ML19260B024

Transcript of Commission 791121 Briefing in Washington,Dc Re Technical Assistance Projects in Waste Mgt.Pp 1-32

ML19260B024
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/21/1979
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7912060387
Download: ML19260B024 (34)

Text

.

r-NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY OMMISSION

. ~ _..

~

~

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL

~ ASSISTANCE PROJ2 CTS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT

[

v s

~

Place Washington, D.C.

Date -Wednesday, 21 November 1979 Pages 1-32 1520 306 Telephone:

(202)347 3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,1NC.

OfficialReporters 444 North Copitol Street Washington. D.C. 20001 3

NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY 7gy.g

/

.f

1A R8394

' DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States 21 NOV. 1979 in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Wednesday, Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D.C.

The.

meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The trans;ript 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 determ. nations or beliefs.

No pleading or ctlier paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or add'ressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authori::e.

9 e

M

'dLU

)h/

i 1

i i

CR8394 I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I,

I cspl 2j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

l 3

l 4

PUBLIC MEETING 5,

BRIEFING ON RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL l

6 ASSISTANCE PROJECTS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT 7i i,

8 Roem 1130 9l 1717 H Street, N.

W.

Washington, D. C.

l 10 l l

l Wednesday, 21 November 1979 11 j The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:47 a.m.

12 I

BEFORE:

13 DR. JOSEPH M.

HENDRIE, Chairmar.

14 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner i

15 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 16 ALSO PRESENT:

17 JACK MARTIN 18 FRANK ARSENAULT 19 BILL DIRCKS 20 l

MIKE BELL l

21 DR. KIM i

22 I

23 rn o-lJiU 3'Ud I'

24 l

Faerai neporters, inc.

l 25 l

l 2

l I

I I

1h

.P _R. _O. _C_ _E_E_ _!_ _A _N_ _G. _S

d 72 2C CHARIMAN HENDRIE

Well, let us come to order.and OR 8394 3

get on with it.

The Ccemission meets th'is morning for a 4

briefing on research and technical assistance projects in the i

1 5

waste management area.

6l Jack Martin of of research, I gather, is going to -- l I

t i

7{

MR. MARTIN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The -- in l

i 8

looking back over the research budget presentation back in l

9! August, I gather that the main reason for this briefing came 1

10 l out of a bit of confusion at that point as to just what waste l

i

!, management program was; where it stood at that point.

Il 12 What we would like to cover today, both Frank and i

13 '

I, is to gove ycu a working feeling for just what we are doing, I

la in the overall waste management program; which includes NMSS i

i IS I research and standards people.

WhatIhadplannedondoingwascoveringfivetopics.!

16 l

17 On the first slide up here --

la (Slide.)

19

,-- and depending on you level of interest, we can 20 include or not include the fourth one.

I gather thct the bulk l

l 21 j of the interest is in the high levol waste. program.

l 22 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Why don't we concentrate en the

\\

i 23 1 high level waste.

I think the other -- the other one --

I I

24 MR. MARTIN:

Perhaps we can ccme back to that some s.emue newnus. nne.

25 other time.

1520 309 l

i

l 3

I i

i i

Ij CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

dsp3

'2 MR. MARTIN:

I think what I would like to do is hit a bit of the administrative part, just to start with; that the I

i 4

division -- my division was created back in December.

5 We finally got our organization management in place l

l l

6l about June.

We had 37 people.

We're up to our 80 ceiling, at i

7 this point of 78.

We've got 70 people actually on board, and I

8 8 more in the pipeline.

i I

9 I think we've been very successful recruiting l

I jo '

people.

We have on the order of a dozen geo-technical people, i

1 11 '

around 20 percent women.

So, I'm very happy with the progress i

12 : we've made on staffing.

I 13 !

In parallel with the staffing and the organization, 1

N of course, we tried to also press forward on the main defining f

15 and getting in place our main peices of work.

The priorities I

I 16

! that we have established, working collectively, are basically l

I7lthree.

I 18 !

One -- and by far in a way, the top priority -- is 19 l l the development of regulatory guides'to form the framework for 20 the national program.

21 That then, will allow us to go -- which is the stage l we're. starting into now; identifying and proceeding with the i

2 l

~

23 technical assistance research that we need to support these 24 !

..rwer i nesermi. ine. i, regulations.

Also, that we need to do to be able to deal with 25 the site characterization program coming up; and ultimately I

1520 310 l

o 1

4 l

i dsp4 1

dealine, with an application.

t 2l Thirdly, put in a third category.

The capability, i

3' actually, to dead with the process of license applications.

A 4

year ago the priorities were exactly the inverse where, for a i

5; long time, we had been anxious about receivin: ar acolication 1

l anyminuteanditputverylittleemphasisonregulationsh 6

almost i

i 7i you know, what our performance objective were.

=

I Bi The technical assistants in my division was doing, I

l 9

and Frank's was doing was proceeding basically on an intuitive i

10 feel of what we thought was going to happen.

i Il So, the overall gist of what we we've been doing for,

l i

12 the last year is to go back to first principles and define just I

i 13 i what do we want to do.

i 14 l Then structure our technical programs to support l

15 l that and recognizing that receipt of an application is not going 16 to happen for some time.

17 l We have to do the first part to intelligently deal l

18 '

with the latter.

There's a couple of points that I have spent I

19 l a great deal of time on and Frank, and the other waste i

20 management collectively -- managemenc people have and chat is 21, program coordiantion.

i i

t 22 I This, to my mind and I think we all agree, is crimarilv

)

23 a management volition kind of item that we are all working i

24 l together and we are all going to meld our respective programs e >ederal Reporters, Inc.

to one; that supports some well defined ge cy go 1s.

25

l l

l 5

i I

i dspS 1

I think we have all spent a great deal of time f

2 ?together in a variet of forms and meetingsl and in practically l

3 discussing things every day, Frank and I and the standards' dj folks.

I 5

I feel that the --

all the problems with internal i

t 6! coordination of various arms of the agency has largely been 7

resolved.

I'm very satisfied with that.

8i We've also instituted a number of administrative I

i i

I 9

things that tend to help in that regard; like the waste 10 management review group that performs a final check on all i

Il i contracts placed; whether they be research or standards or I,

12 NRR or whoever in the waste management area.

i.

i i

I 13 We've formulated program plans in each of the three 14 areas; high level waste, low level waste, and mill tailings.

15 ! They're in various stages.

16 First, I had an idea that we would write a program l

17 1 plan and issue it.

That would be their plan, but as things have 18 evolved, we are moving at a sufficient rate where the thing is I9 sort of in.a loose leaf form.

I 20 I expect it will stay that way for some time, but we l!

21 do have a plan that, at least, all of us in the agency are 22 working to -- and we have established several interoffice working 1

23 l groups at a staff level that I will get into in a moment.

f 24 '

But here, again, these are administrative, management.

, xess newnm. Inc.

i 25 tools that we can use to execute the goals that we have worked I

1520 312 I

6 I

I isp6 out at a higher level.

l 2

1 Another thing that we spent a great deal of time on that I think was a sizeable problem of our NRC waste management I

program, is a lack of understanding of what was happening outside I

i 5

the a~gency, for reasons that I am not clear on.

l i

6 We had operated for several years in a fairly 7{ insular fashion.

I think that~the idea was that if we communicate 1

0 too much with DOE, or trafficked too much with them, that 9

semehow this would compr mise our independence.

I made a l

l 10 decision very early on that we just can't go on like that.

i 11 !

The vast majority of the technical information to i

12 be developed and mone being spent in this country is going to.

I3 be by DOE and USGS.

We just have to be involved in that if we I#

are going to have any influence, at all.

15 '

So, I think that that has been.largely -- largely 16 remedied.

We've got a great deal of involvement in the last j

I 17 '; year or so with DOE, PS, EPA, USGA, Tscademy of Sciences, Corps 18 of Engineers, and Bureau of Minds, to name a few.

l f

l 19 I think that that has, as a problem area, of not 20 '

l knowing what is going on or being involved in external events has I

l 21 l

1been remedied.

i 22 So, the interoffice and interagency coordination has,,

f I

l 23 ! I think, largely been resolved.

I think there is one area that I

24 i l'm still a little bit concerned about.

e,weni a monm. ine. ;

25 We' re still having a bit of trouble brasdng the ice 1520 313

7

!sp7 Il with the TMI group on waste solidification.

But otherwise, I I

I I

2ll think the agency is working well, internalAy.

i 3

May I have the next slide, please?

4j (Slide.)

5 I've only got two.311 des.

The next thing I'd like 6

.to go to is just a brief summary of where we are on the first 7i priority.

The business end of this is issuing the regulations.

8 On the milling area, we've got the regulations out; I

9' and are in the process of having public meetings and that 10 sort of thing to resolve comments.

II We're wcll along, there.

In the next to the low 12 level waste and the high level waste they're about the same 13 status; where we have written down drafts -- I call them strong Id man regulations; so that we don't get them confused with actual I

15 ! proposed -- formally proposed regulations.

l 16.

But in both the high level and the low level waste 17 l area, the technical requirements have been fairly well 18 structured at this point.

Structured enough that we could I9 use it internally as a framework to order and prioritize all of 20 our technical assistance work.

21 l Secondly, we can use it as a basis to talk at DOE, toj 22 talk to people who want applications ror low level waste burial l I

i 23 grounds, to get ccmment, to try to use the forms of consensus i

e l

24 on the direction that we're going.

))]O4 F.w.i seconm. ice. 25 I expect on both of these, low level and high level, I i I

i l 8 l I technical rules to have completed this first stage of roughly i 1p8 )lI I building consensus for the technical directions and to issue 2,! these as advanced notices some time in the next couple of months. 3' i i i i The procedural role that we talked about Monday and 4 I 1 5l I still have November dcwn there. l f COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You still have a few days. 6 MR. MARTIN: As an issue date. 7 l I CHAIPMAN HENDRIE: That's the ticket; keep up the 8; I l heat. 4 9 I MR. MARTIN: Hope springs eternal. So here, again,' jg i let me emphasize that these regulations have been used to -- 11 l as the working tool to structure our overall organization i 12 approach and the technical program. I will get back to that 13 in a little bit. j3, 15 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Ib you have a copy of that? I I 16 - MR. MARTIN: Certainly. Now, I'11 skip over the mill tailings and the low level waste; if you like. Perhaps, if,

7 t

we have time, I'll just get back to that. ) 18 l ,I tnink it would be worthwhile to go into a little j 39 l more detail of our overall technical approach for the high 20 l level waste. that has been changed in the draft regulations; 21 ! then talk about what we've done -- who we have reviewed it with 22 I. and what general consensus we have arcund the community cn it. 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Jack, just out of curiosity, j 24 I. Federal Reporters, Inc. I we have sitting in from of us these huge volumes of paper; do l 25 1520 313 i i

I i 9 l l 1 1[youintendthismorningtoaddress-- dsp9 2 !! MR. MARTIN: Yes, I do. I don't want to scare i I 3' I anybody with those, but -- t i 4' CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You're not going to go through,! I 5 it page by page? j i, o-MR. MARTIN: No. What I want to do is at'the very 7' end point out a couple of pages in there to show you. Those 9' are our working documents and working tools and, you know, they ' 9 are complicated and hard to understand, becasue it's a ccmplicate i i 10 I j subject. 11 1 I think it would me worth your while for me to point l i 12 out a couple of areas in there and just how we are pulling the i 13 agency's program and the national program together into some la kind of a un.fied whole. That is the tool that is being used. j I 15 l l These are -- the documenth you have before you were 16 i l l basically prepared and reviewed at the ACRS a couple of months i I 171 ago, but I'll gome back to those in a little bit. i I 18 I I don't think I'm going to get into them in any l 19 ldetail. Basically, our technical approach on the high level l 20 I waste rule is to structure a technical approach so we have 21 a high degree of confidence, will result in being able to i 22. bring a proceeding to a conclusion. s 23 Just a couple of overall points. We are proccacing 24 n poners. ine. i on the basis or perrormance objectives, rather than engineering %,.i 25 l details or how to question. lb20 3lb i I

l 10 isp10 1l We are not a design agency, and don't really have f 2 lllthe wherewithall to do that. So, we are froceeding on the l 3' basis or putting in the rule what we think the repository 4 ought to do, leaving to DOI and their contractors, the task of 5 how to do it in most efficient cost effective and satisfactory 6j way. i 1 7j So, we are trying to avoid dabbling in engineering 8, design, and are sticking to the how-to-do approach -- I mean, l 9j the what needs to be done approach from the performance end. i 10 The other thought that runs through the regulation l l II , is to try to avoid situations that are inherently hard to bring l l l 12 to closure. If there are -- I think that this was stated pretty; j i 13 well by a recent National Academy of Sciences report that said Id that emphasis should be placed on a purchase that reduce 15 uncertainties and risks and rely on easily demonstrable 16 assumptions. 17 1 These approaches'are much preferable to others that 18 may seem more economical. So, we are seeking things that are I9 practicable to do. Yet, approaches that are practicable -- yet, 20 avoid a lot of uncertainty and minimize the numbers of issues 21 that will be very difficult to ever resolve with much certainty.' l Now, going through our technical rule, and here again, 22 l 23 it is still a crocosal for internal discussion and external I I 24 sounding; but it basically consists of four major performance > Metal R eporters, Inc. 25 objectives. Basically, we see there being three major components to a repository waste package. 1520 31.. i / i

l l 1 I dspil li The repository design, itself; and then the geologic 2 l aspects of the site; thenthehydrolic--geo-hydroli.csystem.j 3 The fourth item we're placing emphasis on is what I 4; I call -- perhaps it's a misnomer -- I call it retreivability I 5 requirement. I'll come back to that and describe it in srme 6' detail. l 7l Basically, we believe that the site geology, itself, i 8 should be selected so it can meet the EPA standards, which l i 9' aren't issued yet but we have a fair idea of what they are 10 going to be. II It basically entails, essentailly, no release for i l i 12 ! the first 10,000 years. I 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's the EPA standard? 14 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: No release for the first i 1 16 10,000 years. What does no release mean? 17 l' MR. MARTIN: I think they say one curie. Essentially, 18 ' that's nothing. l l I9 , COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: One curie integrated ove" l 20 that whole time. 2I MR. MARTIN: After that, they reason it is trying to! I l 22 knew the unknowable and that is the approach that they were I i 23 thinking about as of a couple of weeks ago. l 24 There is a little bi. more to it, but essentially s mi nwonen, ine 25 it is very, very little if any release. l 1520 318

12 i I l l 1sp12 I! So, our approach is that the si+_e geology should l 2 ll be able to accomodate that. Now, we're very concerned though,j .I i 3 ;I that -- that in taking that approach, that there are just all l 4l sorts of questions and uncertainties that will be very hard i 5, to ever know definitively about the performance of the site 6 geology over that essential geologic time period. 7' So, we feel that we should go back within this !i geologic system and place a couple of requirements on the other l 8 9 two major components of the repository to compensate for these 10 ; uncertainties. II So that, although there may be some uncertainties in 12 the geology, we can compensate for them by requiring a very i 13 l high integrity waste package, la I think it is very important to note that the waste 15 package and the repository are things which are inherently 16 l within man's control. 17 The design testing. features can be added. It is 18 something that is inherently able to be controlled and to be 19 able to be. understood and known; at least the initial 20 conditions be known to a high degree of certainty at the 21 beginning where the geology may be very difficult and hopefully i 22 l exploration techniques will improve; but there is always going 23 to be a bit uncertainty about that. 13r0 ,19 r m. 3 24 So, we feel we should be back and put a requirement , ~.r.i m umnen. ine. l 25 on the waste package; that it basically remain intact throughout ; d

13 i dsel3 l l! the time period that the fission products are present; and thatl ~ l l 2 !l: the high thermal loads exist. We've selected 1000, years as i I ili j 3 a time period. I i l i !5i I 6' i' I 7i i 8 1 9 t 10 11 I 12 l 13 14 15 l i 16 I i I I l 17 i 18 I I 19 i l l 20 i l 21 l l I 22 i I 23 l i 24 i i .Feceral Reporters. Inc, i 25 1520 320 l t l l

i 14 dspl4 l ll I should be more precise: we 5.ve at least 1000 i 2l years; if that could be pushed out a bit, it would be even 3' l better. 4' The other requ:.rement we would like to see is that 5, af ter that initial pericd that the waste package has to be 6 conformed -- af ter the waste package f ails, presuming it does, 7 that we would then like to see the total engineered system -- i 8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Why the presunction that it l i does? I 9 i I' MR. MARTIN: It's just an assumption that it will; 10 Il assuming that the canister does fail -- 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's defense in depth. 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:. It's not a general assumption 14 that it will occur, but rather,"let's make that assumption and 15 then what." 16 MR. MARTIN: Right. I 17 l Assuming that it does, then we would like the I 18 matrix, whether it be glass or steel or whatever,together 19 with the engineered repository to limit the release to the 20 geology to some very low rate. 21 And we haven't settled on what that is. But it 22 should be so.mething like one part per million per year. Then 23 of course the far field geology -- at that point, say, 1000 I I 24 years, plus or minus some, the waste is not a whole lot l Fkeral Rerorters, Inc. 25 different than things that one could argue -y na*uygl analogs. l./ U 'dI i i l

15 sp15 l 1 Thefane -- COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Jack, what is the -- what is l 2l

• 1 3:

the est. mate of what the surface effect is over 10,000 years? 4 MR. MARTIN: Oh, on the order of -- EPA has done 1 5 this; this calculations are fraught with problems, bat the 6l calculations I've seen show that there is a substantial number l 7l of effects that could be attributed to ore bodies, like in the i 8l order of 100 years, I believe. l 9 I have a technical paper I could send you on it, but I 10 ' their conclusion is that a repository should be able to operate II better than the ore bodies. 12 ' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's what I was -- better 13 than an ore body. 14 MR. MARTIN: I think this analog that after 1000 15 years or so that the repository -- it isn't exactly like an 16 ore body, but it's close enough, I think, to -- we feel a 17 lot more comfortable -- 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: If you can only extract 19 enough ore and then employ and then replace it as high level 20 waste, we will have improved the bicsphere substantially by 2I that theory. 22 MR. MARTIN: That's not exactly true; that's why 23 I say that analog leads us into lots of arguments. I I 24 The bulk of the uranium is still sitting in the j .r.i secon.n inc. 25 enrichment plant as uranium tails. So you can't do a mass r, l

16 i l sol 6 I 1 balance and come out ahead, but you can argue that what you 2l did put in the ground is not much dif ferent. l I 3: So we have taken those three postulates and are i 4l moving ahead with them. I 5 The fourth that :0 talked about, I view it as a 6 performance requirement, and I think it reflects, to a degree, 71 the humility with which we're approaching this problem. We 1 81 would like to see the repository designed so that one has the 9 option to get in and do something about conditions for its I and some period -- we picked 50 years thereaf ter --l 10 ) entire life, 11 I call it, just as a shorthand way, "retrievability." l 12 I I suppose in some far out scenario you might want I. 13 to retrieve the waste. But what we have in mind here is that 14 we would like a repository built that is inherently stable, 15 that the people who have to deal with it 30 or 40 years from 16 now actually have some options to go fix things or change things, i 17 and that they're not confronted with a repository that due to 18 heat loading is unstable and closing down and caving in. 19 ,So that is dat we have in mind by that requirement. 20 And there is no implication that we wsnt it kept open, that it 21 is an underground storage vault. But it does provide some i l 22 more margins and inherent flexibility if it turns out that I 23 years from now we need to regrout some things, certain materials l 24 were bad, or something like that. }{2] 323 I i..,eral R morters, Inc. 25 It is very similar to components in a reactor plant. I I 1

I 17 dspl7 i l 1 You don't design them to fail, but if they do, they should be I '2 j repiv;eable. j i 3, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Jack, in all of this i 4 development, do you intend in writing the technical rules to 5 use a deterministic approach as a required way of demonstrating i 6l this or a probabilistic? I 7l MR. MARTIN: No, I think the intent to proceed l l l 8, certainly for the near-in case is pretty much on a I 9 deterministic standpoint. 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Near-in being? I Il MR. MARTIN: The first dozen years or so. I don't 12 ' want to get into probabilities there. I want to try and I i 13 scrub,out as much uncertainty and things that are basically 14 hard to understand and indicate to people -- I mean, I want 15 to -- I don't see the need for it in the first place. I'll 16 get to why we're confident in this later. 17 When we start talking about 10,000 years and things, 18 maybe that's when you shade out probabilities. l9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Does EPA at the momenty 20 to your understanding -- are they going to go the probabilistic 21 1 route? I l 22 ' MR. MARTIN: Well, I'm not clear; we keep having 23 discussions on this, and more discussions, and more 24 discussions, and each one of them turns out to be a satisfying FMeral Remners, lm:. I l 25 discussion. But we're still kicking that around. }JcUC7n 7^ JL4 i

18 l spl8 1 There is undoubtedly a place for probabilistic i 2l analysis here. I think se will no doub t do one, but our i 3' standards do not contemplate that. i 4l Well, going on, we have a bit of a problem, and I l 5; still haven't been able to come up with a good concept for it, 6 and that is the human disruption question. I 7i Justing thinking about that for ahile, it gets to I 8 be a pretty dismal prospect to try to build something that would i 9!makeitimpossibleforfuturehumanstoeverdisrupt, and so l 10 l this is one that we have written down some words to try to l i 11 ! site these so that it is unlikely that people would be invited i 12 i to come drill holes in them. 13 But this is one where I plan on having some more 14 workshops and getting some social scientists and some other 15 people together to worry about these things to try to build 16 a little bit more consensus here because I am a litrie 17 troubled that this is one area that we're going to have to find 18 a consensus for. 19 'There isn't any good, hard answer, and certainly 20 we should minimize the possibility of future disuption. But 21 I think when we get to viewing that too absolutely, it gets 22 to be. an impossible problem. So I haven't found the right I 23 formula for that yet. 1ron ?^- 35U 343 8 24 We're continuing on that. Federal Repo,ters, Inc. 25 Going on, the rule also has several other provisions,

19 dspl9 I We have some requirements in there that we're still working 2 ' on on some e:<iusion areas, preferred siting characteristics i t l 3-of a predictable type, to keep away from volcanoes and fauts 1 4 and that sort of thing. I 5' We have some information we would like gatnered 6! during the site characterization phase and also some features 7 we'd like in the site safety analysis. So I think that the 8l major concepts have been hammered out. 9 How you word these things of course is all important,. 10 and that is undergoing a lot of engineering discussion, and 11 it is done internally with other agencies. 12 ' We have debated this thing out internally and have 13 a high degree of consensus among the major program offices; 14 a conviction to proceed this way. 15 We sort of had branched out and started talking to 16 others about it to see what they think to try to not so much 17 work everything out ahead of time; I would hate to spend 18 a couple of years working on a rule to find out that 19 certain parts of it were pointed in te wrong direction. 20 So we have reviewed our approach in some detail-21 with a number of agencies like ACRS and USGS; an industry 22 group.came in; a variety of individuals from the academic 23 and environmental community: the Keystone Group, DOE. And 24 I guess I'm a little gratified that after -- it takes a couple. >weni mioomn. ine, l I of days for everybody to get the terminology straight. But 1520 32b i

20 sp20 after that, there is a surprising degree of consensus on taking this approach among some pretty diverse interests. 2 I I don't know if any of you went to the National 3 ! Academy forum on Monday night -- I didn't -- but I understand ^ ^ ^ 5 management question and pretty much agree on the approach that we're taking, although that wasn't strictly the subject / of the forum. 8 There was a great deal of consensus on the key technical points we have here, and in particular on the need for in-depth exploration, as we discussed on Monday. jj I We have a few more reviews scheduled. I would like 12 I to discuss this at. greater length with the National Academy in the next couple of months. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could I -- since you raised that, it brought something to my mind, Jack. As I recall g sometime back -- i've been getting various groups -- just I,/ sitting down and talking with them. One of the groups was the National Academy, and the impression I had was that they g were in the process of at least either proposing or in discussion with NRC on setting up a panel to provide some kind of a review of what is known and what is going on. My impression was that that seems to be foundering. A, are they in that process? B, is there some problem? p , ersi mooermi, ine, 25 , con i I

21 1 I dsp21 i l' l MR. MARTIN: Yes, they are in the process, and we j 24h have received their proposal. I don't think it is foundering, 3t but I think it's in the same boat as a lot of our other I l 4' l expensive programs. i 5' We're taking a good nard look at them and making i I 6' j sure that what our contractors and others are doing -- 7' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is that under you or is that 8I under Frank? t 9 I MR. MARTIN: I have tz:e proposal. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: 1s it a proposal to do a i 11 ! j review from the standpoint of -- I'm not sure how you separate 1 12 out what is research and what is NMSS, which would be more l 1 13 ^ appropriate to -- 14 MR. MARTIN: I think that depends on what we settle I 15 the scope of work should be. 16 l i But what they have submitted is a pretty broad i 17l scope systems analysis of the entire waste management area. l 18 lAnd I'm not sure that's exactly what we want to do. So 19 Frank and I will work this out. 20 We just haven't settled yet on just what the scope 21 i of that work would be. 22 li COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Was it -- I guess I can talk l t 23 I to both of you later. Mr. Kennedy has to leave. But I'm l 24 I pu== led by what it is that they propose. .s ...r. n womri, inc. 1520 320 l 25 MR. MARTIN: So am I. l. I

22 3p22 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I haven't seen what they 2l proposed, but I had thought that it was -- it sounded like l-l I 3 when I originally talked to them, that it was a good opportunity l 4j to get some -- some kind of outside peer review, the kind of 5 f thing that ends up leading other people to have real confidence., 6 MR. MARTIN: That is what we want, but that is not i So in that 7 l exactly -- that's what we' re working out with them. 3 regard, there is no disagreement. I 9 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE: It sounded like a proposition I 10 that they would like to redo without withdrawing previously 11 done material. 12 MR MARTIN: We have no fundamental -- you know -- I3 we're not at odds at all. 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: When I talked to them people, I t thatis not quite the impression I got. 15 i 16 MR. MARTIN: Let me -- a couple of other things we've 17 done: I think many of you may know this; we have had a 18 number of, as I said, peer reviews. We've also set up a 19 fairly formally structured arragpment with DOE to understand 7 'd /O lr7nJLU J 20 in some detail their program. 21 We've had a dozen or so meetings. They have all I, 22 been public meetings. The first were very well attended. 23 They tended to be a bit dry. Now, it is down to a fairly -- i 24 a working kind of arrangement to exchange information for us f 4sderal Reporters, Inc. 25 to make some points with them. And I think that working with I

1 23 dsp23 l I them of course -- the people -- iv h>= been working out pretty 2j

well, j

l i 3; We had our last me eting with them last week in 4l Columbus for three days. I 5l What I would like to do new -- I don't want to i 6 scare anybody off, but I think it would be worth thile to I 7 look at this big, thick document here. And then I think 8 Frank has a few words to say. i 9, But we put this together for the ACRS within the I i i 10 - framework of last year's ACRS meeting where the gist of that II whole meeting was that the program was unfocused and unprioritized 12 So we, undaunted, went back again this year and this was the I3 overall approach that we tock. Id This is a working document. The first few pages is 15 a discussion of how we set priorities, and the way we're doing 16 this is if you turn to this little table here, what we have I 17 done is to actually take our high level waste rule as the j i 18 framework to structure our format. And that was one of the 19 reasons why we have taken our rules and pushed them so much i 20 further ahead.of what we said we were going to do in the budget. l))] jjg 21 i 22 So we're a few months ahead of what we said we l 23 were going to do. And we've taken the major requirements in f I 24 the three different areas -- waste form, repository design, and l +w mI Remnm. inq 25 ' site selection and characterization -- and taken them and i I l

l 24 i I sp24 numbered them down the left side, that here are the major j 2 l requirements. i 3 We put priorities on them: priority one things j i 4! that we think are really important; priority two things that i 5, are going to come a little later. They're either later in i 6 time or lesser in importance. 7! And then using that perspective, our respective 3 staffs of NMSS -- Franks people -- and the safeguards l 9 ! division, and probabilistic assessment and standards -- we 10 all got together and took all of our technical programs -- and Il each of these numbers, by the way, represents a technical 12 program which is identified a few pages further back in I3 Attachment B as a title. U And then the bulk of the document is a description -- Dl sort of an abstract of what the program is all about. I 16 l And we took all these little numbers and put them I7 next to the requirements that they were directed towards and Dl' supported. I ,And I was struck by how much most of these programs 20 were originated based on intuition or what we thought was 21 important. 22 Now that we have given them some struc u n 23 prioriti::ed the program, happily, most of them are di.rected 24 towards the right priorities. What this does not tell you, .. vat Reoorters, Inc. 25 though, is whether the content of all of these little numbers

sp 25 25 I added up together for each line item -- whether the aggregate { i 2' gives you tha right things, whether they have the right j 3i

ocus.

l 4: J And in particular they don't answer the question: 1 l I 5l why should we be doing it versus DOE or USGS? l 6[ This is what we have structured the working groups i 71 t to do, which I think is the thing that the staff is good at. 8 Once we've got some framework to work in, we can scrub l i', down each of these objectives and see whether our existing 10 5 programs are satisfactory, whether they need to be changed, i 11 'I we need to add some, and then in about three weeks I hope to 12 have that finished and to have draft statements of work: l i 13, j either changes to old programs -- including dropping old, I 1s programs; - there will be some -- and n'ew programs. 15, We have set up with DOE -- we hope to have our J 16 internal agency technical program very solid by mid-December. f 17l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: When you say you're going 18 to look at redo, to what extent does that sweep up all the 19 programs in the agency? 20 MR. MARTIN: All of them. 7 "5U 3Jb J 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All of them are here? l 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So that there are no i ~ 23 independent research programs that are outside of that' t i 24 i MR. MARTIN: "No" is a pretty z.bsolute word; I mi neoenm. inc. don't think there are. t

dsp26~ l 26 1 MR. ARSENAULT: No. No, I think is a fair answer. l 4 l 2: MR. MARTIN: So it is all here. So it's pretty l l 3, easy now to see -- well, do all these programs do everything i 4l we need to do? I 5l And of course they don't. And we hope to have that i 6 resolved and then get on to fix up our fiscal '80 programs 7l and modify the old ones as the need be. t 3, But -- of course that comes back to another I 9i statement that I made earlier, that the vast majority of the l 10 l' technical work we depend on -- how does that relate to any 11 of this? That's a very good questio. 12 I've had several discussions with DOE management l I 13 { about how I would like to do a detailed review of their i l 14 ' health and environmental programs and make sure that they i l 15 are integrated in or at least they are directed towards the 16 rights kinds of questions. i 17 ' Right now they know and I know that a lot of them i 18 I aren't. And we've reached agreement on that, that that is 'i 19, the way to go. And we've had a couple of preliminary i J 20 ' sessions like the one in Columbus last week. And wa're 21 ' having another one on the 10th of December where the DOE 22 people are coming in and we are going to start going further i 23 down the path of adding them to this overall hierarchy of l 24 technical work so that hopefully in the next -- over the next Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 year or so we will be able to have some sort of a coherent cn ?7: lJdb JJJ i i l

i 27 I 1li 1927 I national program in the health and safety area at ~_ e a s t, that 2h is at least understandable by all of us and hopefully j i 3' communicable to others. f I, 4) COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you have any intention 1 5 to also fold in the EPA work? 6 MR. MARTIN: Yes. There is some; I don' t think i 7 this is a big component of this, but certainly they have 8 been involved and will continue to be. l 9l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Because as I recall, they 10, had around $9 million a year contract work. Il MR. MARTIN: They may have; I guess we haven't I2 gotten into that level of detail yet. 13 GS has about that, of course, and DOE, of course, Id has the big dollars. So that is our intent and, Frank, do i l 15 l you -- why don't you say a few words. I 16 MR. ARSENAULT: Well, the direct anrwer to your 17 ! question is because I can't think of a great deal to add to l 18 that rather comprehensive presentation y~t made. I think you l ' n hearing an independent 19 i might be interested, however, 20 observation concerning some of the points you made. I 21 j The progress that he has indicated we have made in f' l i 22 achieving a coordinated effort by various offices within the 23 agency on the waste management program is not really progress I f 24 l in my view. It is nothing short of extraordinary. f Fweral Reporters, inc. i 25 We have -- I think that the table you see in front 4 1520 534 i i

28 dsp28 i i 'l of you is more than just an enumeration of all of the projects I in the agency that are associated with waste management. 2 l; i o I think they represent -- I think the preparation { 3 I of the table represented a milestone of sorts. I think that i l 4! I the ef forts that have been made by the varbus of fices to l 5, ! coordinate the program came to focus at about the time -- the 6: I i document, which it composes a part was a starting point for 7 the working. groups to begin. 9 l And these groups are attempting currently to 9 l analyze the draft rule,to look at the existing research programs, 10 j and to develop the logical framework that will relate the two. i 12 ! 1 I I told Jack that I'm slightly less optimistic than 13 he is with regard to the schedule wi'h which that will be 14 completed and be reflected in revisions to the rescarch program. 16 g i But that is one of the very few and minor points 17! with which I would disagree with him on. I So I would only add that it has been a salutory and 19 perhaps pleasant experience, having gone through the last i several months; we in my shop -- in my division feel that 21 we are -- should be going in a posirive way to the efforts 22 that Jack has underway to develop rules, and so on. 23 I And we in turn are getting significant guidance and 24 i t Federal Reporters, (nc. assistance out of that effort with which we can formulate 25 l i52u 333 l j

29 l sp29 I i 1l and implement research programs. l i I. l 2! COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Thank you. l 3 MR. MARTIN: Let me once again say, though, that i 4 this table and all these little numbers was before we had i l 5l the review with Keystone and DOE and some of the other people i i i 6 so that we are going back to modify -- you know -- some of i I 7l the wording that is a little sloppy at this point. t i 8' But -- you know -- tne key -- thekey concepts l 1 9j remain the same. I I 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Very good. II. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do the funding levels reflect I \\ l. 12 the base '80 budget and not include any of our supplemental 13 requests, or do they? 'I I d' MR. MARTIN: I think they reflect -- how is that -- 15 I think we're assuming we're going to get the supplementalsJ no, 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Because it was about $6 million -! 17

5. 9 -- something like that -- in the supplement that the 18 Commission agreed to some time ago, which is kicking around l

I9 someplace or other. 1 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think OMB approved it, j 2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Where is it in this table? Are .s 1520 Jah 22 the funding numbers here included? 23 MR. MARTIN: I'm not sure the funding numbers -- l 24, they're included in the table; I'm almost certain. Acual Reznus, ltw. ! 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There is no summary table here, i l l

30 j dsp30 j i I 1f l is there? i 2, l I MR. MARTIN: No. l l 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There is a step past OMB; i there is one other step. l t 5 i MR. DIRCKS: We've got a meeting Monday with the 6' staff of the Appropriations Committee. They're interested 7 in how all this research will meet their objectives. I j s, l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Where in this carticular I 9l document would I find -- this is a half facetious question -- 10 l Mr. Roy of Arizona who is -- 11 l CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: He solved the problem. 12 j MR. MARTIN: I don't think so; I think that was 13 Arizona State.

g i l

COMMISSICNER AHEARNE: Mike? 15 ! MR. BELL: At the present time you won't find

16) Dr. Roy in that document.

This was prepared before he made 17i i the announcement. However, the staff is trying to get in I 18 contact with him to see exactly what it is. 19 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE: But I -- 20 CHAIRMAN r.ENDRIE: This is -- 21 ) COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The newspaper report is very 22 3 unusual. Obviously, from the newspaper report he has said he j i 23 co now has the solution. lJ2 j]/- s 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Very categorically.

Bill, nai neoomrs, ine.j

~ 25 do you remember what his first name was?

i 31 ~ l i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is not Russ. I undersnnd l sp31 i it's his brother. l 2 i, tl DR. KIM: I talked with Dr. Roy yesterday, and i 3' I informed the staff. Well, the whole thing is in the process, i 4I i and he's not going to reveal anything. 5 i (Laughter.) 6 i I asked him whether he had any written documents, 76 i something about the basic science behind this. And he said j i 8! i he could not discuss it either. l 9; i I I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Could you discern whether it's 10 ! I I one of these transmdation schemes or is it chemical processing? DR. KIM: Some kind of reverse process that occurs 12 ' in the fission process. I asked if it was something similar to fusion and he said he can't comment on that. So it could 14 not be traue.utation. If it is transmutation, it is nothing i 15, new. 16 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'll say, I i 17 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE: But if he can make it work i 18 I economically, that is new. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is new. ]((] jj{ CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's interesting. Well, I l 21 i recommend that the research and technical assistance i 22 I programs go forward without any substantial dependence on the new discovery that the newspapers nave noted. g .rwerc aexners. ine. ' Okay. We have arrived -- I must say, let me commend i 25 t

I 32 dsp32 I you, Jack and Frank, for these materials, the briefing. I i 2 think it is very much to the point, and it has come ont rather i I a 3 concisely, covering the ground in the appointed time, l 4I commendatory comment which I cannot say can be made 1 5' generally about our affairs here. 6! I need now to declare this session at an end. 1 7l (Whereupon, at 11 : 41 a.r..., the meeti:.g was I 8 adjourned.) i ,I, l 10 11 12 i 13 la ! i 15 l 16 i i 17 i i is 19 20 1 21

7

}rnn 3 Jau sJ) 22 23 l l 24 l +werai Regeners, lac. 25 I i l i}}