ML19340F155
| ML19340F155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/22/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR70408, REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PR-60 SECY-80-474, NUDOCS 8101190792 | |
| Download: ML19340F155 (100) | |
Text
--
A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
s.:
J i
COMMISSION MEETING c',
f 0 ;.,
.:. e._
11
.iA.
[3 In the Matter of:
PUBLIC MEETING d
DISCUSSION OF SECY-80
-- FINAL RULE --
10 CFR 60 -- DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES -
LICENSING PROCEDURES DATE: December 22, 1980 pAggg: 1 - 79 AT:
Washington, D.
C.
l l
- - (REPORT 1XG
.U3sL%Y t
400 vi..ginia Ave., S.W. Washis p=n, D. C. 20024 s
Telephone : (202) 554-2245 61011On }Q Q,
Jtbaach
- 1-1 1
1 dNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 Public Meeting 4
DISCUSSION OF SECY-00-474 -- FINAL RULE --
=
5 E
10 CFR 60 -- DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE l
6 g
WASTE IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES - LICENSING I
g PROCEDURES l
8 e
c 9
y Nuclear Regulatory Commission, g
10 Commissioners' Conference Room, y
1717 H Street, Northwest, j
11 Washington, D.C.
3 y
12-Monday, 22 December 1980.
13 The meeting of the Commissioners was convened, l
14 pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m.
W 2
15 BEFORE:
j 16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman W
PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner
(
17 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Commissioner 5
5 18 ALSO PRESENT:
=
19 Samuel J.
Chilk, Leonard Bickwit, Martin G. Malsch, R
20 Guy Cunningham, John Davis, John Marti.', Pat Comella, 21 Bill Dircks, and Edward Hanrahan.
22 23,
24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
DISC:".A.T.
This is an u= official =anscripe of a. masc 1:3 of cha Uni:ad -
Stacas Nuclear Regulacs:7 CQsion held on December 22, 1980 in the Ccamiss'an's. officas a: 1717 E Screac, N. W., 'Jash1=g:cu, D. C.
3a. maat1=g was open es public a :andasca and obsa:racion.
This. =ans@c has see bsen ruvtswad, cor:ac ad, or edi:ad, and i= may contain d-= - @ *.
The==2nsc.dpc is #::andad solely for gn=a.% 1 for=aciona.1 i
pu= poses.
As pr:ntdad. by 10 CII 9.103,1: is som par of da fo:=aI. or infs:ma.L record of decision of de =at:ars discussad.
F.zprassicus of op1=1on in -J:1s :_anse:1pc ds som nacassarily rafisc: f1=al, datarm1=a:1ons or baliafs.
No plead 1=g or ochar paper may be filad. vi h the Ccumission i= any p;ccand1=g as cha resul: of or addressed :s any s a:amane or arp:=ent cou ai ad l
harais, azcape as cha Ccuzzission may autho:f ai I
I 2
l 9
e e
n
---g
- - - - ~ -
JWQench 2
12/22/80
- NRC #1 1
Pgggggglggg 2
(2:02 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN AIIEARNE:
The Commission meets this 4
afternoon to continue its addressing of the final rule on e
5 CFR Part 60, procedural Rule for setting up a high level b
$_6 waste disposal facility.
R l
[
7 The particular focus of this afternoon's meeting s
8 8
is a December 18th memo fron Commissioner Bradford outlining dd 9
19 modifications that he proposed with respect to the rule.
$g 10 I think the staff has been working the last couple of days to E
j 11 attempt to come to a position to comment on these.
3 y
12-Obviously, as one notes, Commissioner Gilinsky is 5
y 13 unable to be here with us today; he is sick.
This may lead a
l 14 to an impasse; it may not.
I think the gentleman on my right 2
15 is probably the critical individual, but let us go forward.
E j
16 Bill?
d g
17 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we had discussions on this 5
18 earlier and, Jack, I guess you've passed out the --
E 19 MR. MARTIN:
Right.
g a
20 MR. DIRCKS:
-- chart.
We reviewed the modifica-21 tions that were suggested and, as you can see, there is sort 22 of a scorecard we've rackad up.
23 ;
As far as we can see, there would be no problems 24 on seven; on two; and three of them are suggestions that the 25 technical criteria address.
There are three that will be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 3
+
3 1
addressed.
And the bottom is the five that we think would 2
be worthwhile to pick up --
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, it may or may not be.
4 Clearly it depends on where the Commission comes out.
We may g
5 disagree with more --
8 6
MR. DIRCKS:
Well, you asked -- Yes.
Sure.
You R
'd 7
asked me for my rack-up --
A j
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
Right.
d c;
9 MR. DIRCKS:
So you can do anything you want with 2e h
10 it.
You asked me what I wanted.
=
k II (Laughter.)
s is N
I2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, we asked.
5 g
13 MR. DIRCKS:
- Yes, m
h I4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Perhaps, Peter, if you may 15 describe your point, then we can ask for the staff response, i[
I0 and see where Joe and I come out.
That might be --
as II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just going through the b
IO memo in order?
C 1-I9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
That might be a straight-g forward way to do it.
0 21 COMMISSI'ONE2 BRADFORD:
Okay, although the points 22 themselves of course are set out there.
To the extent that 23 ;
any of them are unclear, I would be glad to elaborate.
CHAIRMAN AliEARNE:
All right.
Your first noint, then, is that you believe that we ouglit to use the Atomic ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 jwb d 4
1 Energy Act as the authority for considering alternatives, 2
as opposed tc,-or in addition to?
3 COliMISSIOUER BRADFORD:
Well, yes, I would use 4
both, in addition to NEPA, as long as we have both 5
g authorities.
I just don't see any reason not to go forward e+
6 on that basis.
R 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What would be the advantage of s
j 8
that?
d i
9 CO!4MISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, the advantage is i
h 10 that if we should ever come to a situation in which we 1I actually wanted to exercise our altenative sites authority j
12 on what was essentially a health and safety basis, while I 5
13 think we could probably do that perfectly well under NEPA, l
14 we have always tended to maintain something of a distinction 15 between health and safety and environmental considerations 16 g
in our proceedings; and if we had a strong health and safety us 17 reason for preferring an alternative, or even for requiring l
18 the examination of aspects of other alternatives, I just e
19 would feel we were on better footing, or stronger footing, 20 having both statutes.
1 21 We have tended to make our health and safety l
findings under the Atomic Energy Act, and as long as there 22 23 ;
isn't a legal barrier to doing that here, I think we just --
24 CHAIR!!AN AHEARNE:
Would you have us -- or do you.
25 I see the Atomic Energy Act giving us the authority to choose ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 5
I the better of two sites under the Atomic Energy Act,'as 2
opposed to finding whether a site meets some set of 3
qualifications?
4 COI2iISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think clearly under the g
5 Atomic Energy Act we would have to find that any site that 8
6 we accepted met a minimum set of qualifications.
And if R
7 for some reason a site didn't meet a minimum set of s
j 8
qualifications, we could reject it under the Atomic Energy d
o; 9
- get, 10 The situation in which it would come into play E
11 in the context of alternatives, I suppose, would be more
~
1 i;
p 12 one in which -- I just don't know.
It's hard to say.
5 I3 5
There are two different types of situations.
u l
14 One would be one in which we would want more
!2 15 examination of a particular alternative, perhaps without j
16 rejecting out-of-hand the one before us.
us h
I7 The other would be one in which the Commission 18 actually had in mind rejecting a site, perhaps a marginally I9 l
3 acceptable site, because there were some clearly superior n
20 alternatives available to it.
21 And under NEPA, at least in the reactor siting l
22 cases, we have tended to state that kind of superiority 23 more in terms of the environment resource commitment, l
24 aesthetic considerations, impact on natural resources, and 25 not in safety terms.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 6
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bill, what is the staff's 2
reaction to that?
I think that is one of the ones that 3
you indicated disagreement?
4 (Pause.)
5 g
Or Jack, or John?
a 3
0 MR. DIRCKS:
From how we discussed it today, we R
7 don't think there's an implication in there that we have j
8 relied only on NEPA.
We do believe that the Atomic Energy d
c; 9
Act 'does have a. role to play; but we didn't see making one 10 override the other.
5 II In other words, we think that the only basis for 3
y 12 our actions in this area would be the National Environmental c
f13 Policy Act.
We wanted to reject that implication.
We l
14 feel as though we would have enough leeway here when we got 15 down to the actual approval or disapproval of the site to a[
I6 rely on the Atomic Energy Act.
v5 h
I7 Jack, is that --
z h
II MR. MARTIN:
I think that's a pretty good summary.
E I9 E
That we know that we want to do this for NEPA; we're not n
20 sure whether we have to or not for the Atomic Energy Act, 21 and what we have done is restructured this in accordance 22 with some comments from the General Counsel.
23 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Where is this?
24 MR. MARTIN:
This is on page 24 of that handout, 25 !
the underlining at the top.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 7
1 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
These changes which were handed 2
out today were intended to reflect the discussions at last 3
week's meeting in which Len and I agreed, in outline; these 4
changes were prepared rather hurriedly, and the General i
e 5
Counsel has not had an opportunity to review them -- and I 6
am not sure he agrees that we have accomplished what we set R
7 out to do.
nl 8
But what we did set out to do was to remove any d
c; 9
language which implied that there was no authority under che 2
Og 10 Atomic Energy Act to consider alternatives.
At the same 11 time, we did not go so far as to invoke the Atomic Energy a
y 12 Act.
The principal basis invoked is still NEPA.
5 y
13
, CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:. Now this is to protect health?
m l
14 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
15 MR. MARTIN:
I guess our feeling is that although j
16 the autnority might be there --
W N
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
18 MR. MARTIN:
-- that's a pretty unusual step.
I l
P 19 don't think we've done that anywhere so far, and I don't 20 think we have thought through all the implications.
And I 21 guess our feeling is that that is something that doesn't 22 need to be settled now, and in fact may never be.
23 MS. COMELLA:
But also, nothing that is here 24 would preclude our doing it.
25 MR. MARTIN:
Would preclude, yes.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
O jwb 8
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
2 Joe?
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I don't object to the 4
underlined language at the top of --
e 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
24?
N h
6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, you've got to watch R
d 7
out.
It's 24, Enclosure B.
N j
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
B, right.
Right.
dd 9
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I wanted to get the right 10 page 24.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Very good.
R Y
12.
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I don't object to that.
I, E
13 see no reason to try to stake out in this regulation a 14 clearer grasp of the Commission on the proposition that the g
15 Atomic Energy Act requires the consideration of alterna-x g
16 tives.
In fact, it does not, as 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, and that wasn't what r
i g
{
18 I was saying.
E 19 MR. DICKWIT:
Nor was it what I was saying last g
M 20 time.
I was saying that it authorized it.
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, and I think under 22 some special circumstances the Act says "no unreasonable 23 risk," and " adequate protection."
24 In order to look at alternatives, you have to 25 argue that I can't tell whether I've got adequate protection ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 9
I until I've looked at alternatives.
Any place you can enunciate 2
any basic reasonable standard even in fairly general terms 3
that is not going to be the case.
4 I think here you get the alternative look under NEPA.
g 5
The language that is proposed here doesn't give away the AEA, R
h 6
but it doesn't rely on it primarily, and I have no objection R
7 to this.
N]
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter, does the top satisfy you?
d 9
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, this is my first look 10 at it, John.
I do daink that the original version did tend E=y 11 in fact to arguably give away the jurisdiction under the D
y 12 Atomic Energy Act --
~
O 13 COMt4ISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think that's right.
m 5
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- simply by --
15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think that's right.
So g
thet this constitutes, I think, a substantial step, if not 16 m
6 17 all the way toward where your number one goes, w
b 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now I gather, Bill, although you 5
19 say you disagree with Peter's number one, you do agree with --
g n
20 MR. DIRCKS:
It was based on this top of page 24.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You do agree with that?
l 22 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I can live with that.
24 I guess, then -- Well, let us view this more as a 25 discussion at this stage.
f I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 10 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Because if Peter agrees, we have 3
three.
If he disagrees, then we have to see where Vic comes 4
out on this.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay, that is a perfectly
=
h 3
6 acceptable way to leave it.
a d
7 Let me just ask:
Maybe I'm missing something, but a
j 8
hou lid " EPA" get into this?
d c;
9 MS. COMELLA:
Are you referring to page 14?
z 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, to your page 24.
I II have been reading along, and I must say that I expected the 3
g 12.
last four words to be "the national Environmental Policy Act."
-oa 13 And instead, it was the " Environmental Protection Agency."
5m h
I4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, we're licensing against 2
15 those generally applicable ambient standards, or whatever, g
16 that the EPA is about to bring out.
W N
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
About to.
So what you are
{
18 saying here is that the inquiry -into alternatives will be 0
19 based on how well they meet the standards that you anticipate g
n 20 being promulgated by EPA?
2I MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The technical criteria of the 22 rule will be designed to ensure that the criteria promulgated 23 by EPA are met.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay, so that the "in this 25 context" refers not to "alternat'ive sites," but to " protection ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 11 1
of the public health and safety"?
2 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's right.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I see.
That's what was 4
confusing me.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Good question.
El 6
Okay, your second point --
R 7
MR. BICIG1IT:
Mr. Chairman, just --
~
j 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
d:i 9
MR. BICKWIT:
On the first point, there still are 10 other comments in the comment analysis where this implication E
j 11 remains.
I think it sounds like the Commission is in agree-3 I
12 ment that the implication that there is no authority under Sg 13 the Atomic Energy.Act to look ht alternatives oughn't to a
14 remain in the comment analysis.
2 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's our understanding of where E
j 16 we are right now.
as l
6 17 MR. BICKNIT:
I just noticed one on page 20.
It f
N N
18 says, "We do not believe that the Atomic Energy Act conteu-5 h
19 plates that the NRC engage in the safety review encompassing n
20 approaches departing fundamentally from an applicant's 21 proposal."
22 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We will have to --
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is not inconsistent with 24 what this ays.
25 MR. BICIG1IT:
By " contemplates," I read that to l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
jwb 12 I
mean "would authorize."
2 CIIAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Those are, I think -- I would not 3
have read it that way.
4 MR. BICIG1IT:
Since I think you will agree that it e
5 could be read that way, that it oughn't to remain.
0 3
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would have -- Well, the way R
7 I read that answer is that our reading of the Atomic Energy A]
8 Act would be such that it was not intended primarily to have t.5
=;
9 an evaluation of alternative sites.
And the way this reads Eg 10 is that consideration of alternatives might be appropriate 11 where necessary or desirable.
is a
Y 12 MR. BICIGiIT:
That's right.
E 13 CHAIRMAN,AHEARNE:
Yes, I see --
h 14 MR. BICIG1IT:
Th' problem is that I think you l
1 15 could read this language as precluding that sentiment.
g 16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
as N
I7 MR. BICKWIT:
And to the extent that it does, I h
18 think it oughn't to be there.
i:
h 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Because at least where Joe and n
20 I are is that we, I think, are willing to agree that you could 21 reach an alternate site on the grounds of health or safety; 22 but it's not that it mandates it.
23 I MR. BICIGfIT:
No, and I certainly don't believe that 24 it does mandate it.
I 25 CHAIR!!AN AIIEARNE: -All right,Jthe second point has ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
jwb 13 I
to do with the in situ testing.
2 COMl1ISSIONER'BRADFORD:
No, the --
3 COIBiISSIONER HENDRIE:
Number of alternatives.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The second one is " number n
5 of alternatives."
E j
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oh, yes, that's right.
R 7
COfiMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The third --?I mean, it 8
8 mentions in situ testing, but the third is really iri situ d
9 testing.
2og 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:.Yes, the four to five sites.
E 11 Right.
It had "five sites," and at least three geological 3
Y 12 environments.
E y
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I can't add a lot to the t
=>
=
s 14 discussion we had on this, I think at the first meeting, in V
C 15 terms of --
5 y
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, yes.
as
$[
I7 COffiISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- the basic considerations Y
m en 18 that are involved.
It --
O l9 g
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And -- Right.
I think this is n
20 more a question of where does one come out.
And I think the 21 staff gave its position quite extensively last tim'e.
I do 22 not believe that five sites and three environments, but, i
23 goe7 24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
For purposes of the 25 !
rule, I wouldn't want to do anything to discourage five sites ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 14 I
and three media, understand.
But for purposes of the minimum 2
acceptable package, it appears to me that it unnecessarily 3
raises the ante for repository number one to what might turn 4
out to be just a shade too high a threshold.
That is, the s
5 argument that:
Well, if you come in with three,.you come in 6
with five, and so on, by then you've got enough to look at so R
CE 7
that if you move on to repositories two and three you've got a
j 8
an ample pool of alternatives that you've examining to meet d
y 9
reasonable readings of NEPA, and so on, is quite true.
zc 10 But my concern is not with two and three; it's E
II with getting one established --
3 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well --
cj 13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- and getting one established,
=
m 5
14 and this would say:
You've got to have five sites, and Y
y 15 three media.
Otherwise, we can't sit down and license number
=
one.
And, you know, unless the staff wants to tell me that it g
16 M
17 is absolutely imperative, in their view, to licensing of
=
{
18 number one, then I think the rule ought to read "their minimum P"
19 g
requirement for number one."
n 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I would certainly not 21 hinge the point primarily on number two, never mind number 22 three, which is likely to be some distance off.
It does seem 1
23 (
to me that since the first one is going tc he, I would think, I
24 l all we would have for at least awhile, it would be better to 25 take the extra time whatever it might amount to, to really ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 15 I
have an evaluation of the most likely sites, and the most 2
likely media in hand.
3 I must say, I can't entirely separate this from my 4
concern about making sure that we have a clear definition --
g 5
definitions of what we mean by " sites" and by " media."
3 6
Because, for example, if we are considering bedded and domed R
7 salt to be two different media at least in theory, then it 3
j 8
is possible to have the requirement as written satisfied d
9 entirely by alternatives involving salt.
z o
g 10 And since there seem to be roughly five media on E
11 the table at this point, it just -- excuse me, roughly three --
3 y
12 well, it depends again how you define it -- three or four 5
13 media on the table at this point, I was just more comfortable m
j 14 with requiring that we have them all in hand before we license 2
15 the first one.
,z j
16 CliAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess I, myself, was leaning W
17 more towards requiring characterization of two, with at least E
18 initial startup on others, but certainly not binding on the P
{
19 three.
.9 20 I would guess, then, that this would be one where 21 we will just have to see where Vic comes out.
22 My concern, frankly, is, as I see the way the 23 Congress is working its way also, that we haven't set up a l
l 24 system that enables -- if t.he pressure is going to be to get l
25 two sites characterized soon, that at least we can begin our l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i jwb 16 1
process and need not complete the full characterization of 2
the others in order to finally address a license, or at least 3
a construction permit.
4 MR. DIRCKS:
I think that's how we have always y
5 anticipated going; that as we are looking for one, or two, 9
6 you can still characterize all three and don't have to finish R
7 characterizing.
y 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
d 9
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let 's see.
If -- Let me 10 just try to get a feel for what the different alternatives E
j 11 really lead to in terms of the license application.
B y
12 If we go.with the staff proposal as it's currently 5
- j 13 framed, you see a license application coming in when, roughly?
m f 14 MR. MARTIN:
Well, that's -- '86,
'87 time frame.
2 15 There's a little bit of debate with DOE on what that is, but 5
g 16 that is our guess.
W d
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And if we add a requirement 5
5 18 for one more site and one more media, how much does that add 5[
19 up to?
5 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
One?
Or two?
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well' I'm starting with one.
22 I'm just trying to get a feel for each step.
23 (Laughter.)
24 MR. MARTIN:
Well, our charts that I recall that 25 !
they submitted with the Confidence Proceeding would have added l
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 17 I
a year or two to that.
2 COliMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's the document you 3
would look to?
4 MR. MARTIN:
Right.
e 5
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay --
An 6
MR. MARTIN:
That's the best information we've got.
R 7
There are two or three of them that are eminent to start Ml 8
getting work on.
The others are a little vaguer and there d
d 9
hasn't been as much work on granite and -- I mean, there Y
g 10 isn't even any pctential sites designated to start work on.
11 COli!1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's just granite?
3 p
12 MR. MARTIN:
Granite and whatever happens to be the 5
13 fourth media, or the fifth media.
h 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, but for example, if 15 that were the test site, at least they know where it is.
g 16 MR. MARTIN:
Right.
But I haven't heard any real W
{
d 17 serious discussion that that's where it is, yet.
So I guess 5
18 our position on the staff is --
E 19 COliMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But that was one of the other 5
20 bar lines on that chart.
21 MR.' MARTIN:
Yes, but I think when they were talking 22 about NTS, it was primarily tuff.
We have had a bit of 23 back-and-forth with the Department where we think that 24 perhaps their schedules are a little too long, but that's gone 25 I on for some time now.
They haven't pulled back very much.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 18 1
Assuming they're right, that would add a year or 2
two.
3 CO!1MISSIONER BRADFORD:
And if we added a fifth 4
site to that, would that add beyond that year-or-two, do you g
5 think?
Or would that still be in the same ballpark?
E j
6 MR. MARTIN:
I can't tell.
It depends on how much R
7 they hustle.
A j
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess the other point d
9 that I would urge on you, and it is in the memo here, is that i
Og 10 it is always possible for us to add an exemption from the j *11 '
requirement if it turns out to be driving the entire waste 5
y 12 program off into the 21st Century.
5l 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess my feeling, though, at m
14 this stage, Peter, is that we have got to try as clearly as 2
15 possible to lay out what are the procedures" we intend to 5
g 16 require, and give our best judgment as to what are adequate w
d 17 procedures.
5 5
18 I would think that that is where I come out on E
I 19 that.
I l
A 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is troubling me is 21 the business of having them come in, as I said, possibly with 22 nothing but salt, but even if it is salt plus say Hanford, 23,
in effect really still having a couple of different possible 24 media and sites out there at which we conceivably want to take l
25 '
a look at all.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 19 I
CHA7R'iAN AHEARNE:
It is'a balancing of risk, I 2
think.
Because if we have a good enough technical rule 3
laid out, and those sites meet the criteria, then at least 4
my view is that it doesn' t make much difference whether there e
5 might be a better one, if ^ho*> are adequate.
O j
6 It's not -- at 1 cast in my view, it's not trying R
- S 7
to find "the best."
It's trying to make sure we understand E
j 8
what is required, and then to ensure that the sites that are d
y 9
proposed --
z O
g 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
If this were a field 3_
II in which we'd had a lot of experience, even the amount of 3
Y I2 experience we've had with reactors, I would be much more Ea 13 E
comfortable with that formulation.
=
m 5
I4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sure.
Yes, that's right.
There 5
{:
15 is greater uncertainty; absolutely.
=
E 10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think the thing that w
d 17 worries me very much about increasing the number of sites is 5
{
18 that it just seems to me inevitable that each site, even to c8 19 g
come to the characterization stage, is going to have been the n
20 subject of assorted litigation, maneuvering in the state 21 legislatures and the Congress, and so on, and I think looking 22 just at the time it would take to crganize an engineering 23 ;
and geological survey group, and to locate the site, and 24 survey, and put down the exploratory shaft, that ' that kind of i
25 I times, sort of what we might call the " technical work" ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 jwb I
associated with the characterization of the site, and getting 2
it to a place where it can be presented is one of the things 3
I have an easy feeling that that may be much the easy and 4
short heart of the process; that the indeterminancies in the s
5 other political institutional end are really the place that N
6 things could hang.
9 7
I just hate to see us start out with a rule, even
- j 8
if we did have a prospect that, you know, at some point down d
d 9
the line we would stop and say:
Well, they've got two or i
C 10 three, we'll grant an exemption.
I think that might be a E
j 11 hard exemption to grant.
B 12-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right, number three is the 5
y 13 question of "in situ testing at depth" being required, m
Wg 14 unless the DOE has requested an exemption.
b E
is COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You have described it.
E 16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
I notice that that's another g
m i
17 one of the ones in which the staff has indicated its 5
5 18 disagreement.
5 3
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I must say, I didn't try 5
20 to prioritize all the way through, but I did at the beginning, 21 and --
22 (Laughter.)
23,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- it's a shame to see the 24 first three show up on that list.
25 '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
jwb 21 1
MR. DIRCKS:
I think the first three, you hit the 2
heart of what we were trying to accomplish with the rule.
3 Namely, to allow the characterization program to proceed to 4
gather the information necessary to support a construction n
5 authorization permit, and not to put the proceeding up front 9
6 before they completed a site characterization.
I think that R
7 is what you hit on one, two, and three, and we felt so sj 8
sensitive about it.
d C
9 CCMSSIONER EDERIE: Well, so far, you are sort of zc 10 winning one, and it remains to be seen on the second.
E_
j 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I am certainly better off 3
y 12 than I was on one, you're right.
5 y
13 MR. MARTIN:
I think we think the practical effect
=
14 of what we're doing will accomplish what you want'in number
{
15 three, within the extent of our authority.
=
j 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see.
Is there doubt i
W l
6 17,
about our authority to require in situ testing?
5 18 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
I think so.
The further 5
{
19 you back up from the ultimate licensing stage -- because, M
20 keep in mind, this is a materials license; all we're going 21 to license ultimately is receipt and possession of the 22 material -- the thinner our authority gets.
23 This in situ testing during the site characteriza-i 24 '
tion process would be before an application is even I
25 required by us.
So that it becomes very attenuated.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 22 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, but if the theory --
2 It is a line of logic that says we will not license the 3
receipt of material at a site at which the following has not 4
taken place -- is valid at all, then --
3 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Of course the receipt, by the O
6 time the material is received, they would have --
R 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Built the facility.
A[
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
-- built the repository, so there d
o 9
would have been an extensive knowledge gathered at depth.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
But I 'm j us t El 11 saying that this entire rule rests essentially on a line of 3
g 12 logic that says -- in which our authority is flowing from that 3
g 13' ultimate license.
And I don't see why it's much weaker at
=
14 this stage than it would be later on.
2 15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But what you could legitimately g
16 ask as part of that array when they get the material to w
d 17 possess somewhere far' down the line, what you could reasonably 5
18 ask is, "information."
5 E
19 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
5 l
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And I think the way the rule 21 is structured here, and I dare say the way the technical l
l 22 rule will be structured, puts great -- is " pressure" the l
l 23 word? -- tilts the system very strongly toward in situ 24 testing in the characterization phase.
But I think there may -
l l
25 !
be, in the sense of what is reasonable and defendable, to ask ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
jwb 23 I
and I think you would be hard-put to argue that in situ 2
testing was necessary if;you were facing, as I doubt you ever 3
will be, the applicant saying:
Put I'm able to provide you 4
with everything you can ask me about the in situ testing.
S 5
And our argument then devolves into bickering over whether in 0
j 6
fact he can do that or not.
R 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But why not give him an M
j 8
exemption, if we're convinced at that point?
Even taking d
0; 9
your point with regard to the difficulty of giving the 2
Cg 10 exemption on the alternative site case, I would think an 3
5 11 exemption here would be --
E N
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think in this case you E
5 13 could grant it without problem, - if you were convinced.
It's x
l 14 j ust that, from the standpoint of what can you reasonably
[
15 require with the ctheory'. about the attenuation of authority, x
y 16 John --
m h
I7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Even if it's a question of x
5 18 fairness, it's not obvious to me that being stronger than c6 19 g
what we have said is a position we would want.
n 20 MR. MARTIN:
If you have an exemption, that 21 assumes that you have got something to exempt at this stage, 22 also.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, no.
It assumes that 24 at some point the applicant is going to be able to come in
'25 !
to you and say:
We really don't think we need to do in situ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
{
jwb
{
24
~
I testing here.
Here is what we've got, and here is what we can 2
get without it.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There is no formal approval in 4
this early stage, at all.
There are comments provided that 5
j the Director of NMSS is going to be providing comments.
It's c'
0 not an approval mechanism.
R
- E 7
COliMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
But supposing E
j 8
he thinks that in situ testing is really an order at some d
c 9
stage in this characterization process?
He can say that in o
h 10 his comments.
=
II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- Fine, in N
I2 COZ1MISSIONER BRADFORD:
And then DOE will decide 5u 5
13 whether --
=
l 14 CFr.IRMAN AHEARNE:
True, true.
g 15 COMMISSIONEJ1 BRADFORD:
-- to do it.
They may say
=
16 g
"no."
as CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
True.
=
M 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And in their next periodic --
U 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
n 0
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- report, they will explain 2I why it isn't necessary.
And then he will have to reiterate 22 his comment, or not, or drop it.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All true.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's --
25l CHAIRMAN AD'ARNE:
But we aren't formally doing ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 25 I
anything.
That is, there's no formal approval at any -- in 2
this early stage.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, that's right.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We. are laying out what we think E
5 is --
$4 2
0 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You would have to grant the R
- S 7
exemption when he came in and finally filed for the construc-M j
8 tion permit, and somebody raised the objection that it was an d
9 improper filing because there had not been in situ testing.
z 2
10 e
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, no.
You could grant 5
II it before that.
You could grant it at any time when you -
5 N
I2 were persuaded that it really wasn't necessary to generate the 5
g" I3 information you thought you needed.
m E
I4 I see your point, John.
On the one hand, there's
$j 15 no firm structure within which the exemption would be granted.
=
j 16 On the other hand, there is this process of back-and-forth w
h I7 by which, as a practical matter, we probably can exhort the
=
IO applicant into doing the work that we feel needs to be done.
P" 19 g
But I think all of that cuts the other way, too.
n 20 That is, from the way USGS
'- and I gather Joe was making the 21 same point a moment ago -- has come down in effect saying, 22 "we don't see how you could possibly do this without in situ 23 l testing," it seems to me that the state of current knowledge i
24 '
is such that it is better to say we expect in situ testing, 25 unless you can convince us otherwise.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 26 I
It may not make a big difference.
It is perfectly 2
possible that darough a sort of a " kick around and carry" 3
process later on, we can get it.
But as long as the state of 4
the knowledge at the moment suggests that we've got to have 5
g it, I would prefer to put it in and then drop the requirement e
j 6
if in two or three years it doesn't seem necessary.
R
- E 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess I am still with the s
j 8
belief that the way we have phrased it, even the part you d"
9
~.
quoted, was that it's probably an essential technique, is Cg 10 what we told them.
5 II COI1MISSIONER HENDRIE:
Jack, do you have any B
g 12 impression -- I can see one way in which Peter's change 4
13 might be useful.
Do you see any likelihood o.ver there that, 14 for whatever Shelly Meyers and his sturdy legions may want to u
15 do,.61at the cost accountants will say, "Never mind that digging g
16 shafts jazz; get a drill rig up there and bore a couple of s
h I7 holes from the surface, and that's good enough for the
=
M 18 regulators"?
8 MR. MARTIN:
No, I haven't seen that, yet, at DOE.
n 20 In fact, it's sort of curious to note that the two sites 21 they have looked at in some detail have sort of come out of 22 l
both of them that you have to do it.
But there may be a lot l
23 l of things going on that I don't know about on the cost thing, 24 and particularly at OMB.
25l MR. DIRCKS:
Well, you always hear complaints about ALDER _'ON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 27 I
the digging of shafts, but I still feel as though the burden 2
of not digging the shaft will be -- if they don't want to do 3
it, they're facing a construction authorization and I just 4
don't think they have the answers to the questions that we S
5 will need-asked and answered.
R.
j 6
MR. MARTIN:
Well, the other thing to think about is, R
CS 7
you know --
~
0 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But, okay, fair enough.
But d
d 9
now let me ask on Peter'-s behalf --
z.
C 10 MR. DIRCKS:
"Why don't you give an exemption"?
z ll COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- why -- Okay, but now, B
f 12 why, then, would you prefer not to have the rule language
=
y 13 cranked down another notch, maybe not in terms of just saying --
m 14 I would assume, if we went this way, we would phrase it that
$j 15 in situ testing -- we believe that it will be necessary to
=
g 16 develop the information, and I don't know, would be expected w
N 17 l or required unless good cause, whatever, can be shown --
5 f
18 l
MR. MARTIN:
That's the point.
~
l9 g
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- that it's not necessary, 5
20 or something like that.
That is, you build in the retreat 21 from the position right into the language.
22 MR. DIRCKS:
Well, what sort of an arena would this 23 ;
exemption be granted in?
Would it be a formal decision?
24 Would it be a Licensing Board decision?
Would it be a i
25 -
Director's decision?
Would it come to the Commission?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i L
jwb 28 H
I I think then you are in a -- what we've been trying 2
to avoid.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I see the difficulty.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You've smoked it out, I e
5 think.
0 3
0 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The staff has detected a R
j
=S 7
place they could avoid one thing coming to the Commission.
3 j
8 MR. DIRCKS:
No.
d" 9
~.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, that's not it, Joe.
2C g
10 MR. DIRCKS:.
We ' re not.
E 5
II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We're trying to get a flexible n
I 12 approach to get this whole process underway.
And every time E
a 13 we impose some sort of a line that rises to the level of 5=
m 5
14 informalism -- a great formalism, then that is going to be --
$j 15 MR. DIRCKS:
We build in the beginning of the z
g 16 process -- You know, we could have started off with saying w
f I7 nothing would be done until a construction authorization iss E
l w
18 I
given.
And then we could have gone through the game of the i
s "g
19 7-or 800 questions before you're able to put anything in the n
20 ground, or touch the ground.
2I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: ' Well, we all recognize that 22 that creates a structure with too high a first wall.
23 i MR. DIRCKS:
And in this case, the exemption may be 24 as high a wall as the whole site characterization program.
25 l COMMISSIONERBRAbFORD:
Well, now, I must say that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l jwb 29 e
1 that possibility had not occurred to me.
Is there any reason 2
why the Commission couldn't grant an exemption upon good cause 3
being shown?
There's no reason why we would have to have an 4
adjudicatory proceeding at this point?
g 5
MR. BICKWIT:
No.
And if you put the words, " good 9
j 6
cause shown" in the rule, then you don't need an exemption R
7 from the rule; you simply implement the rule.
sj 8
COI2iISSIONER BRADFORD:
We11, that's also right.
d 9
MR. BICKWIT:
By deciding whether there is good cause.
Y 10 MS. COMELLA:
One of the things, as I have been j
11 listening here, that keeps occurring to me is that I think 3
y 12 the way the rule is structured right now, and the language in
=
h 13 the supplementary informa' tion, it places the burden on DOE to
=
l 14 show that they can develop the information without coming --
+
s-=
2 15 without going to depth.
And if this accomplishes what we want --
- s=
g' 16 and that is, if you have to go to depth 60 get the information, as d
17 you go there -- why would one want to over-regulate, as it 5
5 18 were, by putting in something that isn't necessary?
=
i={
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ask these gentlemen.
Don't look n
20 at me, Pat.
21 (Laughter.)
22 COI2iISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I am never in favor of 23 over-regulation.
That's just a matter of --
24 (Laughter. )
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- fundamental policy we're ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 30 1
against them.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think that's right.
3 CHAIRMAN AIINARNE:
Definitional problems.
4 MR. BICKWIT:
Some people think you're in favor of e
5 it; you just never think you're in favor of it.
O j
6 (Laught5r. )'
R 5
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I take it you meant the N
j 8
"you" generically?
d d
9 (Laughter.)
i 10 CotiMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, as a practicil matter, f=
j ll it seems to me we are in a situation in which no one has yet 3
y 12 been able to actually conceive of a situation in which they E
13 kould be prepared to do without in situ testing. ~ The better l
14 posture is to proceed on the basis dhat we definitely expect E
15 it.
E g
16 I must say, I didn't have the imagination to e
g 17 consider Joe's possibility in terms of DOE's relationship to s
5 18 OMB, but that point is a good one.
s h
19 Beyond that, just in terms of the way they plan, 5
20 I think if we can't conceive of a situation in which we don't 2I want in situ testing, we ought not to have a rule that 22 encourages them to say, "Well, can we slip by without it?"
i 23 ;
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, you're bound to encourage i
24 l them, Peter.
25l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You're right.
It discourages l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 31 I
them less than I would propose to discourage them.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I mean, it discourages them from 3
trying to do it without.
Currently in the -- even in the 4
language that you don't like, still it discourages them.
It's 5
g not as high a threshold as some would like, but it certainly 0
6 doesn't encourage them.
And with the great cries that they R
- S 7
have made in the last year, clearly they don't view it that 7.
j 8
we've been encouraging them.
- )"
9 2.
Well, Joe, I think you're the decider on this point.
~
e a
10 COMMISSIONER.HENDRIE:
Well, let me scratch head 25fII some more about this.
I didn't have any objection to the way y
12 it was written, but also
(
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
m I4 E.
Okay, number four:
The Commissioners' role in the r.
IE g
15 key decisions of the Director of NMSS:
Any point in the g
16 ~
process calling for approval from the Director.
as 6
17 Now --
E l
}
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What was troubling me here i:
"g 19 is, as I understood the framework, once we had signed off on e
l 20 the procedural and technical rules, the next point at which 21 the Commission was involved, as 'I understood it, was with the 22 issuance of the construction authorization.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Which, at least conceptualli, 25 would be a period of about' five years, six years.
As a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 32 I
practical matter, I don't think it would work that way.
2 Indeed, I might almost wish that it would.
But that just 3
didn' t seem to me to be quite the right way to do it.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Here you have said, Bill, that 3
5 you agreed in entir?ty.
Which key decision.did you have in N
3 6
mind?
R 7
MR. DIRCKS:
The way we looked at it is informing s
j 8
the Commission; not seeking an approval, but indicating the d
9 direction that we're going, and consulting to that extent; z
C 10 but not coming down for a formal approval in any sense of the 3_
j 11 word, but to make sure the Commission was fully informed on B
y 12 the decision being made and the direction being taken.
5 d
13 I didn't know you were --
=
l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would that --
uh E
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
One of the obvious points, 5
g 16 for example, would be the Director is called on to, what, w
d 17 approve the site characterization plans site by site.
And it 5
5 18 seemed to me that consultation at that point would be a good
=
9 3
19 thing; that if the Commission then felt, wait a ndnute, 5
20 there's something here that's inconsistent with the policy 21 we 've laid down in one rule or the other, that would enable 22 them to step in.
If not, or if they deadlocked, presumably 23 l the Director could go ahead.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would you, since you have agreed, 1
25l where would you put that in?
l
\\
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
jwb 33 o
I MR. MARTID:
Just put it in that we would go for 2
the accompanying directive --
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I should --
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Pardon me?
g 5
MR. MARTIN:
-- changing the rule.
E{
6 (Laughter. )
R 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's perfectly all right s
j 8
with me.
In fact, that's why I suggested it.
O q
9 COMMISSIONER HEUDRIE:
I would suggest that we put z
Og 10 it in terms of the Director will brief the Commission prior 3
II to, or something like that.
3 I
I2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I mean, anything 5
Il like that.
Just so that the Commission doesn't one day wake
=
m r
5 I4 up and find a letter of approval sitting on its desk.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
I guess I'll -- the x
y 16' majority is going to go differently.
I think that that is w
N I7 inconsistent with what the role of the staff and the Chairman 18 ought to be.
I do not believe that that's a new policy, nor E
t n
t g
do I see it as an adjudication issue, nor do I see it as a I9 5
20 rulemaking.
So consequently, I don't think that there ought 21 to be an7. explicit requirement on the Director to do that.
22 However, I can fully understand how my colleagues 23 would disagree with that position, because we've been over 24 this in many other forums.
I 25 All right.
And I believe you need not wait to find ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 34 I
out where Commissioner Gilinsky comes out on this.
I expect 2
he would go in that same direction.
3 (Laughter. )
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right, number five, "under g
5 cath."
N.
6 MR. DIRCKS:
On this one, we don't believe it is R
R 7
necessary, but we don't have any qualms against it.
E l
8 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Gee, this is asking -- it d
d 9
has a faintly " chicken shit" soand to it.
ie d
10 (Laughter. )
E j
11 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You know, it's sort of 3
y 12 like if it was the Secretary of the Interior, he can just 5
y 13 sign his name; but if it's DOE, why go get himself a notary'.
E h
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, no.
It has nothing 2
15 to do -- It certainly doesn't discriminate among departments.
E j
16 What I was trying to avoid doing was treating DOE differently w
d 17 from the way we treat utilities.
5 18 We do require their responses to be under oath, 5{
19 and indeed up at Nine Mile Point that's taken on some n
20
. significance lately.
And it's -- They might agree with the 21 general perjorative thrust of what you said, but f don't think 22 they'd use that particular adjective up there.-
I think they 23 have discovered they have to take it very seriously.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Len, what is the law on a I
federal official subndtting in this kind of a case?
Would 25l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. jwb 35 I
that be a --
2 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, if there's a false statement, 3
whether under oath or not, it is a violation of the Criminal 4
Code.
g 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Whether they're under oath or 0
6 not?
R R
7 MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
If it's under oath, sj 8
my understanding is that there is an additional violation.
dd 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But if a federal official submits 5g 10 the false statement, it is already a violation of the Criminal 5
11 Code?
E N
I2 MR. BICKWIT:
That's correct, a material false 5
y 13 statement.
m l
1.4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I kind of regard federal g
15 officers as a little bit different than vice presidents of
=
g 16 utilities, for better or worse, and I wouldn't ask them to w
d 17 file under oath.
I think filing on behalf of a Department of 5
18 the United States is --
P 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There was a reason in it.
M 20 It's vague in my mind, now, but I can go back and revisit it, 21 why we felt it was a good idea to require many of the utility 22 filings to be under oath.
It had to do with some difficulties 23 in enforcing that " material false statement" provision, and 24 I must say.-- either difficulty in enforcing it, or that that 25 general provision was less effective than having the guy ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 36 I
actually be conscious that he was under oath at the time he 2
was providing the information.
But there was a reason we did 3
it when we did it, and it seemed to me to be worth applying 4
here, as well.
Especially, again, since the sanction of denial of the licen' e is so great a one that it is almost impossible s
5 s
0 j
6 to use it to cope with individual misstatements of fact, for R
7 example, along the way.
~
j 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess where I come out on it d
d 9
is that I have known too many people who labored for too many io 10 years with -- in what they view as the public interest, with 3
11 few, little, no credit, that to add that which I view as a j
3 y
12 very perjorative action, a demeaning action, I couldn' t go E
( 13 along with that.
So we will have wait and see how Vic comes i
a 14 out on that.
a 2
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I must say that I do find E
g 16 it hard to see how you all can justify requiring it of I
w d
17 utility officials routinely.
E E
18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, because a utility F
e
{
19 official hasn't stood up as a condition of his employment M
20 and taken an oath to obey and uphold the laws of ~ the United l
21 States, including those pertaining to waste disposal, which l
l 22 include the Regulations of the Commission, is one difference 23,
I can see.
l
(
24 '
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, that's an interesting 25 point, and I must say I haven't thought of it.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 37 I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It's a whole culture --
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
My view is that the federal 3
establishment, committed in that form by virtue of its 4
appointment and obligations, constitutes a different group of e
5 people.
E 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I 'm j ust -- Yes, but R
7 I'm not sure we have the -- that we're beneficiaries of their
~
j 8
general cath of office.
And as to the possibility that people-d o;
9 who have taken an oath of office will lie, I don't think one zc h
10 has to have a longer memory than about six or seven years to E
5 Il see the top officials of a national administration cascading 3
Y I2 off to jail on just that point.
5 13 5
CHAIRMAN.AHEARNE:
That may.well be true, Peter, a
I4 All I can say, in my position, is that I couldn't go along U
15 with that.
I think we will have to see how Victor comes out j
16 on this.
W I7 All right, "immediate effectiveness."
Significance:
=
{
18 Construction should not take place without approval by the P
"g 19 Commissioners.on the construction authorizittion process.
n 20 I gather -that is the question that if the procedure 21 would be to grant the authorizations for construction, your 22 point is, Peter, that that should come to the Commission l
23l before --
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I have no problem with that.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4%>
//*6 85 fit'$'t>
+$+
[*4#
im ee..<e 1,.
TEST TARGET (MT-3) l i
l l.0
'dE4ILM y @ IllE I.I
['8 IOM
]
j l.8 I.25 1.4 1.6
_6 4%
+4'b
- $8; 4e;{!)'
h
$+f)$>,
$<<'+
im ee ev <e 1,.
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0
'g m h4 l l" DE I.l
['" EM 11 1.25 'I.4 1.6
'~
4 6"
p%
+ /4 h/
De$)
~
. jwb 38 I
MR. DIRCKS:
And I think it's --
2 MS. COMELLA:
It is in the material to be provided.
3i CHAIR N AHEARNE:
You mean in the new --
4 MS. COMELLA:
- Yes, s
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The revised page 24 to Enclosure A.
O j
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
R 7
MR. BICKWIT:
There is the issue of whether you s
j 8
want to use Appendix B procedures that you have on reactor J
[
9 licensing, or whether you simply want to repeal the immediate E
E 10 effectiveness rule, in this instance.
E 11 If you repeal the immediate effectiveness rule, B
y 12 then in effect you're saying that the entire review procedure
.i 13 has to;run its course before the authorization can issue.
m 5
14 Whereas, in Appendix B you took a less Draconian
$j 15 action by providing that the Appeal Board and the Commission
=
y 16 would act on a stay motion, in effect; and that after it was as
((
17 decided that there should be no stay, that construction could 5
5 18 occur, or operation could occur.
So that you do have a policy
=
h 19 issue.
5 20 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I might point out that in promul-21 gating Part 72, the Commission adopted this approach, which 22 is not to say that this case may not be different, but there 23 is precedent for going either way.
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, but this one could take 25 up to God knows how long -- a year, a year-and-a-half, if it i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 39 1'
is really a bloody appeal.
l 2
If it was the Commission's conclusion on review of 3
the Licensing Board's initial decision that the nature of the 4
appeal -- or the Appeal Eoard's sua sponte review was not such s
5 as to require construction deferral, they would sure like to 0
j 6
be able to go ahead and cork it.
R 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let's see, Len.
You're saying s
j 8
that if -- Let's assume that a stay request is made or an d
9 appeal made.
Now you're saying that under Appendix B, that 2
10 request has to be considered before the total review by the E
j 11 Appeal Board, and therefore then is passed up within at least B
f 12 a hortatorily required time frame, so that the Commission would y
13 address directly the stay request prior to the Appeal Board
=
mg 14 completing a review of all of the details?
w
$t 15 MR. BICKWIT:
Whether or not there is a stav
^
5 j
16 request --
A i
17 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
5 I
E 18 MR. BICKWIT:.The assumption would be that the Fe
{
19 Appeal Board and the Commission are acting on a would-be stay 5
20 request.
21
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Whereas, under this it would be 22 the normal procedure, the complete review.
23,
(Pause.)
l 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is an interesting point, 25 because this would be a first-time through, also, for the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 40 1
Appeal Board.
2 I will have to think about that.
I'm not sure where i
3 I come out.
4 I guess, Joe, you would go with the Appendix B?
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
Very much so.
In fact, e
EN j
6 I looked on this as I would be willing to accept less than all R
7 of the flapping around of Appendix B.
I would be willing to 8
have a briefing by the Director prior to granting it, and then d
d 9
seem to require holding -- the Commission could ask him to Y
E 10 hold.
E=
5 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I'm not -- You see, y
12 it seems to me that if the Commission wants to authorize some
.5 d
13 level of activity after the Board proceeding is concluded and E
14 it has a decision before it,. you should probably be able to E
15 do that, and in fact will always be able to do that one way or 16 another.
g W
d 17 The basic point I would want to preserve is that i
5 E
18 the construction activity isn't triggered by the Board or by 5
h 19 the Appeal Board without Commission review at all.
M 20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But you don't necessarily l
l l
21 want to hold what without even any appeals might be some time 1
l 22. '
for the Appeal I card to work its way through the record.
4 23.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right, but of course i
24 what is different here is you don't have the old -- ther. risk 25 of the applicant formulation --
l 1
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 41 1
CHAIR?WI AHEARNE:
Right.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- to sort of take refuge 3
behind.
But I'm not sure how good that ever was, but at 4
least conceptually it was present; it isn't here.
g 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Certainly here is a clear case 9
j 6
where, before the construction starts, the Commission ought to e.
R 7
have --
Aj 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
d y
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
-- done something, whether it's 3
10 a formal -- through the Appeal Board, or whether it's a E_
j 11 direct --
it y
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, essentially -- that 5
j 13 l is right.
I renn, if the. Commission can sift through the
=
i
- ng 14 issues in such a way that it concludes that it is prepared to
{
15 approve construction fo this repository, but is still delib-
=
g 16 erating on some of the conditions that are to be included,
- ,5 l
17 it ought to be able to authrri::e construction; and that 5
t u
- c 18 doesn't compromise the conditions that it is still considering.
P 19 Is there anything in what we have now that would n
20 prevent that?
There isn't, is there?
21 M.R. BICKWIT:
There isn't, but in the normal course 22 of events you will have language like this.
You will have a l
23 complete Appeal Board review before the Commission ever focuses 24 on the matter.
Under the Appendix B procedure, you have the 1
l 25l occasion for stating what you've just stated as a possible ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
jwb 42 I
policy outcone.
2 CHAIPJ!AN AHEARNE:
Well, but I think, what if.o 3
stw, how do we get -- and I would agree with Peter that the 4
Co==ission ought to --
e 5
MR. BICKWIT:
Under Appendix 3, no stay need be N
j 6;
proposed.
R 5
7i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The stay is automatic.
~
~
E 8
MR. SICKWIT:
In effect, there is an autcratic stay N
d 9i d
request.
E 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The-Appendix B sounds fine.
E 5
11 CO!OiISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me think about it a R
y 12 little, John.
I'am reluctant to write the Appeal ac_.rd out t
^
E 13 of the process.
On the other hand --
E E.: 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, it doesn't write it out;
- i:
E 15 it just --
2 g
16 COM'iISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, you'll reme=ber that in
- r; p
17 Appendix B the Appeal Board has got so =any days --
E E
18 CHAIR'4AN AHEARNE:
Days.
=
E 19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- to take a quick look and 5n 20,
to w ke a recommendation --
i 21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I just have to go 22 back and see how that fits to the proceeding.
23 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Why don't you look at that, and 24 I'll take a look at that, dut in some way, I would agree 25 g that we ougnt -- the Commission, or whoever is sitting at the i
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
' jwb 43 I
time, ought to in some way give approval before construction 2
begins.
3 Okay, number seven.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The staff is modest on this g
5 one.
O j
6 MR. DIRCKS:
That sounds reasonable.
R s
7 (Laughter. )
sj 8
MR. DIRCKS:
On this one, I think it is the feeling d
- [
9 that, yes, we would like the views to be advanced and taken 2e g
10 into consideration any time.
I think there was some question E
11 about the authority that we had to require it.
Is that 3
y 12 right, Guy?
=
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
I think this is the same mg 14 authority question we talked about before.
The site charac-15 terization stage is not a licensing stage, and to put language
!6 g
in there about authority to require seems to be going further a
{
17 than we have to at this stage.
=
{
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, let's see.
The P
{
19 process of requiring the charact'erization report at all is n
20 a requirement.
It's not logically any different from saying 21 "and the Director shall have the power to require such other 22 information as he may find necessary."
23 l MR. CUNNINGHAM:
No, it's not logically different.
24 It is a question of degree.
25 The staff feeling was that they had very little ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 44 1
1 doubt in their mind that they were going to get the informa-i 2
tion they request; that it wasn' t necessary to pt it in the 3
rule.
i 4
MR. DIRCKS:
If we could get it, we would like to e
5 have it.
If legal.ly we'can have it, then our view is, let's 0
3 6
have it.
Is that right?
R 7
MR. MARTIN:
Yes.
s MR. DIRCKS:
I think the only reason why we had j
8 d
y 9
this in, in part, was because we didn't know whether we had 3
10 the authority to require it.
And if it could be worked out, E
j 11 sure.
3 y
12 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, it is the same authority 5
13 question that you have running through this entire ~ rule.
m 5
14 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
2 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You're no worse off if x=
y 16 you put this in?
w d
17 MR. BICKWIT:
No, I don't think you are.
x 5w 18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Len, where would the P"
19 g
authority question stand if there was a " late stage waste n
20 bill," on or another of them, passed?
As I recall, they 21 didn't, in these particular areas with regard to information 22 the Commission would be entitled to, or get, during the site 23 characterization, it seems to me they were not all that far
~
24 apart.
25 MR. BICKWIT:
I remember we requested language that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
' jwb 45 I
would make it clear that we had the authority, directly 2
enforceable, to get this information.
I can't remember exactly 3
what the " late stage bills" had in them along those lines.
'ARTIN:
Well, they all had a statement in 4
MR.
A s
5 there that said that, you know, you do A, B, C, and anything A
6 else the Commission may require.
They were pretty --
R 7
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
So they were pretty good in s
j 8i that?
d
[
9 MR. MARTIN:
-- pretty good, in that sense.
2o g
10 COMMISSIONER HEUDRIE:
Well, there's -- you know, E]
11 there's at least a fair chance that the son of 2189 or 6390, B
y 12 or whatever, will come down the next session.
And in fact, 5
13 it may shade some of these authorities a little bit differentlyc.
m g
14 and we may have to go back and adjust this rule if there is w
E 15 legislation.
5 y
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I don't see any reason M
17 why you can't have some language just making clear that you 5
5 18 can get --
P i
h 19 l MR. DIRCKS:
That we can get it.
n 20 CHAIIdfAN AHEARNE:
can direct that the information.
21 Okay, we have eight, "immediate effective order."
22 MT4. DIRCKS:
We talked about that at the last i
23l meeting, and I think when we issue orders during site 24 characterization -- I think there was a suggestion made that.
t 25 '
we needed some legislation.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
jwb 46 1
tiR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
It's not totally clear that we 2
need it, but it certainly --
3 MR. DIRCKS:
-- would make us more comfortable..
4 11R. BICKWIT:
-- would certainly make us a lot more e
5 comfortable.
0 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well --
R 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay, so --
E j
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
-- Peter, were you talking about rJ c;
9 in site characterization?
Or during construction?
zo 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, both.
And I gather z
j 11 the problem is the same during construction as it would be B
y 12 during site characterization?
l - 13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's right.
m l
14 MR. BICKWIT:
You have --
2 15 MR. CUNNINGHA!1:
The No. 19 issue.
5 g
16 MR. BICKWIT:
The 19 issue, construction.
- rl 6
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But I would guess that you would 5
18 be in a little sounder ground, at least, defending during P
h 19 construction, since they would already have gone through some 5
20 j
kind of a formal process.
They would be in the middle of this 21 proceeding, I guess.
l 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I guess I would agree with you that l
23 ;
it's sounder, but it's still not very sound.
24 (Leughter.)
25 CHAIRMAN AH5ARNE:
So you really believe we need ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
' jwb 47 I
legislation?
2 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I suppose that that may be 4
right as a technical matter, if we want to call it an " order."
5 g
I guess that as long as the Director can at any time send over n
j; a letter saying that if this continues this repository cannot 6
E5 7
be approved, that's probably close enough to an order.
A j
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I wouldn't have any problem with d"
9
~.
going for legislation during th'e construction stage of allowing o
h 10 the Director to call a halt to something, primarily because
=!
II there might be'at some stage where there is great concern 3
12 E
that the repository wou.*;c not ta able to be adequately
=
g 13 completed with some kind of an action being taken.
m m
I4 But I, myself, could not support an order during hj 15 site characterization.
That goes bevond what I think we could
=
g 16 reasonably be expected to get.
e I7 Joe?
=
b IO (Pause.)
P" 19 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You don't care?
n 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, supposing we just 21 drop the concept of " orders."
Do you feel that this section 22 at the moment precludes the Director from -- in the situation 23 in which you use the DOE activity in the second month af ter i
l 24 l
he's expressed his views as being potentially harmful, does l
25 !
the rule in any way preclude him now from stepping in and i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
' jwb 48 I
saya.ng anything until it's his turn again?
2 MR. MARTIN:
That's what we agreed we'd go back 3
and change on the previous comment, to say "at any time,"
4 rather than just every six months.
e 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay?
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fine.
R 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right, number nine, s
j 8
" essential design criteria and features in the construction r) d 9
authorization, its conditicns."
i O
g 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Where did that wind up?
E h
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's " agree in part."
3*
y 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
E j
13.
. CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you want to comment on that?
=
l 14
" Agreement in part"?
w
'=
2 15 MR. MARTIN:
Well, I think there again we think E
g 16 the rule already says that we're going to put license
- r5 i
6 17 conditions, but then the ability to enforce them gets back l
5 5
18 to this authority thing.
I think that's where we'll need F[
19 legislation -- I'm talking about during construction -- not 5
20 only to stop construction, but to enforce the conditions.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
Are we going to be i
22 sufficiently clear what " essential design criteria" is?
i 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We never have been before, i
24 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I know.
{
l 25 '
(Laughter.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
~
49 jwb p-.
1 CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I just wanted to know what we're 2
committing to, if we agree that we are going to have 3
" essential design criteria" incorporated into the construction 4
authorization.
e 5
MR. DIRCKS:
There is something in there in 60.30, E
N 6
and it certainly isn' t specific.
But it is mentioned.
e N
8_
7 (Pause.)
8 8
MS. col 1ELLA:
50, Enclosure A.
- 60. 32 (a) of N
d
=
9 construction authorization.
i t
That is on page 50 of Enclosure A.
3 5
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I guess that that doesn't
<3 y
12 clearly define " essential design criteria."
I'm not sure what
=
h 13 we would end up being committed to, if we agree we're cing o
=
l 14 to put " essential design criteria" in.
l N
2 15 MR. MARTIN:
That's why we just said we'll put s
=
g 16 "such conditions as we find necessary."
l p
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- Yes, w=
5 18 MR. MARTIN:
Typically what we do in these materials
=H E
19 licensen is incorporate the guy's submittal, plus anything 5
l 20 else we need.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But this says that you agree l
1 1
22 to incorporate " essential design criteria" into the construc-23 f tion authorization.
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Watch out on this one, l
25 Jack.
We haven' t found that very practical on the reactor l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
' jwb 50
~
I side.
There's just too much stuff in there, and if you then 2
have to come back and argue with you every time there is a 3
jot or a tittle, changes in his whole PSAR, so you may find 4
yourself looking for a way to abstract from the case some e
5 at least general elements that you think are sort of the N
j 6
overriding design criteria.
R S
7 MR. MARTIN:
No, this typically would reference the Kj 8
whole thing.
It's just certain sections, such as criticality.
d 9
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I see.
i O
g 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think you have to be clear on j
11 what -- when you say you agree to incorporate essential design 3
y 12 criteria, I would like to make sure I understand what it is 5
g 13 you are now agreeing to incorporate.
=
=
h 14 MS. COMELLA:
I think we were recon. mending to go uu 2
15 with what we have; that we had said on 60.32(a) that whatever 5
g 16 is necessary to protect the public health and safety, we would w
d 17 be including as conditions.
w
=
18 I understand what you' re saying --
I 5
{
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, what I'm saying, really,
a 20 that commissioner Bradford found that not to be adequate.
21 And so you have one thing here.
He has found that not 22 adequate.
You are saying you agree with him.
And when I ask l
1 what it is that you're going to do, I get back that you're 24 going to do what he has already found not adequate.
I think- '
1 25 l I am in a closed circle.
l
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1
jwb 51 I
MR. COMELLA:
Yes.
2 MR. MARTIN:
" Agreed in part."
3 (Laughter.)
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I see.
That agreed with what e
5 they were going to do.
E
.6 (Laughter.)
R E
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Which you had disagreed with.
Kl 8
(Laughter.)
d 9
MR. DAVIS:
Well, I think what we agreed to, that ic 10 there should be conditions expressed in the construction z=
l j
11 authorization permit, that in fact it is not just:
Go dig a B
g 12 hole.
I think we have now moved to the point where essential
=
13 design criteria perhaps should be capitalized.
m 5
14 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
That probably isn't ejoing to 15 satisfy my question.
I g
16 (Laughter.)
M
{
17 MR. DAVIS:
No, no, but I mean it is being used.
18 I has some particular character associated with it.
In the p
{
19 rule, I believe we should put in the permit as conditions, n
20 and the authorization as conditions, those things dhat we 21 believe to be essential at the construction site.
22 But I think that " essential design criteria" has i
23!
some meaning which comes from the reactor business.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, there's a different 25 phrase, but the concept at least has some meaning -- mor'e in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 52 1I a negative sense than a positive one.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What did you have in mind, Peter, 3
when you asked?
4 COtiMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would work it backwards, s
5 I don't have the technical background to tell you what the I
s 6
criteria are, but uney are the criteria that the staff would R
7 not want to see modified without their prior approval.
E 8
8!
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But I think that was the a
i d
d 9
thrust of their, what is it, 60.32 language?
I 10 MS. COMELLA:
Yes.
E E
11 MR. MARTIN:
That's what we thought we were saying.
d 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
They say that it shall include 3;
g 13 such conditions that the Commission finds necessary to public
=
l 14 health and safety.
5 2
15 CO!1MISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
Okay, now I would N
y 16 say at that point that these -- construction in accordance W
p 17 with these conditions, somewhat modify the conditions without 18 the prior approval of the NRC.
And it may be that we can't 5
{
19 put anybody in jail or anything if they don't follow that, but n
20 it seems to me that the authority to promulgate these rules, 21 and the authority to license the reporitory, i:as to carry with 22 it the ability to, when we issue an explicit license condition, 23,
say that --
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There should be something that 25 would --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- jwb 53 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, that they have got to 2
come to us for approval if they are going to do something 3
else.
If nothing else, the power that backs that u'p is the t
4 implicit power to turn down a license if they don't do it.
g 5
That is a terribly ineffective threat to make, but at least 0
j 6
it seems to me that it enables us to say in the regulations R
7 that they would have to come to us.
3 j
8 MR. BICKWIT:
I think that's right, that you have --
d 2
Y
?,
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I would agree with that analysis.
10 We can have the language in.
The enforceability is the E
h Il question.
B e
y 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess tha -- But if we do go
=
g 13 for legislation and get it, it.would enable, the Commission
=
- n 5
14 to stop canstruction, and then that would --
{
15 COMMISSIONER BR3.DFORD:
No, I agree that that would
=
g 16 be desirable, but --
- d 17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, we ought to have something --
5 u
3 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- in its absence, I would c
t-19 g
still put the thought in here.
Because at that point, we are
=
20 in the construction phase.
Now we're not, back at this --
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I have no problem with putting 22 in a linkage tot those conditions that we find necessary, 23 ;
and that those modifications --
24 MR. DAVIS:
I think that is the. intent built into th'is,
I i
i 25 -
Perhaps it's not that explicit, but I think the reporting ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l-
jwb 54 I
requirements, and this type thing --
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
All right.
3 MR. DIRCKS:
Not only the reporting requirements, 4
but the information that would be required in the Safety 5
Analysis Report is pretty extensive.
We cover it on page 43 n
E 6
and 44.
R
- E 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay, now you want to delete Mj 8
the word "significant" on 60.71.
O" 9
~.
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That's no problem.
If we zo h
10 write it down in the license and they do something different,
=
5 II that is significant.
3 f
Il CO!1MISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
If it was
="
13 5
significant enough to put in the license -- exactly.
l 14 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
All right.
.}
15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You see, (c) ( 3) is just the z
E I0 license itself'.
m h
II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Of course, what that really E
IO means is I think we're going to have to rise to a new level 19 8
of care in writing licenses that we only put in things that
.n 20 are significant.
II MR. DAVIS:
Or it gives permission not to abide 22 by those " insignificant conditions."
(
23 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
24 l.
(Laughter.)
25l!
l l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
jwb 55 1
CCffiIM IONER H1'NDRIE:
That's right.
You have 2
a section (c), "tha following insignificant conditions can be 3
changed without notification."
4 (Laughter.)
s 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Number 11.
Now formerly when a S
I 6
site characterization report has been submitted, that's not R
7 equivalent to submitting the construction permit because there
- j 8
are a whole series of those.
d 2
9 E.,
Now, Peter, did you mean that any -- I guess I'm g
10 trying to understand how far this goes.
Any meetings between i5 j
11 the waste management side of the agency and the waste manage-3 Y
12 ment side of DOE?
Any public meetings once a site charz.cteri-
=
h 13 zation report, has been submitted?
=
\\
- r y
14 COID1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, as to that site.
i.
15 14R. DIRCKS:
Site specific.
g
=
g 16 CHAIR!!AN AHEARNE:
Oh, Okaf.
I d
17 COffiISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I didn't mean that all tiI:
3 18 meetings between the NRC.and DOE 'hould be open to the public.
i:
h 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, no, I knew that.
n 20 C0121ISSIONER BRADFORD:
But following the first --
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In other words, similar to when 22 the license application is -- on a reactor, we would like to 23 have those meetings --
24 CO!21ISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right; yes.
i 25l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And the staff comment on that was ---
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
56 jwb 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
They agreed with that one.
2l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
that was one of the ones they 3
agreed with.
4 Joe?
5 g
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Do you think you can live 4
j 6
with it?
R 7
MR. MARTIN:
Well, we've been noticing meetings E
y 8
with them right along.
'4n 9
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, I know you have, and E,
10 on the reactor side meetings of the staff and the applicant E
_5U are generally open.
But I don't recall that that's been an 3
g 12.
absolute rule such that there can be no meetings between E"
13 5
staff and applicants or. licensees unless it's been publicly -
=
5 I4 noticed, and cnere are members of the public present.
That's
$]
15 not a requirement that I know of on the reactor side, m
- [
I6 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Excuse me, Commissioner Hendrie.
M N
17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Is it?
5w 3
18 MR CUNNINGHAM:
It's a policy statement.
P" 19 g
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, it was a policy state-5 20 ment.
2I MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Which says that the policy of 22 noticing meetings and holding them only when there has been i
l 23 notice will admit a few exceptions, which must be approved 24 by the director of the relevant division.
t l
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's fine.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(
jwb 57
~-
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
That would seem to be 2
adequate.
3 MR. DIRCKS:
There are going to be a lot of meetings, 4
especially during site characterization, where we, I think g
5 once they start doing test shaf ts, would even contemplate 0
3 6;
putting people out in the field, and naturally that type of R
R 7
meeting would be --
M j
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, but that's before the site dd 9
characterization report.
io j
10 MR. DIRCKS:
This is after the site characterization El 11 report, and it would be after, right.
3 y
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I t hink that --
5 j
13 COD 1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, yes.
Clearly in a
=
l 14 situation ehere you've got somebody on the site where work is 2
15 being done day after day after day --
g 16 MR. DIRCKS:
It's a day to day asking of questions
- r!
i 17 and getting information, that type of meeting.
But I think N
5 18 when we get into discussions of license conditions and more E.[
19 formal settings, we could develop something.
5 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay?
21 All right, number 12.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This really doesn't require 23 very much with regard to this -- this rule.
Basically it is 24 a commianent to think more about what the alternative site 25 !
standard really would be, and try and cover it in the technical ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t
jwb 58 I
rule.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, that's the staff's 3
response, that it would be addressed in the technical rule.
4, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And in that case, I just g
5 would note that fact in the supplemental information that j
6 accompanies this rule.
R 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Although I guess I would want to 3j 8
make sure diat -- unless three of my colleagues disagree --
d o
9 that it doesn' t indicate the position we have reached on Y
10 this.
E j
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
3 y
12.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Because I'm not sure that I --
=
h 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
I don't know where I'm
=
mg 14 going to come out on this, so I would be in no position to 2
15 indicate it.
5 g
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- Fine, W
6 17 Joe?
w=
5 18 (No response.)
5 h
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Thirteen.
That is one M
2'O where you have a disagreement.
21 MR. DIRCKS:
Well, again looking --
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is it the " independent judgment" 23 l l
issue?
24 MR. DIRCKS:
It's the physical security independent ~
l l
j 25 judgment.
Our view is that the DOE is responsible for l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- jwb 59 I
I safeguarding all sorts of material far'more desirable for 2
theft or sabotage than this material.
We basically were going 3
to rely on their judgment in the safeguards area.
4 We didn' t want -- at least I didn' t think it would g
5 be advisable to lay on the NRC's safeguards regime on this 9
3 6
type of activity, because in this area DOE seems to have R
7 expertise equivalent to ours.
j 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, that's probably a point d
q 9
one could make, though, about the whole endeavor.
A commitment z
O g
10 to look at it isn't necessarily a commitment to put the NRC --
z h
11 isn't a commitment to put NRC's standards in in the place of 3
l 12 DOE standards.
=
9 g
13 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we all agreed we would look
=
m 5
14 at it, but we would not look at it to the extent that we do
{
15 our licensing review that we normally do, or apply our resources
=
j 16 to the extent we do --
d N
17 '!
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, as a practical matter, 5uw 18 if in the li.ensing proceeding, which is the first place this
_cs 19 a
would come up anyway because there would be no occasion to look 5
20 at it" during site characterization -- if in the licensing 21 proceeding any party wanted to raise physical security as an 22 issue, and submitted a contention, I take it that contention 23 would be admissible?
24 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
We have taken that position 25 in prior discussions of this rule.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 60 1
CO!24ISSIONER BRADFORD:
So the NRC --
2 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
But the contrary side of the coin 3
was that if no one raised an issue, the staff would accord 4
very substantial deference to the DOE's position.
e 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right, now, if someone raises 0
j 6
it as an issue, who defends it?
DOE?
R 7
MR. DIRCKS:
DOE.
l U
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
DOE, and the staff will, as it d
d 9s does in any contention, take a position.
i O
g 10 I might point out that the revised pages we gave you El 11 today include new pages 15-A, -B, and -C of Enclosure A, to a
y 12 more explicitly state the staff position.
We haven't changed
=
h 13 the position, we have just articulated it a little more
=
m 5
14 clearly.
5 2
15 (Pause.)
16 g
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is really behind the M
d 17 concern here is that this is likely to be in some way I
5 5
18 classified information that shouldn't be made public?
C l
19 MR. DIRCKS:
Well, there may be other reasons, but M
20 I just feel it is a blanketing on of overlapping resources 21 here.
I just didn't see the need for it.
And when we move 22 into any area like this, we move in not sort of half-heartedly, 1
l 23 we bring the whole retinue of reviews, and inspections, and i
l 24 proceedings, and everything else-that I just didn't think 1
1 25 l was needed nor necessary in this type of arrangement where we l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
jwb 61 I
already have DOE fully in the business of safeguarding 2
materials.
3 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The other factor we considered 4l was the legislative history of 202, the Energy Reorganization e
5 Act.
While it didn't exclude us from the common defense and Aa j
6 security arena, it never mentioned it, while there was R
R 7
repeated mention of the health and safety review which it s
j 8
contemplated would La taken by this Commission.
d 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
i O
10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I agree with Bill.
I don't E
5 11 think we need multiple government departments belaboring the B
y 12 physical security at the repository.
If it were a commercial i
E 13 entity doing the repository, then you would have to look at l
14 it.
But here we've got another government department.
2 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What does the sentence or j
16 clause, rather, on the top of 15-B, " Details of the Safeguards as l
17 Program need neither be obtained nor reviewed in order for the i,
iS E
18 Commission to be able to make the required finding."
That is 5[
19 sort of willfully putting a handkerchief over our eyes.
5 20 COffiISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, it's saying, you know, 21 if this other branch of the government, responsible officers 22 say, we will take care of the safeguards --
l 23 !
COfiMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But I mean, we --
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- to a sufficient degree to- '
25 '
ensure the national defense and security, we're saying:
- Okay, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- jwb 62
~
I we will believe that.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But we have dcne that.
I 1
3 mean, we know how to do this in other contexts.
We say we 1
4 will accord it -- make it a presumption, a rebuttable g
5 presumption, and here I guess it's closer to what is called 0
6 an " irrebuttable presumption."
All DOE has to do is -- and R
8 7
there is such a thing -- is tell us that they're doing it, sj 8
an'd that's the end of the matter.
d
=;
9 I must say, I find that odd, especially since zcg 10 we are saying that it is litigable.
So that if any other E
11 party raises physical security, then it comes right into the 3
12 proceeding.
It would be one thing -- I don' t think I would 5
l 13 want to do it -- but it would be one thing to say physical
=
mg 14 security is out as an issue in these proceedings.
E
]r 15 MR. BICKWIT:
Excuse me.
As I raised last time, x
g 16 I have some doubts about the legality of going in this M
y 17 direction.
Without getting into what you want t do, I think E
h I0 to abdicate to this de?ree is questionable under the. Act.
E l9 g
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Nell, are you saying that you n
20 would conclude that we ought not to give any weight, or cannot 21 give any weight --
22 MR. BICKWIT:
No.
Anything but that.
I am i
23,
concluding that you can give substantial weight --
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But not quite this much weight?
25 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
I think --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 63 O
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And as you had pointed out, this 2
was not something that you had had a chance to look at.
3 COIOiISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- saying that you have to 4
at least weigh it, s
5 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, I've looked at this long enough 8
j 6
to --
R R
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, I'm not criticizing you.
I Ej 8
am just saying that we recognize that this would have been the d
y 9
first time you had looked at it.
zo 10 liR. BICKWIT:
Well, I looked at this language in the 35 h
11 initial draft --
3 f
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
O g
13 MR. BICKhIT:
-- and our position on it was that
=
l 14 we had some legal problems with the way it was drafted,
.I'm
$j 15 not saying that you'll lose if you, o this way ;
I' m s aying -
=
j 16 that you might.
as d
17 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you have an alternative M
18 j
version that still gives weight, but not perhaps as blanket --
- 9 h
19 MR. BICKWIT:
No, but it's easily drafted.
I have I
A 20 no problem with saying that substantial deference should be 21 given to DOE.
22 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think the underlying question, 23 :
though, is really the one that Bill raised, " staff resources."
24l It's the level of review that we are going to commit ourselves 25 I to do in this area.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
jwb 64 I
MR. BICKWIT:
I think if you do the kind of review 2
that NRC does of the FEMA judgment in Emergency Planning --
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I was just going to suggest 4
pg3A __
g 5
MR. BICKWIT:
-- which is not a heavy review, then 0
6 you comply with the standard of the Act that NRC make these R
7 judgments.
But I think if you preclude the receiving of 3
- l 8
the details of the program, then you raise questions.
d 9
MR. DIRCKS:
If it is the FEMA-type review, fine.
z O
10 I just did
't know whether we could get into this thing with E
5 11 a big toe like that, or whether we would have to go, all the 3
Y I2 way into it.
E a
5 13 MR. BICKWIT:
I don' t think you have to go all the a
m I4 j
way into it.
k
{
15 MR. DIRCKS:
I just don' t want to get into it.
m E
I6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Try to draft something.
e h
17 I will just comment that if there is anything I have
=
h 18 observed as a practical matter of the NRC staff over many P
"g 19 years, it is that they are incapable over a period of time of n
20 taking a light cut at anything.
2I (Laughter.)
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I can remember telling people 23 that five, six years ago, that if you asked the NRC to just --
24 you know, just bark the log.
And that seems a reasonable thing I
25 to do.
And you send them the log, and it's got the bark on it, i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 1
jwb 65 l
I and you expect to get it back with the bark off.
No, no.
2 What you've got back is this finely, you know, turned, polished, 1
3 stained --
4 COfCIISSIONER BRADFORD:
Box of matches.
e 5
(Laughter.)
E j
6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- mounted pieces.
You know,
~e.
7 they're incapable of just knocking the bark off the log.
G j
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Or else, a pile of wood chips.
d k
9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I'm willing to see what the 2
^*g 10 alternate language would be.
Z_)
II CHAIRMAN MEARNE:
All right, let us move on, then.
9:
y 12 We will see what Len comes up with, and then we may have to
~-
13 g
end up checking with Vic on it.
- r:
5 14
" Definitions. of site and diedia."
Now I think that w$
g 15 will be addressed in the technical criteria?
y 16 MR. DIRCKS:
That's another one I think will be in
- d 17 l the technical criteria.
8 w
18
'g COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do you know at this point i
P" 19 g
whet.hcr the example I gave earlier is at least theoretically e:
20 valid?
That they could come in with three repositories, all 21 in either bedded or domed salt and satisfy the alternative 22 site requirement the way it's laid out now?
Are you treating 23 bedded and domed salt as being different media?
24 (Pause.)
25; CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I think I would guess none ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
jwb 66 I
of us would have any problem with addressing, though, in the 2
technical rule the definitions, which was your point.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, that's right.
It will 4
give me more of a problem back on my point number two, at 5
g least conceptually, but I have no problem with it being n
6 addressed in the technical rule.
E 6
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
s5 8
M Joe, I assume you have no problem?
- J 9
~
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
(Mods in the negative.)
h 10 j
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right, number 15, "more
=
I explicit criteria to be used in making a decision on closing d
12 z
the repository.
9
'of 13 I think it is going.to be very hard for us to make E
14 g
any -- to speak very clearly on decommissioning, but let's see
=
15 what the staff has to say.
d I0 MR. DIRCKS:
Take the whole rule and kick.
as 17 (Laughter.)
E IO l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Anything that's more than C
a loose --
n 0
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
A straightforward solution:
21 Punt.
22 (Laughter. )
23 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I would have great 24 difficulty -- Well, I would be interested in seeing it, but 25 I would guess that this far out in the future, very detailed ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 67 1
about what the decommissioning requirements are going to be.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I agree with that, although 3
it is -- I mean, there are going to be certain things -- one 4
alternative, I have to say, that I considered before I put c
5 that in, was taking out everything that is in this rule now fa 6
about decommissioning for just that reason; that there really R
R 7
ought to be a separate decommissioning rule, because the 3
j 8!
decommissioning, and then whatever the other phrase is for dd 9
termination of jurisdiction over the repository, in all 10 likelihood, are some decades away, and that this was the E
j 11 wrong time to tie our hands with it at all.
But, anyway, we in p
12 can have that distinction in the context of the text of the 5
g 13 rule.
=
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
E 15 All right, 16, changes.section.
Acknowledge the g
16 dropping of the requirement that we prepared and circulate us d
17 an EIS before issuing a license to receive and possess-high-5 18 level radioactive waste.
=
f 19 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's just something that 5
1 20l we did do, and we didn't mention it.
21 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
We will explain what the rationale 22 is.
23,
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is that in the paper that 25 we have today?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
jwb 68 I
MR. DIRCKS:
For why it was dropped?
I think we 2
have the explanation.
3 CHAIR 21AN AHEARNE:
Which is?
4 MR. DIRCKS:
Which is, that we ' re going 'to do the e
5 environmental impact statement at, the authorization stage, 0
3 6
and when it gets to the further stages, what we will do is R
7 issue environmental assessments and, if needed, we will
~
j 8
supplement the environmental impact statement, if required.
d d
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, let's see, presumably 10 at that point the EIS is a much less important document than E
g 11 what the updated SAR -- Is there a requirement to update the D
y 12.
SAR at this point?
5y 13 MR. DIRCKS:
At the loading of the -- At the loading.
=
14 It's an update of the SAR; yes.
5 2
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And then does the staff 5
g 16 has a responsibility to -- Let's see.
You get an updated M
d 17 SAR from the applicant.
Do you have to then prepare an SAR
's 5
18 based on unat?
=.[
19 MR. MARTIM:
Yes.
We would prepare the safety 5
20 evaluation --
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
7.t that point.
Okay.
I l
22 didn't have any problem with dropping the requirement for the l
23,
EIS, but it did seem to me ' daat you ought to explain it.
I i
24l
~ CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay, on number 17, that's one 25 '
where you say you would agree in entirety in adding that l
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 69 I
phrase?
Toe?
2 (Pause.)
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I don't have any objections.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Number 10 is 5
g supposed to be requiring a. step by step.
There is staff 9
3 6
disagreement.
R F.
7 Bill?
K j
8 MR. DIRCKS:.Well, from what I gather, in 60.43 (J
9 that essentially takes care of that one on 18.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter, what had you --
5 II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, 60.43 seems to 3
N I2 contemplate this; that it is a concept out of the IRG Report,
=
3 13 although I couldn't bear to use the word " step-wise," which 5
- n l '14 they use so frequently there.
It seemed to me to be a good 15 one, and I would just have preferred to be somewhat more j
16 explicit in adopting it here.
as 6
17 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What did you have in mind?
I'm 5
y 18 not sure I understand the point that you're making.
c 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I think I would just--
M 20 Let's see, I'm not sure where I'm losing you, John.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, what do you mean by -- when 22 you say " requiring a step by step manner toward full-scale 23 operation"?
What does that mean?
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, it's the IRG concept, 25 but in here they are also a set of -- I can read the four i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 70 I
lines off the bottom of No.10 here.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So your step by step is that 3
the license include requirements for instrumentation monitor-4 ing data acquisition?
5 g
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
For example, yes.
9 0
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is that what " step by step" means R*S 7
to you?
s j
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
- Yes, d
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That it require the instrumenta-Y h
10 tion and monitoring during early stages of the repository
=
II operation?
D
\\
5 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
In the 5
g 13 process of going from the initial loading of waste to full-u m
E I4 scale operation be done in stages; that it isn' t -- it isn't
{
15 something that --
z j
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are you saying that you would w
h 17 want a coming back to the Commission af ter a certain amount of 18 that data is collected?
c h
l9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would certainly want it to n
20 be furnished to the Commission.
I haven't really thought 2I through whether the Commission ought to be signing off at 22 particular points during that process.
23l I guess I propose to put it more on the basis that l
24 the results be reported to the Commission periodically, and 23 the Director could -- if anything seemed alarming -- step in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
jwb 71 I
and say:
Hold it at this stage for awhile.
There may be 2
something else that needs doing.
3 COMftISSIONER HENDRIE:
I don't understand the " step 4
by step to full operation."
5 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
I'm still having trouble with it.
9 3
6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Certainly you should put the R
8, 7
stuff in the ground by some instrumentatiten of some kind that j
8 would go aleng with it.
I suspect they would want to know what cJ c;
9 the ground temperature profiles looked like --
b 10 COM11ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
11 COIDiISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- and probably, I don't 3
p 12 know, there may be parameter wells around the site, I don't E
13 know.
But once you sayi. Okay, you can put waste in this
=
14 thing---
15 CO!!MISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
g 16 CO221ISSIONER HENDRIE:
Now either canisters and af 17 appropriate shielded containers begin to arrive, or even 18 conceivably fuel elements will arrive at a factory over there c
19 on the edge of the site, not the repository itself, and out 5
20 of the factory come canisters, and shielded pigs, and cans, 21 and so on, and these things now get fed down the shaft, 22 and maneuvered, and then passed down into the salt.
And 23,
that is rather a cumbersome handling process.
l 24 l And you will, once you say go ahead.and load, 25 they will start to presumably be ready to start loading cans ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
k
jwb 72 1
'down into the repository, and that process will just go ahead.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
See, it isn't a repository once 3
you start moving it.
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It isn't as though you were g
5 going to move in 50 cans and put them there and then stand 8
3 6
back and see what happened.
You know, moving these things in R
R 7
in the shielded carts, containers, and so on, maneuvering A
j 8
them, upending them, sliding them down in the holes, and 0
0; 9
whatever, it is just -- it will just take, you know, so many 5g 10 days per cans, or cans per day, and they will just go at that 11 rate, presumably.
3 y
12 So I don't know quite what " step by step to full
=
13 operation" is.
" Full scale operation" is when you start h
14 doing that.
$j 15 COMMISSIONER BRADh0RD:
Well, that's right, in the z
j 16 sense that the operation you do on day one is very like the A
6 17 operation you do on day 10, day 20, and so on.
5
{
18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That's right.
A
{
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, let me ask, because n
20 I hadn't assumed that from day one you would simply put 21 canisters in the ground as fast as you could until you had 22 all the available canisters or fuel rods, or whatever there 23 were,that you would gather up from around the country, and 24 tuck them away.
25 I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, up to the capacity of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 73 I
the repository, I would think so.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, then -- Okay, Jack, 3
let me --
4 CO!OiISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think if there's a bottle-g 5
neck, it is likely to be in the canning and whatever 8
6 preparation.
s 6,
7 COfE4ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay, that is different A
j 8
from what I had at least t2. ught I undarstood the process to d:i be.
Is that in fact correct, that one would --
zo b
10 MR. MARTIN:
Well, it could be.
I think it is E{
11 very difficult-to. foresee right now just what it would be.
is y
12 I mean, there are a number of ways tc approach this problem.
=
l 13 One way would be to go build the whole repository, u
mg 14 and then turn them loose and you would just fill them up as j
15 fast as you can.
a:
j 16 Another --
as ti 17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I suspect you will start 5
!ii 18 with a couple of primary shafts, and a set of primary drifts,
=.
e[
19 and they will be loading into those while they're developing R
20 other laterals.
21 MR. MARTIN:
That is another approach.
22 COMMISSIONER HEUDRIE:
I would think.
23 MR. MARTIN:
A third approach might be to require i
i 24 a lot more instrumentation and double-checking on the first 25 few rooms you put in so that downstream if something starts ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- jwb 74 1
going wrong, you can detect it early.
2 It is not clear to me what --
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
Well, that -- that, 4
I must say, is closer to what I had imagined.
And I don't e
5 kaow whether to think of it..n terms of " rooms," or R
6
" channels,'" or --
R R
7 MR. MARTIN:
That is the trouble I have had dealing
-n 8
8 with this comment in the past, as well, thrit it reflects more n
d d
9 of a state of mind as to how we would approach the problem; E.
6 10 but yet, I can't quite visualize all the different problens, E
5 11 or all the different situations we are going to be faced with f
12 some ten years down the road.
E 13 COMMISSIQNER HENDRIE:
I just don't think the.words l
14 '
" step-by-step approach to full-scale operation" have eithc. a 2
15 very clear meaning or a very useful meaning as we write this U
g a
rule, Peter.
W G
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, the concept is, as I 18 understood it, permissively in 60.43 now.
5 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I think the difficulty at 5
20 least that I was having -- and I gather it is the same 21 difficulty Joe is having -- is the concept of what " step-cy-l 22 step to full-scale" --
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, okay --
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You know, when the IRG talked 25 l about --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 75 I
CHAIu1AN AHEARNE:
I don't understand what the IRG --
2 C0MMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The essential -- the 3
essential point in that --
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- when the IRG talked about 5
g
" step-by-step," they talked about finding a good place for a n
6 little practice, and poking around underground, and then R
7
}
putting in half-a-dozen cans, and standing back and scratching 8
your ear; and then later on, expanding it up to 200, and d
q 9
scratching your ear a good deal af ter that; and then maybe E
h 10 eventually developing it on into a full-scale repository.
=
5 II C:tAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You remember one of the principal B
Y I2-authors --
=
3 13 5
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What we're talking about a
l 14 here is the licensing of a repository.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
One of the what?
y 16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE-One of the principal authors of w
h II that concept had in mind putting some waste cans in an already--
=
II or he thought would be an already developed site.
I9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
n 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The 60.43 does say that the 21 license shall include conditions which will -- and it lists on as one of the specifications requirements relating to test, 23 l calibration, or inspection.
24 Now I have no problem if we add in something saying 3
^-
that adequate instrumentation, or it.strumentation to be 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 76 I
described as part of the license condition.
I mean, I view 2
that as sort of operating monitoring.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, but the essential part 4
of the step-by-s ap concept, as I had understood it, was an g
5 ability on ou.' :.rt as regulators to say this isn't working 8
6 ths way it should, and you better hold it right there for R
l eS 7
awhile.
Aj 8
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, but you've already dy 9
said that on a license.
zo g
10 MR. MARTIU:
Right.
I mean, if you look at what E
5 11 we've done --
3 Y
I2-COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
We've got that on reactors.
E 13 MR. MARTIN:
-- we've started with screening, th'en m
5 14 with characterization, and that's a major step --
{
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, yes.
But I keep being z
g 16 told that we can't say,
" Hold it right 'here" anywhere up until t
w g
17 the time we've issued a license --
z
}
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This is how --
Cs I9 g
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- but maybe now that we've n
20 issued the license, it is clearer that we have that power.
21 Let me ask it another way:
Does this repository 22 then slip over into something close to our normal enforcement 23 situation?
There's no question about our authority from the 24 time of the issuance of the license on?
23 MR. CUUNINGHAM:
No.
They're licensees.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~ jwb 77 e
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: 'Well, maybe that's enough.
2 It's not as though I was going to be here myself to carry it 3
out at that point, anyway.
4 (Laughter.)
g 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Well, unless you want N
j 6
to come back --
R R
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I will see if I can
~
8 formulate something more specific, if I think it is necessary, r) ci 9
but let's leave it as it is for the moment.
Y 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
j 11 And then 19.
I think that's what -- I think as y
12 far as the issue, we will be putting --
E j
13 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The same problem.
Exactly.
=
l 14 Yes.
s 2
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay, I would guess, then, where j
16 we are, Lenny is going to'be trying to do some redrafting.
as 6
17 j I guess on a number of these position -- cases, someone will
{
18 have tc talk to Commissioner Gilinsky to get his position, i~
19 because there were cases where Joe and I disagreed with Peter's n
20 position.
If Vic abstains or agrees with Joe and I, thert the 21 position does not carry.
If he goes alcng with Peter, then 22 we are stalemated --
23 ;
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, let me frame one 24 '
issue, because it runs through several of these, and at least' 25 state my own position on it.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
jwb 78 1
That is, when the staff position is essentially the 2
fact that we would like to do this but we're not sure we have 3
the authority to do it, my preference would be to assett the 4
authority.and say that this is the basis that we're going to g
5 proceed on, and that the authority flows backward from the N
3 6
ability to issue the license.
Then the only sanction may be R
7 to deny the license, and it may be pretty unlikely that it s
j 8
would deny the license.
But still, there is nothing in that d
9 situation that makes it wrong or illegal for us to as sert zo g
10 the authority to require that certain information be 5
j 11 furnished.
3 y
12.
And on those requirements where the staff position
=
13 is essentially that we would like to do this, but for doubt 14 about our authority, I would go ahead and assert that it ought U
2 15 to be done.
x=
g 16 MR. BICKNIT:
And I should add, we're not sure w
17 that there isn't the authority there.
It has always been the b
18 position of the legal offices of the Commission that there 5[
19 isn't; but we're taking a fresh look at the legislative n
20 history and the cases just to be sure of that.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But remember, there are a couple 22 of points in which I, and I think Joe, disagreed that we ought 23 i to be going to that formal step.
It wasn't a question of l
24 I whether we have the authority; it's a question of whether we l
25 '
should be doing that.
Where it was a question of "do we have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~ jwb 79 I
the authority," I have no problem with following that train.
2 Are there any other --
3 (No response.)
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So I guess that someone, I g
5 assume -- we seem to have many people around -- has kept 0
3 6
track of where we came out.
On some of the things, we have R
7 agreed; some things have to go to Commissioner Gilinsky to M
j 8
see how he comes out; and then at least one you are going to d
c; 9
.try some draft language.
And we will come back again.
zo 10 Thank you.
11 This portion of the meeting is over.
We will take D
g 12 a couple-minutes' break while those who wish to stay for the 5l 13 exciting. affirmation session get seated, and we will clear
- =
mg 14 the room of those 'ho aren't participating in the affirmation 2
15 session.
g 16 (Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m.,
the meeting of the s
d 17 Commissioners was recessed, to consider other matters.)
18 5
E 19 l
A 20 21 22 23 24 25l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
m NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the COMMISSION MEETING
- .n the matter of: Public Meeting - Discussion of SECY-80-744 - Fi.nal Rule
-o 10 CFR 60 -- Disposal of High Level Radioactiv-a Waste Datd"o2*N?dee[Mggitories - Licensing Procedures i
Deceder 22, 1980 Docket llumber:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D.
C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.,
<Tane N.
Beach Official Reporter (Typed) r C
s Al f
l Off al Reporter (Signature)
U i
l l
-