ML20005E597
| ML20005E597 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/20/1989 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9001090082 | |
| Download: ML20005E597 (77) | |
Text
. 6 %%%dd%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%TidWd4d%%%%% g g g g l
TPAMSMITTA1. TO:
Document Control Desk 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room
//A/4o cATE:
i FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting document (s).
They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or reevired.
Meeting
Title:
N /$+ '= A M he o r/ b 2 / > I -d Y>
"A 0 A.,x.ks h w a b_J Meeting Date:
/Ade/f C7 Open Closed i
i Item Oescription*:
Copies Advanced DC5
- 8 to POR Cg
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 (d lkl> )>> %'
s' +h D I~
f~
t, hAweMioh-L %
I
/
f.W $ /ellAn /f
!! (
3.
4 5.
d ht$
O d
h' Pf@MPE p
s.
- l
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY
..__a_..___m_._..____.
[
,y a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION i
i
$ $l BRIEFING BY DOE ON STATUS OF CIVILIAN HIGH LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM LOCatiOD:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND h&($l DECEMBER 20, 1989
?E06S:
73 PAGES 1
NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
1 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERb 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest l-Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 i
i 0
k t
4' l
l DISCLAIMER i
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of t
the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on December 20, 1989 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and.it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
... )
NEAL R. GROSS Cout? IttpoRTEkl AND TRANSCR10ER$
1333 RNoOE ISLAND AVENUE M.W.
(302) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C.
2000$
(202) 232 6600
. ~, _.,
s o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING BY DOE ON STATUS OF CIVILIAN HIGH LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission one White Flint North Rockville, Maryland i
Wednesday, December 20, 1989 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
Kenneth M.
Carr, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
KENNETH M.
CARR, Chairman of the Commission i
THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Commissioner KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS, Commissioner i
FORREST J.
REMICK, Commissioner i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1MS RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-Oe(X)
1 4
2 Q
l STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary J
t WILLIAM C.
PARLER, General Counsel LEO DUFFY, Assistant to the Secretary for Coordination of DOE Environment and Waste Management; and Director, Office of Environmental Restorhtion and Waste Management, DOE FRANK PETERS, Deputy Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, DOE CARL GERTZ, Manager, Yucca Mountain Project Office, OCRWM RALPH STEIN, Associate Director, Systems Integration and Regulations, OCRWM 4
t I
i l
l l
l 1
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(302) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6
g
-s
{s t
c 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
2:15 p.m.
3 CHAIRiiAN CARR:
Good afternoon, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
5 The purpose of today's meeting is to hear 6
from the Department of Energy on the status of the 7
Civilian High hevel Waste Program.
As directed by the 8
U.S.
Congress in the Nuc2 ear Waste Policy A7t, the 9
Department of Energy.has been conducting a program for
(
10 siting the nation's first geologic repository for 11 disposal of high level radioactive waste.
t 12 The Nucient Regulatory Commission has been 13 p;oceeding in parallel with its responsibilities for 14 the licensing and regulation of this first of a kind 4
15 facility.
16 The Commission,last met with the Department 17 of Energy on this subject in December of 1988.
In the 18 course of a year, many significant activities have 19 occurred, including NRC's review and comment on the 20 Site Characterization Plan for the Yucca Mountain 21 site.
Most recently, Secretary Watkins provided a 22 report to the Congress on the reassessment of the 23 Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program.
24 The Commission is happy to have with us
)
25 today Mr. Leo Duffy, Director of DOE's Office of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 M) 232M
i' q.
)
N 4
c.
1 Environmental Restoration and Waste Management.
1 2
That's your title?
i 3
MR. DUFFY:
That's one of them.
l f
4 CHAIRMAN CARR:
And Mr. Frank Peters as 5
- well, Deputy Director of the ' Of fice of Civilian 6
Radioactive Waste Management, to discuss the status of J
7 the program.
8 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any j
9 introductory remarks?
10 If not, Mr. Duffy, please proceed.
11 MR. DUFFY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It was 12 the Secretary's desire to bring the NRC up to date on 3
13 what we've been doing at the Office of Civilian 14 Radioactive Waste Management during the last year.
We 15 have some accomplishments, some new initiatives, some 16 recommendations.
I believe that progress has been 17 made, even though we've had significant impairment on 18 our access to the site and we have had some 19 recommendations from committees on methodologies to 20 look at with regard to the exploratory shaft.
21 In the Secretary's review of the program in 22 the last five months, we've made five major 23 elemental -- what we feel are improvements.
We 24 formalized the program starting with a bottoms up
,-)
^
25 analysis of the schedule.
It is the Secretary's NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232-8000
5 e
1 belief that this is the first tire a true bottoms up 2
of the 5,000 elements associated with the schedule has 3
been made.
The original 1998 program was identified-4 as part of the Nuclear Waste Policy %ct.
The 2003 was 5
based on a comparison with the 1998, but in our 6
evaluation, looking at the detailed design of the 7
facility, we did not have what tee felt was a true 8
bottoms-up schedule evaluated and 'Jooked at from the 9
scientific characterization of the site.
10 We also looked at the present project 11 management operation and felt that a restructuring was 12 required.
We got an ou', side consultant to look at the 13 total organization of the program.
We looked at the i
14 efficiency as we saw it in the present day on the 15 basis of changes in the exploratory shaft to surface 16 characterization as a priority.
17 The gaining access to the Yucca Mountain 18 site for a comprehensive, scientific investigation has j
19 been' delayed over the last 22 months.
We felt on the 20 basis of this delay and on the basis of the additional l
21 scientific investigation that we feel is necessary to
\\
22 justify or disqualify this site, that the program or 23 programmatic schedule was too optimistic.
We felt 24 that in order to achieve the requirements of the 25 Department of Energy to accept fuel in 1998, we had to l
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-0800 I
m
A' 6
1 i
decouple the MRS scheduling from the identification of 2
a site for the repository.
3 In looking at the methodology for 4
accomplishment, the Secretary felt that the decision i
5 plan would give us a better accountability for 6
performance than we've had in the past.
7 So, these are the key elements that directed 8
our performance to develop the decision plan.
We feel 9
that there are still major areas that have to be 10 resolved to move the program forward.
The nomination 11 of the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 12 Waste Management is a major area.
The White House 13 will have to nominate this person after clearance.
We 14 anticipate this will be done in the January ' time 15 period when Congress returns.
16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
But has the 17 nomination been announced?
18 MR. DUFFY:
No, sir.
19 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Thanit you.
20 MR. DUFFY:
There has been some suggestions 21 in both Congress and in the press on a potential 22 candidate, but the nomination has not --
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I certainly don't 24 think either of those is any source of great accuracy.
2 25 MR. DUFFY:
I wouldn't either, but I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (M) M 0000
7 3,
1 that a lot of people have.
2 we felt that the organization structure 3
required a direct line reporting operation from the 4
Yucca Mountain project operation to the Director's 5
office in order to get direct line responsibility.
We 6
are working on that aspect of it now and seeing what 7
organization changes have to be made.
8 We believe that we've made significant 9
progress in the application of the quality assurance 10 to the program.
Seven of our eight contractors have 11 been audited and successfully completed.
One has not.
12 There-are two still major areas both in the Department 13 of Energy that have to be audited and that is 14 scheduled to be accomplished by July.
l 15 In addition to that, we felt that the 16 present methodology for technical cost and scheduled 17 base lines was not to the satisfaction of the 18 Secretary and a new methodology would be accomplished l
19 within the April time frame.
We will define the L
20 criterion objectives against which the program l
21 performance will be measured and progress can be 22 measured for both ourselves, yourself, the State of l
L 23 Nevada and the utilities who are the recipients of 24 this program.
')
25 From the standpoint of the Secretary's NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l-(202)236 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (2(E) 232-4000
+
.4 l
e g
1
- review, we've also looked at a comprehensive
.)
2 reevaluation for the overall program schedule, both 3
repository MRS and transportation.
From a repository P
4 license application standpoint, based on our opinion 5
of the amount of scientific information that's
[
6 required, the amount of what we feel is necessary peer 7
review to establish criteria, we did not feel that we 8
could satisfactorily apply for a license until October 9
of 2001, if we find a suitable site.
I,think that's a 10 key element of the Department's program, is to ensure 11 ourselves that we have scientifically demonstrated 12 there are no disqualifying characteristics for the
)
13 present identified site characterization.
14 The start of the repository. operations would 15 then be revised to the 2010 time frame.
Based on the 16 NRC's evaluation of on-site storage, we feel that this 17 does not affect the application of nuclear power to 18 the nation's energy needs.
They're a safe capability 19 during that time period.
l l
20 A
revised schedule assumes a surface 21 disturbing scientific investigation to start in l
22, January of 1991.
That is dependent upon a Department 23 of Justice litigation between the Department of 24 Justice of the United States and the State of Nevada
)
25 on the basis of laws that have been passed in Nevada NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRICERS
~
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232m
o l'
9 1
that are presently assumed by the State of Nevada to 2
allow them to prevent access to the site.
3 We have initiatives underway to evaluate --
4 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Is that -- you said in San 5
Francisco they were going to give them 30 days.
Has 6
that suit been filed yet?
7 MR.~ DUFFY:
Not yet, sir.
We have discussed 8
with the Department of Justice and they aren't ready i
9 to pursue that.
There's a discussion between the 10 General Counsel and the Department of Justice today.
11 That memorandum is being prepared and is on internal 12 review at the Department.
13 Initiatives are underway to evaluate 14 alternative strategies for improving a repository 15 schedule, but we think we're in the early' stages of 16 the scientific investigation.
We feel that this is 17 the first of a kind operation.
Looking at the 18 international community, we look at a time table that 19 is compatible with what's been done in the other 20 countries who are using nuclear power as a source of 21 energy and we feel that the evaluation that we have l
22 made is consistent with those programs.
23 The waste acceptance at MRS on a limited 24 basis we feel can be accomplished as early as January 25 1998, if we get a negotiator to negotiate the site NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANC TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6
1 4
10
\\
1 independent of the Department of Energy.
We feel
)
2 that's a very significant methodology.
We believe 3
that on the basis of F wing a negotiator that will 4
take us out of the polarized situation between the 5
Department of Energy and the states, the negotiator 6
does not have any preconceived location for sites and 7
we're working with the states on an impairment basis, 8
on financial programs and assistance that the states 9
would think were necessary if they accepted the MRS 10 location.
He could also negotiate on the time period 11 associated with when it would be removed and would be 12 dealing on what we feel is a level playing field i
13 versus the Department of Energy.
14 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Have you recommended a 15 negotiator yet to the President?
16 MR.
DUFFYt We do not have that 17 responsibility.
It's a congressional White House 18 responsibility, reports to the White House.
We do l
19 not --
20 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
21 MR. DUFFY:
A negotiator has been considered 22 and has been investigated and I believe it's up to the 23 negotiator to make his decision known to the White 24 House on whether he will accept the assignment.
)..
25 The MRS strategy assumes siting through the NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6
.F rn Q
11
+
1 efforts of this negotiator.
We feel that's extremely 2
important.
It also recumes that the Nuclear Waste.
3 Policy Act linkages are modified with regard to its 4
connection with the site selection.
We do not ask for S
any other linkage changes at this time.
6 A DOE-directed siting process would result, 7
in our opinion, in extensive delay, 2002 if-the 8
linkages are modified, 2007 if. the linkages are not 9
modified.
I think that's a speculative situation.
10
-From the past operation with the Department, the first 11 thing we have to do is maintain credibility or obtain-12 credibility.
We do not have credibility associated' 13 with these programs at the present time.
That.would 14 be a significant delay.
We think a negotiator would 15 have the capability to improve and expedite the 16 communication between desired. community,
- states, 17 municipalities.
18 From a comprehensive schedule, we're looking 19 at the universe -- use of transportable storage casks 20 to achieve the 1998 as an option.
The cask would 21 require NRC certification under 10 CFR 71 and 22 licensing for storage under 10 CFR 72.
If we go to a 23 dual storage shipping capacity cask, that would put us 24 in a unique situation from a cask standpoint with both 1
25 licensing and certain features of that same cask.
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOHTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600 t,
la don't believe that's been done yet.
So, again, it'_s a 1
2 new approach.
Not a new approach, it's a new aspect 3
of the program that would require new approaches by 4
both us and the NRC.
S We believe that on the basis of the 6
Secretary's discussion with the President, we will get 7
action on a nuclear waste negotiator in the near term.
8 From the scientific investigation of the 9
Yucca Mountain operation based on the Nevada Attorney 10 General's-issued opinion on site disapproval 11/1/89, 11 that's when Secretary had sufficient cause to 12 demonstrate the need for litigation.
Up until that T
13 time, we did not have what was considered satisfactory-14 legal precedent-to go in and sue.
15 DOE will pursue all available options to 16 gain access to the site within the legal framework.
17 The Secretary has, up until this time, made every l
18 effort to negotiate on the basis that the site is not 19 a selected site, that he is under the direction of 20 Congress to characterize this site and if there are 21 any disqualifying characteristics it would be the 22 Secretary's decision not to pursue this site.
23 We feel that the changes that we've made on 24 the basis of doing surface characterization will give 1
25 us a more rapid understanding of the items that were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6
s 13
.c 1
identified as significant by both people within the 2
NRC and the State of Nevada with regard to volcanism, 3
with regard to seismic and tectonic assumptions and.
4 with regard to surface water and subsurface water, 5
hydrology.
Differences of opinion, let's put it that 6
way.
The only way to resolve those, in our opinion, 7
is to resolve them on'a scientific basis with an open 8
peer review, community, state and governmental 9
discussion.
10 The major site-specific repository design 11 work therefore will be deferred until more information 12 on the immediate. site suitability is available from 13 the surface evaluation and the completion of the 14 exploratory shaft alternative studies, which we feel 15 are significant from the standpoint of the advice we 16 had received from the technical review board, and 17 looking at alternatives to a dual shaft exploration 18 that we had identified versus the ramp reverse boring 19 shaft operation that was identified by a technical 20 review board.
21 With regard to the MRS facility, the MRS 22 Review Commission reported to Congress and recommended 23 two facilities and a reevaluation of need in the year 24 2000.
We think we're compatible with the MRS 25 Commission's review.
We do feel that two sites may be NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBEhS
~
1323RHODEISLAND AVENUE,N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (g) mm
+
1 14 L--
1 even an exponential or cubic function in the degree of 2
difficulty rather than a single site.
The Department 3
of Energy site is a modular design.
It _can n
4 accommodate 2,000, 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 on the basis-5 of need.
So, we feel from that standpoint we do 6
accommodate the major recommendations from the MRS 7
Committee.
.8 The DOE considers that the MRS is an 9
integral and critical portion of the waste acceptance 10 disposal schedule and system flexibility, since we do 11 have a contractual obligation with these utilities to 12 accept fuel in 1998.
Under the present schedule, we 13 cannot do that with a repository.
We believe that 1.4 again this is consistent with the international 15 community who are looking at MRSs at present mode'of 16 storage while-they examine their options with. regard 17 to geologic repositories.
18 The Department is working with Congress to 19 modify the linkage.
We have no guarantee that we will 20 get legislation concerning the decoupling, but we are 21 pursuing legislation and will have a draft legislation 22 to the Congress in the first month of next year.
23 We have been working with various committees 24 on a communication basis, telling them of our opinion 25 and what we intend to do and they're aware of our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600
iy 15 1
present strategy.
DOE is also considering the DOE 2
siting in coordination with the negotiator efforts, 3
but I don't think we would pursue that unless there 4
was a significant delay with regard to the appointment.
5 of a negotiator because that would be in conflict.
We 6
would.have two parties pursuing 'the same effort.
We 7
believe the negotiator should be doing that.
8 We have issued as an accomplishment, as 9
you identified, Mr.
- Chairman, the Site 10 Characterization Plan was issued in 1988 and the NRC 11 issued a site characterization analysis in July, 12 There were two objections, quality assurance program 13 and exploratory shaft Title I design.
14 Control process, w e' are working on a 15 demonstration of our capability with regard to.the 16 design control process and applicability of previous 17 data to that.
From the quality assurance program 18 already identified what we feel is our accomplishment 19 in that area.
There were 133 comments, 62 questions 20 and we are evaluating the analysis and requested a 21 formal program for resolution of that and will 22 recommend to the Secretary that the new director 23 establish a methodology where we are in constant or 24 real time communication with the NRC in resolution of
)
25 that.
I don't think that has been established in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHlNGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
L
- 5. C 1
1 past and we expect that to be established as soon.as
,F 2
the new director comes on.
In - f act, we-will have 3
action taken on that in the meantime.
4 The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 5
Management QA requirements documents have been issued, 6
QA programs for Fenix and Sessions, Holmes and Narver, 7
Reynolds Electric, Sandia, Los Alamos, USGS, LLNL have 8
-been accepted by DOE and the NRC.
All seven groups 9
ordered, except LLNL, have been accepted by DOE.
The 1
10 Yucca Mountain project and the OCRWM audits are l
l 11 scheduled for June of90 and July of
'90, which we 12 feel is a potential problem, but we think we have the j-13 methodology under control that would demonstrate the.
l 14 capability in that area.
New site characterization activities 11 15 will not be initiated until the quality control 16 assurance activity is 1n place.
l:
.17 We think that the meetings with the NRC l
18 staff on the exploratory shaft design control process l
19 has been very beneficial and we would -- I'll discuss l
20 later on -- we would like to increase our dialogue in l-21 the technical area prior to rulemaking with both the 22 staff and with the ACNW and with the scientific peer 23 groups so that which we feel is the most 24 significant portion of this project.
This is the
)
25 first of a kind.
We do not have criteria that are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6800
17 t
1 applicable in-all cases to a geologic repository.
-We 2
think it's going to be an iterative process to 3
establish - this criteria and we think we need more 4
dialogue to establish this before a rulemaking 5
process.
6 Eight study plans have been submitted to the 7
NRC.
Two have been accepted -so far.
Both of those 8
would allow us to pursue surface characterization if 9
we had the permits necessary for the disturbance of 10 the site.
11 The Site Characterizati.on Plan comments were 12 received from the State of Nevada, other government 13 agencies, Edison Electric Institute, and the public.
14 We would expect to have a formalized plan for 15 resolution of those comments and identification of 16 action on those.
17 We've made ten in-depth technical 18 presentations to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 19 Board.
It has recommended extensive underground 20 drifting, use of tunnel boring machines, alternate 21 shaft construction, replacing a shaft with ramp and 22 shaft design, which I identified on the basis of a 23 reverse boring operation with a boring machine of 24 different design characteristics than the exploratory 25 explosion operation in rock removal that we had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEPS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 44 3 WASHINGTON O.C.20006 (202) 232 6
18
-1 identified in a dual shaft, which identified - some l
,i 2
questions concerning the proximity of the shaft and 3
the effect of location on those shafts.
4
.So, from that: standpoint, that's why we're 5
looking at the alternate design.
We're looking at.how 6
this will effect the underground design and we think 7
the delay necessary to do that will be very 8
beneficial.
9 DOE is evaluating the recommendations and 10 the alternatives and that's on our new-schedule.
NRC la staff, ACNW and state have suggested extended surface-12 based exploration in the past.
It's now recognized by 13 the Department of Energy that that offers the most.
14 rapid methodology for identifying surface 15 disqualification so we can get on with the exploratory 16 shaft operation if this is not a disqualifying 17 characteristic.
18 Three types of technical interactions with 19 the staff taking place in technical meetings, 20 technical exchange and site visits.
We feel those 21 have been very productive and have offered the 22 Department a new perspective on the design and on the 23 schedule and on the ' scientific method.
Neither DOE 24 nor NRC have ever licensed a repository and the 10,000
}
25 year projections at the present time are, as one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 M33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6
39
,4 1
member of the public in its comments have made, sort 1
- 1).
2 of an arrogance on our part since the recorded history 3
-of man is.less than that. :
To project that in a time 4
period-requires extensive scientific demonstration and 5
.that's why the Secretary believes the extension of the
-6 schedule is necessary so that'we don't seem to have 7
technical arrogance about a first time repository.
8 NRC' and DOE pre-licensing relationship, we 9
believe with the NRC guidance on regulations, DOE can 10 implement. site = investigations to establish criteria.
11 The need to develop better understanding of site 12 characteristics in order to enable us to establish a 13 reasonable set of regulatory criteria is what we think 14 one of the most important points that we would like to 15 discuss with the staff and with the Advisory Committee 16 on how to develop that before it gets to rulemaking.
17 DOE proposes an initiative on a
18 collaborative interaction with the NRC, DOE, industry 19 and the peer committee to identify what we think are 20 uncertainties associated with present criteria and how 21 we could establish a more certain or at least a band 22 of interaction and iterative process before rulemaking 23 process takes place.
24 DOE's regulatory approach to rulemaking, 25 regulatory guidance will be discussed later.
It has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRr'3ERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2m WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202)WM m
20 1
been. transmitted to you in an August 18th letter.
We 2
think there are areas where we believe additional 3
interaction between the NRC and the Department of 4
' Energy is necessary to give us guidance in that area,
.5 so we can come up with an iterative process before
.6 rulemaking.
.7
-Topics suitable for rulemaking are accident-8
. dose guidelines, emergency. planning with~ relationship 9
to a repository and the implementation of EPA, 10 standards which again'are first of a kind and we think 11 should be scientifically based.
12 Topics requiring additional consideration 13
'are amplification of regulatory terms such as-the 14 anticipated and unanticipated processes and e v e n t's,-
15 disturbed zone, substantial complete containment, pre-16 waste and placement, groundwater time travel and the 17 time period for evaluation of 1.8 million years is 18 considered to be areas for additional discussion.
19 We want to evolve definitions as we learn 20 more about the site.
We feel that the DOE topical 21 reports is a methodology for doing that.
We have 22 never done that.
We do not have any record on topical 23
- reports, but the NRC has used as an effective 24 communication mode for the utility operation in the
"-)
25 nuclear power industry and other facilities that are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
3.;
21 1
licensed-by the ' NRC and we believe that this is a 2
methodology that we should pursue aggressively where 3
we have areas of concern, 4
Methods for demonstrating compliance with 5
EPA standard, we think we need flexibility on that to 6
use alternative compliance approaches.
We believe 7
that the topical report and NRC guidance on those will 8
be beneficial.
We believe-that the change in'Part 60 9
subsystem requirements into regulatory guidance versus.
10 regulation would be helpful.
11 Topics requiring additional consi6eration 12 are the engineered barrier.
We believe that credit 13 should be allowed for waste package lif etime - greater 14 than 1,000 years, based on engineering submittals and 15 topical reports.
We believe it's premature -to 16 restrict by regulation and prior to understanding a 17 site.
Therefore, that's why we're looking at peer 18 review and topical reports and scientific discussion 19 before a rulemaking order is issued.
20 The content of license application, we 21 believe an expansion of the license application 22 content requirements in rule is not appropriate.
We 23 believe the regulatory guide is an appropriate vehicle 24 in the early stages and we believe that working with 25 the staff we can develop such a guide on a non-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323RHODEISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6
- c
.: 4
'22 1
controversia1Lbasis.
2 We believe that topics that require 3
additional consideration are greater-than-Class-C low-4 level waste.
We feel that - may be a significant
^
5 problem unless-we can define it better on where to put 6
it, why to put it,- and whether the health and risk
'7 based methodologies for establishing that.
It has not 8
been evaluated in sufficient depth to make a decision 9
at this time.
Based on the calculated volumes, it 10 could require a second repository if it's not looked 11 at in a scientific method.
12 Other areas of concern are the definition of 13 anticipated processes and events, which I discussed 14
'before.
'We believe that we should be working on a 15 probablistic basis, not a deterministic basis in the 16 approach.
17
.other areas of concern are in the 18 application of repository criteria from 10 CFR 100, 19 Appendix A, which was originally identified for power 20 plants.
Some of the language is still defined in the 21 power plant area.
We think that from that standpoint 22 there should be an evaluation based on a geologic 23 repository to see what applies in Appendix A and what 24 does not and then a specific appendix associated with 25 the geologic repository.
We believe it would be more i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6
6 e
N 23 1
beneficial.
We also believe that the working with the 2
scientific community, the staff, the ACNW,.would allow 3
us to do that in the time period for license 4
application.-
i 5
The schedule for the licensing. support 6
system development, we believe a memorandum of j
i 7
understanding between the Department of Energy and NRC.
8 needs to be developed.
I'll make recommendations - to 9
the Secretary on the basis of documentary load versus 10 repository schedule as a significance in adapting the t
.11 LSS system.
We think that a memorandum of l
12 understanding between our mutual staffs will result in 13 a more aggressive approach to that'if you look at it i
14 on the basis of need, on-the basis of current 15 capability rather than schedule.
16 The other areas of concern,.we believe that i
17 on the basis of the scientific aspect of'this program,-
-i i
18 that the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste resources l
19 may not be sufficient to review the types of areas i
20 that we're looking at and we would look to the NRC and 21 its staff to give us advice in that area on whether or 1
22 not they feel that additional resources would be 23 necessary on the basis of what we discussed here this 24 afternoon.
~
25 The ACNW depends primarily on staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234.M33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600
_c 4
-24 v.
o.
1 briefings.
We believe that a more open dialogue 2
between the'various interested parties would be very 3
helpful as far as the Department of Energy is
-4 concerned-and DOE needs to provide separate and.
5 independent detailed briefings to the concerned 6
parties.
7 We believs that there are initiatives that 8
should be worked on from a collaborative standpoint.
9 There's a considerable amount of expertise in the 10 program and in view of the developmental nature of 11 this project, we believe that more input should come 12 from peer review, scientific community to establish t
13 criteria before rulemaking.
We need to:use collective-14
' program resources rather than proceeding on a 15 potentially divergent path and then finding out we 16 cannot achieve that criteria.
So, it is, in our 17 opinion, a mandatory need that we have more scientific 18 input before we get to a rulemaking process.
19 DOE proposes to use the experts from DOE, 20 NRC and other federal agencies, the nuclear industry, 21 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Advisory 22 Committee on Nuclear Waste, State and others to work 23 together.
And that, again, puts complexity in the 24 review of scientific data and could extend the program
)
25 if we did not have a coordinated method with the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 44:n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232M
25 1
to achieve that.
2 Concepts of establishing standards 3
committees in areas of uncertainty similar to the ANSI 4
Committee, the instrumentation' committees and 5
electrical code committees to review this with peer 6
experts with assignments, in our opinion would be-7 beneficial to narrowing down the uncertainties as we 8
approach the rulemaking position.-
This approach 9
allows for full advantage to be taken in-a 10 prelicensing consultation period.
11 Therefore, the Department asks the 12 Commission, as site characterization and other 13 elements of the repository program are implemented, to 14 evaluate this methodology.
We'd like to ' resolve 15 issues raised specifically in this presentation on a 16 scientific peer review basis.
We'd like to initiate a 17 collaborative interaction and~we ---as far as the MRS 18 and transportation strategies, to look at that from
'19 the standpoint of ensuring timely waste acceptance, 20 which is a major requirement for the Department of 21 Energy.
22 That is a formal statement.
I'll open up to 23 the Commission to evaluate our program.
24 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Remick?
l 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I have two questions, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIEERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 WD)
-26 1
Leo.
You mentioned what I'd say was an optimistic c
2 outlook on_the status of your QA programs..
IL think 3
that has been a continuing concern.
You did make the 4
statement, I believe, that you would not undertake any 5
characterization without'QA progr'am being in effect.
6 MR. DUFFY:
Right.
7 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But how about ---is it 8
limited just to characterization?
How do you stand in-
-9 other areas where you have been proceeding for a few 10 years and QA has been criticized?
11 MR. DUFFY:
I think there are two specific 12 areas, as I understand the situation.
Number one, we 13 do have now the audits of seven major out-of eight and 14 we-do understand what the ' deficiencies were in the 15 audit of LLNL.
Within our own organization, we are 16 implementing the guides that we have given to the 17 contractors.
We have no audited our own operation.
I 18 believe that's a significant deficiency on the 19 Department.
It was a strategy that was implemented.
20 I think it's a viable strategy to get the major 21 portion of the implementors qualified under the QA 22 program even though the Department itself has not had 23 an audit.
The work that is being done in the field is 24 now being done by qualified quality assurance s
.i 25 personnel.
We've trained over 1,000 people.
I hope I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) ZM 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6
27
.1 wasn't too optimistic in the aspect of addressing the t.-
2 program, but I think the implementors in the field are 3
_the key and we do have a methodology that we will 4
submit to you in January concerning all data that has 5
been acquired prior-to the quality assurance program 6
so that you can review that.
If it's not-7 satisfactory, then we can discuss that-dialogue and 8
see that we do have the satisfactory justification for
' *9 using any data that was achieved before quality 10 assurance. audits.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Another question.
I'm 12 not sure I understand.
You indicated that ACNW might 13 need more resources so they can entertain 14 presentations from the Department.
I can understand 15 if they're just hearing from the staff, but do you 16 request an opportunity to brief ACNW --
17 MR. DUFFY:
Yes.
and being turned 18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
19 down because they don't have adequate resources?
I'm 20 not sure I understand.
21 MR. DUFFY:
No, but if we look at it on the 22 collaborative basis that we discussed, which would 23 make more presentations available in areas of 24 uncertainty, which we feel there are quite a few, if 1
25 we go to the committee methodology of assigned NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6000
n 3
28~
r e-committees to look at-various points of the future, we 1
2 believe that the ACNW would be called upon _ more by 3
both us and the staff to receive presentations on 4
these criteria and give the Commission back an 5
. evaluation.
6 We think there are'very many areas that will 7
have to be : resolved as we get into the exploration
' i 8
operation.
We do not have the potential at the 9
present time on an iterative process, to. find 10 something.
What is the significance in the scientific 11 endeavor?
We will have other committees looking at 12 that and we hope that that will present to the staff i
13 and to the Advisory Committee a dilemma, an anomaly 14 that may, as we move this data forward, produce a 4
15 larger demand than in the past.
16 In the past, we've been looking at paper and 17 we will be looking at real time problems when we get 18 to the field type application.
That's why we believe 19 that's something to be considered.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
One other question.
I L
21
.know DOE has a history of an experience and you plan 22 in high-level waste of performing operational l
23 readiness reviews along the way, I
think of 24 characterization and construction and so forth.
Do 25 you feel that you adequately know what the Commission NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
p02) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6600 la
1 z
29 f
-1 might want. you to demonstrate at those ~ various hold 2
points or when you perform operational-readiness 3
review?
Are we providing any input of the type of l
4 things beyond ' what you might have identified that t
- 5 might-be helpful to the NRC and being satisfied at 6
that point that you're ready to proceed?
7 MR. DUFFY:
I think you have provided that, 4
8 but I think you've also asked for additional access to-9
'our laboratories on the basis of what we're doing.
10 I'm sure that on the basis of what you see and what we 11 can get into in exploratory ESF Title II-design,.that.
12 there will be more areas of interface, not necessarily 13 hold points, but evaluation points before proceeding 14 because I think we're both walking down a path of 15 potential unknown in this area and I do believe that:
16 there wi.11 probably be more-hold points than in the 17 past.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Well, I'm hoping.We've 19 learned from the --
20 MR. DUFFY:
Right.
21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
power reactor area.
22 Then along the way there's some things, hopefully, we 23 can do early on rather than waiting six, eight, ten 24 years and then having to go back and try to
,.j 25 reconstruct what took place.
I think that requires NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
0202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6600
t 30-1 both identification by DOE and by the NRC of the' type q
2 of things tha't should. be looked at at those hold 3
points'..
4 MR. DUFFY:
We believe that to be the case 5
Lalso..
One of the reasons why. we wanted a more up 6
front peer review and possibly contact with the ACNW 7
was to preserve the NRC's regulatory aspect while we 8
discussed the scientific points before our rulemaking 9
operation.
It's a fine line of perception more.than 10 distinction.
If we're working very close with the NRC 11 and we're making collaborative decisions, then there 12 can be some loss of objectivity, at least perceived by
").
13 the public, and we feel that there should be more 14 scientific discussion up front _that allows you to be a 15 regulator even though you are contributing to the 16 scientific criteria.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Roberts?
19 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
It's my impression, 20 and if it's a false or erroneous one in your opinion-21 I'd like for you to say so, but it's my impression 22 that in the past, at least, within the Department 'of 23
- Energy, the emphasis or reliance has been on the 24 geological site rather than the method of packaging or
)
25 encapsulation of high-level waste.
Would you comment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
l (202) 2m WASHINGTON D.C.20006 (202) 232-6600
31
.c 1
on that?
2 MR. DUFFY:
I can't comment specifically on 3
the basis that that has been the strategy.
I believe 4
we.were working in parallel ' on' that.
I believe the 5
initial concept of geologic repository was ' to rely o
6 strictly on the site characteristics - as _the primary 7
barrier _ that may or may not have influenced the l
r 8
. judgment.on the aspect of canister design, air gap ~or 9
other auxiliary barriers.
But that has been the 10 demonstration qualification of a geologic site.
You 11 have to look at is it satisfactory from a geological 12
- repository standpoint on its own.
It may have given 13 then an unjustified perception that we're working only _
14 on the site, but we are working on. canister design, we 15 are working on refueling design, we are working on 16 transportation design.
l 17 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Well, that leads to 18 my follow-up question.
On page-14, 3.2.3, does that 19 represent any change in the Department's emphasis or 20 direction?
21 MR. DUFFY:
From the aspect of --
l 22 MR. PETERS:
In the oral testimony, I think.
23 MR. DUFFY:
Yes, I have it here.
I just 24 didn't have it to that point.
25 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I'm sorry.
I'm l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANGCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600
- f
4, 1
looking at your handout.
a
'2 MR. DUFFY:
Yes.
I was looking.
Do you 3
have it'there?
4 Yes, that is, I think, a modification in our 5
strategy, yes,
- sir, that the air gap between a 6
canister would be an additional barrier between the 7
geologic repository and would give. us the capability 8
for going for greater than 1,000 years.
9 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Who coined the cutsie 10 phrase " pondering the imponderable?"
11 MR.
DUFFY:
It's not mine, so I can't 12 guarantee it, but I'm sure somebody used it before us.
13 I don't think it's an original by the Department of 14
. Energy.
15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
That's all I have.
16 CHAIRMAN CARR-:
Commissioner Rogers?
17 COMMISSIONER ROG,ERS:
Just on that same 18 subject, do you have any idea of what you're thi,nking 19 about with respect to the greater than 1,000 years?
20 MR. DUFFY:
In time element?
No.
I think 21 that's one of the things that we would like to iterate 22 on with the scientific community, what is a reasonable 23 probablistic time frame that we can justify rather 24 than identifying 1,000 years, which I don't think has
)
25 any significant scientific merit either.
So, from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600
f 33 s -
1 that-standpoint, iterating on 1,000 years without a
.)
2 base for the thousand is a questionable way to do 3
business.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, it's just.a 1
5 scale.
6 MR. DUFFY:- Yes.
Right.
l 7
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It's like an inch l
l 8
in --
9 MR. DUFFY:
Right.
If it's good on a semi-10 log or log-log scale.
Othe'r than that, it's divisible I
11 by 2, 4,
and 8.
1 l
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Well, some of i
l 13 these numbers, it's hard to see where'they ever came i
14 from, scientifically anyhow.
15 MR. DUFFY:
That's right.
I think that's
=)
16 the major point that we would like to bring to the 17 Commission today.
We believe that there will be 18 scientific bases that we can establish as criteria for i
19 rulemaking.
There will be iterative processes that we 20 believe that we will find as a result of a broader 21 cross section with the community and,as we get the 22 site characterization,
'wh a t we will find will 23 probably be anomalies more than it will be definitive 24 parameters.
On that basis, we think that there's a 25 lot of dialogue necessary in this program to assure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
S.
34 S#
~1 the citizens of the country that we.'re not going down
'2 a - path to achieve a need rather than a scientific 3
evaluation.-
4 COMMIS SIONER. ROGERS :
There may' be 5
difficulties closing that process.
6 MR. DUFFY:
Yes, sir, and that is one of the 7.
reasons why we see the need for the extension, so that 8
we're not driven by a need or driven by a schedule, 9
that we're driven by a valid scientific evaluation.
L 10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just looking at some 1
11 of your old dates and.new dates, I noted that on an 12
'old schedule you were to start the exploratory shaft 13 facility in 11/89 --
14 MR. DUFFY:
Yes, sir.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
and the license 16 application in 1995.
And your new schedule calls for 17 the start of the ESF in 11/92, and license application 18 in 2001.
Now that's a 50 percent increase in the
-19 time--
20 MR. DUFFY:
Yes, sir.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-- between those two.
22 Is that just to give yourself more flexibility, or is 23 there something that you actually have identified as 24 requiring --
)
25 MR. DUFFY:
Well, when we did the bottoms-up NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) k34 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6 j
1
- on. the basis-of the 15,000 data points,- we - had time-i A-.
2 elements that we felt are realistic and on the 3
conservative side, rather than arbitrary and on the f
4 accelerated side.
I think. we could supply you with 5
which ones were the determining path on the'subnetwork i
6 schedules that we have, different from the ones you've--
7 seen.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, any single or 9
large one, or whether it's a collection of --
10 MR. DUFFY:
I think it's a collection.
11 MR. STEIN:-
In-situ testing, essentially.
12 MR. DUFFY:
We're looking at, well, from the l
i 1
13 standpoint if we went to the two mile ramp and-the 14 reverse boring operation and the various segments.
As 15 we find things it gives us a broader area that 16 evaluates the acceptability of site, but it's also 17 giving us a significant. increase in the amount of area
- 1. 8 that we have to characterize.
We're going to have a 19 two mile ramp and a reverse bored shaft.
.A two mile 20 ramp is a significant -- we've asked for additional 21 drifts.
In fact, the TRB was very pointed in looking 22 at the more drifts you look at the better 23 understanding you have of the site.
24 So from the scientific characterization
.)
25 standpoint, we're going to have a hell of a lot more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6800
c c
q- -
'36; 1
data to'look at.. We got a lot of data to-.look at<now f,.
-2 with relationship to 300 bore holes and --
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But this new schedule, 1
1 E4 though,..it does assume that.you're going to --
1 5
MR. DUFFY:
Yes, sir.
l
.6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-- use a ramp for one 7
of the --
)
8 MR. DUFFY:
Well, we're looking at that.
As
- 9 you see on the schedule, we had the exploratory shaft 1
t 10 alternatives evaluation.
We are looking at that at
)
i 11 the-present time, and we'll have that as evaluation in l
12 the later part of
'90.
i 13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just turning-to 14 another item of interest to us, have you thought not 15 only about the schedule for the LSS that might be 16 modified, but what kind of resources are required in l
17 the near term for that?
s 1
(
18 MR. DUFFY:
We have, but we would like to 19 discuss that prior to the memorandum of understanding 20 to assure ourselves that we haven't biasly locked into 21 a methodology that you disagree with.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Do you have a schedule l -.
23 for discussing that with NRC staff?
l 24 MR. DUFFY:
We have a letter from you to us, 25 and the response back will request a meeting to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
(
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)234g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
D 1
discuss the-purpose of a memorandum of understanding.
2
.The Secretary was very interested in getting that 3
resolved, because there was a difference of opinion 4
there.
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Right.
Okay.-
. Very:
6 good.
I'm going to ask.one that's maybe 'a little 7
difficult.
8 MR. DUFFY:
I don't think we have any that 9
are easy.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I think you're used to 11 those.
But just in looking at the whole -- this whole 12 history of this kind of an effort, and -hearing from 13 the state utility boards and their concerns about some 14 of these things more than $5 billion has been 15 collected in fees from utilities over the years 16 towards a repository, and more - than $2 billion have 17 been expended of that to date, and of course there's a 18 great deal of groaning and moaning about that -- but I 19 wonder is there anything positive that you can say 20 with respect to those expenditures that in a sense 21 will be useful for really useful for the 22 repository, whether it is Yucca Mountain or not Yucca 23 Mountain?
24 MR.
DUFFY:
I definitely think that's the s ';
25 case.
I think the Secretary has been in exceptional NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4CD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 W) 2326
m~
~I 38 w
1 dialogue with. the utilities ' and the public utility 2
commissions over the last four months on that 3
expenditure.
I think $1.2 billion war identified 'as 4
expenditures on programs other than Yv.cca Mountain, 5
which were not under the control of the present' group.
6 But the methodologies, certainly in respect 7
to BWIP, identify the need for improved control and 8
custody of corings, core samples, dialogue with the r
9 laboratories on the methodology.
There were 10 considerable packaging methodologies that were 11 examined so that we could take cores.
As I remember, 12 the latest design on that is a package that will
)
13 contain the existing moisture for 50 years, that we 1.4 could go back and retrace the cores.
15 If you look at the methodology for dry core
~16
- boring, if you look at the vacuum extraction 17 operation, can I justify $2 billion expenditure on the 18 basis of all the positive aspects?
I don't think so.
19 I don't think I would even attempt to try.
But of the 20 last $700 million, the majority of that has been 21 identified in the transportation operation, in the 22 canister design, refueling cask operation, handling 23 operation, emergency plans operation.
So there is 24 certainly beneficial operation, but I think you'd get 25 a wide variance in the audience's opinion on whether NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6000
gg,
c 39 i,,
1 or not we speit it effectively.
2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Is there any -- have l
3 you produced a piece of paper on that that puts some 1
4 of these things down?
5 MR. DUFFY:
Yes, sir.
We have a tabulation 6
of what was spent.
That has been given to the 7
Secretary.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Just in terms of 9
what is generally useful that can be used regardless 10 of how we go in the future --
11 MR. DUFFY:
Ralph?
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
things that are 13 not--
14 MR. STEIN:
We have spent a great deal of 15 time looking at our expenditures in the past and what 16 they have gone for.
We have, for example -- I believe 17 that we have, with the expenditures in the past, 18 referring back to Mr. Duffy's comments that we can't i
19 account for the $2 billion plus in detail, but we can 20 say that those expenditures have resulted in what we l
21 believe is a strong technical and scientific basis for 22 the repository leading to the Site Characterization 23 Plan, which is a document I think that everybody will 24 agree is rather comprehensive in nature and does 4.
25 describe the program that I think that we need to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202)232 4000 l
y-40 1
implement in the scientific investigation of site.
2 We have established a really -- what we feel 3
is a quite incredible MRS program, which requires a 4
number of studies, an extensive amount of studies.
5 Looking into the future, we will have established a 6
very credible -- what we believe is a transportation 7
program, altogether an integrated program.
It's money 8
that may be challenged, the expenditure of it, but 9
nev+rtheless one needs to do a lot of these things in 10 order to be able to decide where we go from here.
11 MR.
DUFFY:
I think we show a positive l
12
_ aspect to a lot of the expenditure, but I don't think 13 we could detail a justification.
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Thank you.
15 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I've got a number of 16 questions that I guess I'd like to pursue.
We've just 17 gotten your detailed statement.
Haven't had a chance 18 to take a careful look at it, but let me just sort of 19 go down them in no particular ordar.
20 You're going to spend a couple of additional 21 years now on surface-based testing?
22 MR.
DUFFY:
We're going to surface 23 characterization testing for the two to three year 24 period while we're in Title II design, yes, sir.
)
25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Could you expand upon NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(302) 236 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232 0000
m 41 o
I how you intend to integrate the surface-based testing 2
into the Site Characterization Program?
~
t 3
MR.
DUFFY:
- Yes, sir.
In the Site 4
Characterization Program, what we're doing ac the 5
present time, and it's in the site Characterization 6
- Plan, is we're prioritizing what was initially 7
anticipated to be done after the start of exploratory 8
shaft into the up-front to see that we are doing the J
9 right priority with respect to ground water intrusion, 10 with respect to vulcanism, which we think can be i
11 easily identified as whether it's recent or ancient in 12 relationship to eras.
And the other aspect of the 13 trench application, 1,500 feet, 48 feet deep, X number 14 of feet wide, where they're going to be, what faults i
15 are going to be looked at, that is reprogrammed, 16 rescheduled, and reprioritized.
17 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
So the work 18 that you're going to do is covered already in the SCP.
19 MR. DUFFY:
Yes, sir,.
20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
And it doesn't--
21 it's just going to get shuffled around --
22 MR. DUFFY:
Right.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
-- and done up front.
24 MR. DUFFY:
Initially, I think this -- you i
25
- know,
.his decision was a recent decision on our part.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) EM 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4000
42 1
It's been identified in the past by both your
)
2 Technical Review Board and the state of Nevada as what 3
they felt was an early methodology for finding site 4
disqualification in view of the potential for faults.
5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
- Well, I certainly 6
think it makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of 7
focusing on the disqu;1afying conditions that might 8
exist.
9 Let me turn to your testimony that begins 10 really on the regulatory process.
It starts on page 11 11.
I've got a number of questions past from a quick 12 once-over that I'd like to ask you about now--
13 prepared to address them.
We'll follow up on them.
14 Beginning with the question that 15 Commissioner Roberts raised, on page 14, with the i
16 engineered barriers, -really I have two questions.
17 One, you indicated that's an evolution or a change in l
18 the Department's position from the standpoint of 19 reliance that you're going to place on the engineered i
20 barrier vis a vis the repository, i
21 MR. DUFFY:
Well, I don't think it's I
22 wouldn't exactly state it in that manner.
There may 23 be a question.
1 24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
State it the way you t
i 25 would state it.
NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6
r
?
43
?
1 MR. DUFFY:
Okay.
We still rely primarily 2
on the geologic site.
I mean, that has not changed.
3 What we're saying is that the credit that was taken in 4
the past by, I
- think, Commissioner Roberts' 5
identification and perception at least --
6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Right.
7 MR. DUFFY:
that the Department was not 8
looking at the engineered barrier as an additional 9
part of the total systematic capability of the 10 repository.
What we're saying is we think that should 11 be explored in greater depth.
And from that 12 standpoint, the barrier offers another retardant to 13 any release type operation.
14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Do you intend to, 15 beyond the 1,000 year period that you read the current 16 regulations as limiting you to, do you intend in I
I l
17 looking at container performance to seek out a l
13 container that would give you the maximum protection 1
l 19 and seek reliance on that, or is there -- give me some I
20 feel of whether we're talking 1,000 years or a 21 million.
22 MR. DUFFY:
Frank wants to take a shot at 1
23 that.
1 24 MR.
PETERS:
We're developing a strategy
.)
i 25 which will include long-life waste packages to help in NEAL R. GRbSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)2:4 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6000
7-1 44 1
1 this particular area.
2 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
- Well, how much j
3 further than 1,000 years are we talking about?
There i
i 4
are a lot of forms out there.
5 MR. PETERS:
It's premature to really answer 6
that.
'l 7
MR. DUFFY:
I think, again, we're going back 1
8 to the deterministic versus probablistic situation.
1 9
We would present a
scientific evaluation on a 10 probablistic basis on what additional container design 1
11 would give us with regard to confidence level on 12 leakage with regard to the pH, the water 13 concentration, and the specifics of the site we 14 selected.
Okay?
So that is the probablistic 15 standpoint.
16 The deterministic standpoint would say, 17 based on this failure dite to corrosion we might be 18 able to get another 250 years because this pH is less 19 than we anticipated or the water concentration is not 20 as great as we expected or we're going to use a 21 different material.
22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
The second 23 question on that subject, you note
- that, as I 24 mentioned, that you read the current regulations as 25 limiting you to a package life of 1,000 years, and you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
( g ) m.4600
45 I
would like that changed or modified in some way so as 2
to permit you to take credit for a container that goes j
3 beyond 1,000 years.
We've talked about that subject 4
here in earlier briefings and it's a concept that I'm 5
not unsympathetic to.
I'm just curious to know, from 6
your standpoint, what do you mean by taking credit?
7 Less groundwater travel time or greater confidence or 8
margin?
9 MR. DUFFY:
If it comes out to a balance 10 between equals, that might be one of the aspects.
If 11 we find a deterministic point that says we have a i
12 different matrix structure and flow, then the design 13 of the canister may compensate for that.
It may stay 14 at 1,000 or it may, if we find a better matrix, give 15 us the capability to say that it is a longer period of i
16 time.
So it has both sides, and that's why we wanted 17 to get into the scientific dialogue to see what areas 18 we shoul'd be looking at in the test program to I
19 evaluate whether or not we can use the extended time 20 period in the container.
21 I
think in the Swedish characteristic 22 evaluation they used the container as a major 23 retardant, and so looking at that it has its 24 advantages.
25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
And your current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCrilBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6000
s.
46 4
1 reading is that Part 60 would have to be modified to 2
permit you to take that credit?
3 MR. DUFFY:
We think so, yes.
4 MR. STEIN:
Well, there is another approach 5
too, in addition to modifying it.
There are parts of 6
Part 60 that talk about that we could come back to the 7
Commission with additional information and seek credit 8
for a container beyond 1,000 years.
There needs to be 9
some further amplification of that.
There have been 10 discussions between DOE and the NRC staff as to ways 11 that we might get a greater confidence from the NRC 12 that containers that were built to designed and
-)
13 hopefully could perform greater than 1,000 years would 14 be given credit, whatever we want to define credit as.
15 Certainly credit, in one way of defining it, is that 16 it gives added confidence that we're isolating the 17 waste beyond 1,000 years, l-18 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
Let me jump 19 back up on page 14, because there was a statement l
l 20 there that intrigued me under 3.2.2, last sentence, i
l 1
l-21 "In addition, the Department suggests that certain 22 regulatory requirements that may be overly restrictive 23 and conservative when compared to the EPA standard, I
24 such as the subsystem performance objectives, be made l
)
25 regulatory guidance instead."
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
]
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6000
47 1
I guess I'd like your view or what you mean 2
by that statement.
What in particular are you looking 3
at in the subsystem performance criteria that in your 4
judgement suggests that that set of criteria may lead i
5 to a more restrictive result than the EPA standard l
6 contemplates?
7 MR.
STEIN:
One example of a restrictive 8
statement is the 1,000 year groundwater travel time 9
that is in the regulation.
What we really need a 10 focus on, I believe, is total system performance.
And 11 I think that that's, at least in my perspective -- if 12 we can demonstrate total system performance for the L
13 repository and demonstrate compliance with the EPA 14 standard whenever it appears again,
.I think that we l
l 15 will demonstrate that the repository is satisfactory, 16 whether or not 1,000 year groundwater travel time is I
17 achieved.
18 It's really the total system performance 19 that is important, and not just the fact that we have 20 1,000 year groundwater travel time.
If you had 21 something other than 1,000 year groundwater travel 1
22
- time, but it really ended up that you weren't 23 releasing any radionuclides to the accessible 24 environment, that to me is demonstrating that the
).
25 repository is satisfactory.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(M) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (M) 232 4000
48 o
1 COMMISSIONER CURTISSi You've essentially 2
got that framework in the WIPP proceeding --
3 MR. STEIN:
Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
where you've got
.5 the EPA standard, but you don't have the subsystem 6
performance criteria.
Could you give us maybe your 7
thoughts on --
8 MR. DUFFY:
In the WIPP standard and in the 9
WIPP operation, what we've found is we have less 10 permeability than we had anticipated.
That's a very 11 positive aspect from a sealant standpoint.
12 The aspect of the closure rate.
The closure 13 rate is a more rapid closure rate than had been 14 anticipated by a factor of two.
That's also a 15 positive from a standpoint of closure.
It's a 16 negative from the standpoint of lifetime of the 17 facility and the maintenance operation.
18 If we look, then, at the gas generation, an 19 uncertain portion that's going to be developed during 20 the five year test program, we have taken the most 21 conservative generation of gas with respect to the 22 container, with respect to the internals to the 23 container, with respect to radiolysis, with respect to 24 microorganism interaction.
And so on the basis of 1
25 that, if you take the permeability to be the least and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(302) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C,20006 (g)g g
7
.I i
49 1
the gas generation to be the most, you have an
)
r 2
accident condition.
3 If you take a gas generation and find out, 4
in the case of what Ralph indicated, the hydrology 5
difference and the permeability difference, they may 6
compensate.
And so you now have an iterative procers 7
wherein the present systematic approach is a
8 definitive process.
But we need to iterate on the 9
characteristics of the existing site, rather than on a 10 deterministic methodology.
11 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
What you're proposing 12 here and I'd like to read this more carefully--
13 but what you are proposing in this body, talking about 14 the regulatory framework, is that in some respects we 15 need to add things to our regulation.
For example, 16 the petition that you're going to file here with us 17 shortly on the 5 millirem EDE --
18 MR. DUFFY:
Five rem.
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Five rem, excuse me.
20 In some respects, you're proposing, such as 21 the engineered barrier, that we need to go back in and 22 either through the language that Ralph referred to 23 find some way to accommodate a container that would 24 last beyond 1,000 years or amend the regulations.
25 MR. DUFFY:
I think one of the things we're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6000
[
^
L f,,.
50 1
asking for is an up-front evaluation period and 1
2 dialogue before rulemaking, so that we have the L
3 capability during the exploratory scientific aspect to 4
determine whether that's achievable.
r 5
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
That's what I'm 6
trying to get a feel for.
On the rulemakings that 7
focus on the uncertainties, I
take it you're 8
suggesting that we ought to slow down to permit what 9
you called the " iterative process" to move forward and 10 allow the kind of flexibility that you've described as 11 you get into characterizing the site.
12 MR. DUFFY:
Where that additional scientific 13 input from peer groups or other groups, international 14 community, has questions, that we resolve this as part 15 of the experimental performance assesement before we 16 make a rulemaking.
17 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
In this area, 18 the one that has to do with the relationship of the 19 Commission's Part 60 criteria to the EPA standards, 20 just a point of clarification.
Are you proposing that 21 that issue needs to be addressed by the Commission in 22 the fairly near future because the regulations as 23 they're currently written prescribe more than we need 24 to prescribe to meet the EPA standard?
Are you
}
25 suggesting that we need to move forward in that area NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) M WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6000
f i
r 51 1
now?
2 MR.
STEIN:
- First, relative to the EPA 3
standard, one of our suggestions is that we defer--
4 hopefully, NRC will defer any rulemaking action until 5
we see the standard, because we have the potential of 6
having two separate regulatory documents out in the i
7 public --
8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Right.
9 MR. STEIN:
if NRC were to go ahead now i
10 and based on some interpretation put out a revised 11 Part 60 and then EPA comes out with its standard, 12 revised standard.
So we could have real conflict.
' 'i 13 So we're asking that you consider holding 14 off on putting any -- doing any rulemaking relative to 15 the EPA standard at this point in time.
16 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Even if that's as l-17 long as three or four years to get the EPA standard i
18 out?
19 MR.
STEIN:
I don't see where that would 20 have an impact on our program, l
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
22 MR. DUFFY:
We'll be looking at --
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
So there's no 1
1 24 immediate impact if we would defer our conforming i
)
l 25 rulemaking for a period of what, four or five years?
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202)232 6
A.
52 1
MR.
STEIN:
Well, EPA is projecting two 2
years.
3 COMMISSIONER CUTTISS:
I understand that.
4 MR. DUFFY:
I put it in your time period.
5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let me ask one 6
question on the EPA standard.
Mr.
- Duffy, you 7
indicated that you thought the EPA standard is a first 8
of a kind standard and should be scientifically based.
9 MR. DUFFY:
Right.
10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Is it your assessment 11 today that that's where EPA is, or is that a 12 suggestion that we ought to reexamine -- EPA ought to 13 reexamine that issue?
1,4 MR. DUFFY:
I think -- well, I hate to be 15 more definitive than what I already said.
I think we 16 need to look at the scientific basis for some of our 17 decisions.
I'm not sure that that is done in depth at 18 the present time.
I think there are some 19 deterministic criteria that we reevaluate from a risk-20 based standpoint, from a health standpoint, and from 21 an achievability standpoint, and an economic 22 standpoint, safety being number one with regard to 23 health, and establish a risk-based analysis that can 24 be justified.
I don't think that exists at the 1
25 present time.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
135 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) m WASHINTf0N. D.C. 20006 (g)mm
53 i
1 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
I guess I just i
I 2
have two more questions.
On the suggestion that we 3
beef up the ACNW, could you expand upon what you see 4
as the relative roles of the ACNW and the Technical 5
Review Board in terms of what they provide you as 6
independent organizations?
What are --
7 MR. DUFFY:
I haven't had the direct -- only 8
from the discussions I've had with the people in the 9
project.
I'll give you what my impression was, that 10 the ACNW advises you and staff.
In the aspect of 11 dialogue, as they need our input they would ask for 12 it.
It's not on the basis of we have access to give 13 more than what they think is needed.
That may not be 14 a clear definition.
15 But in the future, we would expect to have 16 more access to present the technical justifications 17 for some of our positions in concert with the staff 18 and the ACNW.
And as we get into these areas of 19 uncertainty, we feel that there may be more dialogue 20 required than we've had in the past.
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
22 MR. DUFFY:
Is that an accurate portrayal?
23 MR. STEIN:
Yes, I think it's accurate.
I 24 do think, though, that they do offer one additional 25 characteristic, as opposed to the Technical Review NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPoRTEaS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(Hgt) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6000
L,
54~
e:
1 Board.
And that is that they have a regulatory 2
perspective.
They're scientists and they're 3
regulatory perspective.
The Technical Review Board, 4
very competent people, they're not focused as much on 5
the regulatory side of things as the ACNW is.
6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
One final 7
question on the LSS.
Do you have a feel, based upon 8
your latest schedule, as to when you think it would be 9
appropriate to begin loading documents into the 10 system?
11 MR. DUFFY:
I think we have a feel, based on 12 the statistics of the documents we have available.
We
- g 13 have, what, 1,300,000 pages, and the new office has 14 1,100,000 pages of documents ready for loading.
It's 15 a systematic methodology versus the hardware that.
16 we're talking about, whether or not the hardware is 17 the key or whether the system for documentation on 18 existing hardware is compatible to future hardware.
19 We do have a time table.
I think there's a further 20 dialogue required within the Department of Energy 21 before we come to a memorandum of understanding with 22 the NRC.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
As to exactly when 24 documents ought to be loaded into the system, okay,
)
25 we'll wait to hear.
Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C,20006 (202) 232 4000
m L
i 55 1
MR. DUFFY:
That was a key discussion that
)
2 we had.
3 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
Thank you.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I don't think you 5
should be reluctant to suggest the ACNW.
If you want 6
to participate, make presentations, I would assume 7
they would welcome it.
One of the functions of 'a 8
committee like that sometimes is getting staff and 9
applicants together and hearing both sides and 10 sometimes making helpful suggestions.
I doubt very j
11 much that they'd be reluctant to have you.
12 MR. DUFFY:
I think one of the things that i
13 we're looking at in the recommendation is based on the 14 future need it may be an overload situation if we get l
l 15 into what I consider the characterization portion, 16 which has a lot of data associated with it.
They are L
17 your advisory group.
And from that standpoint, any 18 more loading we put on them takes away from their i
19 ability to advise you.
So that's why we looked at it l
20 in anticipation of an increased load.
~
l 1
l 21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
That's all I have, 22 Ken.
23 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I'm surprised that you think 24 greater-than-Class -C waste is a problem.
,,,.)
25 MR. STEIN:
Why do you think that?
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
l.
(gog)m WASH;NGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6000 i
i
p-L.
L 56 1
CHAIRMAN CARR:
My impression was there was 2
going to be a minor little corner of the repository--
3 MR. DUFFY:
I haven't seen it defined in 4
volume yet, but from what I identified in potential, 5
it could be the potential' for long-term burn-up fuel 6
with structural capability that has to be taken.
We 7
haven't seen a reasonable volume.
8 You don't understand-that?
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
No.
Give me a tell me 10 what you're thinking of that I don't know about.
11 M P..
DUFFY:
- Well, the first thing we're 12 thinking about, the small --
13 CHAIRMAN CARR:
We made a big study of how 14 much greater-than-Class-C waste there was out there, 15 didn't we?
I 16 MR. DUFFY:
No, not as far as I know.
t l
17 MR.
STEIN:
The answer is that we made a i
18 study, not a detailed or extensive or necessarily an 19 accurate study.
But we made a judgement, and we had a l
l 20 lot of caveats in our --
21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
But all studies are detailed 1
22 and necessary and accurate.
23 MR. STEIN:
By definition.
24 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I thought that's why we made i
'l 25
-them.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBt!RS
~
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6000
Jy 5
57 i
1 MR. DUFFY:
The terminology that we had with 2
regard to greater-than-Class-C, I've seen as much as a 3
second repository required to handle greater-than-4 Class-C.
From the standpoint from maybe you 5
haven't seen that study, i
6 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I haven't seen it.
If l
7 you've got it, I sure need to see it, t
8 MR. DUFFY:
And then, we've seen the ones on 9
the --
i 10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Will you send it over?
11 MR. DUFFY:
greater-than-Class-C that 12 have immediate need which we can handle within the i
13 Department's operation on pins, on sources, and things 14 of that nature.
So, two different approaches to the 15 need for greater-than-Class-C.
We think we need to go 16 back, take a look at that, take a look at the detailed 17 projections and see whether or not we do need a second 18 repository, t
19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I request that you would 20 send us whatever you've got on Class C we don't know 21 about, because obviously you know something we don't 22 know.
23 MR. DUFFY:
I'm not sure.
That may be the 24 case.
We may have different information that you
)
25 don't think is reliable.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBF"S 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6
c.-
7 1
c 58 1
CHAIRMAN CARR:
That's hard to believe.
2 I'm a little concerned, I guess, about your 3
collaboration idea.
You know, we like to think we're 4
going to be independent from you.
You've got to 5
design it and build it, and we're going to license it.
6 MR. DUFFY:
- Right, i.
7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I don't want to get'in bed 8
with you and say, you know, this.is the way we're
[
9 going to do it.
That takes away my independent look 10 at it.
How far do you want that collaboration to go?
11 MR. DUFFY:
I tried to make that point in my 12 presentation, that we looked at that as a very i
13 sensitive area and that's why we wanted to have more 14 peer review before rulemaking, so that when we did 15 come up with a rulemaking that it was defined as an 16 acceptable process.
We don't want to jeopardize the 17 NRC's --
18 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I guess I'd go so far as to 19 say we'll be happy to tell you when we think you're 20 heading into trouble.
21 MR. DUFFY:
I'm sure that that's the case.
22 We just thought we needed more dialogue on what your 23 definition of trouble was.
24 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I guess my concern on
/
i 25 waiting for rulemaking is it sounds -- if you look at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 e000
t i
I o
59 s 7 1
-all this together, it looks like we're going to wait 2
and make the rules to fit the site.
'l t
3 MR. DUFFY:
There may be some areas that we l
4 think that would be an advisable opportunity, but we 5
don't think that's the general trend.
6 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I have a little problem with 7
that, I think.
We'd like to think we can make the 8
rules fit public health and safety and some site has 9
to fit those rules.
10 MR. DUFFY:
Right.
We think the same thing.
11 I think that's what we identified as our first rule of 12 concern was safety.
)
13 CHAIRMAN CARR:
As far as a realistic 14 schedule, which you've now come out with, I have a 15 little bit of problem with that, because I'm not sure 16 you've allowed enough time for suit settlement and 17 site access.
18 MR. DUFFY:
That may be the case.
19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
About a year in there, i
20 right?
21 MR. DUFFY:
We had --
l 22 CHAIRMAN CARR:
And you haven't filed the 23 suit yet.
24 MR. DUFFY:
We had discussions with --
)
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Your lawyers are better than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6
o 61
'C 1
MR. DUFFY:
I don't think it's a day for day l
2 slip.
I think we have capability, but we can't do 3
disruptive activities on site.
It's pretty close to a 4
day for day
- slip, though, in the surface 5
characterization past '91.
6 MR. PETERS:
That's correct.
When you get 7
to the exploratory shaft, we have some flexibility 8
beyond a year before it begins to impact us, and we 9
see that as critical path, essentially, for site 10 characterization.
11 MR.
GERTZ:
Exploratory shaft is the 12 critical path for site characterization right now.
We-13 have the two years of surf ace-based testing until we 14 get up to that point of starting the exploratory l-15 shaft.
That provides some opportunity for i
16 flexibility.
l 17 MR. DUFFY:
Yes.
I think the key from a 18 schedule standpoint is if we did find a disqualifying 19
' characteristic, the sooner we find it the sooner we 20 are looking at the next site for evaluation.
So that
^
21 aspect of the schedule I think is very important.
22 CHAIRMAN CARR:
You're going to continue 23 designing the ESF, though?
24 MR. DUFFY:
Yes, sir.
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
You don't know yet where NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6000
62 4
1 we're going to put it, I guess?
2 MR.
DUFFY:
We're going to continue to 3
design it, starting on the schedule which shows we're 4
going to have a restart in '91 -- '92.
5 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Maybe I better look at the 6
chart.
7 MR. DUFFY:
The chart says that we stop the 8
exploratory shaft Title II until we completed the 9
alternative evaluation, and then we restart the Title 10 II operation.
11 CHAIRMAN CARR:
But doesn't it indicate the 12 design goes on?
13 MR. DUFFY:
It says evaluation and design.
i 14 MR.
PETERS:
There' are two components to 15 that.
That's a little bit confusing.
16 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Design is going to stop.
17 MR.
DUFFY:
The design of Title II has 18 stopped.
19 MR.
PETERS:
Yes.
The design that was 20 ongoing previously has stopped.
We are now evaluating 21 the new alternatives and we're going to restart again 22 at the appropriate --
23 MR. DUFFY:
The question that was raised to 24 assure we continue with the two shaft design versus 25 the ramp shaft design.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) EM 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 232M o
63 e
1 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
Go over with me once 2
more about standardized casks for shipping and 3
storage.
4 MR. DUFFY:
There are casks that have that 5
capability at the present time, but have not been 6
requested for license.
7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
You know, it seems to me 8
that the design of the cask is either going to control 9
some of the repository design or visa-versa.
But out 10 there we've got plants who are trying to do something 11 with casks and it seems to me it would be a lot 12 smarter if they only did one thing and they had a cask 13 with the fuel stored in it that they could. send to i
14 your MRS and you could send to the repository and j
i 15 store.
16 MR. DUFFY:
That may be the case unless we 17 looked at it from the standpoint of the number of 18 times you have to handle the fuel utility at the 19 present time.
If you take it out of the fuel pool and 20 put it in a concrete canister, put it out on the pad, 21 bring it back into the fuel pool and unload it, if the 22 time schedule were such that we could have an MRS at a 23 given time period, it would reduce the amount of 24 handling to get the earliest fuel to the MRS with a i
25 minimum amount of handling and a minimum number of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232M
4 l
0 64 e
1 casks.
I 2
CHAIRMAN CARR:
But if they take it out of 3
their pool and store it in the cask, that you can then j
4
.take to the MRS and then take to the repository, that j
l 5
would solve all the problems, wouldn't it?
6 MR. PETERS:
Single cask would.
r 7
MR.
DUFFY:
A single cask would, but a 8
single cask might be very expensive and those are the 9
kind of things that we're looking at right now.
As a 10 matter of fact, we have a five cask program going on 11 for storage.
One of those casks I know of had 12 original design for both storage and shipment.
It has 13 not been asked for licensing on the shipment portion.
14 It's only been asked for licensing on the storage 15 portion, certification on the shipping, license for 16 the storage.
17 MR. STEI.N:
I think there's two elemento of 18 the issue at this point.
One is that there are a 19 number of utilities that I believe will need to have 20 some interim storage capability.
21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Already do.
22 MR. STEIN:
Already do.
And --
23 CHAIRMAN CARR:
The longer we wait, the more 24 there will be.
25 MR.
STEIN:
Exactly.
And some of those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6000
65 e-1 utilities have already decided on a way to dry store 2
their spent fuel.
Some are storing them on casks that I
3 are just on the site which are not transportable 1
4 casks.
Some are storing them in a facility where they 5
actually move from the pool with a cask to that 6
facility on their site.
Thoee dif f arent designs are 7
really the designs that we hope would someday be 8
brought into a standard design.
There have been lots
'l 9
of discussion that the Commission has had in the past 10 on a standard design for those --
11 CHAIRMAN CARR:
But you realize if you 12 decided on a design, they'd all use it today because i
13 that saves a lot of time and effort and money.
i i
14 MR.
STEIN:
- But, you see, that's their l
l l
15 decision.
That again is their decision.
l 16 CHAIRMAN CARR:
It's really not their 17 decision because there's no design that you've decided 1
18 on.
19 MR. STEIN:
But our design --
20 MR, DUFFY:
- Yes, but we do have a test 21 program to come up with a design by '92, which in our 22 operation meets the '98 criteria for receipt of fuel.
23 We have multiple designs being tested at Idaho at the 24 present time --
't 25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
You've got my point NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(gar) m WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6000 I
66 o-1 anyway.
l 2
In your judgment, if you get a negtciated 3
site, doesn't that eliminate that linkage?
4 MR. PETERS:
Not automatically.
5 MR. DUFFY:
Not by law, t
6 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I thought it did.
7 MR. PETERS:
It permits the negotiator to go 8
back to Congress --
9 MR. DUFFY:
Right.
10 MR. PETERS:
-- to seek --
11 MR.
DUFFY:
It's a different way of 12 disrupting the linkage.
He has to go back and say he s
13 has a negotiated site and then they have to change-the 14 law which present2y identifies --
15 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I thought it allowed them--
16 I thought the linkage only tied in if it wasn't a 17 negotiated site.
That's the way I read it.
18 MR. DUFFY:
I don't think that --
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
It's not our 20 understanding.
21 MR.
DUFFY:
It's not our understanding, 22 but --
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
The site has to be l
24 authorized by Congress.
25 MR. DUFFY:
Right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
33 m WASHINGTON D.C.20005 m) 2326
+
67 0
1 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Isn't that correct?
2 MR. DUFFY:
Right.
3 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
But in the absence of t
4 any --
5 MR.
DUFFY:
We may not have a site 6
identified, Okay?
And the site for the MRS can be 7
. authorized by Congress.
But presently, as I read it, 8
but I'm not the lawyer here so I'm reading it on the 9
basis that you have to the President has to 10 identify -- we have to identify to the President that 11 we have a site and then at that point we can start the 12 MRS.
We can go selective, but we can't do anything i
13 with it until we have identified a site.
That's my 14 interpretation.
That could be wrong.
It wouldn't be 15 the first time.
16 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Because I see -- I'm 17 not sure I disagree with you -- the site for the MRS 18 has to be authorized if there's a volunteer, but the 19 Congress does not have to actually decouple the site 20 from the limitations that would currently apply to the 21 non-voluntary site.
That linkage would not apply --
22 MR. PETERS:
They do not have to, but one 23 would expect that that might be part of the package.
24 CHAIRMAN CARR:
When do you think you'll 25 have your next plan out?
I mean something so we can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202)232 6000
~..,
( No ' *
.j1 68 n
.e.
'l make.sure we're not on your critical path.
2 MR. DUFFY:
We expect if-it's -- we expect 3
to have another one out in January with new data.
I 4
think the Secretary expects to issue it on a bimon'thly 5
basis from that standpoint.
But we 'llierglad to give.
j 6
you a copy of our internal schedule to show the L
7 progress because it is, in addition to a long-term 8
decision plan, it's a performance plan on the basis of 9
our own internal performance, not necessarily 10 external.
The Secretary is extremely interested in 11 achieving a performance-based evaluation for all our 12 projects.
I 13 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
Any other comments or
.14 questions?
.15 COMMISSIONE1: CURTISS:
Ken, let me clear up 16 a couple of items here.-
17 Based upon what you've learned at WIPP, are 18 we-going to have a. mixed waste problem with spent
.19 nuclear fuel?
Is the --
20 MR. DUFFY:
If you wanted to look at a Rod 21 Serling operation, I'd say that possibility exists.
22 Somebody could say that there's heavy metals in there.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
D-r> u know of 24 anything today such as the --
25 MR. DUFFY:
No, sir.
NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)232 6
69
-C._
1 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:-
gas that you've' i
2 seen at WIPP that would suggest that RCRA has got to 3
be considered in this context?
4 MR.
DUFFY:
Not yet, no.
.I think the 5
problem that we have at WIPP is that we have a 6
scientific extrapolation of potential that says if we 7
take the worst case considerations the canister could,
~
8 under an aerobic situation, corrode and produce a 9
1arge quantity of gas.
In an anaerobic situation, it 10 can produce a certain quantity of gas that could or 11 could not permeate this --
12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Is that~ answer to 13 that question affected by whether - you put greater-14 than-Class-C waste in the repository or have you 15 looked at that yet?
16 MR.
DUFFY:
I don't think so from the 17 standpoint of what -- the greater-than-class-C in most 18 cases is in the stainless category.
I don't think the 19 gas generation on the stainless projection was as much 20 as the carbon steel, but I don't remember that in 21 exact detail.
But I could get you the --
22 MR. GERTZ:
It could have some hazardous 23 complements.
24 MR.
DUFFY:
It could have some hazardous
^
25 complements, but I think in a g a t, situation, I just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6
3
,a 70 i
o-1 don't remember the numbers, but I thought when we 2
looked ' at it that under certain conditions, like in 3
- tough, it wouldn't be the same as in salt.
The 4
corrosion rate would be significantly less.
5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:.
One - final question.
6 On your petition for the accident-dose guideline, you 7
say you're going to submit that, is it later this' 8
year, as in'later in '89 or later in the fiscal year 9
or --
10 MR. STEIN:
'90.
11 MR.
DUFFY:
'90.
That's one of our i
12 conservative schedules, 13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
Do you have a 14 feel for -- from the standpoint of your. schedule, how 15 urgent action by the Commission is on that?
When do 16 you think we need to' move forward given your other 17 activities?
18 MR. STEIN:
If it's a design criteria, then 19 we'll have to apply.
So, as we go through our. design 20 activities, particularly as we proceed to Title II, we 21 would like to hopefully have some resolution by that 22 period of time, which is '91.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
'917 24 MR. STEIN:
Yes, hopefully '91.
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, gentlemen, I'd like to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
h-.
~
Q-71-L 1
thank you for being with us today to discuss the 2
status of the Civilian High~ Level Waste Program.
I 3
3 agree with Secretary' Watkins ' view that this program 4
is a scientific endeavor of critical significance to 5
the nation's ability ~ to safely manage and dispose of 6
-the nuclear waste and -to the reestablishment of
'7 confidence in the nuclear energy option in the United
-l 8
States.
-9 We at the Commission are pleased with the i
10 Secretary's commitment to ensure that the scientific 11 investigations are the focal point of the program, so j
12 that the results are technically sound and uncoupled 13 f rom. a scheduling process which may constrain the
\\
o 14 collectaon of sufficient information for a
'15 determination of site suitability and a thorough and 16 complete license application.
17 As the NRC staff commented in its recent 18 comments to DOE on the Site Characterization Plan, we 19 urge that DOE give early priority to addressing those 20 issues which may most significantly impact any 21 determination regarding site suitability.
22 In my view, today's meeting has been most 23 worthwhile in providing exchange of views on the 24 status of the program and I believe we should continue 25 such meetings as events warrant.
- Also, I can't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN3CRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 23240rs
e m-
??
l Pf 72-n'
- g 1
emphasize enough the ' importance of the pre-licensing 2
consultation between-DOE and NRC as well as the 3
interactions with the state and tribes.
4 You've placed a lot on the - table today and 5
we appreciate it.
Such dialogue contributes to the 6
early identification and potential resolution of i
7 issues as they arise.
I l
8
- Finally, I would-like to comment on that i
9 area of the program which is of particular interest to 20 me as it impacts on our ability to complete the h
11 license review in the three year time frame prescribed 12 by Congress.
It's my strongly held view that as long-1 l
13 as the potential repository site is under L
14 consideration and site characterization is either-15 ongoing or actively planned,- development of the 16 licensing support system should continue.
Since it is 17 reasonable to expect-that problems and delays may be l
18 encountered in the development of such a large and s
19 complex automated system, it's important to continue 20 an aggressive development schedule to help ensure the 21 licensing support system never gets on the critical 22 path of the license review of the repository.
23 I offer my help to you in support of this
-24 view and defense of our respective budgets.
So, if 1
25 you need help, holler.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)234 44:p WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232m
f.
n
'73 i
4,.
1 Do any of'my fellow Commissioners have any 2
additional comments?
1 L
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just that if DOE can 4
accomplish. things as rapidly as Mr. Duffy can deliver i
5 information to us, you're in great chapo.
1.
6 MR. DUFFY:
We'11'try.
-7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Thank you and we stand 8
adjourned.
9
.(Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m.,
the above-entitled i
10 matter.was concluded.)
I I
11 l
l
12 L
i 13 i
l l-14 l-i L
15 L
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 i
23 l-24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 M33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6000
t e.
t y
4'
' j.
'i
- f. ; '
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
'This,is to certify that the attached events of a meeting
.wp-a.n
.c.
of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission' entitled:
,ff.
TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING BY DOE ON STATUS OF CIVILIAN
,HIGH LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM
- PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
DECEMBER 20, 1989 t
~ were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the-3
-transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
Reporter's name:
PETER LYNCH
,1 r-k l
8 0
}
NEAL R. GROSS c0 cat asmaTsas AND TRANSCRiSERS 3333 AH006 ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
~
(200) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C.
20005 (202) 232 4 600
Pu' un l J o'v 12/20/89 SCAEDULING NOTES
Title:
Briefing by DOE on Status of Civilian High Level Waste Program Scheduled:
2:00 p.m... Wednesday, December 20, 1989 (OPEN)
Duration:
Approx 1-1/2 hrs
Participants:
Deoartment of Enerov (DOE) 60 mins
- Leo Duffy Special Assistant to the Secretary for Coordination of DOE Environment and Waste Management; and Director, Office of Environmental-Restoration and Waste Management
- DOE's report to Congress on Reassessment of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program
- Program Progress
- Regulatory Approach
- Frank Peters, Deputy Director Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
_