ML19305A258
| ML19305A258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/15/1979 |
| From: | Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7903080595 | |
| Download: ML19305A258 (64) | |
Text
lO LFR.
9.7 N U Cl.E AR REGUL ATO RY COMMISSIO N IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING INITIAL BRIEFING ON SECY-79-34A - Draft Report i
" REGULATION OF FEDERAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE ACTIVITIES" Pleco - Washington, D.
C.
Date. Thursday, 15 February 1979 Fesos 1-64 Ne:nene:
(102)347 2700 ACE - FEDERAL REFORTERS,INC.
OllicialRepo:ters 244 Ner+h Ccpit:I Street Weshingen D.C. 2CC01 790308069f*
NATIONWICE COVERAGE DAILY
~
~
~
=
CR2762' 1
(
0 t
-\\
..s.
l r
DISCLAIMER -
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States in the Nuclear Re"5ulatory Commission held on is Fe-n,~
lo7e Commission s offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, 0. c.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
ints yranscripu has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
. The transcript is intended solely for general informa'tional purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or No pleadin; or other paper may be filed with the Ccmmission in beliefs.
any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Ccmmission may authorize.
q 8
g 9
e e
J O
g 4
-r 2
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLBAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
PUBLIC MEETING INITIAL BRIEFING ON SECY-79-34A - Draft Report 5
" REGULATION OF FEDERAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE ACTIVITIES" 6
7 8
Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.
9 Washington, D.C.
t i
10 '
Thursday, 15 February 1979 i
i l
11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m.
12 BEFORE:
13 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 14 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner i
15 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 PETER S. BRADFORD, Commissioner 17 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 18 ALSO PRESENT:
~
19 D. Smith, H. Shapar, D.
Rathbun, C. Stoiber, S. Trubatch,
~
20 L Gossick, and W.
Dircks.
21 22 23 24 s
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 l
CR 2762
'6H:jwb 3
2/15/79 1
EEEEEEEEEEE (9 :45 a.m. )
2 3l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, why don't we go ahead.
I The Commission meets this morning to hear from the 4
staff about a draf t report on the regulation of federal 5
radioactive waste activities.
6 This is a report which was mandated by the Congress 7
in the Authorization bill last year.
The due date is March 8
1st.
We have seen two drafts, one marked -- the one last 9
month, and a version which has arrived rather recently.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So recently that my copy is
))
not on the table, and I don't wish it to be.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You can quickly skim it.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I have no interest in that.
ja I will read it.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I must s'ay, I found it an i
16 improvement over the earlier ones.
I'm glad that it came up, 17 even if late.
18 I
The time obviously presses on getting this in j9 shape and on to the Congress.
There are some questions of a 20 i i
Policy nature in it, in terms of the recommendations -- ones 21 that the Commission would like to consider pretty carefully.
22 Lee, why don't you go anead and get us started on 23 this.
24 I 4 e. Federal Reporters, Inc. i MR. GOSSICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 I
1-2 jwb 4
1 Dr. Dircks will make some introductory remarks on 2
r the subject.
3l DR. DIRCKS:
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I
I 4
this is the product of the assignment that was given to us Si back in the fall as a result of the authorization bill.
6 We operated under extremely tight circumstances, 7
and the product is down here now but there is still some 8
language that the staf f wishes to polish up, and we'll be doing that during the review that the Commission performs on 9'!
10 the study itself.
i 11 The study was done by a team made up of personnel 12 from not only NSS, but the Executive Legal Director's staff.
13 Mr. Cunningham was the leader of the effort, assisted by la Dale Smith.
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Mr. Chairman, I might mention, 16 right at the outset, we did submit this according to the schedule 17 which the Commission approved -- that is, on February 15th.
18 So the staff worked according to the schedule which you 19 specified.
20 If I may, I'd like to run through several viewgraphs i
21 which outline the study, and I think that's probably the best 22 way to proceed with it.
23 (Slide.)
24 The first'viewgraph indicates what the authorization, That's the study to consider the extension l un.rensi nmorms. w.
25 bill required of us.
1-3 jwb 5
.-=
1 of regulatory authority to the waste that we don't currently 2
regulate.
Other federal agencies would cooperate, and we must 1
3 ?
report to Congress by March 1 and include in that report an 1
inventory of the waste we find.
4 5
Next slide, please.
(Slide. )
6 In addition to the requirements of. the bill, 7
Senators Hart and Domenici sent us a letter which expanded on 8i l'
9 what they felt should be in the report.
l I
i 10 The first thing was to evaluate and analyze the I
l 11 supporting documentation which were the bases of the IRG 12 recommendations for extension of NRC regulatory activities; 13 to identify options for regulating federal waste; to compare ja the risks of defense waste and commercial waste; to analyze 15 what the NEPA considerations were in these various options 16 -
associated with the question of maintaining NRC independence 17 as a regulator; and to offer conclusions and recommendations.
18 Next slide, please.
,9 (Slide 2) 20 The first section of the report is merely an j
t 21 introduction, and I think the thing to note is the way the 22 report is established.
That there is an inventory, compari-23 son of hazards, an outline of regulatory options; ydien, fol-24 lowing that, the NEPA considerations for various regulatory W.Facetal Reporters Inc. l 25 options; national security implications; or options and l
1
6 1-4 jwb
.=
an assessment of costs and benefits for the various options..
Next slide, please.
2 3
l The types of wastes considered for the inventory Were low-level Waste, trans-uranic Waste, intermediate-level waste -- this is a special kind of waste category that Oak Ridge has -- and high-level waste.
7 The activities included waste disposal with no foreseeable intent to retrieve the waste; waste storage which i
t 9l i
i permits retrieval -- this is long-term storage where they 10 I
l don' t yet have a disposal schedule; waste processing -- and 11 by that, we mean an, intermediate step between stored waste and g
disposal of waste -- for example, a waste solidification plant 13 which might solidify the high-level waste in storage; and g
then, deco =missioning, which isn't disposal, but as you'll see 15 g ing through this report, it represents a substantial activity.
16 The things that we did not consider in this report p
are:
residuals from weapons' testing, as going beyond our jg capability to do that kind of assessment; storage of commercial j9 spent-fuel at federally owned fuel' storage locations; and j
20 l
DOE, because the Commission has stated that they don't have 2
regulatory authority over this.
g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would you mind expanding on 23 that point a bit?
What about, by " commercial spent fuel," I 3;
44m-Federal Reporters, Inc. lgather you're essentially saying any spent fuel generated by a 25 I
7 1,5 jwb 1
non-federal agency.
Is that correct?
And does that also' 2
mean any spent fuel that the federal agency might take into I
3 possession, even if it now is owned by the government but was l
4 previously generated by commercial activity?
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
What we really were thinking of, 6
the main thrust of our thinking was the LWR fuel from the 7
commercial power industry.
8 I don't know if we considered other fuel from, say, 9;
research reactors, that might be used by universities.
i i
l 10 '
MR. SMITH:
In our cataloguing, we identified a 11 j number of DOE-generated fuels that met our definition of 12
" storage."
They were being held because they had no parti-13 cular plans or abilities for reprocessing -- some of the 14 old test reactor fuels and things like this.
15 We did identify those and listed them in the 16 inventory.
We listed storage of fuels such as HTGR-type 17 fuels, and some of the breeder fuels that they don't have 18 reprocessing capabilities for.
l 19 What we didn't include and consider in the study l
20 was storage of LWR-type fuel generated from licensed activities.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But foreign fuel is not 22 l licensed.
23 11R. SMITH:
Likewise, not included.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So you didn't include any i
A:eJederal Reporters, Inc. g 25 spent fuel from commercial reactors, even if the government I
8 1-5 jwb would then own it?
M".
SMITH:
The things that we did include and did 2
ll 3;
list I can identify.
Fermi I,
as I recall, was a demonstration I
I reactor that was under license.
4 5
COM{1ISSIONER GILINSKY:
Was that fuel held by the 6
government, now?
MR. SMITH:
Yes, I believe.
And Peach Bottom 1, 7
the first HTGR fuel.
8i COMMISSIONER KENNEDf:
Is it included,;or_
9 l 10 ',l'excluded?
11 MR. SMITH:
Those are listed in our inventory.
I 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They're included?
13 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What were the reasons for 15 '
leaving out the other fuels?
That we already have authority 16 over them?
17 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is that a uniform, agreed 19 position?
i 20 tiR. SMITH:
The positions that justified our doing this we've included in one of the appendices.
I believe it's 21 22 j Appendix H, or thereabouts, that contains the Joint OGC/ ELD determination in the Chairman's June 14th testimony.
23 24 That was the basis that the Task Force used for Ace Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 not going further with these.
I
9 1-7 jwb 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And that covered both new 2
facilities and also any existing facility?
I 3
MR. SMITH:
Yes.
I 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Presumably it would cover 5
any facility which is primarily used for the storage of 6
previously licensed material.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess my question would 8
be vez, specific.
Let us suppose that the DOE takes.: possession 9,
of spent fuel generated by a foreign reactor which therefore I
i 10 was not previously licensed, and stores it in a currently I
11 existing facility?
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It comes in under an import 13 license.
I mean, I would defer to Howard here, but if the 14 facility is primarily used for the storage of that fuel, I 15 would say that it's licensed activity.
16 There is such fuel being stored at Savannah River.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It depends on where it goes.
As 18 Vic says, I mean like the Savannah River pools, because it's 19 a convenient place to put it and so on, why I don't propose 20 t to go down there and license national-security-related facili 1
21 ties because it's got some foreign spent fuel in it.
22 If it goes into a facility that's primarily for 23 that kind of purpose -- power reactor fuels, or domestic --
24I; then I think we've said we believe we should license it, and Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 ;
that position is pretty clear.
s I
'f s
10 j
1 I think what they're saying here in the rep 2,
- that, with regard to studying and making re ort is i
i 3'
various aspects of the DOE operati commendations on 1
4 !
was an area in which the Commissi they felt that this one
- ons, I
i enunciated, and they've on's view was known and I
5 i
at. tempted to reflect it in the appendices, and didn't feel a need to 6
you see the distinction.
study the matter, if 7
8 COhD1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
9 understand.
But let me make sure I You said that that would be a facility which th 10,
Commission has taken the po i i e
}
11 ! equivalent to the Co s t on it should license.
i Is that O
mmission had taken a position th t i
{
12 L rently has the authority to licens tcur-!
a e it?
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
14 {
We claim the authority.
COBS 1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
f 1
to license currently an existi We do claim the authority 15 I
l l
i ng facility which is not I
16 g currently storing commercial spent f 11 foreign spent fuel?
uel, and into which goes 17 i i
That is not licensed?
gg g I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
19 l here.
Primarily, is important 20 l
l' IIR. SHAPAR:
7;h We are talking about licensing "mWe don't licens
, as such, aterial."
no matter where it is, So the material, 22 it is licensable, of the term "primarily."
if you meet the test 23 24
>rrers, Inc. l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
some open question as to whether or nI thought there w 25 ot the law was such.
I
1-9 jwb 11
=
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well.--
j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Not on this side of H Street'.
2 I
3 1 MR. SHAPAR:
Commissioner Gilinsky convinced us I
that this is the direct route to take.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We've staked out this position, 5
John; but we've also been absolutely unambiguous with the 6
Congress and the people who ask who say, if anybody would 7
like to propose legislation that says so explicitly,;.vhy we'd 8
be delighted to have it and think it would be a useful 9
clarification.
l 10 So I don't think there's any question about our 11 32 position.
All you want to know is that this report reflects that position accurately.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I seem to remember two ja I
15 recent OTC memos.
The first said that we didn't have the i
16 authority.
The second said we may have it, because the legis-lative history said we did have it, but it had been removed 17 because at the time Congress passed it there were no existing 18 19 facilities.
MR. TRUBATCH:
The controversy is over an existing i
20 DOE facility, not necessarily for foreigh spent fuel?
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's right.
22 IIR. TRUBATCH:
The legislative history, as 23 characterized in our second memo, I think that characterization, 24,
Ace-Fedevel Reporters, Inc.
25 '
was a little too stringent.
The Energy Reorganization Act, as l
1-10 jwb 12 1
originally drafted, showe'd, I think, a clear Congressional 2
intent that the Commission license any facility which would 'bd -
1 3 I primarily used for the storage of high-level waste.
I 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
License any facility?
5 MR. TRUBATCH:
You license the storage of material.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You license the material.
7 You license the possession of the ma'erial.
t 8
MR. TRUBATCH:
Yes, the material is licensed.
Th6 9
facility is not licensed.
10 '
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Thus, our concern will be i
11 whether we judge the way the material is possessed is adequately 12 safe.
13 MR. TRUBATCH:
Right.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is an oblique way of 15 saying the facility has to be safe -- not very precise.
16 MR. TRUBATCH:
In other words, licensing the pos-17 session of the material is not sticking a license on it as 18 soon as you get the material.
You have to show where you're 19 putting it.
20 It muddies it a bit, okay.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Does that apply, for 22 example, to the material which is being -- well, the situation 23 '
at the Nevada test area where material is being placed in a end #1 24 i variety of configurations for test purposes?
Does that a-Fecef al Reporters, Inc.
25 apply to that?
I
2-11 jwb 13
- 2 MR. TRUBATCH:
So we have commercial fuel going into a facility primarily used for the receipt and storage of; 2
3i that fuel in the bottom.
I 4
MR. SHAPAR:
It's long term.
There's the R&D 5
exception.
6 MR. TRUBATCH:
Is it commercial fuel?
- c..
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Commercial fuel.
8 MR. TRUBATCH:
Then it's not Section 4.
It's 9
material that results from activities licensed under the Act, t
10 so it's Section 3.
I 11 So the question is:
Is it primarily used for that 12 Purpose?
So there's no qualification on that one as to 13 research and development.
14 I1R. SHAPAR:
But it's high-level, and long-term 7 15 MR. TRUBATCH:
It just says "primarily used for the 16 receipt and storage of radioactive waste resulting from i
17 licensed activities."
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It sounds to me like a 19 '
description of that.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
A description of the fuel.
l 21 The question is whether it's a description of the installation 22 and the activity that's being performed at the installation.
23 Okay, well, I'm sorry.
24 MR. TRUBATCH:
I think " receipt and storage" is a-Fedef al Reporters, Inc.
25-fairly broad.
14 2-12 jwb 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Does your stud
~
' ~~
2 exclude those considerations in any of those cases on the 3
assumption that the Commission has already concluded that it 1
4 -
has the authority?
So that was not an issue, so far as the 5
study was concerned?
6 MR. SMITH:
For commercial spent fuel, we did list, 7
I guess, the Peach Bottom and FERMI.
8 MR. SHAPAR:
And we also noted that DOE's capacity 9
for storage is somewhat limited, and we were aware of no plans i
t i
10 on their part to expand the capacity within their existing 11 facility.
12 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The other thing that we did not 13 include in our study was the more precise last listing there.
14 This refers to the uranium mills that were covered in last I
15 '
year's legislation.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm sorry to stay on this --
17 one last question.
18 Did anyone -- maybe it's just a well-known fact --
1 19 1 it seems that you all are convinced that it's obvious that l
20l neither Hart nor Domenici nor the Senate who put that in I
21 expected that you'd be addressing NRC licensing of DOE 22 facilitie to store commercial spent fuels?
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We discussed this with the staff 23 24 and they agreed.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That that was not?
I
2-13 jwb 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That that was not, and we would j
2 take that position.
3.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They agreed that it wasn't I
I part of what they wanted in the study?
Is that correct?
4 5
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We discussed whether or not we 6
should include it in the study.
'We came to the conclusion, l
7' mutually, that NRC's position was that we had authority to license it.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand that answer, 9
10 Dick.
I I
11 I am asking you:
Did they agree that it wasn't 12 necessary to put it in the study?
After all, this is doing 13 a study If the Congress had asked for a study to describe 14 the impact of what you can currently license, the answer 15 wouldn't be, "well, we can currently license it, so we don't 16 '
have to do an impact on it."
17 I'm asking:
Did they agree that that didn't have 18 to be covered in the study?
19 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
To the best of my recollection, 20 t they agreed to that.
It's been some months.
But the reason l
21 I say that is, that discussion took place before we got the 22 letter from Hart and Domenici, and to the best of my 23 1 recollection they did.
24 May I have the next slide, please.
l ks Feceret Reporters, Inc.
25 (Slide.)
I
16 2_-14 jwb Non-DOE activities involving federal wastes, for j
all practical purposes, there aren't any.
2 EPA holds about a hundred-and-some grams of radium 3
that will eventually be transferred to the DOE disposal 4
f acilities or to commercial burial grounds, but that's about 5
all. _.We did canvass a number of federal facilities with regard 6
to decommissioning and decontamination.
7 DOE made a commitment in 1973 to establish plans 8
for decommissioning costs.
As of October of
7 6, there are 9
I i
e 460 sites that are surplus now that have to be decontaminated 10 l 11 and decommissioned.
And of course the waste volumes.for D&D will be very high.
12 In this section, I think it's worth pointing out 13 14 that, really, when you go through this inventory and look at all the numbers, it doesn't quite come through from just the 15 i
statistics of the very complex decontamination-decommissioning '
16 i
P cture we have..
i 17' At Hanford, for example, you have about 370-some 18 locations where wastes are buried, stored; you've had, over 19 the years, about half a million gallons of high-level waste 20 t i
21 leaking.
Earlier in the 1950s, the super-natant high-level waste was discharged into the ground.
You had wastes of all 22 forms and kinds disposed of or in storage, and you have this 23 24 site of some 600 square miles.
Aor Feceral Reporters, Inc.
So it boils down to the important question of how 25
17 2-15 jwb y u're going to leave that site when the site is no longer 1
2l going to be used for nuclear research.
It is a very complex i
3 !
picture.
I Perhaps Hanford is the most complicated, but *'.ere 4
are other complications.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there any way to tell 6
waste that's held by federal agencies other than the DOE?
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The only one that we have been 8
able to find is the one I mentioned, EPA is holding, 9
t MR. SMITH:
115 grams of radium.
10 -
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.
HowabouttheBureauofStandardsl 11 l
in connection with their machine at Gaithersburg?
12 MR. SMITH:
There are a number of nonlicensed 13 reactors that exist in the federal context.
ja CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That one is licensed.
15 MR. SMITH:
The one at the Bureau of Standards is, 16 but DOD has, for example, their own research and test reactor r7 facilities that are not licensed, and they do not represent 18 They represent a poten I;
waste storage or disposal activities.
i 19 I
tial decommissioning activity'some day.and, as such, could be i
20 l I
i of concern.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where is the material dumped?
22 MR. SMITH:
I guess -- okay, the several decomis-23 l
sionings that we are aware of were in things like the Anartic 24 '
Aes Feceval Reporters, Inc. l 25 reactor, the Fort Belvoir reactor, Sundance, Wyoming.
My
2-16 jwb 18 1
understanding is that DOE took the fuel from those react 6fs 2 j!
back into custody.
I would presume -- and I think we presumed in the 3
4 study -- that similar arrangements would be made for future 5
decommissioning of military reactors _.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We probably should try to 7
at least pin that down.
How about the DOD fuel. reactors that 8
are down?
What happens to them?
9 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
You mean from the submarine 10 program, for example?
It goes back to be reprocessed.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But any waste then becomes 12 DOE waste?
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How about decommissioning of 15
-the power plants?
16 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's the one we were talking 17 about.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's in the same category?
19 1 All right.
20 FR. CUNNINGHAM:
We have a letter from DOD that 21 I
says they don't have any other waste, other than that that 22 was licensed for transfer back to DOE.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How did you treat West Valley?
24 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
In the study?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
2-17 jwb 19 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That is a commercial site constantl:(
j 2i under license, so we did not consider it in this rsport.
3 May I have the next slide, please.
4 (Slide.)
5 We were asked to prepare the risks of DOE and commercial burials.
This was a tough job.
We made one attempt 6
in the first draf t that wasn' t satisfactory to anybody.
Our 7
8 problem is that, to compare risks, you've got to know just lots of detailed information about the site to have some 9
i 10 appropriata basis of comparison.
l l
11 So really, all we can deal with is generalities.
12 The way we came out on this is that probably for high-level 13 waste storage for the bulk of the commercial industry that's 14 currently in fuel -- mainly in fuel -- that probably represents I
I some lower risk than the high-level waste storage in tanks.
15 16 On the other hand, if you look at the commercial 17 industry and what it's going to produce between, let's say, 18 now and the year 2000, for putting this waste into a reposi-19 tory of some sort, of course the commercial industry represents 20 j a somewhat greater risk, just based on inventory alone.
I 21 It's going to have much more.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Where is the crossover point?
23 MR. SMITH:
I think ws're right about there, now.
24 We have approximately equal curie inventories in storage as WFeeral Reporters, Inc.
25 '
fuel as DOE has in their liquid waste centers.
We're somewhere l
2-18 jwb 20 near that crossover point, now.
j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The military -- well, the 2
1 3,
military stuff at this point may be, on balance, a shade 1
longer half-lived.
I think it may be, on average, a little 4
older than the commercial stuff.
There's some lengthening 5
there, but okay.
6 When people ask, we've been speculating that that's 7
about the case.
So have you, because I think I got it from 8
9j you, at some hearing, and repeated it down the line.
l 10 (Laughter.)
l l
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We're vindicated.
t IR. CUNNINGHAM:
On TRU waste, we don't see much 12 13 Problem with the waste that's being stored out at Idaho.
It's ja,
isolated and probably pretty safe.
We don't have anything I
l 15 nmMa in th'e commercial industry.
n 16 On disposal of TRU waste in the repository, you go 17 on the assumption that a repository for TRU waste will be 18 similar, if not the same, as a repository that is used for _
19 high-level waste, and TRU waste represents less of a hazard.
20 l simply because you don't have the technetium and things like l
that in it.
21 Defense and commercial low-level waste burial, 22 shallow-land burial, we have from old times long-lived isotopes 23 24 and plutonium, whatever in them, and they' re probably a Feceral Reporters, Iric.,
25 comparable risks.
I think it's fair to say that it's l
2-19 jwb 21 j
comparable.
So that's about the best we can do, given the 2
3 time we have in this study, to try to do some modeling to get i
some hazards.
The models have
.o many assumptions in them, we 4
5 just start to depart from reality in' the things and it just doesn' t work too well.
6 7
Hext slide, g
(Slide.)
9 Regulatory options:
We, in listing these regula-i 10 tory options, obviously they' re licensing, consultation, l
11 approval of DOE waste ranagement procedures, would be something 12 akin to what we do in the Agreement States program where we 13 establish a waste management regulatory structure.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are you certain that all 15 theSe options are within the authorities which we might assert i
16 under current law?
17 To what extent danneadl one of these options.
18 require new legislation?
19 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I would think that, to the extent 20I that we are trying to assert authority over things, that we i
21 don't currently have authority, they would all require legisla-22 tion, except perhaps consultation.
23 Now DOE does consult with us on a voluntary basis, but we think it might be appropriate on legislation to make it 24 w F.omi neportm, inc.
25 mandatory, and of course status quo obviously doesn't require l-
22 2-20 jwb I
anything.
2 Ilow in laying out these options, what was done was 3I we tried to maximize the dif ferences between options and fix i
I that so that when we went into our analysis we could see 4'
5 differences.
6 Any one of these options, you could have a number 7
of variations.on how you apply it.
Consultation -- excuse me.
8 Take " establishment of standards."
You've got standards with 9,
inspection for compliance, or without inspection for compliancei 10 '
So there are a lot of variations, and they aren't i
11,
mutually exclusive.
You might apply a series of these, but 12 we had to fix them somehow so that we could compare costs and 13 benefits.
And to do daat, we tried to maximize the differences 14 ! between them.
15 Licensing, of course, is the full licensing thing l
l 16 that we have on materials, facilities licenses.
Consultation 17 would be to review plans with DOE proposals and either concur 18 or not concur in them.
19 If we did not concur, we would specify why we did 20 !
not concur, and we would report this to both DOE and ' Congress.
21 The reason for reporting it to the Congress -- one of the 22 reasons, I think, is that many -- the basis for nonconcurrence 23 could well be remedial actions that would require budget 24 '
changes.
As Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your report says, "and l
2-21 jwh 23 i
perhaps Congress."
You have concluded that that should be 2
"and Congress"?
.2 3
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We state in the conclusions that we think it should be the Congress.
The conclusions have --
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
The report itself --
5 6
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The report itself, and perhaps 7'
the Congress, but that's an option within an option.
And our conclusion was that it should be reported to Congress.
8 There would be some opportunity for public review
{
9 l
10 of the safety reports, or the reports to. DOE that we might l
i l
11 Put out.
12 Establishment, I think I've discussed approval of 13 the DOE waste management regulatory program, akin to Agreement 14 p States, and establish standards -- just prepare standards i
I that would be generally applicable to these activities and lay 15 16 them cn DOE with perhaps some inspection or audit.
17 Next slide, please.
18 (Slide.)
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How would that significantly 20,
differ from licensing?
I 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Which one?
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Establishment of standards, 23 laying them on DOE, if not accompanied by some inspection?
24 MR. SHAPAR:
The essence of the licensing agreement,,
Ace Feceral Reporters, Inc.,
25 we can'.tconduct the activity until the authorizatio n of the I
24 2-2,2'jwb Commission.
~
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You can't conduct the 2
l activity until such time as they comply with the standards?'
3; l
I That may be a distinction.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But they are conducting 5
the activity, in the sense that they have the waste.
Whatever 6
the rules are, the waste is there.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I know.
But if you've 8
established the standards, you lay the standards on them that 9i ll l
lo s require them to comply with them.
The fact that the waste I
11 is there is a complicating factor, but not necessarily in any 12 sense a mitigating one.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It means you can close them 13 end #2 14 down.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 m.Fedef el Reporters, Inc.
25 l'
CR 2762 2$
'HOF$' MAN t-3 mte 1 1R. SHAPAR:
That depends on how you set them up.
1 COliMISSIOUER AHEARUE:
What is the difference in your 2
3 mind, the practical dif ference between establishing a standards Option and a licensing option?
4 fir. CUUNINGHAfi:
We would not need -- in the first 5
P ace, if you have standards without inspections, you just l
6 say, here are the standards, you comply with them.
It would 7
be up to the DOE group to do whatever is necessary to prove 8
9 to us daat they are. complying, probably in the Congress.
There 10 !
is no requirement for extensive safety evaluations, no recuire-11 ment for all the procedural activities.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARUE:
How would you expect that we 13 would establish the standards?
14 MR. CUUNINGHAM:
You mean the processes?
15 COtiMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I mean without that kind of 16 info rmation.
You're saying it would be without all this infor-17 mation.
How would you expect to establish the standards?
18 MR. CUUNINGHAM:
I thi Tk we're already working on 19 it, at least some of the standards which would probably be 20 appropriate.
For example, we are working on standards for 21 shallow land burial.
And I'm not aware of -- although I could 22 look at it a little bit closer, but I'n not aware of any great 23 difference between standards that would apply in the commercial 24 sector or DOE.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 DR. DIRCKS:
I think the waste performance standards
mte 2 26 I
that we're working on would be equally applicable.
2 C0f1MISSIONER AHEARtiE :
Now, you're description of itI 3
that you would ha.ve -- you would go through an evaluation.
4 DOE would supply the information.
NRC would perform the 5
analysec, might be required to visit the DOE sites and acquire 6
the information.
You would then go through the public parti-7 cipation process, and then promulgate the standards.
8 What happens af ter that?
I notice that you do have 9
the application to existing facilities could be deferred for 10 !
some period of time to enable DOE to comply.
Therefore, you 11 do have in mind an enforced compliance with those standards?
12 MR. CUNNINGHAft:
Well, presumably, if we applied 13 standards to DOE activities, we would assume that they were 14 meant to be complied with.
15 COfiMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And what procedure did you 16 have in mind for that?
17 MR. CUNNINGHAf t:
The one we listed, although there 18 are probably a number of options, would be an audit to see 19 that they have the program so that they themselves are in 20 compliance.
But there is an option that we don 't do anything.
21 and it would be up to DOE to go to the Congress or whoever.
22 they have got to show such things to, that they are in com-23 pliance.
24 COliMISSIONER AHEARITE:
Do you think the Congress is Ace-Federal Reporters, Ire.
25 likely to ask if the standards are now being complied with?
m'te'3 27 1
COMMISSIONER KENITEDY:
Surely not the ones we sent 2
them.
3 DR. DIRCKS:
There's an equivalent progran under 4
the executive order, the cleanup of federal activities.
The 5
EPA has promulgated standards in DOD and other federal installa-6 tions to do their cleanup activities by reporting baQk to OMB 7
what they did to comply with those standards.
In fact, there 8
is a system going on for pollution control.
9 fir. SRAPAR:
I guess there is a presumption _ that 10 l federal agencies will, all things being equal, comply with the i
11 law.
12 COfiMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, as a practical matter, 13 you're bound to get into a kind of negotiation, which one 14 hopes will have a reasonable outcome.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Howard, your comment, I guess,
16 th en, carries with it, when you say they would comply with the 17 law, this is one of the legislative situations.
18 MR. SHAPAR:
There are three dif ferent ways.
The i
19 law cculd say that NRC will promulgate standards.whi_ch DOE 20 must comply with, is one option.
You could stop there..The 21 presumption would be, if Congress has said that, then DOE would 22 comply with NRC standards.
23 COfiMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, I was just asking.
This 24 is one of the options, then, that would clearly require some i
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 new legislation.
mte 4 '
28 1
fir. SHAPAR:
If there 's a nandatory aspect with 2
respect to compliance, because we're talking generally about 3
areas where we don't have jurisdiction now.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All of the options except status 5
quo require some legislation.
I think ~ that's absolutely. clear.
6 liR. SHAPAR:
Except the consultative thing on a 7
Permissive basis, presumably, would not require legislation, 8
depending if it were permissive.
9 CHAIR?%N HENDRIE:
If it were completely 1armissive, l
10 !
one would operate it under a memorandum.
In fact, we ould i
11 operate it under another paragraph or two in the menorandum 12 of understanding with DOE.
13 MR. SHAPAR:
The same way AEC used to review 14 Admiral Rickover's activities and other DOE activities.
It 15 was a review, but it was completely informal.
16 COli?iISSIONER AHEAP.NE:
Isn't that the way we still 17 do it?
~
18 MR. CUNNINGHA?i:
Yes, in some cases.
We're still 19 consulting with DOE in a number of them.
20 COMf1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
I 21 (Slide.)
22 IiR. CUNNINGHAM :
The next slide, we analyze the 23 NEPA options and NEPA requirements in relation to the options.
24 I think that the analysis shows that, except for the consulta-Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 tive option where NRC really doesn't take any majcr federal
.tb 5' 29 1
action-- they just give DOE their views --UEPA would be 2
required.
There is an opportunity to comply with the lead _
3 agency concep' and perhaps tier the impact statements so you coul have some generic statements, and when you get down to specific 4
thinas, vou can incorporate what was done generically.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
On your consultative option, 6
if the law were to reauire concurrence, would that then 7
recuire us to prepare an EIS?
8 MR. SHAPAR:
I don ' t know.
9 CO?OiISSIONER AHEARNE:
One of your lawyers may be 10 !
able to say something.
l 11 MR. SHAPAR:
The law would formally require concurrence.
VOICE:
That would look an awful lot like a license, 12 in which case you'd correlate and do an EIS.
The extent to which, 13 although structure'd as concurrence, it would look like licensing, ja I'd say, would be part of the same EIS as licensing requirements.
15 16 (Slide.)
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Excuse me.
Before you go 18 ahead on the establishment of standards, it says it will 19 reauire an NRC EIS in support of the standards, and that's 20 true.
But suppose that the standards concept also went to the 21 cuestion of inspection or investigation as to compliance with 22 standards?
23 How again, as I keep Ehinking, daat sounds an awful 24 lot like licensir.g to me or certainly looks like it.
So would,,
Ace Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 in fact, the EIS be linited only to the standards or would it l
mte 6 30 1
be a more general item?
2 2R. SIIAPAR:
I think a major federal action would 3
be the pronulgation of the s tandards.
4 COMMISSIONER KEMI;EDY:
Not the enforcement?
5 MR. SIIAPAR:
I wouldn't think so, no, that's not 6
the kind of action that would have an impact on the environ-7 ment.
It 's the 'prdmulgation of the standards, under the 8
traditional concept.
9 COMMISSIONER KEMNEDY:
Honcompliance would have an I
i 10 !
effect on that.
Il MR. SIIAPRR:
I still think the action would be 12 promulgation of the standards.
13 (Slide. )
14 MR. CUUNINGIIAM:
The next slide.
15 We tried to deal in the report with the national 16 security implications.
This was difficult coming to grips 17 with.
There are essentially two potential impacts that we can 18 identify.
19 Humber one is the risk of a disclosure of classified 20 infom ation.
And number two, probably more inportant than 21 that, is, by interjecting regulatory processes in the programs,
22 you might delay critical defense programs.
23 We asked DOE-to address these national security 24 implications and these boiled down, everything they said.
i Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 This represents everything they said, essentially.
I
nte 7 31 1
How, on the risk of disclosure of classified informa-2 tion, we don't know how much classified information might 3
possibly be involved if we went to analyze a facility for 4
licensing some sort of waste disposal facility.
I do point 5
out that our entire inventory was based on nonclassified 6
information.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let ne ask you, is there 8
anything classified about 6.e facilities that you listed?
9 MR. C UNMINGHA.". :
You mean the facilities themselves?
10 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or the waste constituents?
11 MR. CUIRIINGHAM:
Oh, yes.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARME:
In the facilities they've 13 got listed.
14 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All kinds of things:
Rocky Flats, 15 all kinds of great places.
16 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
There are some things classified 17 about some wastes.
18 MR. SMITH:
Pantex, I think, is a good example.
19 This is a highly classified operation.
The waste that is in 20 storage and has been disposed of contains classified shapes 21 and classified components.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask it this way:
23 Suppose you were to draw the line between classified and 24 unclassified waste.
How much would end up on one side or the i
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 other?
Can you characterize that-in some rough way?
mte 8 32 1
MR. SMITH:
I don't think we can, because the kind 2
of information that we would -- well, let me back off and say 3
there are undoubtedly, from what we understand from DOE, 4
certain aspects of almost all defense-generated wastes that 5
conceivably could be considered classified.
The thing that we 6
couldn 't come to grips with was how much of Ehat information 7
would be necessary for the licensing process. -
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
Let me pursue this in another 9
way.
I can understand shapes being classified.
But I also 10 understood the makeup of the was te, say,.at Hanford is not 11 classified.
12 MR. SMITH:
We're not absolutely clear on that.
One 13 of Ehe Chings indicated to us was that by knowing isotopic 14 content and isotopic ratios cf a waste stream, or certainly of 15 waste itself, it 's theoretically possible to back-calculate.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Then we'll ask you this:
17 Are.these listed in the Hanford EISs?
18 MR. SMITH:
All of the data that we have comes from 19 public document EISs.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is the kind of data that 21 you're speaking of listed there?
22 MR. SMITH:
I would presume not, because it would 23 be classified and they would not include it.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think that what you ' re getting Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 at is that all the material that they have used is the _
l
m t'e 9 ' '
33 1
unclassified. material.
I don't think they really know.
~
2 COP."ISSIONER GILIUSKY:
But I think we inquired at 3
one point and asked whether the Hanford waste, whether its 4
composition was classified.
And I remember getting the response 5
that it was not.
6 MR. CUNUINGHAM:
In the waste tanks?
7 COM?iISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
8 MR. CUNNINGHMi:
It's my impression that it is not, 9
but I don ' t know 'why I have that question.
l 10 COMMISSIOUP.P AHEARNE :
Let me put the question 11 ano ther way.
I realize it wouldn' t be in thisoreporb, but do".
12 you have a description of what is classified in the vastes?
13 MR. SMITH:
Let me read back to vou what DOE told 14 us when we asked Chem that cuestion.
Th<y had alluded to 15 the classification problem in one of their pieces of corres-16 pondence, and on page 6-15 they answered us by saying that:
17
" Defense.-related activities result in the generation of 18 classified wastes, which are eithen buried or stored.
The i
19 classification aspects of ihe waste may involve documented 20 information in the waste itself.
The classified records can 21 includ. information from which correlations could be drawn 22 regarding auantities or compositions of materials used in 23 weapons, defense naterials processing or special nuclear mate-24 rial production rates.
AmFemI Recmn. f m 25
" Classified aspects of was te itself essentially I
4
.te 10 34 1
consist of classified components or shapes or discarded 2
materials, from which classified chemical nuclear compositions 3
could be determined.
Beyond this category of classified 4
material, directly pertinent to waste, is the bulk of security-5 sensitive information relating to waste generation activities 6
pertaining to the central purpose of defense program activities 7
"We are unable to assune realistically that.a newly-8 enabled NRC rule could be so bounded as to exclude any involve-9 ment in waste generation areas."
10 I That's the DOE answer.
II COfiMISSIONER GILIUSKY:
That's a pretty general 12 answ er.
I mean, it would be interesting to know if othe kind of 13 problems that one runs into are limited to a relatively small 14 number of facilities or are segregated out in various ways,
15 and where we draw the line between classified and unclassified.
16 Just because it's classified doesn't mean that NRC can't 17 handle it.
But I daink it simplifies things a good deal if 18 we stick to unclassified material.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes..
20 CHAIRt1AN IIEMDRIE:
I'll speculate that the unclassi-21 fied material would in itself not generally be regarded as 22 sufficiently detailed for licensing actions, and that you 23 would have, in almost every case, to go over the classified 24 info rmation.
i Ace Fedetal Reporters, Inc.
25 liR. CUNMINGHAli:
That may be the case.
If so, of I
.te 11 35 j
course, we're going to have to face it in high-level waste 2
disposal.
3 CO?1MISSIONER GILINSKY:
Which we would ultimately 4
take over in any case.
5 fir. CUNNINGHAM:
We've got to do it, right.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, the question is how 7
f ar ups trean do you go.
8 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That 's one of the tough ones, yes.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It would be nice to have l
10 !
some of the facts on this laid out.
11 COffilSSIONER AHEARNE:
I had sort of thought that 12 was prob' ably one of the key questions.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I thought we were 14 relying on DOE to come up with something.
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We asked DOE in writing.
We held 16 a meeting with DOE, at their request, in Albucuerque, where 17 all the major offices were represented, all the ones we wanted.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I notice that there's one of 19 the Assistant Secretaries in one of these letters, said he 20 1coks forward to discussing the conclusions with the Commis-21 sion.
Does that mean Chat Sewall wanted to come and discuss e'
22 these issues?
23 24 i
Ace Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 l
CR.27Q2 36 DH:jwb
- 4 MR. SMITH:
We talked, as recently as yesterday 2
afterncon, with Brian Seeber, 'the liaison man that we've been 3
dealing with, to make him aware of the meeting today.
He I
i 4'
hand-delivered copies of this to Germantown last night.
5 So beyond that, we have not made any extencion to 6
them of a commitment for a meeting.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was just curious as to 8
when Sewell said, "I look forward to discussing the conclu-9, sions with the Commission."
10 '
We he in essence looking forward to having the l
11 opportunity to do that?
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it would be very 13 helpful.
14 MR. SHAPAR:
We did not p," sue that.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I woul: think we ought to.
I 16 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We might also point out, at this 17 stage, that the bulk of the information -- or at least~ the 18 policy-type things that DOE has replied to us on really have 19 come to us unofficially; that they represent units within 6
20 DOE.
(. t 10:40 a.m., Commissioner Bradford enters the A
21 22 room.)
23 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We don't have anything on these 24 major issues that are signed by DOE and sent to the NRC.
e Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
I
4-2 jwh 37 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
A second thing that devolves out 3
i 2
of this is the potential for delaying action.
(At 10:41 a.m.,
Commissioner Kennedy leaves the 3
1 I
room.)
4 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The degree to which it would exist 5
again is one of these things that is very hard to figure and 6
w uld be dependent on which option you bought, of course.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And I guess, certainly from 8
my point of view, that and the previous one are very serious 9;
I 10 '
questi ons.
{
i 11 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think so.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, but again the further 12 13 downstrean you are going, the less the involvement.
It's pretty clear that if you are dealing with a repository for ja i'
15 ultimate storage,.you have essentially no impact.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm not saying that there-I 17 fore you don't do anything.
What I'm saying is:
The further 10 upstream you go, the more careful you have to be.
19 COMMISSI.ONER GILINSKY:
Absolutely.
You've got to ask:
At what point is regulation incompatible with national i
20 security activities that need to be conducted?
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Ideally, it would be nice to 22 Produce some kind of buffer zone between production activities 23 24 and the waste.
Ace-Federal Reporters. Iric. l 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But national security I
4-3 jwb 38 I
shouldn't make us scatter and drop the subject.
~~
~
2 MR. SHAPAR:
The question has already been settled i
3!
by the Congress in the existing law.
The question is in terms i
4 of the effect on national security of DOE activities being 5
regulated.
6 The question is how much further you go.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Uhe;e you draw the line.
I understand that in France one could check this activity 8
9 that is related to military waste and are in effect licensed.
i 10 :
They draw the line between classified and unclassified, in 11 which classified is handled by the military authorities; 12 whereas, unclassified --
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Without some confidence 14 over their sccurity classification system, I'm not sure I l
15 '
would want to, necessarily.
I 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, no, no.
I'm just 17 throwing it out.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Didn't you send something 19 around on the English system -- health and safety inspectors 20 i actually wandering around?
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In Br.
the. health and 22 safety inspectors have gotten, I believe, a good deal more 23 authority over areas that they were formerly excluded from.
24 But I don't know to what extent we can get into this the way WFederst Reporters, Inc. l 25 l other people do it.
Certainly it doesn't mean that we have to l
m*
4.-d jwb 39 do it that way.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or can, because we operate in - -
2 3l a different framework here.
I MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, this is certainly the issue.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I would like to try 5
and have Sewell.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't I call him.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would, too.
I think it' 8
would be very helpful.
9 l
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
See if we can arrange a meeting.
10 I
COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
I would like to do that.
jj COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Certainly.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll let you know what the 13 I
options are.
It needs to be pretty quick, if it's going to ja impact on the recommendations.
15 Go ahead.
16 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think we'11 go on to the next j7 slide.
~
18 (Slide.)
19 I think it's important to note that, in the course 20 of going through what DOE has done, nothing was revealed which 21 w uld lead us to conclude that the DOE's system is not adequate.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That seems to me, on its 23 face, to be just a classic "no evidence" statement, and I 24,
Aa Fecef al Reporters, Inc. I.
wouldn't say it that way.
25
4-5 jwb 40 1
(Laughter. )
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm glad you said, "within 1
3l the limitations of the study," but doesn't it need to be said I
I that the limitations of the study for making a judgment like 4
5 th'at are so great that_the judgment is almost meaningless?
6 The study is limited as to time, as to scope, as to space; I 7
just wouldn't want people to infer from that that we were saying anything very meaningful.about the program itself.
8 9
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But precisely in the same way, t
there's nothing about the study which suggests that there is l
10 l 11 a need to leap in and save humanity from the Department of 12 Energy.
Okay?
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Sure.
But the scope of the 14 study is such that the statement means almost nothing.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, it means more than that.
16 At least as I read the Executive Summary and skin through 17 this document, what they were trying to point out is that they 18 are recommending extension of NRC's oversight into a number of 19 l areas of DOE activities.
20 How you can conclude that that should be done on at I 21 least one of two reasons.
22 (At 10:47 a.m.,
Commissioner Kennedy enters the 23 room.)
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You can conclude that it W Feceral Reporters, Inc.
25 -
should be done because it's a sound public policy to extend to I
4-6 jwb 41 the independent regulatory action.
Or, you conclude "either,"
.i "or," or "and'.' that it's necessary because this limited 2
i study has found a number of great deficiencies.
3, I
And at least I thought that what they had written 4
in the written material was that it was the former, primarily.
5 COIO1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
And that comes 6
closer to being the right way to say it, too.-
7 COIO1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think this is just 8
probably an overcapsuli::ation of what they've said.
9, l
t MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
What we said in the study, 10 '
11 if you go to 7-3, is that that detailed and time-consuming study of DOE's present practices, we can't tell whether they're 12 doing an adequate job or not.
And that is the basis behind 13 this recommendation.
ja COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This is the fundamental 15 executive summary problem.
Let's instantly call them 16
" summaries" instead of " executive summaries."
They might as 17 l
well be " citizen summaries," " people summaries."
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that a policy conclusion?
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm not sure; if you'd like 20 to take a vote on it?
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The next section, the benefits 22 fr m regulation --
23 (Slide.)
24 i
A*:e Feceral Reporters, Inc. I
-- absent any definitive statement of finding that DOE is not 25 i
4-7 jwb 42 adequately protecting the public health and safety, are rather j
nebulous, hard to quantify.
He do get a second, independent 2
i 3 i review.
DOE, at some point within the organizational structure, i
I must weigh production against health and safety considerations.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I may have been listening 5
to the wrong speeches and reading the wrong newspapers all this 6
time, but I've had the impression rather consistently that 7
what the public has been concerned about in the waste business 8
is that the United States Government has not pursued a policy 9
i of waste management which would allow for a rational sort of l
10.
I 11 '
long-term program for permanent disposal of commercial waste.
That is, the waste that is being and will be in the 12 future generated from the nuclear power program.
Until the 13 nuclear power program became an important question, nobody was ja.
i I
15 :
arguing about the waste problem in the DOE facilities, on the assumption that that waste was isolate'd and was being handled 16 i 17 Properly.
You know, as 1 say, I probably read the wrong 18 speeches and read the wrong newspapers all this time.
I happens 19 to us.
20 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
It may have been a faulty assump-21 tion.
That may have been the assumption, but I don't know what 22 the basis for it was.
23 I think that certainly --
24 Ace. Federal Reporters, trc COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What was the basis for 25 I
4-8 jwb 43 I
assuming otherwise?
- - 'i' 2
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It wasn't helped by the -
3, industry going around saying that 98 percent of the waste was i
l 4 ~
military.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:.That doesn't change my view 6
of what I read and what I heard.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Uhy don't we go on with this.
8 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The other things I think that are 9
listed there are the type of things that you might get out of 10 regulation.
i 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I take exception to l
12 your. describing them as " nebulous benefits. "
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
" Nebulous"'in the sense -- well, la perhaps that isn't a good word.
You can't quantify them.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's better; yes.
16 IIR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think they're real benefits.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And substantive benefits.
18
" Substantive but unquantified. benefits."
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If my view of what the news-20i papers at least gave me to understand was the problem in fact 21 _ was, I'm not even sure that I would even put on the chart the l
22 last item.
23 Let me just add that I think there is a tendency in 24 the United States Government, at any level and in any agency, Am Fede'at Reporters, Inc.
25-to assume that whatever it does will obviously increase public l
4.-9 jwb 44 1
confidence.
I submit that that may be a very, very inappro-2 Priate type of assumption.
3 (Laughter.)
l 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Although you will find it 5
always on such charts.
I think it needs to be examined 6
carefully to ascertain whether in fact that's really true.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You can put another bullet 8
below it saying " decreased public confidence," or a question l
9; mark after it.
I i
10 (Laughter.)
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or, just leave it off and 12 let the public explore that.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would have to share 14 ;
Mr. Kennedy's point.
That, as far as the great public concern, 15 it's not that great on this issue.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In any case, increased public 17 confidence doesn't contribute to protection.
18 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes, that's right.
19 The next version will take care of that.
If I may 20i have the next chart, please.
I 21 (Slide.)
22 Costs are high on this program.
We tried to i
estimate it.
Our estimates of course are best shots at this 23l 24 !
thing.
Our costs, the NRC man-years in dollars, included i
Ace 4ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 '
overhead.
4,-JO jwb 45 j
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This is an annual cost?
2 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
No, sir.
This is a 10-year total, 3
and it includes overhead.
For example, if you -have so many I
4 reviewers, you have to have secretarial support.
And we tried to include the overhead in the costs.
5 6
It's large.--
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But the dollars are contract 7
dollars?
8 9
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes, sir.
So the dollars are total dollars.I 10 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
11 That's just program support funds; presumably the man-years 12 bring with it enough money to pay the salaries, the benefits, 13 the rent, provide a shuttle bus, and all the other little 14 things.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So 40 man-years at an average 16 man-year figure of, what is it, these days?
$30,000?
17 MR. GOSSICK:
If you figure in the other things.
18 you're talking about, it goes up considerably.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So we're only talking about 20 1 a figure of $50 million on one side.
These are cumulative l
21 numbers?
That is, they're not exclusive?
That's the NRC plus 22 DOE?
23 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
You have two columns, yes.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's what I say, both of A&FMust Rewrtm. loc. g
{
25 them.
I
46 4-J1 jwb i
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
CbMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So really, it's only 2
I 3
$300 million.
I 4
Well, in these days of austerity, that's a relatively 5
low number.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What did the DOE costs 7
include?
MR. SMITH:
That represents their estimates of th6 8
9 cost of doing business with NRC under the options.
That is, 10 the safety evaluation, or the safety analysis reports.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see.
But it doesn't 12 include costs?
13 MR. SMITH:
It doesn't include delay costs.
It 14 doesn't include remedial costs.
That's the cost of doing 15 business.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This is the licensing staff on 17 the DOE side.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sort of one-for-one.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm surprised at your 20 1 standards so small, particularly on the DOE side. Going back i
21 to the earlier discussion, if the standards are such that DOE 22 q must comply with it, why is it so small?
I 23 MR. SMITH:
I would expect that their existing 24,
health safety organization is not impacted that much by the Am Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 estMalishment of a different standard.
I
4-12 jwb 47 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
These are sufficiently 2
general standards that you wouldn' t have that problem.
3 MR. SMITH:
They work under a whole series of I
4' standards, now, voluntary use of NRC standards.
So it's not 5
something I would ~ expect them to have to gear up.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think my guess is, John, that 7
when they talk about the 40 man-years, they're just talking 8
about DOE staff participating in the rule-making proceedings, 9
which would establish the standards.
Because none of the i
I 10 implementation is included here.of what the standards might l
11 require, 40 man-years for the state of rule-making.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you said "no remedial 13 action," did you also mean then for implementation?
14 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We did not include in the costs the 15 l-cost of any changes.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or fix anything.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or the increased staff that 18 they might have to bring on since we've got this kind of 19 procedure?
That's not in here,. either?
20 DR. DIRCKS:
The procedural costs would be included i
21 in here.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Of dealing with us, but if as a 23 l.
result of something that our waste management overview required 24 there were four more reports which required two more people at m.r.eer i neporters, inc. ;
25 X facility per year, that's not in here.
That's an implementatio I
48 4,-13 jwb I
cost and it's not in here.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Because there are two kinds.
3 There's remedial, but there's also a connotation, and neither 4
are in here.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's right.
6 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's right.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What you're looking at here is 8
the straightforward licensing team on one side, and the end #4 9
licensing team on the other.
l 10 '
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i
Aa-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 l
6'2.0'5'.!
49 pv 1
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
May I have the next slide, please.
2 (Slide.)
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You estimated licensing, with 4
the delay, of four to seven years.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
May we have the next slide 6
back again, please.
7 (Slide.)
8 Let's see, the DOE estimate is that licensing during 9
that IO-year period could cost as much as S109 million.
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
J1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, no.
s109 million may be an 12 insignificant fraction of what is involved.. That's the 13 contractual support for licensing for their side of the 14 licensing discussions.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's $109 million, plus 16
.775 man-years at $30,000.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Probably closer to 40.
18 MR. GOSSICK:
I would say $40,000 per person for all 19 of the overhead.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And that doesn't change an ything 21 at the facilities.
Okay?
Now, when you start to talk about 22 changing things at the facilities as a result of the licensing 23 requirements, why, then, that isn't even estimated.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just to give me some kind of 25
. perspective on that number, do we have a rough number that we
62.05.2 50 pv i
use for the licensing costs alone of a reactor?
'~ ~
~' ~~ ~
2 MR. SMITH 2 Loosely, it's what is it?
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On our side.
4 MR. SMITH:
You mean on the industry side.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
6 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We have no idea.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I was wondering about the 8
utility costs.
9 MR. GOSSICK:
I don't know, Mr. Bradford.
It's a 10 big number.
It depends on what all they crank into it by the J1 time they get to submi.tting to the docket an application.
It's 12 in the millions.
I have r.o idea of the number.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I just wondered.
This is 14 equivalent then, perhaps, to something on the order of 10 or 20 15 reactors, from the industry standpoint.
Would that be in the 16 ba llpa rk?
17 MR. GOSSICK2 I just don't know.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I don't.think they have 19 looked at it.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I just was trying to get 21 something to compare it with In my own mind.
22 DR. DIRCKS:
We can find that out.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But as sort of a horseback guess, 24 Peter, I think that's not bad.
That would suggest 30 to 70 25 man-years for the licensing ef fort, and I expect it's probably
51 762.05.3 pv 1
a little closer to the latter than the former; maybe more like 2
10 reactors.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Of course, by now you've had a l ttle more exper.iencing in licensing reactors.
i 4
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that's right.
Reactor 6
licensing benefits substantially from nuclear steam supplies 7
being a very much a standardized proposition.
8 COMMISSIO!!ER BRADFORD:
And do you -have a number for 9
the percentage increase that that would mean in the cost of 10
. operating these f acilities during that decade?
J1 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I don't have a number, but it's a 12 small percentage.
You're talking -- these prograns are very 13 expensive programs, decontamination, decommissioning.
It's 14 billions and billions of do.llars.
15 MR. SMITH:
I believe the sorts of numbers presented 16
.recently were DOE's estimates of solidifying the existing 17 high-level waste.
Those numbers ran, as I recall, like $12 or 18 sl3 billion just..for that part of the program.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, in your executive 20 summary, you say that the costs could run into the millions of 21 dollars.
How did you go from the " hundreds of millions" here 22 to the " billions"?
~
23 MR. SMITH:
One of the things that is not 24 represented in these costs are the costs of delay, and.one of 25 the informal pieces of co rrespondence that we got from DOE,
~.
762.05.4 52 pv 1
which at the time they said please don't quote, indicated 2
pro 9 ram-delay costs would be measured in billions of dollars 3
at one facility.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I am just-a little 5
uneasy about using something we can't quote to support this, 6
which is obviously a very strong statement.
7 MR. SMITH:
We will be able to quote that once the 8
next piece of correspondence that's in the mail arrives from 9
DOE.
10 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE:
Being able to quote it and J1 agreeing with it, of course, are two different items.
Have you 12 examined it?
Do you f eel it's reasonable?
13 MR. SMITH:
For a multi-billion dollar program that 14 they're talking about, it's not hard to imagine inflation alone 15 in the cost of delay.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But these are delay costs 17 that you really f ocus on, so when you talked about the costs of 18 regulating DOE, it could run into billions of dollars.
It's 19 primarily to the delay that might be in tro duc ed.
20 MR. SMITH:
And remedial actions and things like 21 that.
22 MR. CUM 4INGHAM:
Implementation.
23 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE:
But that dep ends -- I guess I 24 am a little uneasy about calling that a cost," unless it's 25 qualified a little bit more than that, because if it's a cost,
53 762.05.5 because in order to have adequate safety, perhaps it'~s'so
~
pv i
2 necessary a cost that it should be part of the program cost 3
anyway.
4 MR. DIRCKS:
The traditional arguments that you get 5
into when you try to measure regulatory costs, you get into it 6'
when you try to measure regulatory costs in reactors.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would be a little bit more 8
confident, I gue.ss, in the people's summary if we're a.11.ttle 9
clearer as to what those costs are.
10 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we questioned that ourselves.
JI CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we just go ahead and 12 note that inclusion of potential costs of delays and potential 13 costs of remedial and implementation actions, that estimates 14 have been made, you can say, by DOE -- if they in f act come 15 through with a thing you can rely on -- estimates have been 16 made by DOE that may reach the billions.
That would still keep 17 it pretty general, but just make it clear than when you talk 18 about after having had tables with million-dollar numbers in 19 them, the way you get to billions is to note that these 20 otherwise unquantified costs are the ones that really run the 21 grand total up.
22 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The problem with costs also applies 23 to that column on DOE, just the cost of licensing these other 24 options, because that isn't just a wasted effort.
They go 25 through a disciplined process of analysis that presumably does
54 762.05.6 pv i
buy you something.
How much it gets you is another thin ~g'.
2
'MR. SMITH:
Again, I would like to reemphasize the 3
DOE numbers were intended to be incremental costs above their 4
existing program.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your four to se v 'ri years of 6
delay, is that your estimate?
DOE's estimate?
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's ours.
On V.II-14, I believe 8
it is.
Chapter V.II, page 14.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have lost the thread.
What 10 happened?
.11 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
He was asking about the delay, and 12 we've laid it out in the scheduling, Chapter V.II, page 14.
13 VII-14.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I will review it, then.
15 Fine.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, yes.
17 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Shall I go on to the next slide?
18 CHAIRM AN HENDRIE:
Please do.
I am anxious to press 19 forward to conclusions and recommendations.
20 (Slide.)
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Decontamination and 22 decommissioning, as I said earlier, is probably the biggest 23 part of.this whole process.
24 (At 11:08 a.m., Commissioner Bradford left the.
25 meeting room.)
762.05.7 55 pv 1
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We are in the process of 2
identifying costs in that because we don't have projections.
3 It requires individual estimates.
We don't have site plans for 4
dec omm i ssion ing, and many of these deconmissioning activities 5
will take place af ter the year 2000, 6
Next slide, please.
7 (Slide.)
8 General conclusions:
The waste management problem 9
In DOE is an existing one.
By that, I mean that DOE has 10 generated probably most of the wastes that they're going to J1 generate, compared to the commercial program which should 12 generate a lot more waste.
13 I.think the most important issue in looking at the DOE co plex -
14 m
15 (At.11209 a.m., Commissioner Bradford entered the 16 meeting room.)
17 MR. CUNNINGhAM2
-- Is how they're going to leave 18 these blg sites once they no longer serve a useful purpose.
As 19 mentioned earlier, you have a site like Hanford, 300-some 20 separate disposal areas, 600-some square miles.
For many 21 practical purposes it ls a dedicated site.
Even if you wanted 22 to consolidate all that waste and move it somewhere, even if 23 you were willi-to pay for it~, the expense is exorbitant and 24 you don't have anyplace to put it.
25 So, the important issue in all of these is how you
56 62.05.8 pv i
are going to leave those sites f or the long term.
I can't 2
overstress that.
And I think that some of these that we look 3
at are rather small, as we look at this, and the size of the 4
land involved there.
Existing sites are dedicated to defense 5
and R&D work, mainly.
We see no compelling reason, going 6
through this, to interject ourselves in a regulatory sense, 7
into waste-processing activities.
That is, for example, 8
licensing the processing the plant that would solidify 9
hlgh-level waste bef ore it goes to a repository.
We think, 10 from a regulatory standpoint, in the first place, from the
.11 hazards standpoint, the processing plant is like other plants 12 on the site, and we would not regulate a reprocessing plant or 13 what ha e you.
From a hazards standpoint, they don't represent v
14 a substantially different hazard.
15 From the regulatory standpoint, what we're really 16 interested in then in the processing plant is the quality of 17 the product that comes out, and we think we can get to that, 18
.the solidified product.
We think we can get to that by 19 specifying in our regulations the performance criteria.f or that 20 product, and any quality assurance that we want to lay on it.
21 So, we don't think we should get into this licensing 22 regulating process of the plants themselves.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see, you're talking 24 about plants that would solidify the semi-liquid material?
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's mainly it.
Yes.
62.05.9 57 pv 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I am a little -
2 surprised at your conclusion.
I would have thought that in 3
this entire cycle the most hazardous activities would be 4
conducted on the surf ace when you're handling wastes, moving 5
wastes, transferring wastes.
We can drop things.
6 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I don't think so.
I am not saying 7
it isn't an activity that is potentially hazardous.
Certainly, 8
there might be some occupational hazards involved in that.
I 9
can't see any substantial difference from that and the 10 reprocessing plants that DOE operates.
J1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, there's a dif f erent 12 argument on reprocessing plants, in that they are a good deal 13 closer to weapons-related activities.
14 DR. DIRCKS:
I think his argument is:
If we 15 licensed those plants, then there would be equal weight to go 16 in and license other plants.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But we're excluding certain 18 facilities from consideration, simply because of national 19 security considerations.
20 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Your initial argument was on the 21 basis of risk or hazard to people in opert those plants.
22 All I am saying is, " Forget about the nata.
-acurity.
I 23 can't make a distinction between the hazards from that plant 24 and the hazards from other types of plants."
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
But, you know, you
58 762.05.10
. ~
pv 1
would license a reprocessing plant.
2 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, I don't think
- I don't 3
know.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If there was one, at least 5
a commercial one --
6 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We haven't looked at that.
I think 7
if you say, looking at it from the risk standpoint, if we 8
licensed the processing plant, then we would have to at least 9
consider licensing the reprocessing plants.
We haven't looked 10 at it.
11 Now, I don't know what national security 12 implications.are in the reprocessing plants.
The other 13 argument for not licensing the processing plant itself is that 14 it really doesn't represent any long-term commitment, which I 15 think is a f undamental thing that we should be interested in.
16 Waste storage, where you don't have a final solution, then 17 you're interested in that.
In the disposal, you're interested 18 in long. term.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I an not saying that it's an 20 activity that ought to be definitely licensed.
But I sure 21 wouldn't exclude it on the grounds that you're presenting here.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
particularly for DOE, talking 23 about the DOE span of activities, one of the things that you're 24 looking for is to find some suitable separation those matters 25 that are already mandated to be licensed under the law, the
762.0'5'.11' 59 pv i
ultimate disposal of the defense wastes and that national ecurity-related chain which ultimately leads 'to those wastes, 2
s 3
and in many ways that processing plant helps to provide that 4
buff er and separation region, if you prescribe the product of 5
the plant in terms of performance sp'ecifications for the 6
product coming out, but then stay out of that plant itself and 7
let that be the dividing line.
8 I will note that last June, when we talked about 9
these things, why, we talked about waste-solidification 10 fa 'lities being subject to licensing.
.Now, certainly, for
.11 commercial fuels and any commercial processing and 12 solidification activity that night go on in the f uture, then I 13 think those are licensed because people are going to have 14 materials licenses in order to possess and handle that 15 material.
Indeed, I would think that would be appropriate.
16 But I think one might take a different view with 17 regard to the DOE activities and decide there that there is a end#5 18 reasonable basis to draw the line.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 m
CR'2762 60 IIOFFI1AN t-6 mte 1 1
CDtif1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you say " licensing", your 2
words on the chart are "irposing regulatory control".
3 ER. CUNNINGIINi:
" Regulatory control" is a better 4
word.
5 CDISiISSIONER AIIEARNE:
What did you have in mind 6
with respect to the product?
7
- m. CUNNINGIIAli:
On the product, if we 're. talking 8
about high-level was te solidification, we already -- in f act, 9
we are developing performance standards for.the solidified 10 !
product.
Eow, the reason we do that is th at that product is 11 what goes into the repository.
12 COMMISSIONER AIIEARNE:
So you would be imposing 13 regulatory control on the product?
14 HR. CUNNINGIIAM:
Right, th at 's ri -
And we could 15 lay on some quality assurances on that product that would make 16 us go and look at how. the plant operates, But it would not 17 be regulating health and safety considerations for the plant 18 itself.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But you did not mean to imply 20 by that statement that you would not be regulating the product.
21 MR. CUNNINGIIAf t:
That's the rationale for not regu--
22 lating the plant itself, because we can in fact control the 23 product.
24 CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
That's a bit of a change of view i
Aes-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 from the point of the view of the staff in the testimony we I
. te 2' '
61 9
1 hdd last summer.
2 MR. CUNNINCIIAM:
That is correct.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you to follow on 4
what the Chairman was saying.
Suppose you had such a facility 5
at West Valley that, presumably, would be licensed.
6 CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE:
A f ascinating situation.
7 DR. DIRCKS:
I think we were asked that question the 8
other d ay.
9 CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
It's a non-DCE facility with some 10 wastes in it that derive from the defense program.
I suppose 11 if you really wanted to try hard, you could rationalize it one 12 way or the other.
13 MR. CUNNING!IAM:
It seenis to me that there are a 14 couple of things.
Some of it.'s DOE was te in there, and there's 15 a question of who would pay for the thing, who would operrte 16 the solidification plant.
Even if you were to assume that DOE 17 Operated it under a prime contractor, I don 't see how we could 18 not be involved in the licensing process, because it affects 19 license operations.
20 DR. DIRCKS:
It's hard to imagine anything going 21 in West Valley without being subject to some licensing rc.iew 22 by NRC.
There may be cases, but I can't think of any right 23 now.
24 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
Yeah.
Okay.
Listen, let me stop Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 a minute and ask my colleagues.
We have another major subject I
nte 3 62 1
for which a number of people have come this morning.
This 2
one is -- the discussion here 'is far from concluded.
We are 3
sort of getting up now to the interesting part in Dick';s --
4 COMMISSIONER AIIEARNE:
I found this all interes ting.
5 CHAIR?iAN IIENDRIE:
What is your pleasure?
If we 6
continue with this subj ect --
7 COWIISSIONER KENNEDY:
Can we wrap it up in ten 8
minutes?
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I t hink there 's no way we can l
10 I nanage that.
I think it'll run until noon to make even a rapid '
II pass at the re:naining slides.
12 COM'tISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think we ought to stop.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I have a notion, because I 14 do note that a nunber of people have joined tha audience, 15 apparently in anticipation of the subject, which is now 21 16 minutes overdue, I think we're going to have to stop and 17 schedule further discussion on this subject as soon as 'I can I8 pull it together.
l9 COffiISSIONER KENNEDY:
As long as we're here, why 20 can't we just begin it again and take the first 30 minutes 21 this afternoon, as long as they 're here?
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
As nuch as anything, because I'd 23 like to call Duane Sewell and see if he'd like to come over and 24 meet with the Comrission and bring his team.
First, schedule Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 a meeting which gives us a chance to have discussions with l
mte*4 * '
63 1
Mr. Sewell and his staff and with our staff, and to complete 2
then the discussions and recommendations.
Because we have to 3
move forward here and provide the staf f the directions that 4
they need to formulate the Commission's recommendations as 5
part of this report.
6 It depends on when Sewell and company will be 7
available to cone.
8 CO!UiISSIONER AHEARNE:
It might be good to give them 9
a chance, also.
I 10 CHAIPliAN HENDRIE:
How, the timing, Vic, is going to 11 be such, Vic, that you're coing to have to leave some of proxy 12 or be in communication with your assistants so you can get your 13 point of view included in the Commission's vote.
14 All right.
Let me stop this subject at this point.
15 And thank you very much.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Could I raise one question, 17 because I don 't think there 's going to be an answer to 'it.
Do 18 you have any sense, Dick, of what percentage of the activities 19 we're talking about are DOE activities in the sense that DOE 20 personnel actually are fully responsible and what percentage 21 ar'e DOE contractors?
22 CHAIP11AN HENDRIE:
DOE doesn ' t have --
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Remember, Livermore, Los Alamon,.
24 and those are all contractors.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Irc 25 cot 2iISSIONER KENNEDY:
They have their own people, I
'm'te S ~
64 1
also, on the site in a sort of general, supervisory contract 2
administration or contract direction sort of operation.
3 MR. GOSSICK:
A certain percentage of the regional 4
offices and operations of fices.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFOPD:
But they're all carried out 6
by private corporations.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't say private corpora-8 tions, no.
The contract is with the University of California, 9
a najor centractor.
l 10 !
COMMISSIONER ERADFORD:
Maybe what I need is on the 11 last page.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There 's more than one 13 contractor on a site doing different things.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On the last page of the 15 slides material is the set of sites and abbreviations.
Could 16 you just add the name of the prime contractor to this one?
17 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Okay.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And since he snuck a question in 19 about that list, is ' DOE quite clear that the Argonne site 20 doesn't have any remaining low-level things?
21 MR. SMITH:
We've done some checking.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Don't answer me.
Just think about 23 it for next time, okay?
24 Thank you very nuch.
i Ace-Federal Peporters, Inc.
e-6 25 (Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m.,
the meeting was adjourned.)
.