been recurring questions, and 2
Jack, do you want to take over there?
3, MR. MARTIN:
Well, I think we just very briefly, I l
4 think we have covered -- could I have the next slide?
5 (Slide.)
6 We have covered most of this business.
Basically, f7j our costs were derived largely from DOE sources.
The scope i
8 ll;of the testing that we would like to see done was contained 9
primarily in the National Academy report referenced there, t
i 10 I as well as extensive discussions with the USGS staff, 11 detailed review of the STRIPA project in Sweden, which is an i
12 '
excellent example of a characterizarion.
It is not a potential 13 site, but that program would be a good one.
I 14 l Our costs that we estimated, using relatively i
I 15 standard engineering data, was on the order of S12.5 million 16 ;
for the kind of limited test facility we had in mind.
And l
l l
17' we realize that some of the informat on was a bit dated, and r
iS undoubtedly yca would want to do more.
So we pumped that up 19 to $20 million or so.
20 It was interesting that when we reviewed these 21 numbers with the Bureau of Mines, they mentioned that they 22 have a test f acility that is just about what we are talking 23 about.
It is a shaft down 2400 feet, with limited excavacion 24 of rooms, and involves in oil shale recovery.
So we visited Am Foceral Reporters, Inc.
25 it at Keystone, and it is just about what we have in mind.
1461 050
I mte '10 50 1
They built the entire facility in nine months at a cost of 2
$8 million, including lining the shaft with alloy steel casing,,
3 and they plan on spending on the order of $20 to $25 million 4
by the time they are all through.
5 It is a fairly involved oil shale recovery.
The 6
costs are hard to get at at this point, because one of the 7
oil companies is participating with them and they want to --
8 they could only give us rough orders of magnitude.
9 We feel that our numbers are f airly good and they 10 l are borne out by the Bureau of Mines test.
11 DOE has given us some of their own estimates, which 12 are considerably different, in the order of $70 or $80 million.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You mean to esc. pare with your 14 20?
i5 MR. MARTIN:
Yes.
But we have looked at the details 16 l of the thing.
I guess our conclusion is that Jheir number 17 basically results in building a much more elaborate facility 18 than what we had in mind.
In fact, it appears to be getting 19 a sizeable leg up on building the r epository.
i l
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Have you discussed with DOE 21 '
these fairly significant different cost estimates?
22 MR. MARTIN:
Yes, we have discussed them to a degree.
23 We haven't come to -- for example, here is a line item.of 24
$26 million for underground development labor.
That is hundreds I
Aaseers amerms, w.
i 25 of people per year.
In this whole thing, it was done with 1461 051
51 mte'll I
half a dozen lay persons.
There is a difference in scale 2'
contemplated here.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
My impression was the difference 4
in cost estimates had to do with the difference in the scope 5
of the program and size of the facilities and so on.
I think 6
there is a certain amount of stretch back and forth between 7
what we would regard as a minimum acceptable site characteriza-8 tion f acility and what DOE might want to do.
I don't think 9
they are necessarily constrained to our minimum in situ 10 exploration thrust.
II l If they want one or another of these sites to
! expand that program, I think that is their business, and that's 12 !
13 fine.
Id MR. MARTIN:
That is a good point.
It is something 15 that will almost certainly happen.
If one has this type of 16,
test facility at the right depth and the right media, one is I7 almost certainly going to run tests that would normally be 18 done somewhere else in the facility we have.
I9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The only question would be, 20 we are -- maybe I am wrong.
I had assumed that we were saying, 21 this is the kind of information we will need, as opposed to 22 saying, we require a shaft --
23 MR. DIRCKS:
We are laying --
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We are saying, here is the Ace F9deral Reporters, Inc.
25 information we need.
So therefore the ques ion is, given l461 052 l
52 mte'12 1
that information need, whose estimace is more correct for what 2
it takes :o get the information.
e-,
3 4
5 6
7 8
y 1461 053 11 12 13 15 16 '
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace secer.: Report n. inc.
l 25
53 56 05 31
.T '3Md i
- TR. MARTI.'It That is correc t, out we want to ma ke 2
sure the signals are clear that we don't see that that 3
information will ce easy to come oy.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
R ig h t.
But to carry on with my assumption, I would assume that if they come cac'<
a a
with an exact match of the right te s t, this is the shop and I
nere are the rooms, we wouldn't say, "All rignti tnat is 3
enough for us", unle ss they information they cotained was adequate bec ause our focus is on the inf orme tion and not the la me tnod tha t t:.'y use to get the information.
11 VR. MARTIN:
Right.
12 MR. DIRCKS:
And they mey nave their own ices of 13 wha t informe tion the y need, which may De over and acove la c ur s.
15 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand that.
I want 16 to o? ctrtain that our assumption is correct that our focus i4 is on the information we need and is not necessarily on the 13 me tnod that they use.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Wnen in tais proce ss do 20 you decide what adequate protection to the public health and 21 saf ety is going to be in the context of the high level waste 22 depository?
23 MR. DIRCKS :
At the construction authorization
~
24 cecause that is when we see the full details.
The 23 characterization program is just getting us to that point.
I461 054
54 56 05 02 m-'SWH I
Naturally we will anticipate questions that will be coming 2
up with the construction authorization proceeding, out it is 3
the construction authorization proceeding at which that 4
decis ion is made.
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think there is another answer 5
to that question.
Part of the determination of what
/
constitutes adequate protection is going to be when we d
,cuolish the other half of this rule, the technical part of 9
Part 60.
It will 'oe like our Part 50.
You meet these 10 requirementsi you satisfy our requirements for demonstrating 11 adequate protection.
12 CD'4MISS IONER AHEARNE:
Since you raised that, what 13 is the status of that other pert of that?
14 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I may r ais e i t, but I can't 15 answer it.
15 MR. MARTIN:
I can't give you a real crisp answer il on tnat.
Ne have draf ted a rule of what we call a very 13 preliminary draft or straw man rule.
Me have circulated anc il got a considerable amount of comments from the ACRS, from 2]
the.<eystone Group, from DOE, industry people.
We are now 21 engaged in another revision of it.
I think it is Revision 3 22 or 9.
I anticipate going out as an advanced notice of 23 proposed rulemaking some time in January, depedent on the 24 comments we get.
25 I would then plan on some time in April.
I am a i46l 055
55 56 Od 03 SWn i
little fuzzy on this cecause my approach to tnis thing is to 2
try to consult with as many peop.le as possiole and ouila as 3
muen consensus as we can before we take a position in a 4
formal, proposed rule.
So if in a month or two we could get 5
a couple of more peer reviews and a couple of more people 6
who might not like it to like it, then, I would say some time I
late spring it would be ready to puo'lish.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is there an inexplicaole link between that and this?
In other words, does this make 13 a commitment to anything specific in that proposed rule?
11 MR. MARTIN:
No.
12 CO MMI SSI ON ER BR AD.00 RD:
That one will go out as a 13 proposed rule 7 14 MR. MARTIN:
Yes.
16 MR. DIRCK5:
That report is in the preparation of 16 an impact statement on the proposed rule.
1.
COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
Tne impact statement would 13 go ou t at tne time of the proposal?
19 MR. DIRCKS:
At the time of the proposed rule.
20 MR. MARTIN:
The draft goes out with the proposal.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is not in April.
22 MR. DIRCr5:
Yes.
23 MS. COMELLA:
That is in April.
24 COMMISSIONER AME;.RNE:
You would have the EI5 in 25 April?
I461 056
56 56 05 04 m-- 3 NH I
M5. COMELLA:
Yes.
That concluces what we were 2
going to discuss.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
G ood.
That also come s very 4
close to a time wh3n Commissioners are going to have to leave.
5 DR. GROLLER:
Relative to the ouestion as to the t ecnn ical -- to '.ne le ss extent, the procedural rule, we 3
must keep in mind that EPA is expected to come out with a 9
guida nce rele tive.to this suo ject, which will also have to 10 ce factored into these matters and which could well have --
11 require some changes in what we are doing and what our 12 thinking is.
13 The latesc informe tion we have from them is that 14 they now do not intend to publish a general criteria on the 15 suoject which they had published for interagency comment 16 before and that they are revising tneir more specific il criteria on high level waste and will be distriouting-that la f or o ther office comment in the very near future.
19 The last word I had on that, we should have had it 20 by now.
We don't.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You would expect that to 22 primarily impact on the technical rule?
23 DR. GROLLER:
Primarily, out enytning that happens 24 in the technical rule could f eedcack into this pr cedural 25 area.
It would ce a second order of e.ffect.
I remind you 146i 057
57 56 05 05 m
3 '.'lH I
that the las t thing that hacoened on this was a letter that 2
was sent to EP A, signed by the Cheirman I believe, 3
commenting on their use of the procaolistic assessment type 4
appro ach.
O COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I ask another more 6
general question?
Sort of a general question I prefer to ask in any of these meetings ?
4 5
To any extent now, does tne cre sentation re flect the s trong c onsensus f or standards in waste management?
Are 10 there any strong dissenting views?
11 MR. DIRCKS:
I asked that question the other day, 12 and I came up witn nothing in our group.
13 Jack and ?at?
Do you want to t ake it from there?
14 M5. COMELLA:
In aeveloping tae -
going through I.5 numerous drafts of the proposed rule, we dia have some 16 opinions voiced in Standards, and we worked very much with 1/
the individuels.
This resulted in some major revisions 13 earlier in the summer and, I think, vastly improved the f orm 19 of the rule.
20 At the present time, to my knowledge, the re are 21 all differing views have been resolved, and the Office of 22 Standards development.
23 MR. MARTIN:
I had the same experience.
I starteo 24 out in Janua ry with a t least 37 diff erent opinions.
Now we 25 are pretty much of a mind -- very strong suoport for this 1461 058
58 5c 05 06 m SWH I
orocosed rule.
2 CO MMISS IONER AHEARNE:
Very good.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Any otner questions.
4 (No response.)
o CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Considering tha t what we contemplate here is a publication for comment as a rule and a
4 not some irrevocaole kind of action and that it will ce S
useful to have comments if we put it out and get some views 9
that will ce informative, and if we get a general cheering 10 and p raise, that will be informative and so will all things 11 in ostween.
I am inclined to go aheaa and put it out.
I 12 know I have talked to everyone -- I haven't talked to 13 e veryone up here, out at leas t three Commissioners at the 14 table would like to go on it.
I wonder if the Commission 15 would feel it simply wanted to put it out for comment, or 16 would you pref er to file the Commissioner Action Items 17 sheets?
IS COMMISS IONER BRAD.20RD:
I woulo rather file the 19 action sheets.
I am not entirely sure that I wouldn't at 20 least propose alternative wordings in a couple of cases 21 here.
22 COMMISSIONER GARNE:
I would be prepared to go 23 f or c omment.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am prepared.
I nave 25 already signed my sheet.
1461 059
59
~6 05 07 T
SWH 1
COMMI55 I0 DER GILINSKY:
Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN HEN 0RIE:
I guess what I askec you, tnen, 3
is could you ce in a shape to ada some comments, if you 4
chose, or see you willing to go with the rest of us on a
c onne nt?
5 C) MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My position is, it would depend on how long it would take Peter to prepare tne 4
9 c omme nts.
9 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
It depends a little on 10 what Jack ha s to say on dedne sday.
He has flagged that es 11 ceing one of the areas that I am concerned with.
I think we 12 are talking aoout the beginning of ne xt week.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Could 'ie ask for a filing of
(
14 comments ano action sheets, then, by a week f rom today?
15 CO MMISSIONER SRADFORD:
Not a week from today, la just because I physically won't have the transcript of the Is Wednesday criefing in hand until a week f rom today.
I wo n' t la ce hare myself.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What's. Wednesday?
This is e 20 oriefing on research and technical assistance projects.
Can 21 you make arrangements to talk to Commissioner Bradford in 22 advance of.1ednesday?
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I am hard pre ssed.
I 24 think my schedule tomorrow, if the Commission's schedule 25 hasn't changed for tomorrow --
i461 060
60 6 05 08 3/iH I
COMMIS5IONER AHEARNE:
Some thing was canceled tnis 2
morning f rom the Commissioners' schedule.
3 MR. CHILK:
The NRR Lessons Learned.
4 CO MM I SSION ER AHEARN E:
There was a canceletion on 5
Tuesoay from the Commissioners' schedule.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You think you can fill peter 7
in?
3 MR. DIRCK5:
Certainly.
/
MR. MARTIN:
The research ceople won't ce here.
IJ MR. DIRCK5:
We will off er to update on the whole 11 criefing.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think the orie fing has to 13 stay cact wnen tne research people can get here.
Is 14 tomorrow morning --
15 MR. CHILK:
Tomorrow morning's brie fing has been 15 scratched.
le CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Does that create an aperture IS f or you to talk with Martin and company?
19 CO MMISS IONER BRAD.:0RD:
I. assume it does.
I will 20 co the oest I can.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would like to ask us to, 22 then, be able to complete action on Monday, a week from 23 today, if we please could.
24 CO MMISSIONER SRAD?ORD:
In tha t ca se, you might w ll do it today.
If I have any serious reservaticas, if 2a as e
\\
l46I 06i
61 60509 T'
3dn i
I get them circulated by sometime Monday afternoon and they 2
recuire any kind of substantial rearrangement of the pap 3r 3
and oeople are committed to acting oy five o'cloc k Moncay 4
nignt, tne result isn't going to be any ciff erent taan if it 3
is right now.
6 I am all for trying to get it out Monday, out I'm
/
Just saying if I do propose alternatives -- for example, if 3
one section ce put out in alternative form or sometning like 9
that, I would think you mignt yourselves want to hav* more IJ than an hour to tnink about that.
Il CO MMISS IONER AHEARNE:
Can you say a few words 12 a bout wha t --
13 COMMISSIONER 3 RAD.00RD:
I want to thin % some more 14 acout what is going to happen in the next couple of years, 15 whetner this informal process of back and forth le tte rs 15 cetween phone calls, meetings, what have you, be tween our 1e staff anc tne DOE staff really is the right way to launca a la program that will involve as its fi.-st formal point, moments 19 in time where pre tty substantial commitments have been made.
20 Jack had indicated what sounded to me like a 21 pretty good program in the. research area, making sure tna t 22 we would be aole to do some indepencent cross-checking.
I 23 want a cetter f eel for that and also the question that you 24 raised earlier regarding the sites ceing in process, and 25 the way that will work out.
62 56 05 10 m-Bad 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If you had some thoughts on 2
that on.'4cncay, I would be interestec in seeing those.
Tha t 3
is tne one part tnat I am un e asy acou.t -- is the length o f 4
time that goes on in a very, very informal sense.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fr an<1y --
5 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It i s mo re that we neec to I
ensure tnat the DOE is forthcoming all the way through 5
that.
I am afraid at the mome nt it could be a little bit 9
too unstructured.
10 MR. DIdCKS:
You me an the site screening.
11 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
12 MR. DIRCKS:
What they are doing today up to the 13 site characterization?
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
15 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
16 C3 MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There may not ce a cetter li mechanism.
IS MR. DIRCKS:
I don' t '.<now.
Me have go t several 19 mecnanisms to do it.
I guess my idea of what is going on 20 there would ce helpf ul.
What is happening is tnat they are 21 taking very gross areas in the country, thousanas of square 22 miles, and trying to narrow it down to hundreds of square 23 miles and tens of miles and then coming down to the si' e.
24 This gross screening, we are very much a part of 25 out only as -- not as a director out as one of the numoer of i461 063
63 56 05 11 c
Sdd I
f eceral agencies that is interestec.
2 CO MMISS IO.iER AHEARNE:
I understand that.
Ana 3
tnis may oe the only wor'< we will aporoac h.
It is just the 4
area where I have an uneasine ss.
So that we'll try to ge t a
to Pe ter tomorrow, and you will try to get us some comments 5
for Aonday.
I CO MMISS IONER BRAD.:0RD:
Yes.
3 CdAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would hope you coulo -
you 9
will have m/ vote sheet today.
I would hope the Commi ssion IJ could complete action next week.
I will be away, but I 11 woula hope Tuesday or something like that, you would be acle 12 to complete action.
I think it is desiracis to get thes?
13 things out f or c o mme n t, to ge t movino.
I think even if /ou 14 have some douots about it taat the comments stage on the la rula isn't nec essarily the place --
la COMMISS IONER BRAD.00RD:
The dif ficulty is this.
Ie If we put it out for comment in its present form and then 13 make any change that coulc os deemeo suostantial at the 19 point at which we have the comments.in hand, arguments will 20 then be made that, well, nocody commented on that proposal, 21 and i t could take an extra day or two at this point.
Rather 22 than have another round of comment at the other end, in 23 doesn't seem to me to be an unwise way to proceed.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Thank you ve ry much.
23 (Whereupon, at 11 : 12 a.m., the hearing was
\\-
1461 064
64 56 05 12 S VT-i i
adjourned.)
~
2 3
4 5
6 3
l
}
h 10
/
v 11 12 13 i4 1461 065 i,
16 1/
13 11 2J 21 24 23 24 26
l c
Do e
T PROPOSED NEW 10 CFR PART 60:
DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES IN GE0 LOGIC REPOSITORIES PROCEDURAL ASPECTS NOVEMBER 19, 1979
/
9'
7
)
b O
CD BRIEFING FROGRAM e
4 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY (GSP)
STATE /PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GSP COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROCEDURAL RULE WITH GSP PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED PROCEDURAL RULE COSTS OF EXPLORATION AND MULTI-SITE CHARACTERIZATION
co 43 o
o 4
GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY MULTI-STAGE LICENSING APPROACt!
EARLY AND CONTINUING STATE AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FINDING 0F " REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT TYPES AND AMHOUNTS OF WASTE DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION CAN BE STORED IN A REPOSITORY OF THE DESIGN PROPOSED WITHOUT UNREASONABLE RISK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC..."
RECEIPT OF WASTE FINDING 0F "... RECEIPT, FDSSESSION, AND USE...
AT THE REPOSITORY WILL NOT CONSTITUTE UNREASONABLE RISK."
PREFERRED SITE CAN BE IDENTIFIED Tll70VGH EXPLORATION FROM SURFACE.
m Do ev COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROCEDURAL RULE TO GSP MULTI-STAGE LICENSING APPROACH:
RETAINED IN PROPOSED RULE.
STATE AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
GREATER DEFINITION UNDER PROPOSED RULE.
CA FINDING:
SAME FOR BOTH.
SITE EXPLORATION:
MORE CON 4EMPLATED UNDER PP0 POSED RULE, INCLUDING EXPLORATION AND IN SITU TESTING AT DEPTH OF POTENTIAL REPOSITORY.
O N
O PROPOSED PROCEDURAL RULE:
LICENSING APPROACH v
Site Characterization Construction Authorization Waste Emplacement Decommissioning Closure
N c3 COSTS OF EXPLORATION: SOURCES SCOPE OF EXPLORATORY PROGRAM
- NAS REPORT, " IMPLEMENTATION OF LONG-TERM ENVIRONf1 ENTAL RADIATION STANDARDS:
THE DESIRE OF VERIFICATION"
- OPINIONS OF USGS STAFF IN INFORMAL MEETINGS AND IN TESTIMONY
- PESULTS OF STRIPA, SWEDEN MINE PROGRAM
- SCHLUMBERGER, LTD., PUBLICATION, " LOG INTERPRETATION OF B0REH0LE LOGGING" COSTS OF EXPLORATION AND TESTING
- DOE REPORT PREPARED BY TEKNEKRON, INC., "A COST OPTIMIZATION STUDY FOR GE0 LOGIC ISOLATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES"
- LLL WORK FOR NMSS
- $9.80 - $12.5 M:
ESTIMATE USING AB0VE SOURCES
- COMPATIBLE WITH ESTIMATE FOR BUREAU OF MINES EXPLORATORY TEST FACILITY
s-N t%
o COSTS OF EXPLORATION AT PLANNED DEPTH OF REPOSITORY-(ENCLOSURE C 0F SECY-79-580)
INCLUDES:
INCREMENTAL COST TO EXPLORE AT DEPTH LIMITED PROGRAM 0F IN SITU TESTING TO OBTAIN MEDIUM SPECIFIC DATA DOES NOT INCLUDE:
R&D COSTS EARLY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
.~
5 m
No m
MULTI-SITE CHARACTERIZATION 2I$
Preferred Site Prelude to Major Commitment Staff ViewsUnderground Exploration as Probably Necessary to Support C. A. Application for Preferred Site Selection of Preferred Site from Among Alternatives Should be Based on Comparable Information Costs of Obtaining Comparable Information Through Underground Exploration are Not Exorbitant
==
Conclusion:==
Program of Multi-Site Characterization Requirement Which May Include Underaround Exploration Reasonable
\\,
s S-
- f. f October 22, 1979 SECY-79-580 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
T;.e Ocr.s.-; u. cne a From:
R. 8. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development Thru:
Executive Director for Operations
/
Subject:
PROPOSED NEW 10 CFR PART 60, "DI 0F HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES - PROCEDURAL ASPECTS"*
Purpose:
To consider publication for public comment of that portion of a new Part 60 and related amendments to Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 51, and 70 dealing with the procedures,for licensing geologic disposal of high-level radioactive wastes.
Cateoory:
This paper involves a major policy question.
Issue:
Whether to depart from the prtiposed General Statement of Policy on licensing disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in light of com-ments received, further staff reflection on the procedures, and infor,
mation gained from studies and discussions with earth science experts.
Discussion:
In November 1978, the Commission published for comment a proposed General Statement of Policy which set forth procedures for licensing geologic repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes (HLW).
The Policy Statement called for a four-step approach -- review of DOE site selection, review of repository development, repository licensing, and repository decommissioning -- which provided for State and public involvemen:,in the licensing process beginning at the earliest stage and continuing through decommissioning of the repository.
The proposed rulemaking which is the subject of this paper generally comports with the licensing procedures described in the proposed Policy Statement.**
As with the Policy Statement, the procedures of the proposed rule are divided into four steps:
an early review prior to receipt of an appli-cation, a licensing review prior to construction, a second licensing review prior to receipt of wastes, and a final review with deccmmis-sioning.
However, as explained below, the proposed rule does depart from the specific procedures of the proposed Policy Statement with respect to the nature and extent of exploratory activities which can be 1461 074 AThis paper discusses the procedural aspec radioactive wastes.
The technical requir Proposed Rulemaking, will be presented t DUPLICATE DOCUMENT naUnder the Policy Statement and the propos epartment of Energy, itself, and not a O Entire document previously entered into system under:
No. of es:
..