ML20009E297
| ML20009E297 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/03/1981 |
| From: | Comella P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009E292 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107280017 | |
| Download: ML20009E297 (4) | |
Text
._
NRC PERSPECTIVE ON THE SYMPOSIUM Patricia A. Comella Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 As a prelude to my remarks I would like to thank Dave Kocher and his associates at ORNL for their efforts to make this symposium a successful one.
I can assure you that from my vantage point we have accomplished the objectives which we set down in the early stages of planning this symposium last summer:
To bring together individuals vitMiy concerned with the job of HLW disposal in geologic repos.wries to consider the sources of uncertainty connected with assessment cf post-closure performance of the repository and to consider how various methods, including the tools of n.;deling, might be used in the regulatory process.
1 Thank you, Di.ve.
My purpose in presenting these remarks to you this morning is twofold:
to try, at least in a preliminary way, to tie back the accomplishments of this symposium to our original objectives; to leave you with a charge.
On the first morning of the first day of the symposium, our NRC speakers conveyed to you the job of regulating geologic disposal of HLW.
We told you briefly about our procedures for licensing geologic disposal of HLW, estabHshed in the form of a final regulation, a copy of which you had received.
We told you that we had evolved - through a bootstrap process of itctive dialogue with the public - licensing procedures which:
provided for key decision points - at site characterization, construction authorization, waste emplacement, and permanent closure; keyed the strength of each decision about a repository to the informatiun available at the time of that decision, with the strength of each successive decision reflecting increased confidence in reasonable assurance of protection of the public health and safety and the environment should waste be permanently disposed at the repository; 8107280017 810403 PDR MISC PDR
l
.x. set forth information requirements so that the information
.needed to make each decision would be available when the decision was to be made; provided mechanisms for public participation in and public scrutiny of the process by which each decision was made.
I am hopeful that the procedures we have established will do much to remove at least some of the concerns which Ms. Yuan, Sheldon, and Olson expressed during our session on public and private interest group.
perspectives.
I believe these procedures do provide for early and meaningful public participation in the process of licensing disposal of HLW in a geologic repository. However, I think it is important to understand that even though we've attempted to grapple with the institutional issues as well as the technical in our regulatory approach in a manner acceptable to the public, as John Stucker stated, " consultation and concurrence is not NRC's to grant." That is, the Commission must be the decisionmaker so that if we are to carry out our responsibilities satisfactorily, the stakeholders must be satisfied with our decision processes, with our regulatory apprcach.
Let me explain further.
The Comission has been given authority to license and that authority does not carry with it authority to allow partnerships between itself and such publics as the states, local and tribal governments in the decisionmaking or to allow bottom lines, including regulations, to be formulated as recomendations by other than its own staff.
Thus, the purpose, and the limit, of the Commission's authority vis a vis public participation, is not to reach a decision that everyone will like--that is not possible; nor to reach a decision made collegially with any public--the Atomic Energy Act won't permit that; but rather to make decisions that have considered all relevant aspects and perspectives, explored all pertinent uncertainties, and have been subject to public scrutiny from beginning to end.
Then we turned to the technical criteria to tell you how and why we were going about the job of their development.
Just as we engaged in active dialogue with those outside NRC in the development of the licensing procedures, so we did in developing the technical criteria.
Just as we partitioned the licensing procedures into a series of decisions of increasing commitment based on more comprehensive infonna-tion of oetter quality, so we partitioned our technical approach so that we could deal with the questions which must be answered for a licensed repository. And I emphasize licensed.
Recall Craig Roberts' keynote:
a licensed repository is one for which both the technological AND institutional issues will have been satisfactorily resolved through the licensing process itself.
But to do that, the process has to be
(.apable of bringing about resolution.
Hence, recall Jack Martin's practical consideration: one of our motivating factors has been to
L.
l 4
~
develorran approach--for both the procedures and the technical criteria--
which would avoid contentious licensing hearings; to key on another way it was expressed, "to avoid uselss rhetoric that leads nowhere."
Therefore, the approach we have taken considered first, what we were trying to do--have confidence that the waste would be disposed safely; and second, how to do that--expose all the uncertainties up front, see what they mean, and find a way around the lack of confidence spawned by these uncertainties.
Obviously easier said than done.
But we think we've succeeded by redefining geologic disposal of HLW into containment for a time and isolation thereaf ter and by placing reliance on both engineering and the site as appropriate.
Now all of this development of the technical criteria is going on against the backdrop of a still emerging EPA standard.
The absence of a standard creates uncertainties.
These uncertainties have policy and programmatic implications of nontrivial import that boil down to dollars. Drawing upon the concerns expressed by Drs. Eichholz and Lieberman: where does one jump off in development of regulatory standards? Should one start from consideration of some limiting condi-tions that must be met--in this way maintaining maximum flexibility in making choices and allowing cost optimization to be a dominant factor in determining a particular repository system? Or, akin to the approach wCve taken with our technical criteria, is it more appropriate to consider what can be done reasonably during containment and isolation, for engineering and siting, and to place requirements on certain sub-systems so as to increase confidence in our decisions? As Jack Martin indicated, we think we've struck the right balance; and asking you to consider our approach further will be part of the charge I put to you at the end.
l As I listened to the various speakers, heard the questions and answers following the talks, and chatted informally in the breaks, some thoughts occurred to ine which I'd like to share with you:
I was glad to see so many individuals who are working in the field of modeling coming together in order to forward the job--from the NRC perspective--of s % disposal of HLW in geologic repositories; and identifying areas in modeling that require activity in order to get on with the job, and seeing which of these areas are receiving the greatest activity today and which need more attention tomorrow.
Modeling cannot be the only decision tool that is used; we just aren't there in terms of our ability to quantify.
Nor should that disturb us; numbers have never provided all of the answers.
As Nestor Ortiz pointed out, review by disinterested experts must be an important part of any process. And why not? Quantitative work must always be preceded by qualitative j
and semiquantitative analysis: cf. Dr. Burkholder's " design specs" as the forerunner of coding; and Dr. Bradstetter's approach to the entire problem of audaling.
i I am concerned that in our rush to calculate we've overlooked
==: -the accuracy of b,uantitative ~ predictions with respect to whether they represent physical processes and can be meaning-fully interpreted physically.
I am afraid we've become enamoured of the precision of the computation.
In sum, I think we must give emphasis early to the model validation and accuracy questions.
The question of how realistic one can reasonably expect the quantitative models to be is as yet unresolved; hence, so too is the question of the balance that needs to be struck between the direct use of calculations in making decisions and the use of such qualitative or semiqualitative techniques as judgments, arguments by analog, etc.
To my mind this is an area requiring continuing thought and effort.
We don't want to get into the licensing process and find we haven't given this question adequate forethought, so that, in spite of our best intentions, the hearing can't be closed or closed only with great difficulty.
I would note, too, a continuing debate emerged, at least implicitly, during the symposium over the utility and appro-priateness of health effects vs. some other measure of repository performance.
It seems to me that at heart of this, is the question of whether, given the nature of the hazard involved, it is better to regulate according to the effects on the population or on the individual.
And now to my charge:
Go back, think about what you've heard here.
You may disagree with what you've heard.
But the points of view of your colleagues may indeed have merit. As you continue in your individual efforts, take time to reflect on what you have heard here.
Keep in mind that we all are members of the public, we all are stakeholders in this enterprise, and that we all, as experts in this field, have an obligation to see that the technical solutions which we develop are valid in the societal context of regulation and licensing of geologic disposal of HLW. Soon the technical criteria will be available for public comment in the form of a proposed regulation, and we urge you as individual stakeholders to take the opportunity to provide your comments to the NRC.
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. - _ - _ _ _