ML19281B316
| ML19281B316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/29/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19281B317 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7905090111 | |
| Download: ML19281B316 (52) | |
Text
O
'4 #f 3.
r Of$.f"Nl0]m%
IQ 99 pu fug n
'~
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION 1%us, nan IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF SECY-79-34A STAFF'S FINAL REPORT
" REGULATION OF FEDERAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE ACTIVITIES" THIS DOCUMENT CONTAlNS.
s POOR QUAUTY PAGES Place - Washington, D.
C.
Date - Thursday, 29 March 1979 Pages 1 - 51 Teleonone:
(202) 317 37C0
~
ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialRepor:ers 444 North Cccitel Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWICE COVERAGE. D AILY 7 90 5 09 0l[j
dR.3643 1
l I
O
.\\
_s_
l e
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission held on 29 March 1979 in the The Commission's offi ces at 1717 H Street, it. '.i., '.iasntr.gten, D. C.
This transcript meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informa'tional curposes.
As provided by 13 CFR 9.103, i t is not part of the formal or inforr.al record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final deteminations or
,:0 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in beliefs.
any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
8 e
4 g
.O S
2 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3i i
PUBLIC MEETING 4l CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF SECY-79-34A 5
STAFF' S FINAL REPORT
" REGULATION OF FEDERAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE ACTIVITIES" 6 !
l 7
8 Room 1046 1717 H Street, N.
W.
9 Washington, D.
C.
10 !
Thursday, 29 March 1979 11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m.
12 BEFORE:
I i
13 l DR. JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman I
14 l VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner l
15.
RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner i
16 !
PETER A.
BRADFORD, Commissioner h
17 j JOHN F.
AHEARNE, Commissioner.
18 PRESENT:
19 '
Messrs. Bickwit, Chilk, Dircks, Kenneke, Smith, Trubatch, t
20 and Wolf.
21 !
1 22 ;i 23 24 l Ace 4eceral Reporters, Inc.,
25 '
i a
3 I
CR3643 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we may gather to the subject 2
t is 4,5 at hand, which is -- let's see -- I guess the waste report l
3 david 1 folk have gathered here at the table rather than the state 4
participation folk, so that must be the one that we now i
5 turn our attention to.
j 0
(Laughter.)
i 7
Now, we are helped considerably in this process of 0
working on the waste report, as I guess most everybody must 9
know by now, that we are aiming at having the report 10 sufficiently well in hand so that final or semifinal version 11 can be in the hands of the subcommittee for a hearing before 12 Senator Hart on the 23rd of April, which is considerably 13 more helpful than the April 6th that had been tne more Id recent target, but neverthelem_ is not all that far down the 15 j pike.
I 16 And we need to go forward to get settled on where l
I7 we're going.
I'm sure we'll have other meetings i-this 18 series on the waste report, but there isn't all that much l
I9 time to spare, in spite of the April 23rd date.
^O'I I might say for the benefit of state participators 21 that I have committed that one will also be in hand to be
'2 !
'l treated on the same day.
l 23 Now, when we met last on this subject, we parted 1
24 "'
Ace-Federal Reoorters. Inc. ]
I have with a certain amount of head shakina and confusion.
'51 3
come myself to the view -- and I think there may be others who 1
.' t h
l 4
l l
david 2 I
would hold the same view -- that in spite of the attempt to 2
put a reasonable span of options in the report, that there i
3 is not one in there that suits precisely where I would like 4
to see us go.
5 I at least had a few words with Mr. Dirks back, t
6 I guess,at the end of last week about what that direction might' 7
be and to ask for some drafting assistance from the staff.
i 8
One of the problems is that unless you want to select one 9
of the options that's already enumerated and then spelled out 10 !
in multiple sections of the report, you have got quite a Il drafting problem on your hands, because if you have option 12 B-1 or option G that you would like to consider, why you need --
13 you know, it needs to appear in each of about seven major 14 chapters and God knows how many subsections and be costed out 15 so it's on a comparable basis with the others.
16 And it was assistance in developing thatkind of I7 material tnat I appealed for help.
18 Have you made any progress on that or are you working I9 on it or do you need some further direction on it?
20 !
MR. DIRCKS:
Well, the way we left it is that you 21 h were going to designate a person from the H Street complex --
22 l!
CHAIIU1AN HENDRIE:
That's right.
In fact, I was I
23 going to offer up one of your staff, John.
I was a little 24 l shorthanded.
Ace-Ferteral Reoorters. Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sounds fine.
n l
N
5 t
david 3 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I thought you had ample staff.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What is this option?
3, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me sketch the optio.n.
i 4'
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It's no option at all.
l J
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I have a --
i 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John has attempted to write it i
7 down.
And maybe it would be just as useful to look at that, t
i 8
and then I can tell yo te-why don' t you shoot those down the l
9 table.
10 l (Documents distributed.)
II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It's a short option.
I2 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIT1AN HENDRIE: For me, let ne say, it grows i
Id out of discussions from last week with the Department of 15 Energy people.
It seemed to me that there is very little 16 disagreement about new disposal facilities for high level 17 waste, whether it's military or civilian, for licensing.
18 Similarly, we ought to license new disposal l9 l facilities for transuranic contaminated waste, military or i
20 !
civilian.
I think we ought to license new low level waste 21 facilities for non-defense waste.
Obviously, if they're i
22 0 commercial we license them because tte alreadv do, but even if El 23 !l they were DOE run, I think we ought to license them.
!l 24 h It seems to me the low level defense wastes, a Ace Feceral Reporters. Inc.,1 il 25 ] pretty adequate case was made why there are some difficulties 1
i!
6 I
r i
t david 4 I
with that falling under a licensing regime.
And for the 2
rest I will try to develop the consultative relation with i
3l DOE for other facilities on a pilot program basis, starting i
4 out with the site. or a
>uple of sites that were not 5
complicated by a lot of defense activities and work that out 6
and get it in operation, evaluate that and work with it, 7
and intend to see the program expand.
j 8
I think that's the thrust of what John has got 9;
written down.
1 10 !
(Commissioner Bradford left the room at 3:35 p.m.)
II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This pilot program would I2 test out the wisdom of doing what?
I3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It's a mechanism, of the I4 consultative suggestion.
15 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What sort of universe 16 'l do you see that extending into if you got this working okay?
I I7l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Eventually?
I8 COMMISSIONER:GILINSKY:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it could go a long way.
l 20 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Depending on how well it 21 !
was working, and of course there's still some question of, what's i
22 ll working well-- that could extend probably as far as to the
!i 23 h extent that the report is now recommending.
2# l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Which is what, the entire Ace-Federal Recorrers. anc..j 25 ]
range of DOE wastes?
'i
.I
7 i
david 5 I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
(Inaudible.)
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess what I'm asking i
3 about now is the big tanks where essentially all the waste i
4 is.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, yes, I think clearly on 6
the -- you know, Vic is saying if it works well in the i
7 relations -- and we work out ways for it to keep from being a --
t 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm not proposing a way 9
to exclude getting there, but what I'm trying to say is I 10 '
can see a lot of problems trying to get there.
And this is II really trying to capture the proposal that George Meyers 12 said.
That seemed to me a reasonable thing to say yes, t.here 13 are advantages with introducing NRC licensing processes or Id NRC processes, but let's be careful as we go about trying 15 to do it.
16 Let's see if we can get this consultation 17 established and see how it works.
We all recognize that 18 we're having difficulty with coming to grips with what did it I9 l mean.
And the staff admits to that also.
How would it work?
20 '
The material we would get from the DOE is represented also 21 by Harold Brown's letter; it basically seems to continuously 22 ll say, it's not that we're against it; it's we really don't i
1 23 understand what you mean.
24 h And until you're really pretty clear on what you Ace-Federal Reoorters. inc.
25 f mean, we are against it because of the potential danger we see.
d d
8 h
I david 6 If you were clear on what you meant, we might be able to 2
support it.
3l Well, this is a way of trying to get that clarity.
I 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, John, my impression 5
of what Harold and Jim Schlesinger are saying is not quite 6
the same as that.
My thought is that what they are saying is t
7 that there are some very clear limits beyond which we simply i
8 could not accept this.
We are not sure you perceive what those 9
limits are or even in this report recognize that thev re there, i
10 !
and until you do and until you have made it clear that whatever 11 it is you and we agree upon will not in any way impinge upon 12 or interfere with the defense programs -- until we are clear I3 that that's the starting point, we just can't agree to ld anything.
15 From their perception it seems to me that's the 16 only logical position to take, and frankly, I think it's 17 logical myself.
I think it's the right position to take.
18 What we need to do is, I think, pursue a course such as that 19 l would show and I think John's paper suggests.
If we do that, I
^0 !
we are saying we're not going to get into that kind of 21 business, fellows.
h 22 p Now, to the extent that we can sit down together 1
23 l
and find ways in which we can give you advice and assistance, 24 '
we can bring the expertise, whatever it may be, that we have Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 i y
to bear; to the extent that we can sit down and find ways i
I d
9 I
david 7 to do that without interfering, we are prepared to work with 2
you to that end, so that we're going to --
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess I'm not clear on 4l what you have said differs from what John said.
l 5
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, I thought it was 6
slightly different.
I thought he was starting at the back end 7
of what I said as the beginning.
And I guess -- I have 8
to start by saying until you draw the line and say there is 9
a line and you're willing to admit that, they just don't 10 want to discuss the subject at all.
II And up to this point they haven't seen us do that.
12 I think that's what Harold's letter says very, very clearly.
I3 I think that's what Jim was saying too.
I4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What kind of a line are 15 we talking about?
Are we talking about a line around certain 16 facilities or a line saying if it's incompatible with the 17 conduct of the weapons programs it's not going to be licensed?
18 But that's a long way, it seems to me, from deciding at this I9 point from what it is that falls into this regine or not.
I 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's correct.
We have to 21 say clearly at the outset --
1 22 ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I've said it.
23 h COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I know, but the report doesn't 24 1 make that clear.
At least none of them read it that way.
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I also don't think that 1
h 0
I!
10 I
4 david 8 I
some sort of a regime of this sort, at least as far as the i
2 tanks are concerned, is going to impinge on the conduct of the, 3
weapons program.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is making a decision i
5 that they're not yet prepared to make.
They are willing --
6 I think, if I'm reading what they say correctly, I think 7
they're willing to sit down and talk about that and find i
8 out the ways in which we can contribute and the ways in 9
which they think we ought not to.
10 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
One thing, I am not that --
II I find it's useful to get their views, but that's 12 not -- what I'm basing mine on is that I'm not sure l
13 whether we can do that without having that adverse impact, 14 and that's why I would like to try to develop this.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm not absolutely 16 sure either.
It was just my feeling about it, but it seems I7 to me that that's the sort of question we ought to be 18 addressing and thinking about.
I 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Certainly, as I say --
20,
certainly, if this works well, then sure, that's part of the 21 universe.
I don't know how much more of the universe is 1
22 i there, c
I 23 !j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I guess what I'm 1
24 )I coming around to is how is it going to help to answer those Ace-Federal Recorrers, Inc. j 25 l questions if what we're going to be doing is looking at a --
e 1
- 1
11 j
david 9 I
I don't know what -- a medical center at Brookhaven or whatver --
2 l
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We're trying to see whether we 4
can set up some type of process in which we and the DOE can 5
work together in a much closer way; and this idea of 6
consultation and how extensive an involvement in their i
7 processes and what type of open information exchange has 8
to be involved if we disagree with something they are proposing, 9
to what extent.
I 10 !
(Commissioner Bradford returned to the room at II 3:40 p.m.)
I2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I don't see us 13 tending in that direction.
It looks to me more like a Id diversion.
If that's what it is, it seems to me it's not 15 worth -- I'm sure you don't intend it this way.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What I was trying to do was 17 the first time that I detected really a movement on the part IO of -- other than the DOE's statements that we have been getting 19 ';
back, no, we can't agree to anything because we don't know 20 !
what you're doing.
21 Now, when they came over here the first time --
22 l it was the first time I saw a willingness to, okay, here 23 l let's see if we can't get in that direction.
We both seem 24 '1 l!
to share the same fundamental objectives.
They have their Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.,
25 { perspective of concerns.
We have our perspective of concerns.
n
12 e
I david 10 I
Here was a way to try to tie that overlap together and still 2
start making progress.
That's what I was trying to do.
3, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Then it seems to me that 4
pilot program ought to be pointed in the direction of the 5
important waste facilities, and ought to be some sort of f
6 tentative step towards trying to develop a regime that 7
is compatible with national security interests, and yet provides 8
some sort of regulatory oversighc.
9 I guess I really don't see that, see us tending in 10 !
that direction because it just raises other problems and it II doesn't come to grips with any of the questions that you're 12 going to have to come to grips with if you are ever going to 13 take seriously --
I4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, it comes to grip with 15 the first set; that is, can we develop a system with DOE 16 in which consultation has any significant substance to it, 17 whether there is any actual -- more than just an exchange of I6 letters.
19 l Does it have some substantial process to it, which j
l 20 1 I don't think we could ever get looking at the national 21 end 4 security implications until we have fleshed that out.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But we know something h
23 lI l
about that regimen from the relationship we've had with the 24 i
Naval reactor program.
Ace Federal Reoorters. Inc. ;
25 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't think that what I
lc
13 i
i i
davidll I
we meant by consultation was -- in the Naval reactor program, 2
I understand, Joe -- well, I thought it was offering our i
3 technical advice.
i 4
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are you sure that DOE 5
has much more than that in mind when they talk about 6
consultations here?
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, I think we do.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess I hadn't assumed 9
that they did, John.
10 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What do we do when we II reviewed DOE reactors?
I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The staff carries out a review 13 procedure'which includes ACRS and includes the preparation I4 of a safety evaluation report and an ACRS -- meetings with 15 the ACRS and an ACRS letter supplement to the safety evaluation 16 report, which is very comparable to the review they would do I7 for commercial plants; not necessarily fully comparable, but 18 the general level is comparable.
f In fact under the AEC it used to be referred to as i
e0 '! the parallel procedure; you did everything that a licensed i
21 l plant would do except go to a hearing.
Some of it is classified 22 I
for obvious reasons, and so on.
So the report is --
l 23 COMMISSIGNER GILINSKY: Nhat hancens when staff savs, this 24 'F reactor ought to have another thingamajig?
Ace Feceral Reporters, Inc,,
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is forwarded -- that h
h N
14 davidl2 I
recommendation will be -- will follow from a series of 2
meetings, arguments, discussions, back and forth with Naval i
3 reactors.
4~
If from the Navy side there is some reasonable l
5 accomodation that can be worked that seems to take 6
care of the staff's concern, and is not from their standpoint 7
you know, is acceptable from an operational standpoint, and 8
so on, why, then the safety report will report those 9
considerations and the agreement.
10 !
If they can't come to agreement why, the staff II may end up saying, you know, Naval reactors has said 12 they think this isn't necessary, or that's too much, 13 but we continue to believe, then it is uo to Id Naval Reactors and the Navy Department to decide what to do 15 about that.
And if in their judgment they conclude that, 16 by God,they are right and we are wrong, why I assume they do it I7 their way.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But they take our views I9 l pretty seriously?
20 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They take our views seriously i
21 !
because the admiral takes them seriously.
In that section of I
22 the world, those are the same things.
i 23 l (Laughter.)
24 ll He has always taken the position that he doesn't Ace Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 want unresolved and outstanding things sticking out in the i.
1 d
15
\\
l I
davidl3 safety reviews where his designers are going one way and 2 h the reviewing staff is going the other way.
So, if necessary, why he may even defer a 4
particular matter -- although I think it's some years since 5l he has personally done it -- and to work out a resolution i
0 towards it.
Okay, so that is the sort of size and shape and 8
where it goes on Naval Reactors' consultation on Department 9
I of Energy reactors.
The procedure is the same.
Instead of 10 dealing with the admiral, you are dealing with whoever --
11 1 these days, the assistant secretary or in AEC days the 12 assistant general manager it was who had that laboratory or 13 that activity as part of his-responsibility.
14 il And there too the exoerience was that where I
15 staff and the designers of a facility disagreed, staff thought 16 i something ought to be done additionally or something ought 17 0l not to be done, there were difference; there were very a
18 i strong efforts to work out those things and to come to 19 agreements which would then be reported in the " project 0
documents" and the staff safety report.
l 21 g
Perhaps even more than with Naval reactors, where a
,,1 fundamentally there are very strong national security 23 'i operational aspects that may lead you to say, well, I would 24 certainly agree that I would like to have this additional Ace.Feceral Reporters, Inc.
25 safety system.
But the vessel won't carry it and we need the
16 I
david 14 I!,
vessel and there you are because for DOE re;earch reactors, I !
2[
that typically would not be the case.
3 I don't recall it being acceptable to the general 4
manager and the AG'4s to have a facility operate where there 5
was a clear outstanding and unresolved difference between 6l the regulatory staff reviewers and the project managers and i
7!
designers.
0' You know, there was a great incentive to work I
9 out some reasonable way to get both sets or c.terests to 10 j
work together, because if that didn't happen, why you had la 11 l the sense, having been through it as a project manager, 12 you had the sense you'd eventually get lined up against the 13 !]Iwall and just told to do it the regs' and never mind writing U
14 any more memos.
15 9l And it was always preferable to see if you could d
16 '
work out some sort of reasonable compromise than getting J
17 U 1
rid of them.
d 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That was in the old golden 19 days.
I j
(Laughter.)
1 21 L a
CHAIRMAN HENDPIE.
Well, it was in the days -- it was also in the days --
must say that also goes back to a 23 time when reviews are six-le.r than they are now.
There was a 24 9
9 Ace Feceral Reporters, loc.
25 that everything had to be documented to a fare-thee-well.
i
17 j
l I
I l
I davidl5 So a lot of that, you see, went a lot faster and li 2 h more easily than it does now, i
2 Well, now, that was a little diversion that you l
4 wanted some understanding on.
I think if the staff does a 5
serious -- and I think -- let me extrapolate to the present 0
situation.
I think i# the staff does a serious review of 7
a low level waste field on a site and says, holy mackeral, 8'
we've got to do this and this; we don't like that and that; 9,
why, I think the fact that we -- that I would call this --
1 IC put this in the context of a consultative role in which we 11 provide a report with our views to the mangers of that i
I j
activity and then just leave it up to them as government h
13 officers-to-do what they find-is necessary~, I think thats i
i '. 1, all going to get taken very seriously because I think
.I 15 1
those managers are not going to want to be operating those
'l 16 4ii facilities with a flat out, unresolved difference from people 17 "l who have been called in from the regulatory side to offer 18 'j an opinion on public safety and what would be prudent to do.
h 19:l So I think these things are going to get very serious 1
20 i
attention.
21 And I suspect it will be that if there is not that --
a "v
l it would not be, you know, really a very serious response; 23 it's more likely to come from budgetary difficulties where 24 there just isn't the money and the program and the program Ace Federal Recorrers, Inc.
manager can't seem to produce it to get something done.
Then
18 g
i davidl6 l
t will be because he doesn't feel a need to do something.
i h,
2 [;
He just won't do it.
l 3
Now, having done all that talking, I have lost 4
the thread of where we were going.
Somebody needs to ask I
i 5l a further question to take up the line to get us moving i
6 again.
I 7b COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Since you started again --
d CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Somebody else start it over 9
j again.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The question is:
do we l
II !
think that some of these major waste facilities fall into 12 i the category of facilities that would benefit from, let's 13'!
say, this sort of review or-not?-
li I4 Now, if we don't we ought to drop the whole thing, 1
15 and there is no need for pilot programs at Brookhaven or 16 whatever.
17 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
True.
l 18 I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or research reactors.
ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or whatever.
If we do,
.l 20 then I think one ought to be exploring directly how one might 1
21 j approach that sort of activity.
I mean, we have experience 1
no,
"d in reviewing not only facilities of other agencies but in 23 fact military facilities.
So I would find some way to explore 24 that.
Ace-Feceral Reoorters, Inc.
25 You know, it just comes down in the end, it seems to i
19 I
I david 16 me, whether one thinks these large tank farms would benefit 2[
from an additional audit.
I mean, I think it's unseemly after great respositories of waste -- but the Congress asks l
4 us our views, and we need to tell them.
l 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I guess I can't quite 6l make the step that you make that is, the concept of a l
7{
consultation process is in itself not very significant, and 8!
so therefore we ought to reach to how to address the waste, 9!
military waste and work it out in that framework.
10 I think this idea of a consultative process is a i
11 l significant step.
The review of the military programs, i
12 '
l Naval Reactors, for example, is not in any way a public I3 review.
il 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
As I have read the --
1 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Nor the results, necessarily.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, whereas even in the
-l 17 41 consultative procedure that is proposed, it is after we have 1
18 gone through this process we make that -- our results known.
19,i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Maybe those -- we need 20 thoughts on all the possibilities.
Maybe we're not ready 0
21 g to come forward with a precise proposal.
a But again I would say that's what we ought to be 73 l' thinking about rather than some other kinds of facilities.
'a COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
One of th3 problems is, ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 it seems to me, that staff,much less the Commission, has not
20 j
I i
I davidl7 concluded what the consultative role is.
I note, for example, 2
if I may read the same sentence twice, once as it was written and then as it was changed, and it appears a dozen i
4 times or something similar to it.
5 "NRC consultive role:
if the NRC were to perform 1
6 a consultative function not involving approval or 1
l 7
disapproval of DOE actions, the question of what NEPA 6
requirements," et cetera.
That's the way it was written 9
originally.
10 Now, it was changed to read:
"If the NRC were to 11 i perform a consultative role, the question of what NEPA 12 requirements would be involved" -- now, you know, that's 13 hj about a 170 degree turn.
J 14 0 The first one was rather explicit about what the I
15 '
consultative role was.
The second one leaves it obviously.
9 16 l totally ambiguous.
It doesn't describe it at all.
It doesn' t n
I70 describe what it is.
The same thing doesn't say what it is.
l 0
It just says consultative role.
i 19 l That's where the problem begins, and you know, i
20 j trying to define here whether what we're talking about is 21 a the management of waste tax is, it seems to me, a rather l
'2
big jump.
We haven't any idea what we're talking about when
'3' we're talking about consultation yet.
la COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, we've got to figure Ace Feceral Reporters. Inc.
25 out what we are talking about.
21 i
I davidl8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's right, h
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's what I think the pilot program hopefully will ce able to work out.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I think you're 5l addressing facilities that have such different problems and l
6 of such a different character that I don't think you'd be 7
working out the problems that you need to work out if
't you ever are going to be interested in auditing the larger l
9 (Inaudible.)
waste support 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't think I agree, Vic.
11 Look, there are several problems that you have -- that I have 12 :'
in mind, at least, that worry me about plunging in even in a 13 [
consultative basis on the defense stuff.- One of them is,-if l[h you decide that a certain overview function, say, with 15 "l regard to the high level tanks at Hanford would be a useful 16 thing.
d 17 '
One of the details in establishing that is how a
18 i l
far you are going to couple back up the line towards the place 19 where the waste came from.
Now, out there there is a pipe.
0 You know, the tanks are over here in the ground, and there is 21 1 a pipe, some grounding, and eventually the pipe disappears into 1
7 the building over there.
And I've got a suspicion you don't
~
'3 want to get very far inside that building with your review.
24 Maybe you don't want to get anywhere near it, as a matter of Ace-Federal Re:nrfers. Inc.
25 fact.
t
22 i
i I
david 19 But the flow rates or certain other things 2
inevitably lead you back to it, and you're going to have to find a way in the course of the review and the discussions i
4 j
and so on to cut across that, establish an interface which --
5 because if you are going to make these sorts of reviews public, 6
why you're going to have to find a way to back out of the nature 7l Of some of those inatters that connect to the facility in the 8
building.
9!
Now, I don't think if you go and operate the pilot 10 l program at my alma mater up there, Brookhaven, why you're l
11 i i
going tc get a whale o f a lot of instinct developed about 12 l how to do that.
13 But there are other places where there are j *, '. chemical process type operations.
Oak Ridge may be one, and 15 there may be some others where you could begin to deal with 16 !
some of that kind of -- some of Phat kind of problem and 17 3 work out a set of practices in the overview that woul.d provide 18 ij the separation.
19 '
On another point, one of the things that you're i
going to want to look at is the question the satff has very 1
l 21 q
usefully raised in its report about what is the long term n
'2
destiny of the site and that you look at the facilities 23 '
which are some day going to have to be decommissioned in the 24 light of that long term destiny of the site.
Aor Feceral Reporters, Inc.
25 '
Everything is going to go back to untouched Mother i
23 l
i I
david 20 Nature, or is it going to be a teardown ard cover, seal and n
2 cover job, or what?
,1 And certainly those kinds of aspects you can deal 4
i with; again, I suspect, only to a limited degree in a place i
5' like Brookhaven.
But, you know, one of the labs that's 6
had a stronger role in chemical processing matters and 7
reactor development natters will have an assortment of 8
facilities that give you some exercise.
And I would --
O'
~
you know, John's paper talks about BNL and ORNL.
I think 10 we have pretty well gone beyond that.
p 11 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Brookhaven was only put in --
I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That was just support.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I ' 'wan ted to avoid the' conflict h
I#
of interest charge on the chairman.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You recall that was proposed 16 '
by John Deutch as an example.
I put together some thoughts 17 '"l too which go somewhat farther than John's, but really are i
18 '
nothing more illustrative than what John was doing or than 19 anybody else.
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Did anybody get my memo?
21 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, it's on top.
I wanted
'2 to get to that.
23 '
(Laughter.)
2.1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, it says sume of the Acv4ederal Reporters. inc.
,5 things that I think are implict in what John was outlining.
24 a
I i
david 21 IO Tot me just make a reference to another interesting, modest 2 i, change that was made in the draft which indicates to me
'i
'i that obviously what consultation ns is going through an i
4 evolution.
It starts out by saying, "The NRC would not have i
i 5
authority to specifically approve or disapprove proposed 6
DOE actions, but would rather review DOE plans on a 7
consultative basis and would submit be results of its 8
reviews, including any deficiencies identified in remedial 9l actions to DOE and the Congress.
10 "The NRC's recommendations which would not be 11 ll binding on DOE would be conveyed in a report after consultation 12,
with DOE and a through environmental, health, and safety
'3' review."
1 14 And it goes on to point out this could involve 15 j
of course public participation through solicitatica of 6
written comments on the draft or through public wot.sshops.
17 1 Then it says, "After the report was sent there would be n
18 1 no continuing regulatory oversight by NRC and no inspections 4
19 '
l or reevaluation would be conducted."
A modest change was suggested to that, not too 21 l much.
It simply now says, "After the report was sent, there
'2
~
could be contuing regulatory oversight and inspections and reevaluations."
21 9
,ke Federal Reporters. Int:.
25 170.
25 I
i I
david 22 I ll (Laughter.)
1, 2[
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It sort of depends on whether you want to take a cheerful view ofthe future or --
t COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What I'm trying to suggest 0
is what is going on here is a maturation of thinking.
We 6) end up going from zero to 100.
7 MR. DIRCKS:
I think the last time we talked 8l to the Commission, weren't we asked to make some of these 9'
changes in this report?
MR. SMITH:
That was made at the Commission's i
e 11 i' suggestion.
That's the B-minus option.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This is option B.
It now 13 H' says option B.
L 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Dale is just saying that there 15 !
h was some --
a 16 MR. SMITH:
This change was made at the suggestion 17 1 of the Commission.
l 0
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What I'm trying to suggest 19 is I didn't think that option B was going to be changed.
I 20 thought option B was going to lie there and there was going 21 to be added to it in another paragraph, option B-1.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or B-2.
23 '
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or B-2 or whatever.
It 24 did not occur to me that we were going to eliminate the Actr Federal Reporters. inc.
2 '5 original option in favor of this revision.
That's what we did.
26 i
I Yl; l
drvid23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
At any rate, we asked John h
2!i,l Deutch, I guess it was, a B-plus and an A-minus.
But i
3' they sort of went frdnoption B on toward licensing rather 4
than the other way.
i I
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are they supposed to 6
supply a report to DOE?
7 CHAIl01AN HENDRIE :
No, they are supposed to --
8 we're supposed to consult with them and they're to cooperate 9
with us.
Then we make the report.
end 5 10 ll i 12 13 i 1.11 15 ;
I 16 'I 17 4 a
18 '
19 20,
21 1 22 '
23 2s
,\\ce-Federal AfD0f fert. Inc.
25
27 643.06.1 pv 1
It's a great opportunity f or somebody who's got a 2
paper ready, to plunge forward and distribute copies.
You may 3
carry the day.
4 (Laughter.)
5 COMMISSIONER GILIKNSKY:
I have got one on another 6
subject.
7 (Laughter.)
side 2 8
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Licens ing boards?
backup 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I would very much, for 10 whatever f urther directions and discussions and reviews we 11 manage to carry out this af ternoon, which may not be a great 12 deal since we are already somewhat af ter 4:00 and I still want 13 to get to the state participation report, I would appreciate it 14 very much if the staf f could help me and help John and Dick by 15 developing this theme in a way that would fit in the report and 16 have the, you know, the appropriate sections.
17 This one is 3-minus, is the direc tion, c le a rl y, but 18 it needs some cost estimate, and it n eeds some discussion, like 19 the other option.
20 MR. DIRCKS:
The re are two ways we could do it:
ile 21 could enter into the report, I think, some modifications to 22 various options.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or just add an opt ion.
3 prime, 24 or renumber them.
25 MR. DIRCXS:
Secondly, we could take it as a
29 643.06.2 pv i
Commiss ion recommendation, so to speak.
And there are several 2
points there.
We can say, really, option whatever it is, the 3
pilot program consultative role is really to determine in 4
greater detail the feasibility, the costs, the benefits of 5
option B or option 8-plus or something like that, and put as 6
the objective of this program to refine the costs, and benefits 7
we have outlined in some of these things.
8 In other words, instead of trying to be too exact, going 9
back into the body of the report and hitting some cost 10 f igure s --
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I would guess it 12 wouldn't be that much more difficult to make equivalent level 13 investments.
I would be willing to pick up on Joe's original 14 comment.
'I will offer one of my people, and perhaps Al will 15 o ffer one of his.
16 MR. DIRCKS:
See the 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, I will offer Al's people.
18 (Laughter.)
19 Or at least some of them.
20 MR. DIRCKS:
We might go either way.
See, point 1 21 is really the subset of what we talked about.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think, before we even get 23 to that, really, we have to get to the quest ion that Peter 24 raised, in addressing this modification by the report, really 25 is a question that Pe ter raised that has to be addre ssed.
29 643.06.3 pv i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Th is is the last paragraph?
2 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I an sorry, I don't have any 4
extra copies.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
dell, anybody who doesn't come 6
with extra copies, Peter, puts himself in a severe --
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Bill, I am sorry.
I should 8
have saved you a copy of this.
Why don't you take mine?
9 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Does that mean you're 10 abandoning the position of Commission testimony?
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE I think it is.
12 (Laughter.)
13 For myself, clear.
Where the Commiss ion is remains 14 to be seen.
Let me say,-when I -esked-would the-staff -pl ease 15 develop some language on this, I am at this point asking for 16 that assistance on my own behalf so that the course which it 17 now seems to me the reasonable and proper one for the 18 Commission can be available for discussion and amendment of 19 words is on a comparable basis to the others in this vast 20 document.
And whether I can get the rest of you to agree or we 21 can agree on an intermediate version or whatever, why, that 22 remains to be seen.
23 But in asking for this support, I don't want anyone 24 to infer that I am attempting to preempt either the discussion, 25 which must come, or the decis'un --
30 643.06.4 pv 1
CONNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Or the sta ff.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If I keep the staff too busy to 3
pay attention to anything else, it may be a way to cheat and 4
steal on it a little bit.
5
( La ught e r. )
6 That really wasn't the intent.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My point is that it might be 8
premature.
The staff involvement, rea ll y, that is involvement 9
in modifications, and the report rea lly addre sse s pe t er's last 10 point.
Isn't that correct?
ll COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
One of the intriguing 12 questions that's left is whatever consensus one or another 13 group or all of us comes to, the exercise of hitching it up to 14 the report may not -turn out-to - be an -altogether sma ll-task.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that's exac tly what I 16 sense, and that's why I am asking for language which, inserted 17 in --
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What I propose is adding a 19 section.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yo u wo u l d a dd a --
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, it would seem to me 23 that probably the most straightforward way in the sense of 24 t ime --
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
You would not add an
31 643.06.5 pv 1
option F and have it appear in every section down the line?
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't know how difficult 3
that was going to be, but adding a section seemed to be 4
consistent.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
To go along, though, with 6
the suggestion you have made here, one of the things that I 7
don't find in the report now that I would be curious about, if 8
I were a Senator on the receiving end, would be an explanation 9
of -- it may have been the point Vic was making while I was out 10 of the room -- why it is that the items that would appear to be 11 the source of the greatest public healtF and safety concern are 12 the items that --
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, the se tion would have 14 to-de velop ' that argument'. '
~ ~- -
~~
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It wouldn't merely be why we 16 are recommending, but also why it wouldn't --
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why we're recommending 18 r lease of that issue, it's a balancing of the concerns, and e
19 it's a question of, as yos go down that path towards further 20 involvement, at the end of which at some place it ends up 21 significant national security issues, how you go down that path 22 and there's a recognition that that is the path you are on.
23 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
It seems to me tha t we are 24 not in serious disagreement over anything except perhaps the 25 existing high-le vel de f ense waste.
I s that up there?
I am not
32 643.06.6 pv i
wild about existing low-level.
It seems clear to me that at 2
least if we're having dif ficulty ge tt ing to high-le ve l, that 3
whatever concerns one may have about low-level, this is only 4
so far that you can pull the consensus.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it -- let's see -- it 6
seems to me to go -- but it does seem to me to go suostantially 7
beyond the defense high-level waste, the liquid waste tanks, 8
which was the great example of an area of obvious interest and 9
concern, and it is a def ense activity.
You know, it's got both 10 the interest and the problems in it.
11 If it were just that, I think I would be willing to 12
-- I think things would be a lot easier.
But when we talk 13 about the kind of consultative role that has been discussed, 14 we're talking about going to a place like Hanford and dig-in 15 and do a thorough-going review and offer our saf ety report and 16 findings and conclusions and so on, not just on the waste tanks 17 but on what may turn out to be 100-odd other waste storage and 18 disposal f acilities at Hanford, many of which are ine vitabl y 19 going to be close-coupled in various kinds of national security 20 production line activities.
21 And it the sorting of all of those threats that give 22 me great concern and make me think that there's real merit in 23 sort of trying to work towards some reasonable review role on a 24 one-step-at-a-time basis.
25 Co?NISSIONER BRADFORD:
But where's Vic's concern
33 643.06.7 pv i
really seems to come into play -- that is, by focusing on OR&L 2
or Brook Haven -- you really don't get any experience in 3
sorting out those kinds of concerns because you don't run into 4
the national security 1.ssue anywhere in there.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE You don't -- you would select the 6
pilot program specifically so that you weren't running into 7
national security production activities.
That's clear.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But I was arguing with Vic that 10 the experience would be largely devoid of useful experience, 11 saying that the kinds of things that are of a difficulty, you 12 can exercise a number of these things; namely, how do you draw 13 the boundary line on a tank and that if you deal with some of 14 the sites where the re-has -been themicel proce ssing operation ~
15 going on, why, you encounter a number of these aspects, I 16 think.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Suppose we just stuck to the 18 tanks and excluded all this --
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The other stuff?
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
All the other stuff.
21 Because after all, the stuff in the tanks is headed f or 22 licensing eventually.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am not sure whether I should 24 rise and announce that I have reasonable confidence that that 25 is the case or --
34 543.06.8 pv 1
(Laughter.)
2
-- Or knock wood.
3 CONWISSIONER GILINSKY Or headed for licensing 4
review, anyhow.
It's material which people are planning to put 5
away in a repository.
We would have responsibility.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We would clearly license it.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It falls in a different 8
category, it seems to me.
And the question is:
Can you draw a 9
reasonable line between that and the source of that material, 10 if we haven't talked here about putting under any sort of
.11 regime.
Now, I don't.think we've got the answer to the 12 question, "Can we isolate those tanks, and can you impose some 13 sort of oversight system, whether it consultation or something 14 more?
Can~ you's tay awa~y f rom' rea l-ly-imp inging in some' ~- -
15 undesirable way on military programs?"
But these, it seems to 16 me, are the questions that we need to address.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Vic, they are eventual 18 questions.
And I believe if the staf f had been -- and I am not 19 f aulting the sta ff for not having been able to work up 5e 20 me c han is ms.
It's a very sticky mechanism, obviously, aat has 21 been under debate for some time.
The people who are primarily 22 responsible on the national security side are sufficiently 23 concerned about the process that might end up that we haven't 24 been able to make any headway with that type of s itua tion.
25 And so, what I am trying to do is to grant that the
35
'643.06.9 pv i
sta f f in its review has not come up with the proce ss, a 2
procedure which off ers at least sufficient specifics that we 3
can then say, "Therefore, when we apply that procedure 4
to this type of a system, vour concerns aren't 5
going to really be such that you ought to be standing 6
in the way of doing it."
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Suppose we agree with that.
8 It seems to me you are, in e f f ect, dealing with the wrong 9
a ssistant secretary.
You are not going to assuage 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, you know, the point is --
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think Harold Brown's 12 concern is going to be based upon -- the Secretary of Def ense's 13 concern is going to be based on the Secretary of Energy, I 14 gue ss, -inde pe nde nt-of-the p eople who -are runn-ing it.---
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John, it might be that some 16 further discussion with the Department about this point might 17 be helpful.
It night be that a very useful part of '.he pilot 18 program might be to include s ome t h i ng l i k e o n e o f the tank fanns with 19 the understanding that it was in the progran in order to work 20 out procedures.
If they run into difficulties --
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If we can get their agreement 22 to it, fine.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It might be we cculd cut an 24 arran9ement which might be, from our standpo int, a reasonable 25 point.
36 643.06.10 pv i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am trying to build a set of 2
procedures that can give us confidence and them confidence, 3
enable us to extend into those kind of arenas.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am not clear at this point 5
whether their concerns are over these tanks or over these other 6
activities.
7 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE:
Their concerns are over the 8
national defense p rogram.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
My impress ion is it's the whole 10 busin ss.
But as you say, if you said, " L ook, let's sit down e
11 and talk about do we think ws understand enough so we could 12 agree on the ground rules for an attempt at a pilot overview 13 program that dealt just with the tanks, or maybe you'd even 14 1 im it it-to a'particular tanc farm,- Just' to have a specific -~-
15 area."
It might be worth -- I would think it would be worth 16 going back and cornering John Deutch on Kerr and Grand 17 Sewall --
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The concern I de tec ted, the 19 concern I have myself, is to make sure if we set up a set of 20 procedures it doesn't oo beyond what I would view as an 21 appropriate border on the national security programs.
22 Encompassing the tank farms dcesn't give me that much problem.
23 If they're willing to go along with tnat 24 COMMI SSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don't we explore that?
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What kind of procedure are we
37 643.06.11 pv 1
talking about?
That's the i ss ue.
All the rest of the stuff is 2
kind of interesting.
But, you know, what are you going to talk 3
to them about?
Tank farms?
They s
" Yeah, we got some."
4 Now, you know, we have established that, and they have admitted 5
it.
You know, that's on the public record.
We can hold a 6
hearing to find out if they are right.
And sure enough, by 7
gosh, I think we're going to prove that they are there.
8 Now that we have decided that, what is it we have 9
decided?
What are we going to talk to them about, about the 10 tank farms?
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
We could verif y the 12 number.
13 (Laughter.)
14 COMMISSIONER {ENNEDY - tike -I--said,- we -jus t -did that 15 with a public hearing.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, I thought that was just to 17 establish there were tanks.
18 (Laughter.)
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is it we're going to 20 talk to them about?
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Dear Mr. Secretary,
we find none 22 of your tanks are missing."
end#6 23 (Laughter.)
24 25
33 i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They're still at the holes CR3643 j
tape 7 2
that you put them in.
1 david 1 3]
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see if I can wave my arms this.
It seems to me, you know, we have talked about a pilot 4
1 5;
program in order to see how this sort of consultation might i
We have talked about it as starting on -- for sites that 6
g don't have -- either don't have any or don't have any substantial 7;
I 8
amount of national security program work.
9' The point is made here, well, okay, but maybe in 10 a year or two of that work you still wouldn't have run across 11 and exercised some of the difficult points that may occur if 17 ;
you ever want to extend the overview consultation to defense 13 a related waste activities.
il 14 1 So, you know, question:
since the high level 15 j waste tanks are the particular high visibility, high 1
16 ]
interest objects in this area, would it be possible to include 5
17 j them or one of the tank farms of them in the pilot program in 18 these sense that we would sit down with DOE and attempt to 3
l 19,
scope out a review which would respect the national security, i
20 the potential national security difficulties, program i
21 a delay aspects, and we would understand in attempting to scope 22 this out that if we came to -- just came ultimately to 23,
disagreement on a point, why we would agree that we would 24 keep away, you know, that we would concede them the Ace-Federal Recorrers. Inc.
25 determination of where the national security interest requires
39 l
6 1
david 2 1 !.
that we not have it, but that the intent would be on both sides 2iq to work out an overview program which would provide them with useful technical advise on safety matters and which would not o
41 be delaying element or one that just began to complicate t
5' the business of running the defense programs.
6 And that part of the pilot program aspect of 7
it was that both sides would recognize as they went into it 8
that it wasn't all that clear how you were going to cut some d
of this.
10 i
Now, you know, if Sewall and Deutch, Dale Meyers, 11 ll and so on, thought that was feasible that was defined in that 12 i
kind of a general term, why it seems I would have no objection 13 j to adding it to the recommended pilot program approach.
- And, li 14 4j you know, if it worked out, it would have the benefit that at leas t
15 a] one of the high visbility elements would be in effect in the 16 "i first round.
i 17 'l' Now, if they slammed the door in our faces saying 18 we won't even discuss that, why I guess at our next meeting 19 we can report that and decide where to go.
I think it would 0
be useful to do that.
1 21 '
Suppose we pursue it; I think probably the way a
to do it is to see if I can generate a visit or two over there, l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why don't you call them?
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think I have to sit down and
,kv-Feceral Reoorters. Inc.
25 talk to Dale and probably John.
We probably would need to go
40 l
DAVID 3 I!
all together to see Duane who will take wire clippers and cut 2 U
!j a hole in the barbed wire and go through.
,1 (Laughter.)
~
4 I think it's possible.
I think it's possible.
And 5
if it were, I think that would relieve some of the concern i
6 'l you have about going this kind of a route.
l 7l Now, it being 4:28 --
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are we going to leave this?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was going to leave this.
l 10l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Before we go, could you a
11 '
i please restore option B?
If anyone would like option B-1, 12 !
splendid.
But that is a different option altogether than option 13 B, and I think it ought to be characterized-as that.
'i I#
Option B was
-- I certainly, for one, of all those 15 j outlined in the first instance -- all thatmeans is a new l
I 16 i
paragraph.
But the way it was in the first place made 17
eminent sense to me, the way it was drafted in the first 18 place.
19 1 Now, I recognize that others might feel --
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Which one, which change are you --
l 21 '
it 's the "would be no" to "could"--
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Just restore it the way it 23 was.
2.1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We have a vote from Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 o
n n
Commissioner Kennedy for a vould be no versus could.n
41 i
l david 4 I!
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's a different option.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know whether I want to
, J' vote on --
4 -
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All he's saying is that there l
5 was an option described --
6' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm saying there was an 7
option there that wassensible to me.
Suddenly it disappeared, 8
and I would like to see it restored as one of the options.
9 I'm not saying that the new option changing the words to 10 mean something very different isn't also an option.
They are I
11 i' not mutually exclusive.
12 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I thought I saw some leaning 13 ]lfoward over here that suggested a comment. -Do you-have a-14 comment, Peter?
15 j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I think it still would 1
16 1 be useful -- I'm assuming that all goes well in your i
17 1l consultation.
J 18 >
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Even assuming all goes well.
3, 19 >
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Even assuming that, because 20 that's much easier to work than the other.
But still, what 1
i 21} is the method of transmittal?
1
'2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And what is the form?
Is this a l
23 staff report with Commission override or what in the world --
24 I cuess I woula attemot
,t;v-Federal Reporters. Inc.
to answer that bv asking what is it that the legislation asks somebody to do?
42 l
I david 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's a good point.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And who is the somebody?
I hear pages turning.
I expect at any moment to have a --
ii 4
MR. BICKWIT:
I can read it to you.
"The 5
Commission in cooperation with the Department of Energy is 6
authorized and directed to conduct a study of extending the i
7 Commission's licensing or regulatory authority to include 8,
categories of existing and future federal radioactive waste 9
storage and disposal activities not presentiv subject to 10 such authority.
On or before March 1st, 1979, the a
11 1 j
Commission shall submit a report" --
I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Never mind that.
f
__13 i
( Laughter ' ')' '
~
II 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But it did say the Commission L
15 !
shall submit a report.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You have to develop an instinct 17 '
for what to read and what is really not necessary.
H IE '
(Laughter.)
19 MR. KENNEKE:
That doesn't foreclose other options.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, but it really does say 21 '
the Commission, and at least speaking for myself, if a report 2
goes out, the Commission being asked, I feel obligated that 23 it's our report.
The staff works for us in this mode, and 2s they are developing a report.
,ue Federal Reoorters. Inc.
25 MR. KENNEKE:
In terms of whether you do, whether
43 I
t I
david 6 I ?
it's in the cover or in the body.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If the report goes out 3
and we have a letter on the top that says this is a report, 4
I think it's absurd to say this is a cover letter on top of 5
a report.
We don't like the report.
We disagree with the 6'
report, but we're sending it to you anyway.
l 7
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And we will forward our views --
8, (Laughter.)
9 MR. KENNEKE:
But the report can be replete with 10 all the options that have been mentioned.
II CHAIPMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, yes, sure.
I2 MR. KENNEKE:
Then leave it up to the cover to do I3!
that.
i O
I4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I agree with you, John.
15 j I don't think -- we could indeed have a report from the staff i
16 ]
to the Commission.
The staff will say what the staff thinks I7 it ought to say and recommend what it thinks it ought to
.I 18,'
recommend.
Then the Commission can lay a document on that 10 addressed to the Congress, saying, enclosed hereto is a largely 20,
irrelevant document prepared at enormous cost by the staff, I
21 and we the Commission think as follows --
o 22,
(Laughter.)
23 >
But I don't think that's helpful.
So I think we're 2
asking you to write our report and saying, here's what you Ace-Federal Recorrers. Inc.
- C ought to write.
6 4
en 44 i
david 7 I
Now, I will say with regard to what I will call 2
the new option, John suggested this might be a new section.
I 3
guess I have suggested that it ought to be option -- you've i
4 got A through E -- option F.
And you know, in each section 5'
option F now has its subsection.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That would be fine.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me ask you to think about it.
I 8
We have now had enough discussion so that I think the 9 i direction that at least -- you know, this side of the table 10 is leaning; I think that direction is clear or as clear as i
11 i l
anything ever gets to be at these kinds of discuss ons.
12 And you know, you have labored and hard on this I3 1 draft; would you please think how best to get it together.
4 I#
Could we ask them to do that?
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, I still have a concern; 16 1
]
I would like to give Peter a chance to explain --
,,i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sorry.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought I detected in your 19 memo a question of perhaps the opposite point of view, that 0'
we should not try to be changing the document.
01,'
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I was going to ask it in a for example kind of way.
Certainly if we are sendina it uo as a Commission document, then I have to circulate to 24 all of you my paragraph-by-paragraph concerns.
Av Fectral Reporters. Inc.
2~5 On some I'd win and on some I'd lose.
On the ones
A b
45 il I
david 8 I'd lose, I'd have to decide whether to put footnotes all 2[
over the damn thing.
I'm sort of shuddering at that prospect.
But anyway, if we could say, for example, on page 1-3 at the 4
l top of the page --
d 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Old or new version?
6; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
February 15 version.
7l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's the problem.
He's working 8
with the old version.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
10 MR. KENNEKE:
The new version is the same.
q 11 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't think the page ic up 12 there.
COMMISSIONER' BRADFORD':^
N6, tha~t 's~ right'.
'l 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Got you.
15 j
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It says " DOE storage of 16 1 irradiated nuclear fuel associated with various defense or i
d 17 "
R& D programs; much of the spent fuel would actually be 1
18 )
processed for recovery '7f high-enriched uranium or -- (Inaudi ble.
19,
For that reason
- such irradiated fuel is not considered waste i
'O and thus not logically in the scope of this study."
21 I thought we had said in the context of at least
'2 commercial waste that opent fuel is --
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You're right.
2.1 Ar-Feceral Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Contains waste, at least.
46 1
d I
david 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thougnt that was an 2"
q attempt by the staff to explain why they didn't do spent
,1
~
fuel --
4l (Laughter.)
5 MR. DIRCKS:
I'll tell you the reason why. I 6
think one of the ground rules we said in the report we were 7
looking at disposal.
This fuel, unlike commercial fuel, is 8
not destined for disposal.
It is due to go back into the 4
9 l
processing plants again to come out again as fuel.
We were 10 not looking -- this is stuff being passed for processing i
11 '
i spent fuel, like commercial spent fuel.
12 MR. SMITH:
The second point being it was not 13 !
considered in storage in the sam ~e sentence that we consider h
14 other things in storage.
15 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It's still part of its
]
4 16 q
process, and it's process is not --
17 '1 MR. DIRCKS:
That's right, and it's not in storage 18 ;
for disposal.
It's on its way back into the process again.
19 COMMIS3INER AHEARNE:
So, how long is it in O
storage?
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So it's not considered waste?
MR. DIRCKS:
No, commercial spent fuel we consider
'3 waste, and we consider that we have authority to license that.
24 9
,Lv.Feceral Recorrers. Inc.
25 I thought we were careful about how we phrased that.
47 1
I Ib MR. DIRCKS:
Well, commerical unspent fuel, maybe david 10 2
we dodged it and said we have licensing authority anyhow.
n COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And we treat it as waste.
- j MR. DIRCKS:
And we treat it as waste.
5 But the other stuff is considered as material still 6"
in process.
7!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How long is it stored, i
8l typically?
9 MR. DIRCKS:
Bill, do you have that?
10 MR. SMITH:
I think most of the stuff is stored a e
11 matter of months rather than years.
I2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see.
3 I think you ought to clarify that.
14 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the research reactors it 15 I q
may be a little longer, but it still is a matter of at most 16 !
a couple of years and not 20 or 30 or 40.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
I was just laying that out.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Peter, I think that that 1
19 problem is one that Congress has to accept when they ask 1
20 l the Commission for a report.
l 2I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
I was just laying it
'2 out here as a for example.
I can put together however many
~
23 pages I have, three, four, five, and circulate it to the 24 rest of vou, or I can send it out to the scaff.
It seems to
,be Fecual Recorrers, Inc.
25 '
make more sense to circulate it to you all at this point.
48 1
h 0
1 davidll I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I recommend it go at least in L
2; parallel to the staff because there may be comments there, j
'. li which they will say, perhaps as in this case, gee, saying for 4
that reason, such irradiated fuel is not considered waste and 5,
is therefore maybe less than a full statement than what 6'
we've got in mind and some amplification would solve the 7!
problem you detected, and be better in their view and we'd 8
9 all be delighted at the results.
9 So I don't by any means suggested that the 10,
things that you will find and note have to be adjudicated II before they can be --
I2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
Okay., good, I will 13 F proceed on that basis, then.
N I#
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it may be -- why don't 15 j you send it to them and send us copies for those of us who 1
16 ; have a yen to work it a paragraph at a time.
I7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Then I certainly have no 1
18 '
objection to your proposal.
I just wanted to make sure he 19 was given a chance to state it.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, so you will think how to 21 '
incorporate this and I think any -- it can come in a number of ways.
23 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
M, initial reactor, Mr. Chairman, is 11 that first we will work with Commissioner Ahearne's staff
,be Feceral Reporters, lec.
25 who will define what the option is for us, what the Commission
49 I
I davidl2 wants to work on that.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or at least a couple of us h
- l Commission to be determined.
q
- l MR.
CUNNINGHAM.
Right.
We can address each of 5
the issues in the various chapters.
I would not propose going 6
back in the chapters at this time and change them until the 7'!
Commission has had a chance to look at the option and make 8
modification because that reverberates through the whole 9
manual.
10 So it would be easier to keep that out.
Then you 11 !
can make a decision as to whether you want this as a 12 separate thing that the Commission would send forward 13 p'
addressing each of the issues or you want to incorporate it 14 i
back.
But until it settles down, it's better to keep it, I I
15 { think, as a separate document which can be plugged back into 16 L
the various chapters if necessary.
MR. SMITH:
My first reaction is that if we were i
18 '
to more properly describe option B so that we all agree on
,i 19 what that option really means, what we are really talking 20 about is the extent to which that option is applied to the DOE facilities.
t
'2 It could be the whcle gamut as the staff originally
'3 '
suggested.
It could be smaller pieces to include or not 24 include.
,Lc +.eceral Reoorttes 160.
2 Actually, I think the option is still the same
50 s e e
l i
li davidl3 IU option.
It's only the extent to which we lay this on DCE 2
L that we are really talking about -- and I would -- my 1
' i reaction would be to more clearly define the options, go q
d 4l to another part that is that part surrounding the i
5 final recommendations and say, here's how we have decided to 6
make our recommendations, the extent to which we want to
}
lay this on our licensing option is still our licensing, 8
but we only want to go to include these activities; our 9
i consulative option is our consultative option, and we would 10 L
apply it to this extent, e
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And with a certain point of 12 view about --
13 Jj MR. SMITH:
Defense program aspects.
14 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The future and so on.
Yes, it 15 ; seems to me that could be a workable way of incorporating 16,
it.
17 1 MR. SMITH:
Okay.
We will pursue it.
IO '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But I think you do need to get i
19 started trying to get some of this handwaving down as you 20 come away from the table and start to put the words on paper.
21 I Why, I have always found it was easier to be the hand waver than the writer, yes.
'3 Other comments on this one?
24 (No response.)
h-peceral Reporters. Inc.
'S I thank you very much.
51 a.
i I
l i
davidl' I
(Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m.,
the hearing was e,I 2f adjourned.)
3 6
4 i
I, 5'
'l 6
7l 8
i 9 ',
l 10,
i' 11 i 12 t 13 I!
!:l i
o 14 a i
15l i
16 '
17 il o
13 l l
19 I
20 21 '
22 23 2a
,6 Federal Reporters. Inc.
25