ML19276D945
| ML19276D945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/01/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7903020008 | |
| Download: ML19276D945 (50) | |
Text
.. -
NUCLE AR REGULATO RY COMMISSION-IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING.
DISCUSSION OF DECISION IN S-3 RULEMAKING
(
'8taca - Washington, D.C.
Gate -
Thursday, 1 Fe)cuary 1979 Pages 1 - 49 2
- ei m :
\\
(M1 *.A730 AG-:wER.112E?OREINC.
Ofis=d3.p. -
.w. e e,eistr e 7903020 N8'
s - c mi NATlCNW1CE GMC2 - CAlLY
~
=
CR2486-t 1
g
,J.
t r
DISC 1. AIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the Unitad States Nuclear Regulatory C:= mission held on 1 February 1979 in the The Comission's officas at 1717 H Street, N. W., wasningt:n, 0. C.
i n1 s transcr1p,-
meeting was open to public attandance and observatica.
has not been reviewed, correctad, or editad, and it may c:nta#n inaccuracies.
' The transcript is intended solely for general informa'tional purposes.
As provided b'y la CFR 9.103, it is not part of the tor. al or in ormal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions or cptnien in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final cetarninations or, beliefs.
No pleadinc or other pacer may be filed w1:n tne Ccmmission in any proceedinc as thi result of or addressed to any statement or argumen,.
contained hardin, except as the Ccmission may authcrize.
- g g
S O
~.
2 l
Ii UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
2i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l 3
i PUBLIC MEETING 4 i i
DISCUSSION OF DECISION IN S-3 RULEMAKING 5l i
6:
7; Rocm 1130 l
1717 H Street, N. W.
a Washington, D.C.
9, Thursday, 1 February 1979 i
i 10,
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2r35 p.m.
11 l BEFORE:
12l DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman l
l 13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner l
14 {
RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner i
15 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner i
16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 17 '
PRESENT:
18 Messrs. Cunningham, Lieberman, Miraglia, Sege, Slaggie, 19 and Eilperin.
20 '
21.l
- l 22 -
23 '
24 ewm Recomn. ine..
25
Wl6.04.1 3
pv I
PR0CEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE We meet a little later than 3
planned.
- 4y apologies to you wne have waited patiently for our 4
commencament, including scme of my colleagues.
5 The occasien this af ternoon is the discussion of the 6
Commission's decision -- or discussion that might in due time 7
lead to a Commission decision in the 5-3 rulemaking.
There has 3
been a very substantial rulemaking croceeding that ha s gene on 9
here.
If I reca.11 correctly, the de f ect which the Court of 10 Acpeals found in the orig.inal 5-3 rule had to do with something 11 less than a totally adequate record to support the conclusions 12 for the reprocessing releases and waste management releases to 13 ce used in a generally acplicable table of releases of 14 radioac.tive material as a result of other portions of the fual 15 cycle than the operation of the reactor plants itself, said 16 table to be used in environmental impact statements of the 17 sta ff f or the specific power plants,
la The record, as I recall, was something like 20 pages
^
19 or so of testimony from then-AEC o fficer and a f ew cuestions 20 from the Board.
Since other portions of the rulemaking we re 21 adjudged y the Court of Acpeals to be at least adequate, !
22 have come away from the reading of that, as I remember, witn 23 the impression that if there had perhaps been encther 20 or 50 24 pages in the re ccrd, of Board questions to the AEC o.fficial or 25 o f.ficials, and reasonable answers to them, that, in fact, tne
4 86.04.2 pv i
def ect might not have been found.
2 I mak e the comment because we are now many months --
3 a couple of years, in fact -- along in recairing this de fect.
4 and the record must now go on to some thousands of pages.
5 It a ppears to me that the Lssue may, indee d, then, 6
be ripe f or settlement.
7 Steve, would you and Leo and George like to sort of 8
lay out the options or the status and the options, as you see 9
them at this time, for the Commissioners?
And then let's See 10 wnere the discussion takes us.
11 MR. EILPERIN:
I think I would say, first, that 12 since this is not the formal rulemaking or formal occasion on 13 the record, you are entitled to go somewhat outside the record 14
.that has been made in the proceeding, in order to reach your 15 decision.
At least I mention that.
I know the sta ff is here 16 today, and it is perfectly accrooriate if the Commission wishes 17 to ask the staff some questions.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, we could ask the staff 1) cuestions?
20 4R. EIL.oERIN:
You can ask the staff memoers 21 auestionst and so long as the in format io n is not used for a 22 critlcal decision in terms of a critical number in tne rule, it 23 would be perfectly appropriate to us e. that information.
So, 24 ouestions as to hcw long would it take to update, do a 25 narrative, how lo ng would it take to uodate a rule, what
186.04.3 5
pv i
difficulties are there, if any.
That kind of questioning is 2
appropria.te for the Commission.
3 COWWISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is all right to discuss 4
the technical questions?
5 MR. EILPERIN:
It is all right to dist 'iss it s you 6
can't use the information you receive to plug in a technician 7
number.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
de are not here privileged to 9
make a new piece of the record upon. wnich you would base a 10 decision, but proce dural ma tters -- you know, is the number of 11 curies or micro-curies or some clarifications, you are sayin; 12 okay?
That is helpf ul?
Staff is duly warned that you are not 13 free and clear.
14 MR. EILPERIN:
I think that, certainly, if the only 15 issue before the Commission today is the question whether or 16 not there.is enough evidence of information within the vastly 17 supplemented record to plug in a couple of more numbers back 13 into the fuel cycle, I think the Chairman is quite carrect tnat 19 with the vast undertaking that nas occurrad in the pa st year, 20 that that can cartainly be done.
21 Many people have spent a good deal of time on tnis, 22 and there certainly would be substantial evidence in the 23 record, in our view, su f f ic ient to support development of 24 numbers for the back-up fuel cycle, such as the Hearing Board 25 recommended.
86.04.4 6
pv i
The other question really is:
Is that the only 2
issue ?
And I would.think that one thing that most everyone has 3
c o ncl ude d -- c e r tainl y, the Hearing Board has concluded -- is 4
that the rule, as presently structured, is not a particularly 5
great rules it needs a lot more work.
It states radioactive 6
effluent releases solely in curies, and it does not give a 7
comple te picture, by any means, of the envircnmental effects 3
attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle.
9 As I said, I think everyone recognizes that, and the 10 interim rule now in effect specifically provides that Taole S-3 lI is not to be the sole and last word on f uel cycle impacts, that 12 what it is supposed to be the last word on is as to the numcers 1.3 in that rule itself.
But other issues such as dose, health 14 def ects, socioeconomic effects, cumulative impacts, if any, 15 most of what lies outside of Tacle S-3, is probably the most 16 important.information you can find in detail in the imcacts of 17 the fuel cycle.
13 So, as I say, I think most pecple recognize that, 4
19 and, indeed, of course, the staff is right now and has oeen for 20 some time working on an update of S-3 to cover as to the entire 21 S-3 meny of the.se very subjects.
22 COMMISSIONER XENNEDY:
You are including the front 23 end, wnich thLs does not co ver ?
24 MR. EILPERIN:
That is correct.
They are updating 25 tne front end.
They are working on health effects.
I think
I e
24.04.5 7
pv i
they probacly want to wait until Year 3 on that, but there will 2
ce an interim rule on reden.
Decommissioning will be cove red.
3 A slew of suojects which -- and the particulars, I am sure --
4 Dick Cunningham or Frank Miraglia can fill the Commission in 5
on.
6 COMMI SSIONER KENNEDY:
Can we int e rruct long enough 7
to get a ballpark estimate of wnen that would be completed and S
ready?
I am not talking aoout as a final rule, but rather 9
ready for public comment.
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The schedule calls for the f all.
.11 COMMI SSIONER KENNEDY:
This fall?
12 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
Octecer or November.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
ditn an error band of two 14 years or two months?
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think that what we're talking 16 about is tne front end, the updated f ront end, for the redon 17 data that we are gathering.
d e s i th e f f e c t s -- o r, rather, dose IS commitment and health e ffects or some other suitecle 'echanism 19 that people could agree on.
de will have that by the fall, 20 Octeter or Novemoer, some t ime in that time range.
21 Now, I see in this proposal he re that the CGC wrote 22 up in talkin about socioeconomic impacts -- and I am not sure 23 what is meant by that -- what it is intended to accomplish if 24 we have to go lato any kind of detailed analysis of 25 socioeconomic imcacts, that certainly is going to either ce en
-86.04.6 8
pv 1
add-cn that will have to come later, or it would extend the 2
whole. thing.
3 Now, there were some general statements, rather 4
s ub je c t ive, in the purple book, back into the fuel cycle, wnich 5
is the subject of this proceeding, but that is just a 6
narrativet it is not true analysis.
I have heard people talk 7
aoout analyzing psychological e ff ects, analyzing economic 8
impact on the state in which the repository is bul',t and 9
extending out over time.
If that is the kind of thing we have 10
?.o factor into the rule. I don't know what it is going to
.11 Involve.
de just have to look at it.
In any instructions to 12 f actor Ln socioeconomic imcacts, should contain a definition of 13 what is intended.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Those unresolved questions 15 aside, you will have a rule ready for comment by next fall?
16 November, say?
17 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That is correct.
13 MR. EILPERIN:
Is that a rule or a report?
19 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
This would be a procosed rule.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
dould that include a 21 narrative statement that would ce part o f the rule?
22 MR. CUNNINGH AM:
Yes.
23 MR. EILPERIN:
de sent uo a pacer to the Cornission 24 on the 25th of this months and, essentially, that lays out :wo 25 broad octions for One Commission's consideration.
The first is
486.04.7 9
pv 1
to promulgate as a final rule the Table 5-3, as recommended oy 2
the Hearing Board, and direct the staf f to provide explanatory 3
material when the table is used in individual licensing.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Explanatory material in the 5
form of?
6 MR. EILPERIN:
Mell, the point of all of. this is 7
that one's Legal obligations don't change whether you do things 8
by the rule or by individual proceeding.
The fact that certain 9
subjects, such as dose commitments and health eff ects, are not 10
- c. overed in the rule means, of course, that they must be covered
.11 in individual proceedings.
That is presumacly hacpening now.
12 The staff does make presentations which, I gather, are 13 something along the lines of the
. raft environmental standard 14 review plan,. which th e Hearing Board attached to its 15 recommendations and also, I think, its presentation in terms of 16 the health effects of the coal fuel cycle versus the nuclear 17 f uel c ycle.
How that presentation deals with integration time, 18 how long in the future it looks to calculating dose 4
19 commitments, I am not clear on.
Su if the Commission doesn't 20 deal with that, that would be a sucject that would be litigatad 21 in a legal proceeding.
22 Tha t, then, is sort of one cotion, to promulgate as 23 a final rule what you have from the Hearing Soard, assuming.
24 after a more thorough examination of the record, enat it is 25 supcortacle and that certain other legal cojections to it are
86.04.8 10 pv i
found wanting, such as, I think, the Sie rra Club said that you 2
are not really entitled to project from a limited excerience to 3
more general predictions.
I don't think very much of that 4
theory, but, in any event, there are a numoer of minor issues 5
like that which I don't think will prove very overwhelming in 6
what we will have to address in this consideratlon.
7 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE:
Not addressing the nerits of 8
the action, but do you believe it is a legally defensible 9
cotion?
Doe s it meet the requirements as the Chairman had laid to out?
That is, the reason we're going through all of this process is that at an earli.er stage tne rule was found 12 deficient.
Would that, in your legal judgment, meet the test?
13
'AR. EILPERIN:
I think it would.
I think the court 14 might be somewhat surprised at how much the rule doesn't cover 15 when it actually starts focusing on tnet.
I don't think that 16 was the focus of the prior court proc eed ing. and I tnink in 17 terns of the limited lead tbn tnat that should be able to 13 prevail.
So, rea lly, you don't have, to my minc, a ccmcelled e
19 legal choice one way or the otner.
It is basically a cuestion 20 of the Commission polle y jucgment as to whicn encice makes more 21 sense.
22 The second optlon looks toward extencing the interim 23 rule and directing, on an expedited basis, the creparation of a 24 narrative to address the signi,ficance of the imp a c t s.
We would 25 think of One narrative pretty much -- the Hearing Board thou;nt
L86.04.9 J1 pv i
of the narrative -- covering that general range of subjects.
2 As you know, the Hearing Soard thought that a 3
narrative should be included with the rule, and they thought 4
that the narrative should include sucjects such as 5
environmental dose commitments result.ing f rom radiological 6
releases, health effects, and socioeconomic imoacts, as well, 7
Apoarently, that latter subject could not be prepared in the S
same t.ime scale as the more technical ma tters.
9 The basic choice between those two broad cotions, I 10 don't know that CGC has a particular recommendation f or the
.11 Commission at this point.
You are c ertainly going to have to 12 rely on the staff for the croposal, in the first instance. and 13 it has to be done in a fashion which at least is consistent 14 with staff resources.
15 Cn the other hand, it is clear tnat all of these 16 things are generic issues.
I f yo u do n't deal with tnen new on 17 a generic basis, wnat you are doing, really, is either throwing IS them into an individual proceeding snere they are not raised at 19 all, wne re there isn't an active litigant to raise tnem, or you 20 are throwing them in an individual proceeding f or a licensing 21 board to resolve without any Commi ssion guidance, so tnat a 22 licensing board is forced to confront the questiens of tine 23 integration withcut any guidance from the Co mission as to wqat 24 to do with those matters.
25 Cn tne one hand. you have -- like Chauncev se0f er
L86.04.10 12 pv 1
ls saying -- integrate redon releases for full toxicological 2
period.
And on the other hand, you have presentations limiting 3
the distance one locks into the future to seme:ning like ICO 4
years or certainly far less than the other toxicological S
pericds.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And how would you see the 7
focus on that specLfic issue, of how f ar you do the a
integration?
How would you see your two options?
9 MR. EILPERIN:
dell, the option S essentially asks 10 the staff to propose a methodology dealing with those uncertainties quickly, without specific reference to the 12 numbers that might be involved, o ut just dealing with questions 13 about why does it or does it not make sense to lock so f ar in 14 the future,. what problems and speculations are there about 15 po p ula tio n, wnat control mechanisms are available to limit 16 doses dur.ing. that period, subjects of that k ind.
17 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Option A would not a ddress 13 the problem?
4 19 MR. EILPERIN:
Opt ten A would presumacly -- well, 20 option A would acdrtss that proclem, cLc only addrsss it wnen 21 the staff comes forward in the f all with a proposal.
22 I am scrry.
I see some heads shaking.
23 MR. MIRAGLI.A:
As the staff has ind ic a t e d, the 24 staff's proposal was to have the Commission direct the staff to use a nar ative of the type that is in the standard review 25 r
B e
- 86.04.11 13 pv i
plan, and those narratives are belng used.
There is a 2
narrative discussion, and in every imoact statement for a 3
reactor right now, which addresses Table S-3 as part of that 4
narrative discussion, the.re is a discussion of dose commitment, 5
as Steve pointed out ea rlie r.
In the environmental impact 6
statement there is a discussion of health effects of the coal 7
versus nuclear fuel cycle.
8 So, those issues are discussed within the context of 9
a proceeding, so this is not to say tnat the staff would not be 10 addre ssing these things.
What tne staff recommendation was,
11 for the Commission to direct the staff to do what it 12 e ssentially has been doing.
1.3 MR. EILPERIN:
Mayce I am still unclear.
I thougnt 14 that in the fall one proposal was also to deal with questions 15 about time integration and what might be an acceptable dose, 16 what uncertainties are there, in terms o f why it makes sense to 17 go a particular numcer of years -- that kind of issue.
IS MR. MIRAGLIA:
That is correct, Steve.
It's just 19 that that would be done in the context of a rulenaking.
This 20 is bein done in the context of a narrative which is sucject to 21 l itiga t ion in each individual proceeding.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sut it does cover those 23 questions?
24 MR. MIRAGLIA:
dell. there is a dose commitment 25 witnin the health eff ects discussion; tnere are perio ds of
86.04.12 14 pv i
integration from up to 1000 years.
And those are discussed in 2
the record for those proceedings.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But that would be the staff 4
v ie w as o ppo sed to --
5 MR. MIRAGLIA:
That's right.
That is the staf f 6
view.
That is presented as the staff's testimony in support of 7
the action that is ceing proposed.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So, in telling you to 9
continue doing what you are doing --
10 MR. MIRAGLIA:
The Commission would not be aoproving
.11 a specific integration.oeriod for the fuel cycle.
You would 12 not remove that generic consideration.
If you made a specific rec mmendation, that subject would not be ripe for litigation 1.3 o
14 in the-proceeding.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But it doesn't mean it wo uld 16 be up to each board to deal with it individually?
17 MR. MIRAGLIA:
That's co rrect.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
At tne point that that
^
19 narrative, whatever its character, is made part of the rule, 20 howe ver, as the Commission speaking, and it is our conclusion, 21 my question is -- I go back to my earlier point -- wnat is it 22 that is proposed?
I had thought that the rule was going to 23 include within it as part of the rule this narrat.ive, so then 24 at that point it 1s the Commission which will have sp ok en.
If, 25 on the other hand, meanwhile -- if I can be sure I understand
86.04.13 15 pv i
this - it, meanwhile, we just said keep doing what you're 2
doing, we haven't incorporat.ed anything within the rule, we 3
have not spoken as to our own view on the particular content of 4
that narrative.
That is a staff matter.which we simply put 5
forward for their consideration.
Is that the distinction?
and#4 6
MR. MIRA0LIA:
I believe that is correct.
7 8
9 10
.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 e
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
e L;8 6. 05.1 16 gsh 1
MR. CUNNINGHAM2 I don't think, Comm iss ioner 2
Kennedy, that that is what is contemplated in Option B, 3
where it talks about a na rrative.
That could oe included 4
in an amendment to the proposed rule.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Le t's s e e.
Sudde nly, I got lost.
6 I was drif ting along here, f eeling in command of the whole 7
thing, and all of a sudden. I discovered I did not see them S
get away from me. But they turned one way or ths. other, and 9
here I am on the sidewalk wondering where the thugs went.
10 MR. EILPERIN: I'm not certain I can direct you
.11 back to. the right stree t, but there are two questions.
The 12
- first question is, is that the only thing that is involved, 13 is a matter of timing?
14 In other words, is the only thing that is involved 15 that the commission has, will get what it wants in terms of 16 the proposed narrative in the fall and if it directs the 17 sta f f to, in a quick way, whether it makes sense, to direct IS the staff to come up with that proposed narrative earlier.
!?
Ehat is one questien.
20 The second question is, re a ll y, what the staff is 21 now do ing in terms of a narrative. Does that deal with the 22 kinl((on(issues which the commission would want to see 23 included?
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I judge that it, at least 25 touches on those. tnings. I got a f eeling it does not deal witn
- 86.05
- .2 17 gsh-1 them in quite the way that you would like to have the whole 2
basis laid out very carefully to sucport a rule which would 3
then be bind.ing upon everyone.
4 I suspect that's true and I have a notion that when 5
we do rule-making on those ma tters, that it is going to be 6
a very consideraoly greater elucidation of all of the points 7
and argument over them, and thrashing out than may oe the S
case with the sort of narrative that is presented now.
9 But Dick, somehow wnat you said about that isn't 10 wnat's in Option B, would you do that again? That seemed to be the place.
12 I got confused.
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I think Frank introduced tne 14 third option. Frank said. the commiss. ion should direct the 15 staff to do what they are already doing.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We ll, that's rea lly Option A, 17 I think.
19 MR. CU NNI NGHAM :
It is part of Option A.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But wouldn't you continue 20 do ing it under Option S?
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well. Option S, as I read Opticn 3, 22 would be to pull out all the stops.
23 COMMISSI0 DER GILINSKY: Sut in the meantime, wouldn't 24 you be doing exactly what you are doing?
25
'4R. CU MMIdGHAt4: Yes.
86.G5.3 18 gsh 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't see the practical 2
difference between the two. I mean in both cases, the final 3
rule or the interim rule are almost iden t ic a l.
In bo th 4
cases, in proceedings, you would be presenting the narrative 5
you now have.
6 In both cases, you would be updating it and 7
preparing material to amplify the narrative. In one case, 3
as part of -- by way of precluding. rule-making, and in another 9
case, by way of supplementing it.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I don't know whether it is a 11 difference or not, and I would ask Steve.
12 COMMISSIO.1ER GILINSKY: An I wrong here?
13 MR. EILPERIN: Well, as we said, there is sort of an 14 envelope of considerations which must be covered, either in 15 the rule or in an individuel proceeding.
16 I think I had better defer to Dick Cunningham acout 17 wnat is belng presented, what nore information would be 13 use f ul.
4 19 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I think a s a p r e c t ic e l ma.tt e r you 20 come out at the same point.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me esk you this.
22 Suppose you went with Gotion S and were preparing a f uller 23 na rra t ive to be part of the rule. In the meantime, we are 24 conducting proceedings, and I presume --
25 CHAIRMAN HE:IDRIE: Do you mean extend One in te r Lm rul e
86.05.4 19 gsh I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, if you extend the 2
interim rule, you would be extending those narratives.
3 MR. MIRAGLIA: The only diff erence would be that 4
when a narrative is promulgated with the commission's approval, 5
then the commission has spoken to scme of the issues that 6
Commissioner Kennedy was alluding to.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sur e, o ut that won't be ready 9
for a while in either option.
The question I have is if 9
we go with Option 3, does that come scener than it would under 10 Option A?
.11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: dell, under Option A, it 12 doesn't come specifically; it comes as a result of that
\\
13 general update.
14 I think the question is : What is.the difference 15 between the narrative that you would be generating to either l$
the content or, in time, the narrative you generate under 17 Option B and the result of your update.
13 COMMISSIONER XENNEDY: Mhat you just outlined was 19 really their so-called cermuted oction.
20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: There are severel things.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Are vcu in shape, in fact, to go 22 forward on a rule-making basis and clearly establish a basis 23 for a record that would suoport e rule on health e ff e cts 24 this side of puolicetion enc cur digestion of the 3EIR 3 25 document?
- 86.05.3 20 gsh i
MR. CUNNI NGHAM : I don't think so.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So what option 3 means is you 3
would call it an expedited preparation of a narrative.
But 4
if you're going to have in it the things that are cited 5
that people would like to have in it, what you are in e f f ect 6
saying is we're going to postpone taking any action on a 7
rule for S-3 and just throw this whole proceeding that is 3
going on and let it be a preliminary to the general update.
We won't get to this material any faster on 13 Option 8 than if you will under the update.
11 COMMISSI0 DER AHEARNE:
But there must be a lot more 12 in the general update than just a narrative?
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, there is. The rule tha t is 14 before you now is just the back-end of the fuel cycle. The 15 update includes the whole fuel cyclc.
16 That's the first thing that would make a difference.
17 There are data that are being generated now tnat would serve 13 as a better technical base than 've have availacle to us 19 right now, including radon emissions and tna; sort of thing.
20 de don't nave SEIR 3 today.
We should have it, 21 hopefully, within a month or so, but I've been hearing tna:
22 for quite a while.
23 So there ere a lot of thin s that we need before 24 we can comolete tne entire update.
25 As I ment ioned earlier, we nave got to reacn some
186.05.6 21
- sh I
understanding of what is intended.
When we talk about.
2 rather glibly, I think, socio-economic impacts and 3
cumulative effects and all this sort of thing, the staff has 4
to understand clearly what. boundaries we want to put on 5
that.
6 And I dcn't know where that leads us.
7 CO MMISS IONER 4HEARNE: Is that another way of saying, 3
Dick, that in answer to the question, how long would it take 9
to do the narrative of Option S, the answer is until we 10 specif y what would be in that na rra tive.
11
'AR. CUNNINGHAM: That is correct.
And option 3, as 12 I read it, contemplates a commission decision on it.
These 13 issues are not simple issues, like how far out in time do 14 you go.
15 When we talk ecout an expedited procedure f or doing 16 that, it is just not going to oe fast.
17 I think tnat when you go througn it all, you won't 13 have that in any significant t.ime difference than you would 19 have the complete rule.
20 COMMISSIONER AMEARNE: // hen you say you woulcn't have 21 it any f aster, do you mean we wouldn't have it faster, given 22 You develop it, you put it out for comment and we oass on it ?
23 Are you saying that that time scale would not be 24 any dlffe rent than the f ull uodat.e rule on prcmulgation, 25 comment, and passa e?
26.05.7 22 gsh 1
MR. CUNNINGHAM: As the reading we have today, I 2
don't.think so. I rea.ly don't think so.
3 There are several f actors that are involved here.
4 FLrst is the aval1 ability of staff, for one thing.
The 5
waste management bunch are working cn an expedited basis on 6
the waste management program in its entirety. Other oeople 7
involved back into the fuel cycle are working on this 3
Congressional report that has got to go up in March.
9 So unless something gives, we just don't ha ve 10 people that can pick this up immediately and run with it.
Il Me talked to our contractor, who is working with 12 us on this S-3 rule-making.
Me nave asked him about some 13 of th is.
And they say, well, they can f actor some of these 14 things in, get them to us by somewhere in July, and that is 15 about the time these reports have to come out to us in order 16 to work on our rule for the fall.
17 So you might galn a month or two if you pulled out 13 all the stops, but you would sacrifice ge tting the comolete 4
19 ucdate.
20 So that small time dif ference doesn't s eem to.
21 when you look at this thing in :ne total context, it doesn't 22 s eem worthwnile.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What is your current best 24 estimate as to when. the final uodate rule will be in effec ?
25 4R. CUNNIJGHAM: Ihat depends upon how the co-m iss ion
'86.05.8 23 gsh i
views the rule. I can tell you wnen we will get it to you, 2
but I think that there are certain k inds of --
3 COMMISSI0 DER AHEARNE: I don't mean when you will get 4
it to us for us to out out f or comment. I mean af ter you have 3
gone through the comment period and everything. When is your 6
best estimate as to when we will be finished?
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I would say about a year.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: A year from now?
9
- 4R. CUNNINGHAM: No. after it is out. after it is 10 out for comment.
Il CHAIRMAN dENDRIE: That is about two years from 12 now.
13 MR. CUNNIJGHAM: It procably wiil be pretty close 14 to it.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is if the proceeding and 16 consideration and all runs and the record can be back to the 17 commission and we can make a decision in a year.
13 I notlce we have no t done that Ln this proceedin 4
19 in a year, have we?
20 How long has this one been running?
21 MR. MIRAGLIA: This proceeding started. the hearing 22 process started in early Septemoer of 1976.
23 CHAIRMAN HENCRIE: When was the proposed rule 24 publisned for comment?
25 MR. MIRAGLIA: The crocosed inter-rule was criginally
'36.05.9 24 gsh I
based on the NUREG !!6.
It was actober of 1976.
The 2
final interim rule was promulgated in March of 1977.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good. de are coming up on two 4
years to repair two numbers in the S-3. And I suggest to you 5
that is a calibration on the general uodate proceeding.
6 MR. EILPERIN: That is precisely the issue, though.
7 Should one want to leave the matter in this sort of limco 3
for another two years?
9 MR. MIRAGLIA: The point that I was going to make 10 with re spect to the updated rule, if the commission takes the 11 draft report and publi shes it for comment and circulates that 12 report and croposed rule for comment end then analyze s the 13 report, as it did in NUREG.0016, and then has a proposed rule 14 on it, we did get a final interim, "We got an interim rule 15 on the street in March, which was a 6-month period."
16 So if you adoot notice and conment prccedures for 17 the update rule, you could conceivably, you know, the year 18 time-f rame and the long proceeding was tnis long because we 19 did not go notice and comment, but.ve have gone through a 20 hearing croce ss.
21 So tha t is a f actor in your determination es to 22 how long is it going to take?
23 The type of rule-making.
Not all rule-makings are 24 a hearing process. The tyce of rule-making one adocts would 25 affect the timing of the final rule.
86.05.10 25 gsh I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Taking all of that into 2
consideration and using two years as an aporoximate rule of 3
thumo, Dick, is your answer tnen that it would also take 4
about two years to do the narrative of Gotion 3?
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM: If you want to adopt it, go through 6
the same rule-making process, I would think that it wo uld 7
be about th e same.
3 In fact, it might be more difficult because my
)
experience with the se narratives, you start out and say, we ll 10 I will write 10 pages of something, and then people keep 11 bringin in these issues and you go back and write some more 12 and write some more.
13 Unless you can do the job as completely as possible 14 to begin with, you just go through an interim process that 15 drags on and on and on.
16 50 I would suspect that it would be about the same.
17 CO VMI SS IO.iER AHE ARNE : 5teve, did you have in mind 13 about a two-year time period on Option 3?
4 19 MR. EILPERIN:
No.
I would have hoped that tnat 20 could be done in a much shorter time span.
21 COMMI SSIO;iER AHEARNE : For examp1.e?
22 MR. EILPERIN: dell, I do n't know how long it would 23 take for the staff to come up with a narrative, but I was 24 thinking in terms of no t. ice and comment after that, since I 25 think tnat questien such as the time of integration is nct One
86.G5.11 26 gsh I
sort of question where a full-scale evidentiary hearing is 2
nec e ssary.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The impression I had was you 4
were really talking on the order of four to six montns.
5 MR. EILPERIN: Something like that.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There is a really significant 7
dif.ference because these are the guys that are going to have 9
to do it.
9 COMMISSI0 DER KENNEDY: Nobody could do this in 13 four to sLx nonths.
.11 You mean the completion of a whole new final rule?
12 MR. EILPERIN: No, just the narrative.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: This is option B.
14 COMMLSSIONER GILINSKY: Why does it take longer than 15 that?
16 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It won't take that long to write it 17 depending ucen wnat you want in it.
But Lf there are things 18 in the re like how f ar you would integrate cut over time 19 uncertainties that we have to go back through the rule and 20 look at the significance of impacts, including, as I understand 21 it from Steve, socio-econom ic impacts -- and a.11 of these 22
. things are centroversial issues.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I know. But let's tak e the 24 one about how long the pericd you calculate over. It 25 dcesn't seem to me to be very difficult to lay cut a numcer
86.05.12 27 gsh 1
of possibilities and that is just up to the commissioners 2
to decide how they want to deal witn it.
3 It is not something that takes a tremendous amount 4
of calculations.
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, no. What I'm saying is the time 6
the staff would spend on this isn't the part of it that takas 7
up all the time in preparing the initial thing that goes 3
up to the cornission.
9 Sut then the proce ss starts.
10 COMMISSIO:IER GILI.iSKY: You just do n' t think we're 11 going to decide it.
12 MR. CUNdI;lGHAM:
We ll, I th. ink that there are going 13 to be a lot of questions because these are not clear-cut 14 issues.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But that is something that 16 you may, in fact, be right, but that is somethlng tha t is 17 under our control.
13 MR. MIRAGLIA: Might I make an ooservation?
19 As a matter of policy, the commission could rule on 20 that comclately secarace from this rule-making proceeding.
If 21 it is done in the context of this rule-making proceeding. One 22 options are as to confine it to the back end of the fuel 23 cycle. Or if you want to include the front end of tne fuel 24 cycle, you only can include the impacts that were a dd r essed in 25 Tacle S-3.
e 36.05.12 28 gsh dith respect to the period of integration, one 2
s.ignificant concern is the handling of redon.
3 So if you want to address the period of integration 4
on direct, that is here.
That's one issue.
That is perhaps 5
outside of that record, as the rule is currently constructed.
6 The question of a period of integration to dose 7
is a generic one as we have been discussing, and it could be S
considered completely outside the context of this rule-making 9
proc eeding.
10 That is a personal observation or opinion.
11
.4R. EILPERIN: But in order to bind licensing boards, 12 it has to be done by rule.
1.3 MR. MIRAGLI Ar A rule could be notice and comment.
14 This was the same quest. ion that was before the connission 15 with respect to the radon issue in.4 arch c.f '77. And the 16 commission asked the staff if we were ready to propose such 17 a thing, and the staff said they were not.
The y we re st i.ll 13 e xamin.ing raden.
19 And this is, I guess, part of the consideration in 20 the mining and milling 3EIS that is in orogre ss and will ce 21 coming to the commission on acout the same time-frame we've 22 been talking about.
23 So it seems to me the issue of dose integration is 24 o ne that could be considered as secarate from tn is ru l e-ma k ing 25 or any other.
29 46.05.14 gsh i
MR. EILPERIN: I think one thing that Frank was 2
saying, if'I'm rlght, is that dose integration is separate 3
f rom the numbers involved, and that is one of the are m.is e s 4
of Option 5, that you could have a methodology without 5
having at your fingertips the numbers that plug into that 6
method.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But what is the value of 3
addre ss ing integration time without giving the number ?
9 MR. EILPERIN: Well, you have some numbers around.
10 You can have a method and a princiale, and then that is used
.11 when you have the. inf ormation to plug in.
12 MR. SLAGGI E : Another thought was that an ongoing 13 e ff ort to get more numbers may be influenced by the integration 14 t ime you have decided upon.
15 For example, if you decide to integrate out of the 16 full perid of toxicity, there might be then a different 17 emphasis on part.icular radioactive releases than there would 13 if you had decided to truncate the period arbitrarily.
!?
COMMLSSIONER AHEARNE: I think, Leo, wnat you're 20 saying is you would end up choosing a time -- now :nat time 21 may be infinite, but you're arguing acout what is the interim?
22 MR. SLAGGIE:
I'm saying the numbers ycu set out to 23 get are, in part, at least, influenced by the methodology 24 that you are proposing to use.
If you haven't decided on a 25 methodology, you are in a somewnat hazy situation wnen you're
86.05.15 30 gsh i
looking for numeers.
2 COMMI SSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me the one 3
difference between these two options is that option 3 tends 4
to hold the commission's f eet to the fire a 1.ittle more.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Net particularly, because what 6
will happen is that the staff will work away on the so-called 7
narrative and about the time that I expect that we might have 8
hoped to have seen the general update croposition, wny, we 9
will have the narrative proposition and go forward from there.
10 I'll tell you what one of the principal things 11 I've got against Option B is: That it really extends in a 12 substantial way the scope of the hearing or the proceeding 13 which has been going on, and at a time, two years down the 14 line, parties have made arguments long af ter everyone thought 15 they knew what the scope was and what the issues ought to 16 be attacked.
17 No w in the two years this thing has been running, 13 there have been an. awful lot o f issues raised ar.d discussed 19 in the proceeding, one way or another, so tha; sort of the 20 subject area has broadened out considerably beyond the 21 original scope and the procosal is now be ing made, why don't 22 you scrace up that spread out area and see if you can make a 23 bigger thing out of it than it started out to be?
24 The oroblem with that is that it leaves the 25 f undamental propositions and analyses.be fore the house still
96.05,16 31 gsh I
in the limited original area and not dealing with the 2
spread-out.
3 I would point out that back in August of '76, I
4 guess, if I can find a date on the thing, the 5th of 5
Novembe r, 1976, the statement: " The commiss ion intends to 6
reopen the. rule-making proceeding on the environmental effects 7
of the uranium fuel cycle docket RM50-3 for the limited 3
purposes of, one, supplementing the record on the 9
reprocessing and waste management issues, and two, determining 10 wnether or not on the basis of the supolemented record, 11 Table S-3 of 10 CFR, et cetara, should be amended, and if so, 12 in what respect?
13 So staff, and I presume the other partiec, come to 14 this proceeding to do that.
And yes, a lot of other things 15 get talked about.
People want to talk about economics and 16 socio-economic effects and the psychological stress f actors 17 on God knows wnst.
But the central analyses and thrust of 13 the hearing was, Ln fact, en that lim it e d c ro po s it ion.
19 MR. EILPERIN: Except 1: could be said that all of 20 those other topics dealt with the question of in what 21 respect should the table ce amended?
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You can gather all of these things 23 in and expand then the treatment of the recrocessing and 24 waste management numbers to carry on through to dose 25 commitments and health eff ects, and all of the other associated
-86.05.17 32 gsh 1
things, socio-economic or what have you, assoclated with 2
reproce ssing and-waste managenent, or at least you can to 3
the extent the record now stands covered in some way on 4
those subjects.
5 Sut it does seem to me that these are fairly 6
.importan t thingt, and if you're going to have a rule on 7
them which is going to try to bind and fix how they are 8
treated henceforth in individual proceedings, yo u m ight just 9
want to start out making clear to everycody that that is
/
10 wha t you're going to do, so everybody can concentrate on 2
~
.11 that f rom the beginning.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
J R.2486 33 EER
.-6 nte 1 1
C0191ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Frank, in the standard review plan, when they go in for a licensing, what integration times are there?
3l MR. MIRAGLIA:
I believe the standard review plan 4
that was attached to the Board's order has the 40-year integra-tion period.
However, the health effects testimony has extended the period of integration out to 100 years for most f the isotopes and has taken radon out to 1,000 years.
And 8
I believe there is some discussion in the testimony, while the 9
i integration period was not carried out, but discussions up i
10,
to 10,0 0 0.
11 COM!iISSIONER GILINSKY:
For radon?
12 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Yes.
g col?iISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would think you would want j,
to have the same time for all of them.
33 i
MR. liIRAGLIA:
That is correct.
It only becomes an g
- 7 l issue for long-lived isotcpes, the period of integration, and.i I
i with respect to the back end there are several long-life jg isotopes that one might want to consider for long pe:: icds of 39 20 i integration, whereas for most isotopes going to longer inte-l I
I gration periods does not affect the end result l
,3 l l
i 21R. EILPERIN:
What about carbon-14' 22 gl MR. liIRAGLIA:
I think they 've been using 40 years,
i i
and there is discussion out to 100 years, i
3 o#.enw n.oenm. inc. !
MR. SLAGGIE:
What is the half-1.:. e a: it?
I 5,
4 i
l i
mte 2' 4
34 1
MR. MIRAGLIA:
5,000 years.
2 [}
CClaiISSIONER AHEARNE:
As a minor point, do you I
'3 define mill tailings as part of the front or back end?
4 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Mill tailings as defined in this 5
rulemaking is a front end.
6 CO!EISSIONER AHEARNE:
So the radon associated with 7
the mill tailings was not in this?
8 3,R. liIRAGLIA:
It is included in the health effects 9
testimony as a result of the Commission's rulemaking last l
10 1 i
March that made it an issue litigable in each proceeding.
So l
11 I
the staff does discuss what raden emissions from mill tailings i 12 are.
I3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And the time period they used 14 in that case?
15 i
MR. MIRAGLIA:
Is 1,000 years, with discussions out i
16 to 10,000 years.
j 1
I7 COMMISSIONER KE!iMEDY:
It seems to me dat we have -
I 18 I I don't knew.
It seem s to me that there : eeds to be some sort 19 j of narrative here.
I
'O '!
Secondly, we knew that staff is prepared to develop I
I 21 a rule covering the entire fuel cycle, both front end and 22 !
back end, but can't get that done for our consideration until l
23 1j next liovember, at which point it could have such narrative.
24 '
W Reco,tws. Inc. :
But even then, one has to assume a year or maybe a year and a 2~" '
l half, through a notice and comment exercise before one could I
i i
i
)
te 3 35 I
see a final rule.
So that would be two years away.
2 The third thing it seems to me we know is that we 3!
have a record here which at leas t in the Board 's view suc. corted 4
a number of changes in the Table S-3, the interim rule.
- Now, 5
since that's what this rulemaking started out to do in the first 6
instance, A, to make the record, and, B,
to ascertain whether 7
in fact there were some changes that ought to be made in that 8
table, it seems to me we might consider an option which says, 9
let us publish, let us make the changes in Table S-3, publish j
f 10 J a final rule with a notation that the staff will be preparing l
11 !
a narrative which will accompany it.
12 '
That narrative would not be that different, I would 13 assume, as to the back end, at least, as the narrative which 14 is going to be coming out anyway, which the staff is going to 15 be preparing.
Trv to cut that on a somewhat ex= edited schedule }
I 16 l And now we have in place, then, for the next two years a final {
17 rule with a narrative which will be coming out in X montns,
18 somewhere between now and November, hopefully sooner rather I
19 l than later, while the full update effort goes forward.
20 l It seems to me that that is at least a feasible i
i 21 ;
course and one which would allow rulemaking to go forward on i
22 an update in an orderly way.
23 ;
COMMISSICNER AHEARSE :
But I think Dick Cunningham 1
24 said, cr at least i= plied, that the procedure there and the co-FocW Rooorters, Inc. '
25 1 path they are on for the updated rule isn't necessarily going I
i l
I
mte 4 36 1
to track that closely with the existing S-3 rule.
So that 2
the effort to develop the narrative for the S-3, is ' that 3
matchable with the effort they would have under way anyway?
I 4
COffiISSIONER KElmEDY:
I don't know.
My impression 5
is that it would be.
6 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I don't think we are far enough 7
along to really know what the structure will look like.
'Ihe 8
contractor is doing the calculations now and the technical 9
part of it and hcw you would integrate it with the narrative 10 '
and pull it all together, we just haven't gone far enough to 11 say what it would be.
But certainly if you look at the total 12 rule, the discussions would be substantially different than if 13 you prepared a narrative just for the back end.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But as to the back end l
It 15 !
portion, I would think a good deal of this would be very l
I 16 similar.
17 i MR. CUMIINGHAM:
Yes.
I say that with qualification.i i
18,
I'm not sure.
i 19 COMMISSICNER E!NEDY:
I understand.
i 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARME:
"'he Hearing Bcard also, in l
l l
21 l addition to recommending their changes, they also, though, did j 22 reccmmend that it be accompanied by the narrative.
23 l CHAIRMAN HENDRII:
But they also said, hopefully the 24 ; narrative could be adopted as part of the rule in a future kce.5esoras Reoorters, Inc.
25 proceeding.
i l
l I
i 1
mte 5 37 1
What concerns me is that I have a notion that the 2
record as it stands might not support the adoption without 3
reopening, the adoption of a narrative of the type that is in 4
Standard Review Plan 57 with the *ralues and so on.
I've got a 5
feeling that you would get yourself severely -- you might get 6
yourself severely -- have a problem with an appeals court, and 7
you would have to go back and reopen the proceeding to establish 8
a basis for the narrative.
9 Now, all I can say is, af ter two years and a general l i
I l
10 '
update coming down the line --
i l
Il MR. EILPERIN:
I think we agree that there has to l
12 be comment on --
13 COliMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But how about reopening the 14 hearing?
I 15 MR. EILPERIN:
Part of the comment can be on whatever,'
16 is in the narrative.
You don't have to, again, go through an
(
.I 17 :
evidentiary hearing.
i 18 [
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Say that again?
I I
19 l MR. EILPERIN:
I agree with vou that you just can't 20 i promulgate a narrative.
There has to be notice of the narrative i
21 l and there has to be public comment on it.
All I am suggesting 22 is that the public comment is the record.
You don't have to 22 l begin or reopen an evidentiary hearing.
It can be just th at.
i 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see, you wculd propose that it WerW Recorters, Inc. ;
1 25 !
be notice and comment?
I l
1 I
s
mte'6 38 1
MR. EILPERIII:
Well, one thing I think the Comission 2
might wish to consider is a cuestion such as :
Should the 3 I integration for carbon-14 be 40 years, and over how long until I
4 one gets a narrative or further guidance on an issue like that?
5 The sort of thing I'm trying to avoid is extending for a couple 6i of years the system by which one has integration times of a 7
very, very short time period without addressing what other a-time periods there can be and what uncertainties are involved 9
in issues of that kind.
10 l CHAIRMAN E NDRIE:
Well, that means you're going to 11 have to develop -- the staff is going to have to develop for 12 itself a full analysis of the integration time matter for 13 various isotopes, say, a characteristic set of half-lives, the 14 arguments for dealing with it one way or another, and decide 15 what their position is on those things.
And I've got a notion ;
i 16 that that is not a trivial job, and it is probably a pretty I
i 17 husky piece of work.
18 Parties are gcing to, similarly, have to lay out I
19 !
their points of view on it, and everybody will want to comment i
i l
20 l on everybddy else's.
i 21 We, indeed, might do it by notice and comment.
But j
22,
I j ust don' t think it is trivial.
I think:it is a rather i
f i
23 l substantial piece of work, and my impression is strongly, with 24 the staff, that they are really not prepare.d on anything other wasww m.oo,=n inc. :
f 25 l than a time scale like October c2 !!avember to deal with that t
mte:7 39 1
matter in the way that they would really like to lay it out.
2 I think the other parties may have similar kinds of time 3
problems.
I I
4!
COM!iISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why is there so much staff 5
work involved?
6, COMMISSIONER AHEARUE :
With the narrative?
7 CO!2iISSICIER GILINSKY:
No.
It is alrest a philoso-8 phical question.
It is not caculation; it is hand-wringing.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARIE:
Steve, there was a phrase in 10 I your paper on page 3.
In discussing Option A, you say that:
11 "There is clearly substantial evidence in the record *w 12 !
support the v '"es, if used with ful.1 awareness of underlying
^
13 uncertain ties. '
v 14 MR. EILPERIN:
Yes.
15 COM!iISSICNER AHEARNE:
Do you feel the record I
16 supports the information, that it provides that full awareness
^
17l of %the underlying uncertainties?
i 18 MR. EILPERIN:
I have not thorcughly examined the I
17l record.
I have to say that at the outset.
But what I meant I
i 20 l by tha a is that these numbers. are not a scientific prediction l
21 of what in fact will happen, and that kind cf uncertainty i.
f 22,
would be set out in a statement of considerations.
i 23 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Expressable in a general way.
I I
24 l MR. EILPERIN:
That's right.
These particular e a.comn, inc.,
i 1
25 !
curie numbers should not be taken as God-given, and scme of j
j
ste 8 40
~
1 then are cuite conservative, and there are portions of the 2
model --
i 3 I COM!!ISSIONER AET.ARNE :
You meant, then, in a very 1
4 qualitative sense?
5 MR. EILPERIN:
That 's right, not giving a particular 6
range of curie numbers, that's right.
7 CCt'liISSIONER AHEARNE:
Steve, how much weight would 8
a court give, in your estimate, of the Board's recommendation 9
that there would be a narrative if there isn't a narrative?
10 !
Is that significant?
Il
!!R. EILPERIN:
I think it does not invalidate the i
12 recommended rule.
I think what it makes quite explicit is 13 that this rule is not a complete one, and it is by no means 14 anywhere near complete.
I think that. sort of thing would be 15 stated out front in the Commission's statement of consideration.
I 16 j The statement of consideration would lay out precisely which I
17 j ways the Commission views the table incomplete, what kinds of I
18 things the Commission thinks are open for litigation in indivi ;
19 !
dual cases.
And I don't think the court would f ault the l
I f
20 j Ccenission on that.
l 21 CCM!iISSIONER GILI'.; SKY :
Dick, could I ask you, do l
22 we have anywhere in front of us laid out the way your plan is,
23 l your general update of the rule in updating S-3 in terms of i
l 24 ;
who 's working on it and how much effo-* " involves?
You are h Reportws. Inc.,
I 25 referring to the same people having to be involved in both j
i i
l I
1
tte 9 41 1
activities, depending upon how we came out on Option A or 2
Option B, in effecting the general update.
i 3I MR. CUtRTINGHAli:
Well, I don't have anything written 1
4' out.
5 C0191ISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you say something about 6
that?
7 MR. CUNITINGHMi:
Yes.
We have a contractor working 8
on it.
9 CO!?iISSIONER GILINSKY:
Who is that?
l 10 f MR. CU1RTINGEAll:
UUS, doing a fair amount of the l
I 1I technical work.
i 12 l l
COMMISSIONER GILINSIN:
Can you say how many man-years 13 that involves, roughly?
14 MR. CUZRTINGHAM:
It is about si:c.
We are also i
15 simultaneously working on an update or an interim rule on I
b 16 radon.
Jus t this past Tuesday we go t: into the data that we 17 ! have been trying to get, and we factored that into a rule, and i
18 f we 'll be coming up to the Commission within the ne:ct conth.
I 19 '
And these are the same people that are working along with the 20 general update.
It makes sense to have them involved in 21 :
th at, some of these people who are schedule to work on Rule S.
22 COMMISSIGNER. GILINSIC :
You're talking about the I
i 23,
contractor or NRC staff?
2d '
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
NRC staff.
h Reco,Ters, Inc. i 25' COlDi!SSIONER GILINSKY:
Ecw many persons are involved i
.te 10 42 1
in this at NRC, roughly speaking?
2 MR. CUNNINGHAli:
There should be about -- well, today, 3
right today I think there are about four.
Now, we have had 4
to pull some people off of the S-3 work to work on the DOE 5
or the federal waste study, which we have to get uo to Congress 6
by March 1st.
At least two of those people are working on 7
that s tudy.
They have been pulled of f to work on the other 8
study.
9 COMiISSIONER GILINSKY:
The contractor is working l
10 l on the general update or S-3 or both?
i MR. CUNNEIGHAM:
The contractor is working on the II I 12 general update.
13 COM!iISSIONER GILEISKY:
And that goes across the 14 board?
I 15 MR. CUl!NINGHAM:
Yes.
16 COM!iISSIONER GILINSKY:
They're also working on the 17 back end?
18 l MR. CUIT!IINGHAft:
Yes.
I9 l CO!SiISSIONER GILINSKY:
And we have got four persons 20 at NRC that are dealing with S-3, the general update dealing 1
21 l with the contractor, radon, plus working on the report for i
22 l the Congress.
i 23 !
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
There are =cre people than that 1
24 '
working on the report for the Congress.
.merm Reconm. inc. ;
D COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But some of these four are t
I tte 11.
43 I
contributing to that?
2 MR. CUNUINGHAM:
That's correct.
And there is a 3
close tie-in, too, to make the picture more complicated.
4 There is a close tie-in with the people working on radon and 5
S-3 and the people working en the GEIS.
And just how we 6
divide those people up, I'm not quite sure.
7 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In the light of these 8
numbers, could you say something about option A or Option B as 9
to how you would assign that work?
Would you augment the four?
10 i MR. CU:mINGHAM:
I quite clearly would prefer II Option A, because it gives us an opportunity to work the whole 12 problem and come up with something that is integrated.
And it 13 is just cleaner to do it that way.
That is clearly why I would Id like Option A.
We have a chance -- I think it is our best 15 opportunity to do a complete job and do it right.
f i
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Just how scrambled up would I7
'l things get if you went to option 3?
I :te an, I take it that l
18 is your cbjection to it, that it would scramble things up.
19 i:
MR. CUMMINGHN*.:
Well, there are two problems with 20 l it, I think:
One, that it would be scrambled um, in the sens e !
l 21 that you nicht not ce acle te sav exactiv what vou would say l
i i
2
I on the back end of the fuel cycle if you are going to Option A, !
l 23 j because it has to be compatible with the existing front end i
24 '
of the fuel cycle or however it's modified with the updated es.e-m a.oonm. rne..
2~5 '
fuel.
So you have to make something that fits the rule you l
i i
l l
te f2 44 I
are working -- you have to work with.
So if we were to go 2
Option B and do work on the back end, I don ' t know that it 3
would be directly translatable to our further work on the 4
complete update.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess it surprises me that 6
it would be all that different.
7 MR. CUNNINGFJui:
I den't know.
It might or might 8'
no t be.
There is a possibility.
I'm j us t not sure.
We 9
haven' t looked at it that closely.
10 1 The other thing is that if we put people working on 11 this as a priority project, on the back end, it's going to 12 impact the general update.
I don't know how much yet.
We 13 haven 't looked at it.
I just got this piece of paper this I#
morning just before I cane down here.
We haven't looked at i
15 that in any detail.
But it is going to impact it somehow.
l 16 l i
l 7.m not sure how much, but it will impact it.
l l
i 17l COMMISSIO:ER AHEAFlE:
De vou mean the cacer that
^
i 18 you just looked at?
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes, this one.
20 ;
COM!!ISSIO!ER AREARNE:
So you really have not had i
l 21 j a chance to look at it?
l i
I 29 -
MR. CUUNINGHAM:
No, I have not any chance to see I
23 how these various options would affect people and schedules.
24 COMMISSICIER AHEARNE:
Or, for that natter, I guess,
e seconm inc. ;
25 to really have carefully thought through what that Option B i
I l
"mte 13*
45 1
might entail.
2 MR. CIRRTINGFA'4:
Well, that 's correct, and that is i
3 I why when I read this on the way down here and looked at i
4 socioeconoric impacts and cumulative effects, and quite clearly 5
the staff has to have some sense -- some consensus before it
-6 6
goes forward with what that is intended to cover.
7 8
9 10 !
11 12 13 14 l
l 15 I
i 16 17 l l
I 18 l
I 19 !
i 20 I I
21 i
I i
22 l l
23 :
i, i
24 cm 5sceras Reporters, Inc.
25 i
i
r 46 I
CR2486 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, is there anything 2
tape 7 else you want to read at this point here?
3 david 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, Vic.
I think I would i
4 like to think about this.
5 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:
I've got a question before 6
we break up, and it has to do with the technetium-99 problem.
7 i
We were told that and it was explored in some detail, noting 8l that other substantive isotopes were of far more significance I
I 9i j
and therefore so long as they were accounted for, whatever 1
10 '
problem arose with technetium. the release of all of it 11 having been ass'umed, is tacen care of.
12 '
l i
That was immediately preceding, however, the 13 i
release of the report by EPA which says the real problem is 14 technetian-99.
15 1 Has anybody reviewed that report?
Have we said 16 I i
anything about it, and what effect,if any,does it have on l
s these conclusions?
i 18 l MR. MIRAGLIA:
With respect to the technetium l
19 issue, one of the points was is that technetium is not 20 !
identified as an effluent from the fuel cycle facilities 21 1 j
as such.
And the question that was put to the parties at
'2 the oral presentations a week or so ago was :
would the i
23 '
conservative -- or did the conservative assumption of the 24 release of all of the iodine-129 adequately bcund, not a-,. e.rw n. con m,inc.
SC considering the releases of technetium, and the answer to that i.
. s 47 I
david 2 question was yes.
2 Now, the report from EPA, I have not read that I
I i
3' I
report.
The report from EPA, though, as I understand it from,
i I
reading the little blurb in Energy Daily, is talking about 5'
the long term -- in the long term releases frem the 6
repository.
In fact if you look in NUREG-Oll6, if you assume a breach of the repository, technetium would be a f
7 3l significant contributor to the dose because of its long i
9 halflife and its transport and migration.
l 10 '
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Have you asked for a copy j
i of the report?
I 12 MR. MIRAGLIA:
I'm sure the waste management people 13 have the report and are aware of it.
1 I4 e l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm thinking more relating i
15 to the S-3 table.
16 !
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We have -- Livermore, our i
+
17 '.
contractor, came up with the technetium question too.
18 '
l COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Who would be resconsible in
~
14 the people who addressed the S-3 table' to have lcoked at the 20 i report?
MR. CUNNINGHAM.
At the technetium report?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
3!
MR. CUNN_77GHAM:
Well, it would NMMS and 94 between waste management and the people who are working en ther b:n-Foceral Recorters, Inc. -
'S
~
S-3 table.
I i
t
\\
t 48 I
david 3 MR. EILPERIN :
We got it from scmeone on staff, so 2
staff had gotten the report.
i
}l I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But Commissioner Kennedy's 1
4 question is very good, and I'm just concerned -- I would like 5
to have someone in NMMS on S-3, more than reading Energy 6i l
Daily.
i 7'!
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, without question, we are 8 1 looking at the question of technetium for the general l
9 update of S-3.
We've got to.
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I share Ccemissioner Kennedy's i
11 4' reaction because when I read that it seemed to me --
12 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What I'm trying to say is 13 l
I don't know where this leaves me right new; following i
i the conclusion of cur own proceeding and all the statements that were made, we got a report via the newspapers which 16 ';
suggested scmething rather different indeed than I had heard 17 !
or had been led to believe by any of the participants.
And 18 I I don't know where that leaves us.
19 l
MR. EILPERIN:
Well, you certainly can' t use this 20 l discussion to resolve the technetium-99.
What you can do is 21 {
leave that open for litigation in the proceedings.
I just 22 '
wanted to make clear that the staff had in fact gotren the 2' '
~
EPA report on technetium.
24 '
COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:
That in fact -- in cther Lee-Federas Reco,tws, Inc. ;
25 words, if we are icoking at S-3, the S-3 table, and contemplating I
i
I s
> s 49 david 4 I
either the extension of the interim rule, which I personally 2
at this juncture don' t favor, or the adoption of a final j
3 rule recognizing an update is in process, but it won't 4
occur for a couple of years at best; in either event, 5
technetium should not be in the table and should be left 0
to litigation.
4 I
I l MR. EILPERIN:
I think that would clearly be a I
I 8l sound choice.
i 9l t
l CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think we're going to l
I l
10 '
have to wind up at this point.
Two of us have commitments l
11 at 4:00 o' clock, and I guess we will have to take it up i
12 at our next meeting on S-3.
I3 Thank you.
i 14 l
(Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m.,
the meeting was i
,,1 15 j adjourned.)
i 16 i
17!
18 ;
1 i
19 l
20 l 21,
22 ',
23 l 24 WFecoral Reoortm, Inc.
25 :
i f
u
~
d af 4
UNITED STATES j
.:' 'e
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-l-7y^
TR. A ris a
!. p:: e OM'.- *j,3 4
.j wAsmNGTcN, D. C. 20555
$-3 RO N%
//
u.
January 25, 1979 MIMCRANDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie Commissicner Gilinsky Co==issioner ennedy Cornissicner Eradferd Co=~.issioner Abearne FRCM:
Stephen F. Zilperi.].
Obtor
SUBJECT:
OPTIONS IN THE S-3 RUlIMAKING We believe the Co==ission has two maj or options for action before the Interim Rule expires on March 14, 1979 We discuss them below.
Option A: Promulgate as a final rule a modified Ta'cle S-3 as recommended by the Hearing Board, and direct the staff to provide explanatory material when the table is used in individual licensing.
Development of an explanatory narrative to address dose commitments and health effects, socioeconomic impacts, and cumulative impacts would be accomplished later as part of the general WASH-1248 update.17 Oction B:
Extend the Interim Rule, and direct the prepa-ration on an expedited basis of an explanatory narrative addressing the significance of the impacos.
This expedited proceeding could include amendment of the proposed Table, insofar as practicable, to include uncertainties and to respond to the Hearing Board's proposals for improvements based on the existing record, Discussion of Cetion A This option is basically the staff's recontendation.
It departs from the Board's recommendations in that it does
_/
1,/
We have been informed that the staff now expects to have a draft updated environmental survey ready by the fall of 1979 We woul expect that at least a year, and perhaps much longer, would be required from the time a draft is available until procedures to adopt a final rule based en the update cculd be completed.
Centact:
E. Leo Slaggie, CGC 034-3224
The Commission 2
not include prc=ulgation of a "brief explanatory narrative" as part of the rule.
Participants at the oral presentation were generally agreed that a narrative would have to be cir-culated for public cc==ent before it could be cade part of the rule.
The staff observed that procedures for promulga-tion probably could not be completed before the Interi: Rule expires.2/
We do not see the absence of a narrative as raising a legal problem with Option A, so long as the Cer-4ssion T.akes clear in the Statement of Consideration (1) that the staff will discuss the environmental significance of the tabulated releases when the table is used in individual proceedings and (2) that dose com itments and health effects associated with these releases are, among other subjects, " fair game" for litigation.
More generally, whatever rule the Cccaission adopts need not address the full scope of fuel-cycle i= pacts which must be considered in the NEPA analyses for an indi-vidual reactor, so long as the rule'does not preclude liti-gation in individual licensing.2/
The staff's obligation to discuss these issues in yhe impact statement for the individual plant is clear.
2/
See the remarks of Mr. Murray speaking for the NRC staff.
Tr. 169 3/
The original Table S-3 rule included the phrase, "No further discussion of such environmental effects shall be required."
The Cc=rission has since made clear that health effects and raden emission values can be discussed in individual licensing. 43 Fed.
Reg. 15613 ( April 19,1973 ); see also In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartville) 5 NRC 92, 105 (1977) (ALA3-367).
The rule now reads, "No further discussion of the environmental effects addressed _by ~
the Table shall be required."
(e=phasis supplied).
4/
This is not to say that these impacts will necessarily turn out to be important.
Their actual significance would of course be a matter for discussion.
i...
The Commission 3
The Statement of Consideration for Option A should make clear what subj cets are covered by the table and hence precluded from discussion,5/and should identify those subjects that the staff and the applicant must address.in individual proceedings.
The Statement should also comment regarding uncertainties in the tabulated numbers.
Cption A has the advantage of bringing the present rule-making to a definite conclusion.
In support of this option, the Ccenission can point to the vast expansicn of the eviden-tiary record compared to the original record on waste manage-ment and reprocessing criticized by the D.C.
Circuit.
There is clearly substantial evidence in the record to support the values in Table S-3, if used with full awareness of under-lying uncrrtainties.
Although questions regarding uncer-tainties in the numbers were raised during the proceeding, as discussed in our memorandum of January 17, 1979, the Hearing Board was able to provide justification for accept-ing the S-3 values which, if carefully set out in the State-ment of Consideration, would probably prove acceptable to a reviewing court.
A disadvantage w'ith Option A, as we suggested earlier, is that it is simply not a very satisfactory rule, either in scope or in the apparent accuracy of its content.
Deferring the needed improvements until completion of the general update does not defer the need to confront difficult generic questions such as the integration time for calculating dose commitments, and risk factors for calculating health effects, since these matters must be addressed anyway in the indi-vidual proceedings.
What it does defer is Commission guidance to the staff and defers as well taking a Commission position on these issues.
Nevertheless, the Commission e.ight conclude, as in the radon case, that it is desirable to gather experience with various licensing board decisiens before " freezing" a 1/
Technetium-99 releases, for example, could be left for discussion in individual licensing, as is now done with radon releases, or perhaps could be excluded from cen-sideration on the ground that the conservative estimate of I-129 releases compensates for the emission of Tc-99 We are not certain which procedure would be preferable.
The Hearing Board has balanced errors on the side of undue conservatism and on the side of undue optimism.
Opening up one side of the equation for litigation in individual proceeding may unreasonably alter the total balance in Table S-3
The Cc==issicn 4
particular viewpoint into a rule.
Under this apprcach, the issues not addressed in the Table aill eventually ccre before the Ccnmission on revie, and the Occrission would have to make important policy decisions en generic questions in an adjudicatory rather than a rulemak'ng context, unless the general S-3 update has been concluded first.
Thus the Cc==1ssion's choice of Option A night depend en the Concis-e x f. a. '. a ".. r
- r. ".h o w a c o.
2_...' "^w_-=_,_'_"=_^.-.'_'".".a.
a
,., a-a
- ^
..s
.s general update is likely to be concluded.
Option 3:
Extend the Interi: Rule, and direct the prepara-tien on an expedited basis of an explanatory narrative e"
- e..' _ _ m a.n a =. o.'
m+ =. _.
_s ".. 2.
". _' c e.c g =. d.' ~. e ".
a ' ' _- a..c s _".~.g
~ h a.
- ~
_~~
proceeding could include amendment of the proposed Table, insofar as practicable, to include uncertainties and to respond to the Hearing Board's proposals for improvements based on the existing record.
Discussion of Cption 3 Since the numbers in the modified Table S-3 differ only slightly from the values in the In this option is as well supported as Option A.2yeric Rule, Pending prc=ulgation of the narrative, all matters left for litigation in individual proceedings under Option A would also be left for case-by-case litigation under this option.
Preparation of a narrative on an expedited basis, to be promulgated following public cc =ent, meets the Hearing Board's recc=nendation for a narrative as procp:1y as possible, consistent with legal requirements.
Depending on the scope and content of the narrative, this cption can meet some of the criticisms regarding adequacy of the preposed rule and can at least set some meaningful bounds en the range of discussion required in individual proceedings of impacts not addressed in the table.
We sculd expect the e/
Option 3 =ay be less likely than Option A to face an Lanediate court challenge, because the parties most likely to bring a challenge may wish to wait and see what kind of narrative emerges.
Any immediate suit brought to protect the right of rev'ew might reasonably be held in abeyance pending final Cennission action on an S-3 ruling as with the present challenge to the Interim Rule new before the D.C. Court.
The Commission 5
narrative to address dose corrittents, socioeconcric impacts, and cumulative impacts.
Even if specific numbers could not be calculated, the narrative cculd address the nethodology which should be followed in cbtaining dose concitzents and health effects from the tabulated releases.
The narrative could take a position on the troublesene prcble cf the integration time, or at least. indica:e ranges in es:inated impacts stemming from uncertainties as to what the cost appropriate integration periods cust be.
Ne are uncertain rgparding the degree of specificity which night be achieved,-
but we note that in any case the staff will have developed some sort of methodology for use in individual proceedings for assessing the significance of the S-3 impacts.
No one seems to question that this assessment is a generic problem which ultimately should be treated by rule.
One may reasonably argue, as does NRDC, that to some degree the methodology may be considered separately from the numerical release values that will go into it, and that this consideration in a rulemaking context need not be delayed until the general S-3 update has values sometime in the future.5/ provided revised effluent For example, questions of integration times and significance, if any, of very low individual risk to large numbers of individuals, as has often been said, involve " philosophical questions" which can be addressed promptly, even though there remain uncertain-ties that may be reduced by future work.
Public concent in a proceeding strongly focused on these issues, which involve value judgments at least as much as technical expertise, might provide valuable insights which the Co==ission would wish to receive sooner rather than later.
Policy judgments and choice of methodology will ultimately determine what fuel cycle effluents are most important and what supporting information is needed to evaluate their significance.
7/
We note, for example, that the staff indicated at the oral session that a model was available for calculating long term carbon-14 dose commitments, but models for I-129 and Tc-99 are not yet available.
Tr Icl.
-S/
This is how we interpret NRDC's argument that the "new rule" which they would have the Cc==ission prepare on an expedited basis is distinct frca the update proceed-ing.
See Tr. 24, 25 NRDC would have the expedited proceeding deal with fundamental questions of for:at and conten of the "new rule," while the update pro-ceeding "should be utiliced en a continuing basis to change the values.
." as new research or better technology become available.
~
e The Cot =ission 6
9 Arguably, these judgments and chcices should be made, at least tentatively at the beginning rather than the end of ageneralupdate.I/
Cn the other hand, it is clear that a narrative which deals with fundamental issues will be controversial.
The Conmis-sicn nigh get involved in a lengthy sxtension of the present rule =aking that could significantly cverlap and confuse the general update.
Other Cetions The Cetnission could simply let the Interi: ?.ule expire and direct that all necessary discussion of fuel cycle inpacts be done in individual licensing.
This strikes us as unappeal-ing and unnecessary.
A licensing board would have to begin with a proposed table of effluents anyway, and there is no reason to believe that an adjudictory proceeding would develop a better table than Table S-3, whatever its imper-fections.
Options A and 3 could be permuted; e.g.,
the table could be adopted as a final rule while a narrative was prepared for addition at a relatively early date.
The Commission might prefer this course if it is reasonably happy with the table as proposed but also wants a narrative as soon as possible.
However, if the Commission believes that significant adjust-ments and additions to the table (uncertainties, for example) are desirable and feasible within the next several months, it might wish to avoid adopting a shcr:-lived " final" rule.
Coordination OPE has contributed to and concurs in this analysis.
cc:
CPE SECY
-0/
For example, had it been established at the outset of the current rulemaking that uncertainties in the release estimates needed Oc be considered cuantita-tively, the necessary raterial which may now be difficult to retrieve might have been included in the rec:rd.
Cf. Tr 151 ff.