ML20012C981
| ML20012C981 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/21/1990 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NACNUCLE, NUDOCS 9003260242 | |
| Download: ML20012C981 (83) | |
Text
,
L
.g:.s ;
.s 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-J
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION l
q' '.
Tit 16:
8Ritr1xc av invisoRy coxxtrrte on NucttiR visrt LOC 3 tion:
RoCKVILLE, xARYtAND D3I6l rEBRUARY 21, 1990
?ig65 79 PAGES r
EAL R. GROSS l!iD CO., IliC.
C o t' R f RCPORTER$ ASD TRhNSORIBIRS 1323 Rhode Osland Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 9003260242 900221 N$
1 ~]
fJ PDR ADVCM NACNUCLE p
PDC OWh
/
f
7, _
e DISCLAIMER o
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United states Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on February 22, 1990, 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.
6 NEAl. R. GROSS COURT REpoATit$ AND TRANSCRIBER $
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVINUI H.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHlHGToH. D.C.
20005 (202) 232-6600
47;i 3 c. 9 ;
o
- w, "g,
o g
~
- e
Ks;
~
v h; ig g, x G,,;pe
[
n-3;
[
jl l'..
y --
~
p W d:tii
-UNITED-STATESe0F AMERICA' l
, ;u c; M
-W
[ g;'
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 J
w.
l d
g'.
b 3
?
.y
' N,
.g RP -
. BRIEFING BY,ADVISORYzCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR' WASTE j
y, r - - __
I-
}f
.5 L4 y
r jf..
PUBLIC/ MEETING
' f, s
i
, a Nuclear Regulatory Commissioni j
y-One White:P1lut North
^
Rockville,. Maryland
- ')
s; 1
-y
\\
t.~+
- q+
-. u s
lud Wednesday,: February 21",- 1990
~
1 1
'The Commission met:in openfsession,. pursuant
_ 7[
. t.o ' _ n o t i c e, a t _2: 00. p.mi, - Kennet h M.- Catir? ~ Chai rman,
- [
-presiding, a]
,m h
a COMMISSIONERS-PRESENT:
4
..?
',~
_KENNETH M.--CARR, Chairman ofrthe Commission' l
THOMAS M.-ROBERTS,= Commissioner 4.j KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissionet' 1
JAMES R.
CURTISS, Commissioner e
t s
' t,TJ i
).
'h k
', 2 'i ? :'
^
..l I
r p
NEAL R.
GROSS m
f" 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
- 7 (202) 234-4433 Kl g
^
~
u
,2
g c 7* _ 'f,i c ymv,. s. _..
- =n u+
m_=
yy
}%,
-:;; 3 4-fy A
., f, f. /M_'A, 4 p5
's~'
.j ' '
n v
,1 d-
[U{s{;QT@MjU '
i, T
lagj V
- J 1
r
+ ff
. g' J.k $y+;; ;.
,1 t
?
a f; m c
=
=
1
/
m
.e gy' g?$ g>,75:~
Nh j
(
a.%.
l
, nr.
l
.ag--
+ ~
v r
.i> w
.c. y 19 e
~.w ee i
. v.
7
<a.-
r
+
..n z.
r t.'.:1;..'_.
dh r
- a 3.m
- c_ 44.
g7g g.y "
- j
-r J.
1
=STAFFi!AND. PRESENTERS SEATED.AT?THE=. COMMISSION! TABLE:
8. _ _
', ;.y v.
AN-W'
-fSAMUED J. CHILK' Secretary-V; r i:1, -
W
.1 1,' <. '.,, s 2 WILLIAM Ci PARLER, GeneraliCounsel
.m
-y, p'?*
Fi r
m D AD01 W.= MOELLER. : Chairmanic ACNW L
. O
- s
- m..,.,.s..
, e -f
< g y.r
- l 1 MARTIN'J~.<STEINDLER; ACNWM ki r
J
- WILLIAMcJ. HINZE,'ACNW:
L.is.>
m y'V
,1 T
p i, t;n '
=
a <
4
- p 7.;;
L
?
1
.4 g
1
-ks E
i w
- -} _
r
.' }3 4,- k ;&+) -
.l Y '{ ; :
l Q:.,;
~
.3.W.
^~
.7-..
l:
4 r
m a
.-.+.
y o.,
m 1
s tp o-i E. :7M g
' j k-hC*
f.,,.,
p 3(.,
?
4.
2 s
.,m ee R
if i8
? :{ :;
t 4
J b'
[..$ h n
J m..
M,,j i o
i+!<.,t NEAL R, GROSS j
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. _20005 d
m
, '~
(202) 234-4433
']
1 NN S~ w -
,g
- J.;..
,y a
-(
e 3
td I
p-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
2:00 p.m.
3 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Good afternoon, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
5 The purpose of today's meeting is to hear G
from members of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear 7-Waste on their activities since we last met in' April 8
and July o f '89.
9 Since that time, Doctor Moeller has reported 10 to me on 14 activities undertaken by the Committee.
11 Today's discussion will focus on the implemen t at.i on of 12 the Environmental protection Agency's high-level 13 radioactive waste standardo, NRC's low-level waste
'. _ _ ~.
5 14 programs and activities, the Commission's policy 15 statement on exemptions from regulatory control, and 16 reports of the Committee's trips to the Department of
-17 Energy's West Valley Demonstration project and the
'j i
18 NRC's Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis.
19 Copies of recent ACNW letters related to i
20 these topics are available at the entrance to the i
21 meeting room.
22 I'm sure I am joined by my colleagues in 23 expressing regret at the recent resignation of Doctor 24 Clifford Smith from the ACNW.
I understand that 25 because of other commitments, Doctor Smith feels he U
- i. J NPAl R.
GROM 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Wa s, h i n g t o n,
D.C.
20005 f202' 234-4433
m
.c 4
I, 1
well no longer be able to devote sufficient time to 2
serve an a member of the Committee.
The Commission 3
thanks him for his valuable contributions during the 4
time he served.
5 Do my fellow Commissioners have any opening G
comments?
7 COMMI S SIONI:R ROBERTS:
If I
enn make a
R suggestion, would it be appropriate for you to 9
memorialize that last statement in writing?
10 Cil AIRM AN CARE:
Certainly, I'd be happy to 11 do that.
12 COMMISSIONER R0ftERTS:
I would encourage you 13 to do that.
a 14 Cll AI RM AN CARR:
All right.
Any other 1&
comtnen t 6 ?
IG 1 l' t be re ni e not.
Doctor Moeller, please 17 proceed.
18 DOCTOR MOE LI.E R :
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
10 With your concurrence, we would like to report on the 20 two trips as our initial two items and then we'll move 21 ahead --
22 CilAIRMAN CARD:
All ri ght.
23 DOCTOR MOELLER:
-- into the others.
24 The first of our trips was made to West 2 F.
Valley and this was on October. the 20th, 1989.
As a rq t....
NEA1 R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washincton, D.r.
20005 (2003 234-4433
5 r i cJ 1
result of that meeting, we have gone back and reviewed 2
the letter that we prepared and wrote to you on 3
January the 2Gth and we believe that the theme or the 4
two major points that were expressed in that letter 5
still apply today.
6 And that is, the first point was that 7
acceptance criteria for the vitrified high-level 8
waste, including the enumeration or specifiention of 9
testing procedures to indicate conformance with these 10 criterin, need to be defined by DOP.
And 1 might, in 11 the way of additional words, simply say y e s., they are 12 moving ahead with that.
These need to be ident i fied 13 by D0f foe the waste producers and, in turn, once the
'~
14 criteria are ident i fied, they need to be reviewed by 15 the NiiC ataff to determine if tbey're acceptable.
As 10 I say, we understand that DOT is moving ahend with the 17 specification of the criteria and we believe that's a 18 good sign and it should move forward.
19 Then our second conclusion as a result of 20 that meeting was that public health and safety 21 criterin for the cleaned up facility or the 22 decommissioned facility need to be specified.
And 23 indeed, you, of course, are moving forward with the 24 st aff to develop such crit eria.
25 So, those two items, as I say, still stand Fl
_}
NTA1 11. CitOS S 1323 Ithode Island I. venue, N.K.
D.C.
20005 t 2 0 0 '. 231-1433
w q
f~
e. 3; ;
1 p
s f
6~
[A U l-I 1
and we believe that-they are-appropriate.
P' 2
In. terms of the visit itself, we saw several; 3
t hings ' t hat we would like-to share with you and we =
4 Icarned several things.'
first of all, as you' know, 5-they.are passing.the supernatant tbrough ion exchange G-
-columns and cleaning it"up and then they are going'to g;
7 convert' the supernetant intoa concrete and that~will p..
I 8:
.go:toca: low-level' waste burial facility.
And then.the-n L
9 fon; exchange resins in the sludge at the bottom of the, I
l(
10 tanks will be vitrified and will become high-level 11 waste.
12 In terms of the removal of the radionuclides-13 from the supernatant, they're doing a very good' job:oh>
w __)
14 cesium.
- However, they iold us while 'we were 't here
[
15-that the removal of plut oni'um. _ which fort unat ely is_in h:
1G very low-concent ra t ions., but at least ihe resins ~.do 17 not - remove t he - plut onium and: they are.at tempting -to:
- -18 improve ihet port ion _ of t he t reatment process.
-They
~19 also do not remove the lodine which would
..b e that was 20
. principally iodine 129.
So, those Il 21 something we learned.
22-We niso learned that the low-level - wast e-23 disposal facilitles there do include more t han low-124-level waste..
For example',
there are three fuel' 25 assemblic buried there.
There are tso snap-devices
'rg
=Li-NI: A1. H. GROSS 1323 }:hode it. land Avenue, N.W.
War.hingt on,
D.C.
20005 1
'2005 234-4433 l'
i.,
L,
7 1.
e 1
with plutonium 238 in them.
There are something like 2
five kilogramt. of plutonium 239 and then there are the 3
solvents which initially, I understand, were buried in 4
containers but have since leaked out.
Some of them G
have leaked out.
And, of course, you've been aware of G
the fact that they're now digging trenches around a 7
site to try to collect the solvent and prevent it 8
running off.
9 The other item which we noted was that the 10 vit rified wast e will still need to be shipped off-site 11 for d i t. p o s a l.
And, of course, there is the matter of
.12 eert i fI cat ion of some type of a s hilipi n g cask for 13 those wastes.
- ~
14 1 believe other than thut, that in a
summary 15 would be the highlights of our visit.
10 if there are no questions, then we'll go to 17 the next item, ehich is our visit to the Centet for 18 Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses and Bill Hinre will 10 be covering that.
20 DOCTOR HINZE:
Well, I will attempt to be 21 brief.
We have been monitoring the progress of the 22 center for some time through documents as well as 23 ihrouch staff p re s e n t a t i oni, and also the DC 24 representatives of the Center.
It was very important 25 for us to go down and to have a direct interface with l
4.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washingt on, D.C.
20005 I
(202) 234-4433
1 i
3, l
e
..q,
7 i
\\:
1 the group and to talk to the management down there.
~
2.
Basically, our visit.was divided-into three
!I 3
segments.
One, listening to the management, both of' 4
the Southwest Research Institute-and the-Center, and 5
'l l's t e n i n g to. researchers discuss several of. their G
current research project s and what they're gearing up-7 to do.
And. finally, we looked at the laborat'ory
-8 facilitles.
-9 In some general overviews of
- this, it, 10 becomes apparent, very apparent ihat the management, I
h 11:
the senior management of the Southwest Research p
- 12 '
Institute is very much dedicated to serving NRC and to P --
+
13 developing a cent er of excellence in nuclear wast e. -
r_j F
14 And,'t hey are doing that in terms of not only' their 15 m a n a g e r 1'a l-
- skills, but~
they're putting the 10
'infras t ruct ur e and apparently the resources of the L
17 Southwent Hesearch Institute behind ihewi.
c
- 18-it is also apparent that they're very much p;
- 19 -
in a start-up mode.
You know that.
They are coming-
!)
20 on speed in terms of' staff and consultantsyand.'that's' y
21
.been of concern to us, the quality of both the staff 22-and the consultants.
That 's - proceeding, sometimes g
23 from our viewpoint agonizingly slowly, but nonetheless L
24 L.
.we are impressed'with the quality and I think that's c
25 the major point to get across is'that they are really
- sa_
NTAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
/
(202).234-4433 x
i'^
g
- 4-'
2 i4 y-
-..,-),+
.s
- T,g 8
4 t
- k -
cadre of core people as well as L
1 collecting a'
fine 2
consultants.
3 As a result of this stcrt-up mode, they are,-
4' from our viewpoint, from my viewpoint, looking~at it,.
.5<
they are largely -involved in-developing plans.and in:
LG the research presentations that;were made except'_with:
v
.7
-a.
few. exceptions, t hey.were largely discussions. of,-
-8 plans ~ rather than substantive conclusions from those 9
from the research.
10
'l t hink; t here-are a couple of reasons 'for 11=
t hat._
rirst of all, I think, in my' view, the NRC has:
- 12'
'i de n t i f i ed z _ s e ve r n ) of the research areas.and' also I 13' think.it's much' easier io get aterted with research-
- c. J 14 ra t her_
than to get involved-i n-the. technical
'15 assistance whi_ch is becoming-' an 'impor t an t. element.
I:
,10 think that-they are very keen to become involved 'in~
17 t he - t echnical assist ance and from talking to the:NRC7 18 si n f f, that linkage is. developing.
19 I
really.think that I
speaki for-the-g
- 2 0 --
commitiee in stating t 'h a t - t h e y ' v e ' achieved ~a; great
>; y -
21.
deal.
progress is needed and is coming forth.
- The, 22 t b r u s. t from'the questioning'that we had with'them and 23 the' discussion that we had, the.t hrus t has to'become 24 ever _more important
-i n terms of the technical-L- 05 assistance.
They have a fine history in terms of
.rI JJ NPAI. R.
GHOSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
W a t; h i n g t o n, D. C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
.'.(+
y v
O__h '
20- L 1
~n o
10 ll "'
I material science, performance assessment.
They have 2
not had an infrastructure in terms of the geosciences 3
and many of the areas where the technical assistance 4
is needed
$$ in the geoscience area.
But that's 5
moving along.
G My recommendation is that certainly they be 7
encouraged, they be monitored and particularly as they 8
develop their own research projects, because up to D
this point they've been really been carrying on 10 research projvets that have come out of the NRC 11 research staff.
They need to -- we need to monitor 12 them as they get into their own research projects, as 13 they prepare reports in a timely fashion, as they
.. w 14 interface with the scientiric community and as ihey 15 to rform the-various technical assistance.
1G I guess that would be my quick summary of 17 it.
18 CilAIRMAN CARR:
Any questions?
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Do you ihjnk that 20 they'll be able to maintain the expertise which 21 they're building now into the future so that it will 20 be available to support the necessary activities in 23 light of DOE's current achedule*
24 DOCTOR HINZE:
- Well, that's an excellent 25 question and it's something that we had on our mind m
NEAl R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 f2023 234-4433
as -
TV 4
11
, e
--1 0'"
11 when we went down there.
What attracts and keeps good
- 2 seient ist a ~ and engineers?.
The senior management, 1 1
~3.
believe,,has the correct attitude in this in that what
' heir people 4'
.t hey're ' int erest ed in -doing is having t
~5 communicate with the rest of the scientific community.
O In other words, publish papers.
This is a.very.
+
7 i mp.or t an t thing, especially to a younger group.
'And 8
by and~1arge, 'their new people are young people.and D
they're really being encouraged to present 30
. publ i cat ions, to publish Journal art 1eles.
They have 11.
excellent laboratory facilitles that are coming along,
= 12 slowly but they're coming along.
1
+M 13.
I think that that's the kind'of thing that i
o _I
' 14 -
will help to retnin these people because i t 's ' very
.15 important, this linkage.- I.think it's very.important,
-10 this linkage betweek the research t h a t ' i.
being i
i 17 performed and.the technical assistance.
There has to l
18' be this interfacing back and forth.
And so therechas
-i 19 to'be some stability to that research group'so: 'that 20 when the time comes for-technical' assistance, t'h a t it l
1 21 will be there' and be sharpened to not only. t he-l
- 22 standards in. terms'of tho.CTRs and so fort h, buti also 23 in terms of' t he science.
-i 24
- COMMISS10NER ROGERS:
Wel1, it seems to.me 25 one.of the very difficult challenges that management i
- I. j.
L..J.
1 NEA1 R.
GROSS t
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 P
(202) 234-4433 i
s L
a g ",
1 1
{ S ;,'
.? l C s'
=!
12 I
t here.and our management have to dealo with in that
' ~
2 situation is to be able to define:how far t h e ' C e n t e r. -
3 can go on ~ new ideas that they generate that come out.'
4 of the work ~ t hat they're doing ' for a very mission-S dit'ected project of, some sort, Lthat~ it's. important:
'G that - there be some freedom-to explore some.of these.
.a f
7-things and build on the expertise and the new _ ground 8
that t hey're breaking just L to. get-the professional 9
benefits that come from having done'that.. 'And yet, we
- 10.
know that we can't just let that t hing float directly' 11 off into the blue either.
12 So, do you t hink. that they and we have--
13 are coming to some way to make'those determinations?
- ~
t 14.
They're very difficult, I ^ think.
I would see -this
- f 15 very difficult judgment.
Judgments have to be made on.
10 how -f ar-or how much scope t hey - mi g!' t have. t o -. pursue
- 17 Some of these, particularly younger people.who want to 1H go off on them.
They get a hol'd of something new and 19.
they really want to pursue it'to the end.
And to what
' 20 extent we can allow that and to what extent we.have to' 21 reign it in is a-tough problem to d'e a l with.in.
22 research. management.
23 I wonder what your thoughts are as.to how 24
'wsil-thni's being dealt with or maybe it's not settled 25
.yet.
It's probably an ongoing, ' cont inuing kind of-
.r-L
- EA1. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
~
Knshington, II. C.
20005
-i (202) 234-4433 u.
s J-
13 1- !
LJ 1
problem that hos to be dealt with.
2 DOCTOR llINZE:
Well, Commissioner Rogers, in 3
speaking to the young people coming on board privately 4
around cups of coffee and back in the corners of the 5
lab, I really sensed that there was high esprit de C
corps and an enthusiasm, a
euphoria almost about 7
gett!ng on with this and neat kinds of projects.
8 In addition to that, as we are aware, and 9
this was pointed out to us by the nuan agernen t, that a 10 certain proportion of the monies coming in from NRC 11 are put off, and I can't give you that exact number, 12 but there are monies that are set aside for freedom of 13 research and for people to become involved in things w.a 11 that may not ' fl t into the s t a t u t e s; and the licensing 15 p r ob l e m t..
And I think that's going to be part and 10 parcel of retaining them.
17 1 think that came through to us. Dude, very 18 nicely.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I think that's very 20 important, but it's, again, how to place the proper 21 bounds, on it so that it doesn't get out of hand.
22 It's difficult.
23 DOCTOR llINZE:
My own feeling about that was 24 that I -- as we heard the researchers discuss their 25
- projects, they always had a preamble in which they
.a NEAI R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
2000n t202T 231 11'1"
L m
q h
.m
'f
- sn 14
- ~
p
. 1 tied this t'o. s t a t ut es.
I'think that's very important-i 2-for the management to be concerned aliout-the1 statutes, D
3 but I; think,it 's the' scientist's job ' t o'. be: concerned i
/
with the science and for them to be controlled by-the 5.
management.
I: think.
there's, perhaps,. a little G,
.. overemphasis, but that night have been an attempt.to 7__
show us-that they were really mis'sion-oriented.
- B CQMMISSIONER RCOERS:. What are your thoughts 9
on how ' we' re developing mechanisms for -coupling the
-j 10 research'rcsults into our necessary effor.ts?
They'll 11'
-he.there, but there has to be some kind 'of. n _ pat hway-12 that's maint nined E n13 1he time to keep ihose n'es u l t s -
12 flowing 'to where they have 'to go and there'a a
- : -.J
-11 receptivity and an interest. in them on t he - part of_
d 15 fthose recipient s of the research results.
10
. DOCTOR HINZE:
- Well, one of-the efforts:
1
.P 17
.along 1 bet line is.for there to be.sabbatict.ls, if you i
~
18-
'will, of NRC. 'pe o pl e to t he. Center.
- And, as. I!
19, understand it, also from the Center t o'. t he staff..
20 This is the way.you can. develop those -kin'ds of 21 linkages - and that, I think, we will see.more of.
I 22 think it 's.somet hing that 'the Commission should_very 4
- +
L23 much encourage.
24 There is also the concern, and I think this 4
i 25 has to be constantly monitored and I'm sure it-is by n
u.,1 F
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
(( ~
Washington, D.C.
20005 y
s f202) 234-4433 g-4, A.26'
.m
y
'.J.
m
- 1 e
15'
-]'
I the NRC staff, that the research that's going on
-2~
probably be mission-oriented, but that it have ' some
,D 3
chance of success in a' timely fashion with. regard to 4
the problems that the NRC staff is facing.
I' rankly, 1 5
see that as one.of the major problems 'in trying to G
. look ahead and say, "All right, we've'got this.problen 7
in stoichiastic processes of unsaturated flowEthrough 8'
fractures."
Okay.
Now, that'r, something ihat's very 9..
germane to Yucca Mountain, and-I'm not sincling ihet 10 out because I think there's a problem.
But are-we 11
- going to get answers from them in a timely ~ enough 12 fashion to help with the licensing problem with the-13 study plans and those types of things?
I think.that.
La 14 the monitoring, and in my 5 t a t ement v.
I use that ierm 15-
" monitoring," I t hink t hat 's an extremely important 16
- thing for t hat _ t o cont inue.
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
What is your general' la f e e l.i n g about the-interaction :of the NRC staff 19 headquarters with the
- Center, the modes of-
- 20 interaction, how successful they are, whe t her. 't he re -
21:
_ are ton many or not enough channels-of communicatlon, 22 DOCTOR MO E 1.1.E R :
Well, I can respond.
My-
. 23 impression was that it's going along very well.- There
~ 24 are interchanges.
Of
- course, the Center has. a
~
25 rel>tesen t a t i ve here.
We gathered -that certainly
.O i
g-NPAl R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
W a s, h i n g t o n,
- 11. C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
lv (
i$
o n-
'16 7
1.,.
during the first year or
'two, the planning,=:the.
2 research planning itself has been a Joint effort..
So,-
3
-we saw no problems whatsoever.in that' area.
4-And back on your question 'about recruiting.
~
S-and. their power or ability: to recruit,- they are:
those are not the right.-words, but for O.
. playing up 7
the moment they'll portray the meaning, they said they 8
were playing up the fact that this is an NRC center of 9
research axcellence and that that has proven to'be'a 10-very good recruiting tool and -t hat there-are many 11 peop)e out there that really see radioactive wastes as m
12_
.a major challenge and they want to make a
r7 13 contribution.
So, they're happy to join a. team.
- d '
14-110CTOR ll1NZP t I would say the major problem 15; t here. Perhaps might 'be in terms of the geosciences..
10 where'there hasn't been-a long-st anding: t'radit d on ~ - in
'17-those a r e a r, by the Southwest Research Ins t.i t u t e for 18
.many. years.
Twenty,.30 years ago, they were sirong in 19 this area, but what happens< is' the infrastructure 20 disappears, the libraries disappear.
Ab a researcher.
21-you ~ need those things and you don't want to do _ - i t 22 through interlibrary alone.
So, there has to be some
~ 23 ellowances made there.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just on the library.
. 25
'how-do-you feel about that*
Do you feel the library
=t j-TU 1
NEA1. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
- j Wash i ngt on, 11. C.
20005 f202' 234-4433 j
Mw
'f
+
.3..
.Ek
/ )-
+
17 1
resources there'are adequate?
F-2-
DOCTOR'HINZE:
Not in the geosciences.-no!
-3
' COMMISSIONER ROGERSi. Not in geoscience?-
-f
'4 DOCTOR HINZE:
No.:
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No.
g i
G DOCTOR HINZE:
I asked about that and 1-7 didn't-see the library but I ask ed -. ab'out it..
My;
~
i 8?
. impression -was t hat _ that_'s 'somet hing t hat - t hey have t oi 9.:
b u t i d ~ u p - o n.'
They also' pointed out-that there were a 1
F 10 number of universities in the area,' et cetern.
Ilu t.1 :
i
~ 11
_know-from my own experience, if I have-to, walk'a block 12-t'o the'11brary, I'm not goingLto get.there very often.-
[
l
- ~ "
_13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Presumably._ this is a
. a i,.o -
34' labk of Journnis--
- 15 -
DOCTOR HINZE::.Ves-sir.-
1 1G COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-- atid ' ext ending back.
- 17
' DOCTOR HINZE:' Right, right.
l
~
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:. -And a rather'extiensive
- )
+
19
. thing'tu try to build because you've got to' go' and t ry 0
20-t o, get nil. t he? back ' issues. t o anint ain the strength.
1
/21 that;you need'.
.22 Thnnk you.
23 COMMISSIONER' CURTISS :
Let me ask a variant 04 of the question 't hat - Commissioner Rogers raised.
Did-l2S-you ge t the sense ~ when youzwere down there that even reg w
h NEAI, R.
CROSS 1323 Rhndo hland. Avenue, N.W.
t
- j Washington, D.C.
20005 (200' 034-4433 u
yr
,~,
i '
. *h s
1 18 i
1-as.early as it is in the process of_ staffing up_and 2
getting going _ t hat; t he Center has a clear sense of 3
what it-is that we here at the Commission expect of' i
4 them and when we expect it?
Did the -- maybe I'll ask 5
a related question.
If you reflected upon wha t. you' G'
saw down there, could you-identify what you see.In-7 your capacity as overseeing the high-level waste 8-program as maybe the tbree or four 'most import ant 9
deliverables in the next three to five ' years?.
What 10 would you identify as the critical features.'down 11 there?
12 DOCTOR HINZE:
Well, we can both take a try 13 on that.
N
- - ~
- .-.i 14 DOCTOR M0 Ell.ED
Sure.
Go ahead. DOCTOR HINZE:
I'think that they have a long, 1G L tradition in terms of performance assessment..
They 17 have extreme interest in that.
'It's extremely a
18.
important to all'of us.
I think they're going t o do a
[
1 19' good job there.
They're_doing.a good deal'~in terms'of-i 20 their sinffing.
That's going to be a positive aspect 21 nf it.
I think anything dealing with material 22 sciences, again, is something that they're really well
?
23 locked -int o.
So that's going to be in the pos i t 'i v e i
24 area',=the containers, this type of_ thing.
25 I think the other aspect is that the senior r
t j-Ld-NPAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island' Avenue, N.W.
l
'hachington, D.C.
20005 f"02) 234-4433
[
r x
+a
---a a r.
19 C' "
i staff, well, everyone, really understands what it's 2
al3 about.
They understand what is needed.
These 3
aren't people that are just off the street.
They have 4
good experience in the regulatory process.
And so, I 5
think that's on a positive sweep.
G COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
7 DOCTOR MOELLER:
I think at the beginning, 8
of cource, they've been dealing mainly with projects 0
where the staff has a specific need.
And so, in that 10 s e n t. e,
perbnps they don't have or certainly 11 initially did not have n overall mission or goal quite 10 yet formulated.
I believe though they're rnpidly 13 doing that.
As I
- say, we came away with a good L-14 feeling, good warm feeling, n r.
they say.
15 COMMISSIONER CUHTISS:
Okay.
Cne final 1G question.
I noticed here from your agendo ihat you 17 had a chance io talk about ihe transportation risk 18 study.
1 don't know how much detail that you got 19 into.
I raised that question at earlier meetings and 20 I guess I was c u r i ou r. to hear what your perspective is 21 on activity in that area.
22 DOCTOH HINZP:
- Well, we had a
short 23 present at ion on that and they are looking at the 24 present models nnd they're trying to improve them.
2A Otm of the things they pointed out to us is that they q
J NT Al F.
GROSS 1323 Dhode Island Avenue, N.W.
D.C.
20005 f200' 234-4433 m-_-_m.__-
_____.-m-
-_._m_m..._...mm__-_
__m.-_____m
__m.___-_______m_.______-..t.mm__
~
~
-y'
,g cp
(<y 20-m
~-;
1 have found an error with the model and I t hink -that 2
speaks week, augers well for the future.
They are--
3 this is another aren.that they're well' organized.t o, 4
st art :over on and have.
That's the one aren'in which in-my-view they've made some i
5 they've really made G
s.ubst ont ive progress.
z 7
DOCTOR MOEll.ER:
And, of course, they were 8
doing t his,because they had the experience and the'
'f 9
t alent s - in that area and I agree wit h Bill, I think
'10 they have made some contributions.
I1 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okey.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just one other. thought H'"
'13 t hat occurred to me, part of what they're doing'has
'I
,J
.been toilook nt all the existing regulntions and to 14 15.
.look for iner.nsistencies and what has to be done-t o
'lG satisfy them and to straighten all this out so'thnt we 17 enns develop a
clent and consistent approach; t o; 18 evniunting a proposal.or an application.
19' What is your opinion of ~ how well that's-20 going and_do you think that the kind of activit'y could 21' be brought to-bear on some-other questions of
.'2 consist ency of NRC regulations, if we thought about ib
~
23 doing that. that that would be really a diversionary j
24 activity that we ought to stay you know, not 25 encourage to take-place.
It looks like an important 1.
p
- L.J NEAl R.
GROSS
.f 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.K.
~
Wushington, D.' C.
20005 (2021 234-4433
ae -
o
- l A s :,.y j'\\. l [
- o a
21 p
l
, kind of thing t hat -could be~ generally useful for us, 2
butL ~if we try to bring ihem int o - or that technology'
- 3.
that they're developing o ri at 'least the1 people that:
4 are developing.it into other areas, it might slow'down.
5
,what they're doing and divert them' from their G.
necess.ary objectives right now.
7 I wonder if you could just comment a little' f
8 bi t ' about-t hat, any thoughts that-you might - have on 9
how that activity is going and whether,'ii' is
.10 entahlishing n technology ihat night -be t rnnsferrable' 11 to ofher things that we have.to --
4 a
. 3 2.
DOCTOR MOELLER:
1 think indeed it.is a
i
.!_J.
13 technology that could be transferable.-
We: are 14 somewhat we do not have the hackground information-15 really' ihnt we - need' hecause we have not aeen the
- 3 10.
report.
We have received information.that it's-17
- underwey and we certainly have, in a sense, concurred-
]
18-that it looks like a good thing to do..
And cert ainly,
'19 1 coking-at ihe regulatory.
the thoroughness or the j
l 20
. details of the regulations to me'seems and to us seems 21 a wise move.
So, that's about all I could say at the' 22
- moment, i
23 DOCTOR HIN7,E On the positive side of that
- i 24 ledger as well is the fact that they are becoming very.
25 fami1inr wiih the whole s t a t u t e t-problem.
= t -- J 1.
o l
NEAl R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washi nct on, D.C.
20005 (2021 234-4133 s
L L
p %.^
- s m
+-
4 1
'P I (' ( 'i 22
' p8 I1U 1
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:.Probably'more so_than c
2-us.-
3.
DOCTOR HINZE:
- Yes, indeed.
And I think-4 that that will be.a real positive payoff in.the future 5
and
.I think-t hat
+-
so that: -kind of-program is?
M
.G somet hing thati indeedfif _ t hey : come through'as well as
_e hope ihey_ will on
.t his,
that_ they shouldl.be 7f w
8-encouraged to do in other areas and transfer that-
.9 technology; that kind of approach to other areas.
10 CilAIRMAN CARR:
So I read you as saying 11 except in the area of geosciences, t heir. t echnical =
s 12-exper t i r.e is probably up to par?
13 110CTOR : ilINZE :
I don't want to:say-that and
~
s 14 if I said.ihat, I didn't mean to say ihat.-
What I'm
'15' saying-is that they had the fart hest' t o _ go and those 10?
nre areas in which we are part icularly interested in
'l 17 right : now because. of the Yucca Mount nin. problem, t he 18
'SCp, the
- SEA, the study
- pinns, the.
technical
-10 ponitions, the rulemaking.
I didn't mean to'put down 20 t heir geoscient ist s because'I think that - t hey've-got 21 some real movers, especially in the younger group.
22 I'm not eliminating-the older group because some-of-un 23 full-in that.
But' what I am-saying is t hat t hey.'ve 24 got some real whip-snappers' in terms of the very 25 talented resenrchers in that younger group.
So, let's L.
NEA1. H.
CROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Wa*hingion.
D.C.
20005 4
l202) 234-4433 u
- 2WM;
~
,~ '
e y ;;L-
- V W m :c
{
-i.E','
OJ:
- g 23-
- 7 '
$ et]=
.].
give-them a-chance.-
They've got to' get -
their 2
st affing - needs beefing up and it's planned.. it's in
- 3 the procram.
y 4
COMMISSIONER ' ROGERS:
I - t s k e.
it then Lit 's S.
really a guestion,of quantity not quality.
- i.
G
-DOCTOR HINZE:
At-this time, yes.
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Numbers of..' people 8
rather than -- the individuals.Eyou-feel, are of high
'O.
quall'ty that they've added?'-
10 DOCTOR MOELLER:
Yes.
Yes.
' ll.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
including
.the
, 12-connuiting?
m 13 DOCTOR llINZE:
That is right..
y L, )
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But it's a question,of 15 Ecove nge and depth.
1G-Il0CTOR llINZE:
They've just been very busy 17
.and thry're taking time, and you. can't f ault that
'en-bonid and-18-
- really,
.i n terms of putting-peop1.e
' 19 including consultante, because t h a t ' n a b a d _ t ri tt.. i f yo u 20-mnke the wrong maneuver.
- i
- 21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, it looks like DOE-is 22' waiting for them, so it will.be all right.
1 X
. 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS; Oh, ' t hat 's wha t i t ~ i t..
24' CHA1RMAN CARR:
Let's proceed.
25 DOCTOR MOELLER:
The next it em is the r
r_
- o. ;f si NPAI R.
GROMS 1323 Rhode Island Avenua, N.W.
Wot,h i n g t on,
D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 7
2 @j ut
,(
+
7
.a 5
24 1
. implementation of-the EPA high-level was t e. s t andards -
2 nnd Martin'Steindler will take the 1ead on that topic.
3 DOCTOR. STEINDI.ER:
1 start this topic with 4'
some trepidntion.
As you know, we're supposedly a 5
collegial group, but my election to this particular~
G nssignment was.more unilateral then-I would ordinarily 7
- tolerate,
.fp
'COMMISSIONI;R ROBERTS:
And you were not ~ n -
s
,-n, O.
porticipant.
10 DOCTOR STEINDirR:
You have -i t precisely:.
11' l correct,
.But let me make a couple of introductory 12' comments.
T h i s - l e. a moderately ' complex Jt opi c, as y,ou:
c
-13i well' know.
From our vantage point, it's. complex i because the topic is fuzzy.
It's.
fuzzy bot hf 4
- 101 technically and - semant ically -
Turthermore, it is IG compliented 'bernuse it involver,.essent ially-nll?
i
.in the came of a high-level repository, all-
[
17
. aspects tt 1H-nripect s._of t he repositcry program.
19' The discussions that 'we have had now for j
2 0 l.
-pushing. seven plus years on the TpA standard-has J
21 t ended _ t oward n discussion.of the negative, namely can-
].
ts_
22 or can it' not be demonst rat ed t hat you've met _ the N
. 23 criterion.
i' 24 lin vi n g said nl1 t h 'a t, then let me, i f-.you
+
1 25 bear 'with me, walk you through where I think we nre-
).
i
.u-3.
NEA1 R.
CROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N. W..
Was.hi n gt on,
D.C.
20005 (2023 234-4433
't
9* g
%, id.. (
_h.
25 L~
~
l and how we got there.
Let me read to you briefly what
- n..
2
. we,-the commi t t ee, has sesd.
'In a letter to you of 3.
. December 21st, we have said, in part, that we continue
.4 to doubt that compliance wit h the EPA. st andard ' can be -
h 5-demonstrated for a specific repository site.
What.we G
have not said is that the compliance with the standard
'7 cannot be demonstrated r
and there is ' a significant-8 distinction that I want'to continue'to make.
9-Let me take you back io 1985.
In 1985, ihe-10' ACHS wrote a letter to the Chairman in Oct ober which -
11 said, in part, "In - our opinion, the - establishment of.
12 overly restrictive standards relieved'by leniency in i
alproach.
l
13 their implement at ion is not an. appropriat e L_1 14 The proper appronch would have been to develop 15 reasonnblo sinndards' that could have been more e
IG' definitively enforced."
b...
17 Those, 1 think, are two specific quot a t ions b-18 that I will come back'to in a few minutes.
T h e n -' l e t '
~
19 me ~back up-a lit t le = furt her and involve you' in a 20.
littie history..
In 1983, the Commission commented'on 21 what was. then before them as a draf t ~ version of~the-22 rPA standard and
- said, in pa r t',
that they would l
23 require:-- the implementation of tbese standards would m".
24-require a
-degree of precision unlikely-to be a.
25 achievnble in evaluat inr rent waste disposal systems
- t
.: 3; NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.K.
Wreshi n gt on, II. C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 j
cym,m 4
g
. 4 c'
- g qc; 1
7 w
26 1]'d' I
and they said a number of other things.
i "2
Fire that note back'to' EPA and epa l'ooked'at 3
ithe comments and added a qualifying: paragraph inithe.
4' standards, in-.40 CPR 191.
The paragraph effectively 5.
said something about' reasonable expectations, proof'is
~
G not to'be'had in what they epiled-the normal sense of.
7 the word.
We've gone through all'this.
Andahaving.
8 then seen t,h e s e revisions and ' responses :to what ' t he 9
EPA perceived to be the NHC's objections, the NRC 10 withdrew its obJeetions.
The standards were then 11 issued.
12 The court subsequently remanded for another n--
13
-look, as you well know.
It did not-address the' issue
~
p c14
-of $tandnrds or tbeir implementation orithe proof <that 15 they cau,be met.
I t. deall' wi t h a totally. different'
'10 subject, but it nilowed us nn opportunity,- allowed all 17 of: us an opportunit y t([ visit 1thesubject ~ again.-
18; 1.e t. me addc that i n.
the course of. these 19_
discussions, even internal to the EPA,.
their own 20
-science board has said that the standards are overly
- 61.
restrictive and it's not at all obvious that it can be-22=
demonstrated that you enn meet t h e m.-
4 23 Let me - shift the scene - slight ly.
Let me
. 24 tell you what the standards are and I realize i may be
- 25 plowing ground that-you have well memorized, but there 1t l-
.i;.J:
,U V,
i-NEA1 R.
GROSM 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Wnshingt on, D.C..
20005 (202) 234-4430
+
R j?
2 e
y -;ynng; ;
'Q'.-,}-
l e
L 27 p
t 1
are. fundamentally three sub' sections to 191.13.
3 -:
One-2L says, in two parts, that the likelihood of meeting---
M 3-of exceeding what'they call table 1, which is simply'a
~4 listing of nuclides to-be allowed to be -released in 5
curies'over 10,000 years, the-likelihood is one in. ten h'
10 that you exceed-the table.value and the likelihood-is' i
(
7' to be less than one in a thousand to exceed' ten ttues.
{
V the-two is F
8 the table value.
The-di fference between a
9 obviouslyJnun-linear and I can comment on.that also.
L 10 The - second section is-- the one that they.
h'{
r-11 added on behest of the commission's ini t ial comment s-F 12' and that denis fundamentally with the reasonable-
.j t
compliance.
L 13, expectetions'issuti of how-you-demonstrate L.
[
14 But they've added a third in-the draft that we have-E, 15' and-the third, in effect, escalates the time schedule
.1G-over'which' thin wholeList.ue to be nddressed to 100,000 l
- 17 '
yents.
That is a new and as,yet unspecified change.
18 --
Ohny.
Then what are, in fact-the issues i
o 10 that we based our commentary on? lWell,-the etaff in L20 SECY-89-319 which is i he. fundament al document against 21-which-we viewed the issue and against which we viewed
.22 the issuetinitially, said on t h ei r own --- i n f a ct ', l e t -
t 23 me see whether 1.can find the1 appropriate quote wh'ich i
24 1 thought, at least we thought-was important.
In that
- -j 25 STCY dodoment they state that, "Therefore
- a rigorous j
i-1.
L(J i
NPAl. H.
GROSS 1323 Dhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Wa r.h i n g t or.,
D.C.
20005 7
(202) 234-4433
-."N.-
een 4
u
+
, t.-;
+,7 T in
':4 28
{~
'll application of ihe -EPA stendard would lead to the J
2 conclusion that the standards cannot be implemented in 3,
e.' licensing review."' We looked at that and said that t y-4-
fundamentally agrees with our: view and went on.
5 The DOE folks who came and talked to us when-6 we discusued this issue in - one of ' our meet ings.. in -
~
'7 effect said the same_ thing.-
8 The-EPA Science Advisory Board.
-much.
9-earlier, challenged the probablistic methodology - and -
10 snid t hnt compliance needs-to he demonetrated--in order.
i 1.1
.to be'able to make the system work.
They also-pointed
-f3 12 out, of course, that the st andards -- they thought 0
m
~
.g 13:
that ihe. si andat ds were a 11 tile toc severe.
And i
s,. m 14
- of t er.nl1 of ihat was r,nid and done, the connultants 15 that we had at our meetings pretty much-agreed to..that.
10-same general. view.-
=17 That's the background.
So then, what are
' 18 -
the issues?
The issues are, i f we canfboil them.down.
19 and be a
l i t t'l e more s'implistic than necessary 9
-i 20 perhaps, - that, one, ihe atendards may be '. t on atrict
-[
21 and they hnve included in here essentially a ~ risk 22 avoidance issue whleh the Commission, and certainly 23 3through its ACRS advice, hnve avoided studiously._
24 The proof that we have heard, or at least a 25 demonstration or ihe indicatio.n ihat the methodology t
r-~]
L#
b NPAl R.
GROSS
~
1323 Rhode Irinnd Avenue.
N.W.
Washingt on, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
-c p
r e +
c
~
f.
gh;'"'
4 A
l t ^-
1 Lis availabic to demonstrate compliance-with 40~CTR'191 2
was-not evident in a11 the discussions.that ~ we've-had.
e
- 3
. We've had a great deal of comment and talk-about how 4L this is done, but all of 'those -discussions-were at
.e 5'
best; generic and hardly specific enough to-convince.us g
- 6 thnt compliance.can be demonstrated.
\\
q..
The rulemaking, wliich. was: alluded to in some 7
8 offourLdiscussions, involving-perhaps as?many as three g
t
-0 separate issues, has been announced by the staff as 3
10-rectifying some of t he problems t hat we thought we snw t
11
_in the issue of_ compliance with the standards.
But we 12-have neither information on -
nor any-reasonable ~.
r L
- 01 13
'assurnnee, if.you'll allow me thatsterrible pun,- t hat
'~
14 the rulemnhing process will result.in a product 1which g..
l 1&
wilI r, o l v e the=iasue at. hand.' 'Namely,_how'do you go b
f.T
- 1G_
about rertifying.or' qualifying _thut. you've-met the EPA V
' tandard? -So,.the rulemaking issue has beeni t oo fuzzy e
17:
s s
n 118 l
.at t hi t.- poi n t for us to;be ub i c ~ t o ge t o u r h andt, ' o rr.
19
- The extension _to 100,000 years t ends o t~o be 20 bypassed in most of the discussion-.that t roubl es = some.
1
'21 of us - great ly -because it makes the.uncert aint les -1n1 22 the data t hat could~possibly be used for probablistic i
23-analyses even more - uncert nin : t han the 10,000 year-s
_ 24 period might.
-- 2 5
-It in n'given for us, and 5t mny not be_for t -. J NEAL R.
GROSS
+
1323 Rhode 1sinnd Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C._
20005 (202) 234-4433 p'-
p
r
~,) -
} :, --
l
~
g, s.
D
(. c 30
!?,
1 o t h e r s., but it seems to be a given for_ us that you y
2.
would like'to resolve the issue of the EPA standard
-3' now while they're still talking about doing'something 4
about it rather then finding out two,'three years from 5
now that your estimates of_ how. easy it is to p
b C
demonst rat e complinnee' were wrong and now the staff k-7-
'would come back to the Commissioners and say, "Please, 8'
go talk to the EPA because this thing isn't going to 9
work."
10 All of those together then lead us back t o-t s
. 31 the original commentary that we continue to doubt that h
,12 compliance with the EPA standards can be demonstrated b
13 for a
specific repository site.
That's my. rough x
s, "
le 14 summnry of where we are nnd substantin11y how we got n
.16 -
to the-conclusion that we lay down.
10~
l'd be hnppy to~--
L 17 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Questions?
A p
38.
DOCTOR STEINDLER:
I'll be.willing-to try to l' O nnswer questions, p
h 20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTSi Wel}, and I'm reading L
y 21 from t he '~1et t er you keep referring to.
"To resolve 22 these
- issues, we recommend that the NRC-be more
- 23 aggressive in dealing with EPA."
I would. cert ainly 24 agree with that.
25 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
I recognir.e 1 extracted l f-~l -
4 J NEAl R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
l 1
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 V
1':.
VF 7 7 u,
4:
>L il L I-~l; g~
l out o f --
. Lm 2
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I understand..
.I e
ir y
3.
understand..
4 That's all 1 have.
S CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Rogers?-
7 0-COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, it does seem=to
-9 7
me there is an issue there on that though that
~
in s
8' that letter and t hat - same-paragraph.
I can't quote h
9 it, but it seems to me that you had two things that.
L['
10 you were suggenting thnt-NRC should be more aggressive 11 on.
One had to do really with the scientific base on, L
12 the htnndards and the other had to'do with essentiallyL 4
-13 their-workability or utility where they could actually.
w-14 be u s. e d,
And I'm n
little troubled with. your:
r 15 suggestion:that we take-a very aggressive view on the r Scient i fic ' basis beenuse it seems. t hat that is the
~17 demnin of EPA-and t hat 's.what1 t hey' re supposed.to do'.
18 If they're not workable from our point'of view, that's 19 a separate issue and ~ I readily see ;us being very 20 aggressive on t hat, but I'm;a little concerned about 21 your suggestion that we ought to tell'them.how to do
.22.
the science.
p_
03-I'd like some comment s of others... o n. this 24 because it seems.to me that you lump the two together 25 in ' your suggestion of where we should benegressive 9.
p
- i. a NEA1. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Wa s h i tit t on,
D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 o
_r;..
i_ i
W WCW >~
J, u~
t x-.
i ~
h!,Ql.,
p: rm.,p$ W, '
D, 3 ;
y is
~
kN
'E s%,
32
-1
- w. a - -i iy M Q.
-M.8;c
- 3; and -:1 would" t hink1 that maybeEwe oughtL ~t o separate!
U
'W 2'
-tho'se two aspect s: endilook at" t hem ' separately, because -
=!
. i f' we:r enn' t Luse thetstandards,then that's really~en-
s e
+
y 1
4 issue Jthat' Just - has t o be ' thrashed -.out, 11: seemsLto' q
W' iS =
c m e '. >
j s
m
$' v
~
O On the other hand, -the ' scientific.- basis is :
'i
,%~
0 really -- while we might have-some questions or doubts:
6 n
I L8
- about- '11,. i,s really itheir. domain and:. t hei r..t erri t ory :
9 and l'm' just wondering whether it.i s appropriate ~ for o
10
,unito.get i nt o-t hut.
1 l' DOCTOR STEINDLER:
Well, I would be,.I hope..
9jy 12' the last' to try and peint.out to you. what is - your w
13
'd om a.i n ~ and what is not.
Let me suggest to you -
4 **
s.
.,~c x :.a
. -r.
gj4 s howevdj : t hat : t he two t hat -you intend to separate are 1
15
.not really;so easily separable..
10)
'I f.. I n f a c t ',. t h e technien!-hasis for the: EPA ~
c; t
17:
- standard is'either' unrealistic or inconsistentiand we
~-
r 18 can -:' mak e some ' a r gum e n t s ' : o~n probably ! bot h _ for t' hose; o
~ 19~
. alt hough. now we get-into.t he very fuzzy qualit at ive-i g
.t hni' certainly impinges on the Lility of-thc1 d
20
- area, a
21
. staff to.-evaluate and certify that. A'hatever-- the -
22.
f
.- y,
~
"npt li cant ' brings - in is some match to those. standards.
t t In that sense, -the separation of. doability and the me
>:e
- 24;
.nctual values, i f you will, I think.are very difficult i.
s
- 251
-to separate.
r t
$f i
+
L v.
NI:AL H.-GROSS i
i N 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 m
+
- M..;
sl kN.
n Y
~
't..
33 jrJ" 1
1 wouldn't want the Commission to make too
~
2 much of our use of the word " aggressive," and perhaps 3
that was overly aggressive.
I guess what we're saying 4
is that this is an opportunity which passed us by once 5
and but for the voice of the court for a totally 6
separate issue allows us at least one more look.
In 7
that
- context, we would say this is an excellent 8
opportunity to do that.
9 COMMISSIONER HOGERS:
- Well, it would 10 certainly seem it is the right time to try to have a 11 very vigorous dialogue.
12 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
Yes.
Right.
- Well, I
13 think that's in part what's required.
It is difficult u._.J 14 for us to recommend such obviously correct solutions 15 t hat they become patently neceptable to everyone.
If 16 so they would have been done a Jong time ago.
But we 17 have heard a let of voices for folks that have studied 18 this issue, who kept saying to us, "There's a problem 19 here.
They're too stiff.
It's not obvious how you-do 20 this."
21 The responses to those challenges, it seems 22 to me, would he to address them directly.
If it is 23 obvious to somebody on how to define the meaning of 24 the epa criteria, then I would suggest that that may 25 be some exercise that ought to be dono The exercises p.
- 1.. _.)
NEAL R.
GROSS I323 Rhod. Is1and Avenue, N.W, Washington, D.C.
20003
'202' 231 113^
~ ' ~
'*l.l' t t
[{
n.
)N%U
- M
~
~
,1 gg W
s 4
W.
.w 7
a: +
r N*--: ' LfA
-34J v
c-
" ' M 11
- t ha t'-
hove =1been idone i ' t ha t; I've : read-have
- been,
.r,...bd..
. s.-
ww
-2'
.+ u f fi ci e'n t l y c generic asL to -probably
_be useless;-
4
- + -
m A
3 -_
.They're certainly a goddlfirstfshot.:
The argument'.has_.been-thatiDOE1willehaveito,-
,, (4 {
cin the cours e -of-: t hei r. WIPP, ~ exerci se,- if-t ha t 's _:-t hel 4
5 h
(G"
- right ' t erm, go ihrough a elailar-sortc ofJprocessk (I;
~
k
- 7:
think.'it
'I s :not-'at:-all' clear -- asid, t he Hearing -
8:
Commi t t ee has, point ed - t his _out _'--- i ti --isinot lati allu s
'9-
. clear < tlia t' an' i t - stands; that is e-readilyf fdoable?
L10-
'nct'ivi t y.
1
-] 1 Al1 - of those t hi ngs: -t oget her, i tH :seems M t o?
12-me.. 'r_un up: suf ficien t'_ flags = for 't he CommissionLthat we.
$. "; ^t-
- 13.
ought 7t6'reallyDhave n hard11ook, and now-is_thentime -
11:
t6 do.that, That's really oll'we're_saying..-
4
.15
' CHAIRMAN,CARH: ' Comnii ssi oner. Curt i so?!
1G-
-COMMISSIONER: CURTISS;
- Ws11, _ yes.-
,1 ' t h l i)k'
- 17-syou! covered a lot of-ground >hsrc,qand11.gucoseI'm not
., T TR
,.q u.i t e sure where t o. s t a r_ t, -.particularly 'when LIE
.10 Jex pe c.t.ed C ommi s s i on e r Rogers t o -- have -: moreD ques t ions,.
s
-20; Ilu t i l e t nee _ p l e k "up o n. t h e points.that_ he'siraised about t
b 21l
_the s t _ringency of t he.s t andard,: becausef I gu es s JI d d' 61 c22
.h' ave..a.slightly' '
maybe' not a ~ slightly,- b u t =- La l
~
t i
-d'i f f eren t ' v i ew about our obligat lon, and that?is that:
i
- c23 p.
24-where a we, in our jointly assigned responsibilities with EPA ~
25 share a
task' of -carrying _out programs in various-1
- Q e,m s '
NF'AL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
2000G
!"02) 234-4433 E
..T
,Wr
). _
[.
}
f 35
['! '
)
areas, whether it's mill tailings or the Clean Air Act 2
or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or low-level or high-3 level, what have you, it does seem.to me that issues 4
like this are fair game for consideration and 5-discussion, not just by us but by others, including G.
DOE, which has raised the issue recently.
7 So I guess
.I like your use of the word 8
" aggressive."
11 does seem to me that that 9
characterizes the kind of sentiment that we ought to 10 bring to bear if for some reason we think the 11 underlying science here is inadequate, first.
12 Secondly, we do have a problem here that it
~
13 seems to me leads us to the conclusion that we have to 14 at least understand and agree with the EPA standard.
15 The problem is one that I think you've touched on 10
- before, and t h a t ' e, the business of applying 17 conservatism on top of conservatism, margin on top of 18 margin.
So if, in fact, the EPA standard reflects a 19 certain degree of margin or conservatism, and I want 20 to get back to that question in a
- minute, it's-21 important for us to know what that is, so that as we 22 go forward with the implementation of our 23 requirements, whether it be on ground water travel 24 time or package container performance or what have 25 you, that we have a feeling as to how much additional L si NEAI R.
GROSS 1323 Rhod-Island Avelue. N.K Wash i ngt on,
D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
36 g
0-J 1-conservatism, if any, ought to be heaped - onto the 2
initial epa
- standard, which in turn reflects the 3
health and safety standard that we're charged with 4
implementing.
5 Let me get back to the question of the G
stringency of the standard, because I've heard the 7-discussion before and I
think you've accurately 8
characterized what folks have said-to date, including 9
the SAB and the Commission and others.
But let me ask 10 you the question.
As you reached the conclusion that 11 you think the EPA standard, focusing on ihe science 12 first, is overly conservative, too stringent, I wonder l '1_
if you'd expand upon your basis for reaching that
~
14 conclusion.
What is it that you're communicating to 15 no, t h.
views of others that have expressed that IG conclusion or your assessment that that is the case?
And.f vo, why?
17 i
18 DOCTOR STETNDICH:
1 pause for a number of 19 good reasons.
The issue of what is a societully 20 acceptable bottom level standard is raised in the 21 context of not only the Commission, but every other 22 activity that's regulated.
And the answer you come to
'23 depends very much on who the commissioners are and 21 which organization you're
. talking to.
As a
2 P.
consequene",
I don't see a basis for suying clearly i
1 J
NEAJ H.
GROSS 1323 Hbod" lsland Asenue, N.W.
Wnshi ng t on, D,0.
20005
'202' 234-4433
37 i
-p""
1 and numerically that a
one-millirem per year for 2
10,000 years for the most exposed individual is too 3
high or too low.
4 All-I think we can do is address the issue 5
in the context of where society will accept risk, and G
what kind of unavoidable issues do we face every day.
7 None of the discussion, no matter how couched, turns R
out to be quantitative.
The background in this 9
country is 100 millirem.
If you listen to the folks 10 who worry about radon, i t ' t, significantly higher.
The 11 EPA standard for drinking water is four millirem.
1 12 think I have the numbers right.
If I don't, forgive 13 me.
I con probably find it.
The operational annuel
~~
.a 14 doses are 25 millirem.
15 The EPA standard at the moment specifies 1G 1,000 extta donths, cancer-related donths in 10,000 17 years.
If you want io assume a mi11 ion populot1on at 18 any point in time, that gets you to one millirem.
We 19 will, I assume, discuss the issue of what we used to 20 call "below regulatory concern," which is now enlled 21 something slightly different, which has values derived 22 from the int erna t ional viewpoint that vary 23 considerably from our initial values.
24 All 1 can do is, in a sense, wave my hands 2G et 3on -- and, you know, I want to admit that I'm r]
i-_ J NF AI F GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenuo, N.W.
Washingion,
- 11. C.
2 0 0 0 ~.
'202' 234-4433
4 38.
- d. ~
l waving my hands at you'--
and say that somebody is 2
calling for a release of 1,000 curies over a 10,000 3
year time period with a dose that is not very clearly 4
definable to an undefined population over a 10,000-G year time period seems to us to be not only obviously G
unmeasurable, but at variance with the rest of the 7
kind of standards that have been put together.
8 Does that answer the querstion why is it--
9 why do we think it's too strict?
No.
We can probably 10 develop a comparative case.
Of' course, 50 could the 11
- staff, lirobably h a t, already done that and laid it 12 before you.
And there may well be more apropos 13 numerical values that one could probably dig up.
.J 14 But the 10,000 year time period probably is J r.
th" central focus for the concern that this is an l li excessively strict standard.
But let me defer to 17
- Dado, who has spent more time than I hase in the 18 concern about backgroundt.
and standards that are 10 a plil i c ab l e to the population at large.
20 probably you have comments on that, Dade.
21 DOCTOR MOELLER:
About the only comment 1 22 would hnte is in terms of the stringency.
I keep 23 going buck to the safety goals of the NRC for nuclear 21 power plants, and you give a qualitatAve goal which is 2 ri a broad s t a t i. mon t of what you want to achieve, and I
- i. -
NFAI H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washinyt on, D.C.
20005 (202' 234-4433
gpje '
.h y'
_,r
+
se fY;f j.
~
4
[ fs. }
,. p-::
1 9P
. /
39 t'y~
i il:
then you-gradually. quantify.that;and'go i n t o mo r e :.L an d-s..,"
pw 2J more detail-as;you go-to the lower levels.-
V, p
- -3 Well-the qualitative goal, as. I _ recall.._ t hat -
c p[
'4
~ EPA originally ~ stated._was: that-the waste-in-:a
[<'
~5:
- r'epository would carry with it^
- no more risk Lthan. t he.
(c G.
.unmined Lore.
Well~,
if 7 go out _ t o _ t he Coloradoi
/
L7 p l a t e a'u. a n d : walk around on unmined-' uranium,- 11 know:
,f, 8-Lit's'100 millirem a year, at least, terrestria1Rdose
.i: y E
D-
-rete.
And because. those ores are located. at R higher j;
c 10 Jaltitudet., it'n'a higher cosmic. dose. ~Well then,'theyi r -
11 go from that-to. coming down lower and lower a n d :, ' t h e y l1 s 12
-j u s t ge t mo r e and more siringent.
9 "'
-13 Now I'm not saying it should-be-100 millirem
_o
.,M 14;
- n. yeas.
1 don't -think-we want t h a t..
But I?m note sure4
~
15
- t hat it..should be one mi.lltrem ejther.
I A
11G_3 COMMISSIONEH.CURTISS:
12 e t : m e rfoll_ow-up on-n:
01/
17 couple. 'of points.
I.take it.you - ' t al ke'd abou t :the 18 ex t.en s i o n of the Iiroposed rule -or - t he draf t: proposed <
19
-rule out' to 100,000 years.
I take it,-in' view 1ofiyourl
'-20 ase essment : of'the conservatism. inherent in:the 10,000,-
't hat - looking over t he_ cli f f,
'as people:-have-21-that 22 described it, to see _ if ' t here are events in that-
_23 90,00.0 year period that might be-worth taking' note o f...
..m 24 in your judgement, I take it, is wholely unnecessary,-
25 given _the conservat1sm already present_.
-t j
% J.
.1
-s NEA1, H.
G R O L, 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washincton, D.c.
- 2000r,
'M (202) 234-4433 i
y
-71 N
g' q?
-p g
1 7-
'oy&p.._.,m; s.
u 4
p' g rg.,
y:
>8.
i rg g%
~
+
t m.
K
~
~
j nb E
~,
(40 I
4 " q* 7 (1 -
C DOCTOR:STEINDLER:
That's:certainly; correct:0
-i t e
'2:
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let : <me : pursue : this i
1
. question - '
' 3; J'
! ';- 1 f An
}'
4 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
a, u
Not'. only --- excuse me.
Gv
~
llf '
- 5 g
. Not: ;only,.
- perhaps, unnecessary,. but probably. not
~
iG;
_ doable.-
f fj
. 7j-COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
'Let m e_ _ pursue t h'atc i
IN
?8 question.of' stringency from a different perspect,ivein
.fd E9-focusing; on the : margin on -top of margin question =
10 that's come up.
. I f. we we re -- f aced ; wi t b implementation
_ g 1.1 of'the epa.st andard, overly conservative as:. i t-might -
' 12 ;
be,'and focusing on the requirement a r t hat
. e. a t' the:
w
~
m i
+:T '
13-C omihi s s 'i o n in turn have established'to implement that JY 14 standard, i f-you st ipulat e-for : the sake 'of' discussion
'15
.'t h a t you've accomp1.ished al1-the conservatism-.
l' p
(16
- necessary. and. can-afford :t o - be' realistic. ;in tihe' 17.
ilmpl emen t a t i on..of f that s t andard,= Lare there instances:
s q s >
-18
.that in your judgement in:the-context of.:the,way.we'rel,
'i 11 9 impiementing that siandard-in our regulations = and in 9
r
.20 particular in the application of "a
subsystem
.}
21 performance criteria that you think haye contributed ss w
t op o f' margin problem?'
'[
22 t o t he unnecessat'y margin on c:r -
23 Or haven't we looked at7that=yet?-
if 24
. DOCTOR STEINDLER:
'I'm'not sure we'.ve looked o
25 ni~ it quite t hnt. way, but-l e.t me give you n small 9
,p b L[ _ -
D NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
fl.
Washincton, D.C.
2000G N
(202.1 234-4433 i
~
w
= 3 3.,;,,,,
m 4
'[,
!. I[
c z
3
- [
l:*
- 4 f,..,
~
t Lt :.._ <
i l{
-f.bYb S i
4 i
b?gy
\\
r ',
- 41 g.n
.OE,
-. l.
Esj delightfwhlch : you. alsol probably.already; knowb If-
~ *
\\t:;
2
- you: accept.
thati the= release = rate from a ' waste-
. s}
j
.a
_3' "repo~si t ory Misi Lone fpart ' in -105 !s t art in' ! in iyear110001 g
a e
4-
, L and, goi n g Jon _ t'o_: year
.10,000, -and: yout address 4 the
^
m
- 5' question of how!muchEin-the wayTof?' actinides 11s'likely
~
n.
G~
~tofbe_ buried;in spent fuel and you: apply t h a t ! n u m b~e r,
n i
.7 you'll" find-that you can generate'a:sufficiently large'
- 85 release of. actinides: that you can't meet thes EPA i
9:
criteria.-
So it's a question of. -where.do'Ethese' L'
3 s
- 10i criteria ac t uall y- -int erf ace.
.I' think-that arithmetic:
~
.g il-1
-is right '
If,you hold me to it, I'11Hhave to gofback:
d o -'i t ' a ga i n, but t h a t '. s cert ainly' been ' published :
[
'12
.and:
-n L13.
in. aiDOE 1 report as a concern t hat ' t hey - need ~_ t o_. worry-
^#
..J
-14:
about onehow~to hnndle.
.q IS I
don't know whether
'wel have
.enough:
V
-lG information -- or, let~me-put-it differentlv.
I don't
]
a
,1.7 know whether-I have enough information,right b e f o r e ' aie -
-18I t o det ermine whether the'1,000 year. travel tim _e, _
[
- th'c t
-10 one part in '100, represent a conservatism 'above and?
l t-20.-
-beyond. what might -be necessary if t here -was some 21 rigor.ous way to determine adherence to the EPA 7,
- 22 cr i t eri a.
My suspicions are that that's probably n
.23
. correct,-but-I certainly can't demonstrate that now.
A 24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
The one sentonce I'n 25
-your l e t t e r~ ' o n t h i s eubject that caught m3 eye _was the f r~}.
L2J i NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode It, land Avenue, N.W.
Washi ogt on, II. C.
20005 (202; 234-4433
,s
s.
42
,g-~
1 one that iends as'follows:
2 "The NRC subsynt em performance criteria have 3
the potential for imposing even more-stringent 1
requirements on the repository."
0 I
take it you mean by
- that, A,
more G
stringent than the EPA standards would require if you 7
just applied the EPA standards.
8 And P., do T read that correctly to imply a D.
critical conclusion there, that they shouldn' t - resul t 10 in more atringent requirements?
11 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
Oh, I
think that's 12 correct.
They should not.
Whether or not they're
~
13 that closely related to EPA criteria, I'm not sure
.w 14 t hat that's what we would have advised you to read 15 into that note For right now, I must soy my mind is 1G a blank for reasons that I wi)) not admit to.
17 DOCTOR MOELLER:
Rather, I think what we're-18 saying is by speci fying limits on individual 19 subsystems you are adding to the stringency of the 20 standards.
Now in subsequent discussions, of course, 21 with the NRC
- staff, we've been told that those 22 subsystem criteria are -- you know, that the 1,000 23 year travel time is not an absolute.
But
- yes, it 24 seems to us to'be adding stringency to the standards.
25 I think those subsystem critetia need to be I
t N T' A i R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (2021 234-4433
,ps* R M
T st
~.
+ :. f; A>
, s
?:
n c.s.
- j
.y
+
sa a
.w
{
n.
e p-f c 4 3,
.xt i 9[: k8h f1; very? c a r e f u l l ~y - worded, and- -perhaps they' are,s
't o L2 clearlyL specify t hat ~ t hey are simply subsystem: guides.
31
_andithat they're very;flekible lui their -. in how ~ they-
- B.'
k.
- 4
can'be interpreted.
i:
{ p^
5
. COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let ' me t urn J t'o
'o n e o
bl GL final subject and ask the quention ' of, the-. ability to V
demonst rat e_ compliance with t.he ' EP A-- s t anda rd.-
lYour1 P -
g I.
- 8~
initial comment, I guess, confused me, that:youl---in
,.r,-
-9' saying - t hat you doubt-that compliance wi t h'. t he EPA.
' s,
. ~ demonstrated, you: don't intend-to,say.
- 10.
standards can be p
"111 that you. doubt that ii cannot be-demonsirated?
I~
j; k
12 guess'I'm confused by "-
5-%
= 13 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
That's correct.
We have rq, 4-R.
i
-14!
not said t ha t' compliance with these EPA - cri t eria ~ as -
es g
'j 5
't hey 1 current Iy s t nud canntit be-demonstrated.
- Allr we
'l G.
have s ai d was. that w e -- h a v e not seen any' informat ion
- .7['
L17 t h a t. l e a d s u s ':.t o b e lti e v e, t h eit - t h ey c a n. - b e.
'J :
l' 81 Now the staff has said repeatedlyfthat!,fyes,
[
119 they:think that complinnee can be L demons t ra t ed.
But-s;.
Y
- 2.0
.we are Just not convinced on the basis of the staff's
- L21, comments.
i 22 COMMISSIONER CdHTISS:
You've seen the SECY-i T
y d3l
. paper that discusses,the subject?
,1
+3:
24 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
-Yes.
it.y
'25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
You referred to It,
-i p
-: L ;.J.
r
?
NEAI H.
GROSS q
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
tiff:
Washington, D.C.
20005 l
s, ~W (202) 234-4433
~
f, s. -m J.
Q,y -i j
t e
'y
.z 44 g
'u.
I had an opportunity to read it.
Staff proposes an 2'
approach there were they clarify that question and 3
with the purpose of providing further amplification to 4
the. '83 language on just how you go about doing that.
5 Would'that do-the job?
6 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
We don't know.
That's 7
precisely our problem.
We've looked at the commentary 8
thnt we've gotien from time to time on those tbree and they 9
potential rulemakings -- there may be more 10 have been not substantive enough to tell us that, yes.
' 1.1 ihat's going io do the job.
12 And then I have to add, if that is in fact 13 lef t open and the EPA criteria are set in concrete, to 14 go back and then change it, if those rulemaking 15 operations do not-meet the test of quality, I think 1G.
would be very difficult for the Commission.
That's a 17 judgement which I really shouldn't make, since it's a 18 Commission judgement.
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let me jump back to 20 the discussion of the Center.
Is there anything that 21 you saw dewn there on performance assessment that 22 would suggest that they've found the Holy Grail here 23 and are on their way to defining a methodology that 24 would ease the problem that's been identified?
25 DOCTOR HINZE:
- Well, they had
- almost, I
1 j
i NEA1 R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
W a r. h i n g i o r,
D.C.
20005 f2023 234-4433
- % ' ~-
9:
- p,
+
a.
7.'
)p'
- ~Y
+
3 c
& * ;~ ':in 1
y3 g, =, >_:e m
a
.e o
a
+
- 461 3
(lj;j g
.1.
guess, the:- day _ _ we i were there,- t he, new ~ chief > ofi: t heir '
F o.
l
{U,
"2^
iperformance; assessment-group had. report ed. - a 1 person r:
!![", 3.:- M l
they; had? ' hired,'
and this-was a! well qualified-1 a,,
f
-4 individual from Pacific - Northwest Laboratories.
So-
~
u Y~ k *, -
1 u
51
.they. cert'ainly - have : been : able 't o: recruit' av ve ry D good.K oI;i GL
' person',fso:I? hope they'll move aheadc w:
a t
y 1
9 7-
' COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Well,-
-I'~ don ' t D. have
?
%.. w v
f
- s
-any)ofher'questionsc 1 guess =thi's-has been a baffling.
j N W been J
9-subject.ifor
'me..
- l t s ' -not.
one that.'s :J us t -
p/>
5 10:
recently raised.
The ACRS has been raising it.
The 4
4
. S ABD has: been raising..i(,.t he -Science-Advisory. Boarde
/,
g
- and.ihe_ Commission's talked abou t' 11 t forin number of H
12'
'T 13_
' years.--
t-
{,
.L a We now have somewhat of a hiatus. in :the t
L.
11.4_
{
L15[
progran.,
.because lof' the delays that.
have been-m
-_IG:
announced together wit h -t he remend of the rul e, ;t hat.
p
' 17?
it seemed to me -- t o provide'the opportunity for :us'.t o Y
gL 18-t ry - t o. get'. our arms around whatever uncertainties,
]
l19 inconsistencies, -stringencies unnecessarily, and soi 20
. f or t h mi gh t -' exi s t and t ry - to wrestle
.t hem. down if
-4 e
21-there's anything'we wantito:do about1them.
22 DOCTOR MOELLER:
-0h, it's a ~ key ingredient.
5 11 4
'23 1 mean,'the conduct or the=4
~I guess, the conduct-of 4
24 performance.asnessments canitell you n lot about where 25 the voids are, were the uncertainties are, where you rl.
4.J 1,
+
- Q NEAL R.
GROSS
/v 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
I l
Washington, D.c 20005
~
(202' 234-4433 c.
?
<,;,p.-.
1.
( I's
-;p.; Q [ n y'%o e
,e g?
~
~
~.-p w,,
n Nf ',
!;"&& [A i] - ~
z.
i YM 4
_m gj M y e.
\\
'~1 4
~';:,
ca
~467 i ls
. g N,
- 1'
- needJdatak et ci* era.
S'o we, esta committee, have~ ore:-
~
w L2'
.numerouti occasionslencouraged the-staff,; you~know,Ltof y'
3
~give top priorit'y to performance'asse'ssment.
f M
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:' : That.'s' all ~I: have -
t s
-t t
5
. CHAIRMAN CARR: -Welli1at the risk _of being a.
y,
. G --
~ something or--othe'r --
e,
/'
7:
COMMISSIONER 1ROUERS:
Can't' avoid it.
m;M f.; '
'8 I
~ CHAIRMAN-CARR:
-- : 1 thinkL your ' letter-1
- . 5 You're
- telling us-that 7
--9 h r. s n ' t - been - very helpful.
^
W 10
.you're' not1sure it'can be a n d ' y o u ' r'e. 'n o t J s u r e i t'. !can ' tl 11 be, and.. technically that'doesn't'do me=any good.
j s
f, 121
-Are you trying tol.t ell meL that -
I J don' t
>a
" a.
L;y 113-mind being aggressive-with EPA, i f' I know:what;.to takel a,
17
% w_.;
4 over and'Iny on the table,
. Are f you 'i elling'.me l '. o u gh t1 11 4 y
draw u p, -. n e w >
y>
. ' t o.
go. back
.t o EPA and-t ell t hem to j
~
10 stundarda?
17.
D0cTOR STEINDLER:
W e l l,.c t hat-
-would; I
18 eertainly be a step in the ri'ght. di rect i on, :i f it hose
- s
-19 ~
st andards, don' t multiply the problems iof"the old.s
- new J
120-If _they're l go l'n g 'to: :give you' long-term, highly
[
a-9
-a
^
.21 uncertain'probablistie requirements, which have - Tlet-ir
\\
'22' me go'back a notch.
T g
s23 I understand -- and Dade could handle - that c
1
?
( ;.
24 better -than I
could -- but the use of PRAs for
[
g'
' ~ M-25 r e n e t o r s, is n -class
- activity, not a single plant il-m-. _;
o f
NEAL H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
'"02) 234-4433 5E I
,e
'f
47 1-
-p# #
1 activity.
And here, these folks are saying to you not 2
only do you look at ihe PHA for n reactor where 3
experience is now substantial -- lifetimes of reactors 4
are modest, trivial in comparison -- but here this is 5
a single unit that's going to have to sit there and be G
predicted for 10,000 years.
If that's-what you're 7
going to get back once you tell them to go do it B
again, then it's true we haven't made much progress.
9 Cil AI RM AN CARR:
- Well, I'd feel more 10 comfortnble if I knew what to go back and tell them to 11 change.
Do I want to tell them to change the years?
12 Do I want to tell them to c: m te the numbers?
13 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
I think the concern, the 14 centrn1 concern -
15 Cil AI RM AN CARR:
Yeu're my technien1 experts.
1G 1 wnnt you to tell me what to tell them.
17 DOCTOR.STEINDLER:
AlI right.
Wel1 --
18 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I take it you 19 wouldn't -- you'd tell them don't worsen the problem 20 by going to 100,000 years.
21 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
That's the first thing I 22 might tell them.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
That might be one 24 thing that we --
25 Cil A I RM AN CARD:
Well, is it better to tell rq u.a NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washingion, D.C.
20005 7202' 234-4433
Q WVW '
g N,
+
y
,y fhy ).g,,
- 3 %
(b
,(,
y 4
.u G
~
li gn
+
?.
48:
gg _
j 1
((
T
_l" themito:go-t'os5',000 years?
y Y'
2 DOCTOR 7STEINDLER:
No',= 1 a don ' t : t hi nk-s o.
s 3L CHAIRMAN CARR:.
I don't either.
W 1
+
i'
" 4 --
DOCTOR'STEINDLER:, 11t h'i'nki t he cent rai nissue--
d g
El
..leastLI=see is-. t he : probablis t ic aspect-of the:.
i
. thatist y
I' G
regulation
-- o r' the-. standard.
I f-' we ' re : t o ' bel
- 8 f,
f7..
they I thinkHthe: chances of you being-j
. deterministic, m
W 8'
able to demonstrate -that you__ can _ meet lit goes Tup.
4 9)
. sharply.
u 10-CHAIRMAN CARR:
What standard should 1' -have j
m
- I I'
,ifM _do'that?
,5 6
Let me de for. t hat,
nnd~-
,J 12-DOCTOR - STEINDLER:
1
.i t.
~ (.fy 13 ;-
.perhaps the thing for us to do - is to look-a te the m
-x
+
14 subject fairly carefully and then w ri t_e you--n, l et t er,
p k
k 15~-
CHAIRMAN CARR:
- Yes, ILneed - cyou-_know,JI--
m
(
- ) G '
need somet hing I - can get myiteeth into.
k$
-17 DOCTOR STEINDLER: iThat's fair enough.
[;
f "+4 118-CHAIRMAN CARR:
It.'s.not' going to"do EPA' anyj j
v s
i
/
[19.
good for me t'n go'tel1 them,." Hey, that_ thing,,Iedon't' L
^
20:
=think I can work withnit."
l F
c:
l 21-DOCTOR STEINDLER:
Yes.
('
i i
22
-COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let me-suggest
-a-
.,y 23
. concept.
And. I've got the same frustration that-'I y+,
~..
9
-10 4 -
think ihe Chairman has as we hear these presentations.
2 25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Did I sound frustrated?.
I l b:
t =.
i NEAL R.
GROSS i
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washi ngt on, D.C.
20005 i
i (202' 234-4433 ypl, Y a
.dx s
1 m
m
(ggen j
+
N,R...
e m e.
u
(.
_ b;
?'
j W
49 k
j; 4
~
.15 COMMISSIONER ;CURTISS:-
.A:.little bit,_'andt h4 y
. 2 :'
mor e 'sol t han 1. ~di d, but2let'me suggestia thought that' p
p
^
31 as.youllook at~how:to proceed you'might-evaluate.1 mJ 4
It~does seem t o: me - that given.the division u w p
-5 o f. responsibil_ity between.t he - two DagenciesP wheret EPA-f G
- promulgates the ' general
-s t andard - 'on ' pro t e'e t in g'.t he~
S
<c
-7;
?publici -health and safety,-
a-' generally l applicable 8'~
environment ul' st andard that. we in turn; are chhrgedi 1
L
-0
. wlth implementing in our' regulations, we understoodJ tL e
'10
.t hn U di.vi s ion of. responsibility in other c o n t e x t. s, in K
e
.11 part icularl-y - rill t ailings and low-level ~ _ wasfes; and 4
f' 1
=12-other : areas where they have proposed _ or:
have'-
113 ~
.est ablished that 1:i nd of s t andard,.t o mean t hat if.you I
14, meet. the NRC.regulntion, if you put ten' feet of cover a'
15..
the-mill tailings pile you hovel t hereby met the-1
-on
' -l G '
, EPA general' st andard of 20. _picoeuries per. liter.
' A' d t n
- 1 71 that's a relat ionship L that' I always
- underst ood ~ t o : be h3 E18.
inherent in the' division of the resporisibilities i
1 19l between t he - two agencies that lef t. u s' the task of
.20 implementing the standard that--epa had establistied.
1v 21 Now at the last meeting where ~ ~ we L-talked.
22 about'.this issue with_the~sinff,-it wasn't clear th me 23 that t lio t conclusion - in fact, it was clear 'to me 24 that that conclusion could not ' be reached'here when I-s ti 23 asked t.h e si a f f, "If you meet the NRC standard, do you Lj a
j j
th 1
1 NEAL U.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washi ngt on,
D.C.
20005 i
f F
(2021 234-4433 m
l
\\
i
(y
~74 ~
'o s
~-
p u_
- f yw
,- y m
-m yG 4
1, 3;
4
- 50 I y i h'd '
[1.
meet the rpA:* standard?"
~The ~ answer fis' no, not A
}l) 2 necessari-ly, sand vice. versa.
i 31 I guess I wonder if qit's~ not. possible, asi g
g N; ' '
- 41 you l'ook' at-t his subject,_ to Lapproach. the ' issue in' e
5 t het i cont ext.
And recognizing that the probablistic y
[._
6:
nature'of the s t andard ' is f probably here-t o 's t ay.
'We-rm 1
17
~ hope - i t -- doesn ' t. ge t worse - if the st andard ' is looking'-
8
.towards 100.,000 years.
But recognizing-that -it's
[
a 9
probably-inherent in what we're going to have _to, deal p_ :.,
10f with. I've nsked t he staff this_' question and I'll pose-f
- 11
_it.to you.
. 12-
-Is there n means or an approach where we can 7"~
13-es t ablish -t he --implement ing requirements, eitherL using h<
14
.the subsystem-performance 7 criteria or'some variant on
.15 thot-.that when we analyze compliance with.those 1
,IG:
requiremenis,. we. c a n ',
at ihe end of :Ihat
- process, 17.
conclude that the EPA s t a n d a r'd ; i s t hereby - met, -'asy wel 18 do'- for mi.11; tailings and as we do for. o t h e r
',a r e a s ;
' 19" where we have standards like this.
20' It seems-to meithat if-we're troubled by.the 1 21 probablistic nature of the-standard, -i f.
the basic-22 approach that the Commission has pursued in its-pnri 23 60,113 is deterministic, and' if we can reach the
'24 conclusion-that compliance tith the deterministic
-J 25 framework is. as.a matier of fact, compliance with the L I: 1
,;.. J --
i i
N f: A !.
H.
GROSS i
~
1323 Rhode Ir, land Avenue, N.W.
1 Washingt on, D.C.
20005
]
.E (202) 234-4433
.l J,
r[4?TQ < >
%i
-(
o W{2?A....~,
a r
s i
l$ 4 fr
'I
'l y
n 1
t i
'v fi, g
s }
y l ;A;
! 51 Ws U-lt
.EPAL standard,
'that might solve
'a_ coupleof our g
~
P
^
~
12 --
problems', one:of which is-litigating the,probablistic k,
t p;
'3 nature of'the questions-that the EPA standard entails, t'
4
'which-I'think will be very;; difficul11.Lin. a litigative' 15
- context, and : ot her t echnical; questions. before lyou:.-
I
' :J b; ?
G-could-get to*the - hearing.
[
EF 7
But I would encourage you, las. you look at-sp..
s t,
8 ways to :try to come to grips with this issue,'toisee' 5;
9' if Ihat -- what I'11 call. I guess, 'the conventional Y
10l np'pronch'to the division responsibilities.might not be"
)
i 17 11.
zsomething that fits-here and,: if1necessary, with some:
i t
IA 12-adjustment of whnt we've got in our-eurrent regiulatory w.
13 framework.
.J
.i
. 14 DOCTOR.STEINDLER:
Why-don't we look. at-that Q
A 15-and get'back io you.
p 4
i 3 G-CHAIRMAN.CARR:
__ Le t me ask 'you - another b
Li s =
L17-question.
Do you t h i nk_~ _ our informn't ion ; base.. _
f _,
k
-18
- suf ficieNt ly-improved now that'.
we can achieve-a-
~i b
4 y
3
/19 consensus on a tevised standard?
Are we smarter now i
t c
r standard was agreed io?
'20~
thnn we were when-this n
21' DOCTOR STEINDLER:
I don't want to.be in the 22-posit ion '~ of saying we're not.
The issue,- l' think' 23 however, is are we: smart enough.
'If -- and there, I a
24 think, my view is that we're not.
We're not smart j
s r
25 bnough and the reason I
say that is because the j _p
- L
.J NEA1 H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202' 234-4433 k
n
. ie' e..
's,
\\U\\
-. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - i
QMN",
4 s
- @N., a m t ?,;, r. x c'
w,-
4 4
-. 4 y
11:
<1 -
b['"s
'It document s 'that-we've : read, E things.that we have' heard; ex,
12-where-people have-tried'to assesstthe process whereby-
-3; they would try and 'show- ~ compliance with'the~ standard ~
./
4
.have tended to be.quite' fuzzy.-
u g
'S.-
Now, part :of-L t hat,is t he-problem ofJcoming-G.
to grips :with a_-
renl reposi t ory' where they're. n o t '.
_7
- really ablefto dig significant ~ holes ~atsthis' point in' 8:
. time arid Lt herefore. es t ablish ' t he issues.-
-9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, my concern is cif we'rei
- 3 0-no bet t er; oble to write a ~ good standard now, shouldn't-11l' wn wn'it unt i1 we gol.some more data and'then write i hei a.
- .121
- standard?
M"~" ~
13-DOCTOR STEINDLTH:
The EPA, of course', would-
- _ J il 4
view t hat -t o be their responsibility and now-ours.
^ '
I ri
-COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Well, :t he n t andard ale,o - d ri ves :t he_. da t a ' col l ec t i on',.does n '.t E i't ?
ElG; 17 DOCTOR STEINDLCR: ~ Y e ti, ce r t a i n l_y.-
g (l R
' COMMI S S IONER ' CURT I S S :
. What.you ' do J i ni: the
' ~
10:
s'i t e characterization process -in " dict at ed =.in _ part b'y 4
L20' what the standard is.
So,-
it's a
cateh. 22:
R 21 potentially.
Maybe not a catch-22.
Maybenit augers-22 in: favor of addressing the problems ' wit h t he s t oridard
~
sort of the
. data 23 early for t ha t.
very reason, _
x,*
=.
ij 24 gathering.
25-We were. at a recent
,t rip that Commissioner E
I 1
<t;.-J [
.g i
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhnde Island Avenue, N.W.
j g
Washington, D.C.
2000~i
-t (202) 234-4433
'l 1
a]
m g
s 3m o
x
- [yg
-w
~
f m
_Q b
i
&',.1 s
[-
A' /
y i.
~pp:D g!g l$3-g y nj A.
. 3 ?-
?HogersLand:1z took1tofLawrence Livermore.
The-case was:
2, L
2 made that-the' carbon:14 issue is: driving a lot; of what!
1' d,
,3'-
- DOE-isldoing right now..
I don't1know'what1thatEmeans-
~..
'4' in t erms? of t heir actual. characterizationi :but. the W
1 lys
'S' carbon'14' issue is; driving it'because1that's what the" c
u y%
- 0, standard requires.
They,- in' turn, 'are going' : t o.
af i
)
T
_7.
dictate;what'thetcharacterization~ program looks-lik'e, i ;
[
B-CHAIRMAN CARR:
Have you.all : considered 6 a 1+,
t c'l
~
9 Joint' meeting with DOE's-t echn ical: review b'oard it o::
'I e
30.
. address ibis problem, since 1 think ihey' re-- goi ng io 3
n s
.s 31.
.look nt.it too?
. o gs 1:12 D0CTOR STrTNDLPR:
We have-not-as-yet.
.i y
33-We're -aware. of the fact that' t h e y ' r_e,
I-.think,<
?
d._J -
~
34' planning io 11ook at it.
.Wi - don ? t :know what _ I heir -
R 15 schedu'le is.
-l G CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well,; it might be, w o r t h, --
17-
- considering.
t
-18=
DOCTOR HINZC:
The c;hnirman of--their'healthi d
- 19 physics -- 1 can't give-you i t he exact ': t ille < - = is a 20 consultant-t o ' our Commii t ee.
So,_
t here 's ' very; good 121 relationships.
E 22-DOCTOR MOELLER:
They have i ndi en t.ed : : t ha t ?
23
,they would b e'-
receptive to a joint meet ing ~ on key
_c
,e -
241 issues.
So,
-that's a very good suggestion.
We'll y
(p,
?
25
. pursue'that also.
4
-J
.i
_A j :z J
M is NCA1. R.
GROSS e*
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
K n e. h i n g t o n,
D.C.
20005 (2023 234-4433 i
.i
,s
& ~ @ ; ;gh j ',
T X
~
k g.: '
m-
+
QQ ;f L_ ',
{ + p3-5 p-
=,
,w-x
% M
f&k
- j g
,r, A-r -
- . g b
'll CHAIRMAN - CARR:
'AlI right.
Let 's) proceed.
h.
-2 Sorry aboutithat.
mb+
g
_3,.
~
DOCTOR MOELLER:
.Ourz :next ' t o -last ' item is
+..
3y.
c4' our ;recent -let t er in:which.we commented on low-level p
- .9 g'
[
-Si was t'e programs. wi t hin.t he 1 Commission.-
Let ime lus t-j j
p will-be:. a short ' issue;- because.wer O
G.
I'm_'
hopi ng.this _
e 1
a N,
7L warit ed' t o have time to maddress the exempt ions ~: f rom.
p
'8 regulat cry; concern or from= regulatl'ons.
i\\
}
9 l
>'r 9-The low-level was t e' leit er. was not
'd i r e c t'e d y
[10 "
to=
the Division
- ofj L'o w-L e v e l -
W'aste Management 3 p
- ~
11-Decommissioning.
- Ruther, we. intended; it to-be a-12
- commentary
- on the complete Commission approach orillow-:
Fp
& T.
~13 level' wast e.
And wiih t hat-as. background, we have?
.i o,O'
- iLI
'M 14.
about, a s.'1 reen11, four_different points.
- 0u r' ' fi rs t q
c d 5 }.
'one was. simply that Dwe felt?.there.needed :t o --be as 10 closer t ie. :be t ween the people?whW are, concerned:about--
- 17f disppsal.ob.t;he waste,
-t he-lownlevel:L wast e,
'a nd 'L t he;g..
+
- 'g-
'l8
- people who-L are concerned about. t he mechanisms which-
/19 generut e or -produce _ t hese wastes, r
20
- We < know : t hat - in. nuclear ; power - plant s. you:
)21-Lknow as well as we, that through dedication
'o f. t o o l s 22 to a hot area and keeping them within ihe hot area,:
.g.: -
23 you -- e n n reduce ihe amount.of tcols that must be w.
i 24 discarded..
By cleaning up larger arens in t he _ plant -
-x
/
25 and..keepi.ng them cican, you reduce the volumes
=o f' l
a
,.-]
.h j-
- 6_
v-d
- )
NEAL~R. GROSS l
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.E O
Wonhington, D.C.
20005 j
(202) 231-4133 1
4,.
' N _ V), y >
_l
$?l ? :.1:L
__}
~~
v u
3
^
@-Miig[
., ~m) aW bg 4
p!c y' p -g F
..55,
-N mv. ;N t
(,*#
'1:
- waste'..
- S o, we '_ just -felt f romJ our j poi n t_
._'o f s view '. i t '
7 b,
s
'2-
. s e em e'd ' l i k e more of, a - syst ems: approach here would be 3;
helpful.
A1 PM g
'4 Our second.i t em s was ' t hat,- t he n " Ein' looking
? ;pi -,
. 5 Lat~all 'of the reports that ' we. had - t o reviewJin order c
~..
Ok w
F M'
G
- to prepare'to interact with the Division of Low-Level?
k k
7)
'Was t e, weifound ' t hat 1thereL were ;so many of 't hem it; wast kh 8.
hard.t o keep -it 'st raight.
-So, we suggested-that'if.it:
N N*
9-doesn.' t ~ exis t and':we - were - not aware of it,.t lin t some-k.
10' l sort of a rond map be'. prepared-t'n guide people suchLas; 11 us ' and L part icularly t he.-- a g reemen t' -states ;t o - provide
- e
.12 ;~
. guidance-to them.in dealing'with this _ -
. wit h all t of' t.
?r, s
~7 13 :~
= t h'e regulations and NilREG documents and theTDOE or-the
.t 14-
_ epa or everybody?s input into this subject.
-lGi Thirdly,.we still continue to'believe that a'
y f.
'16 system.which would encourage'_the: feedback. Eof operuting m
17; experience'.in-the low-level was t e field : would be
- \\.
N 18-extremely helpful.
. We're.nottsaying exactly.how to do-m g; ', t
.19:
t ha t-at this; moment, but.-.we _believe it w o'u l d i i b'e -
20'
- helpful' and in that same- ~ context we _ offered "t he-4 review of what' went ' wrong at. Maxey j
+
K 21 comment ary_ t hat a W
?22?
Flots, Sheffield and West Valley might b'e-helpful'als.o l
i 1o 23 in the way of learning from past experiences.
~
-1, 1
of'
{
w^
24 And-then, lastly, this was another one
-j 25 those urgings t o'-the Commission.
We didn't say that 1
- )
M
'r-L
-L_
>]
f l
A NEAL R.
GROSS l
(
f 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
)
Was hingt on, D.C.
2000n j
r 1202) 234-4433
.I g
L l
apMpp gy
'i i
s a :.e<.;L a
~-
+
- p,'
.g[,
J yy;+w !
_s.
+,
=
a f.n _ di
<j yy
- p
~ '. _.
%;u -
<156:
[-I ih
.but'we.didJurge thatibecause.
s
?)
'you_should be aggressive,
- j
- w
- 2:
Dornwe)1. and Beat t y will he. shut ting down in.1992 : and-
~ '
3I Lwe Tdidn't ;see ~the atates necessarily coming? along-m 14 l rapidly; enough-that whatever could:.be d d n e ': t o-l s,
5 encourage ; more rapid movement-J among the s t at es-would -
~
~
r
- GL he helpful.
+
y j
17-CHAIRMAN CARR:
-Any questions, Commissionerf
]
8c
. Roberts?'
j 9
' COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No..
1 10; COMMISSIONERlROGERS:
Well,'just. coming back ly 8 11'
.t o your second point on:the road map, how ~ dofyou seh:
12-
.that asLa new activity.
It:'s a211ttie troublesome in:
c f*7 13' t r y l u c. t 6. v i_ s u n 'i l c e how much effort might haveito'goL
.. _.A y
~
-i l 4 into _doing this.
What-level-are.you ' t hi nking, of I
.15 detnil nudlnecurney and" complet eness' for. t.hi s. rond ' map.
d 1_G.
-t h s t. ' you.' re recommending be. developed? ' !Ii t hink t here i 3
gunstion:ofLhow much staffLtime nndLeffort7might, 17
..i s : a f ;;7 18-get'sonked.up?in.this:that could be very-large if?it's-g 1.9; speronched '_ f rom 100' global a point of-view.
'What 1
are 4
s L20
.you thinking about there?:
21 ~-
DOCTOR -MOELLEHi l'm not sure we discussed /
_r
=r
-22 ex a c t !'y what would:be covered, but I would'sec il'~ns 7
u 23
.an overview.
.In other words~,-you could-list subjects, I
k*
'ft s
7 2 4' _
and say,
_I f. : you need informatlon on this, here are o
g 25
- t he documen t s.
That would be helpful.
, ]t.
-l-
,xq NEAL R.
GROSS
- s.
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, 11. C.
2000n (202) 234-4433
-i hy s
r e
+
r
+
- 4:<
c 1,
+
y v
l I
b w
G m
M{. y N
sX3 l
y<L' e,,
ni t
a !;:
-87L n
rc,,
((" N.
3.-
'33.y
,,y, 'If ve Efound -- I must T have usedil5 n
[
~ 2.
different documents,to get ready for=this meeting with.
i
/.
.the low-level waste' people and I wasn'.t':sure I had'all i3 K'
-4 the important -ones- 'and 'that?s':what we're 1 talking 1 i
p
['
c5 ab o u t.. -LI hear what you're saying and'thatfis' correct..
N
+
a
?
6:.p
'G.
- And
- yet, I'm -sure that: somewhere within-the.NRC-7 there's. some people who. have been here dur ing ' t he1 a
a 4
p
{
8 growth of Ethe-division. nnd so ' fort h who perhaps. t re a:
il 9
week or two=could set'down what would help us and help-t/
10.
others.-
'I
[
.] l-COMMISSIONER-ROGERS:
Wel 1, o-t hai might-be: a s
.L i.9 12-
-helpfulg way-t o proceed with the. collection of expert.
4:j
'13 opinions here on what these connect ions nre between
.M 14' the different documents.
41 5.
DOCTOR llIN7E:
Time would ren))y-'be.tnken up 10-with the annotation of - each - one of ihese.
'But if 17 therb's nn nbstract avnilable,:thnt could be put ':.i n t o
.)
=
a 18=
.some kind of-cent ral files and then could-be pulled;up
- q
?
s.
11 9 on the screen, that/would be~very useful.
{_<f,
20 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Curtiss?
g i-21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
No questions.
l; 1f 22
--CHAIRMAN CARR:-
Let's proceed, 23 DOCTOR MOELLER:
The~last i' tem is exemptions n:
24 from regulatory control.
We wanted to offer some 25 comments on that.
Now, obviously, you had asLed that I
i l1- )
NEAL R.
GROSS 4
1323 Rhode Toland Avenue, N.W.
t
'q Washingion, D.C.
20005 l2021 234-4433 4
- p* a u
y u:m gh 1,
^
N p. SS ydp '
aa. - -
58"
'^
y:7 e ' ^g?
' li-we.do so.
3 p
,1 gy
-2/
To int roduce t he ' subject,; I: would say - firs ts y
'3 of V
all. that-we have - found.~it t'o - be ;very. complex.
d i' i4 ~
- Further, I : would. pointJ out ' that we. hav'ei not as ' a-tol review-t h e..'l a t es t d
M
'S Commit tee - had-an opportunity '
B
+
jai
.v Q
.6
. proposed. policy. s t a t em e n t ', : draf t ' policy statement-in
-2!
u
+
m6
'b 5
7 de t ai l-. - Nonetheless,'we do'have'certain commen'tsLthat-
-'J
.' i w
m~
8 we : would.like to-share wit h i you,,- part icularly'. since q
g 1
k' D:
you' invited us to do so.-
4 -
.P.
N, 10!
As we said in our most recent letter, first-y 7
+
= 11 '
'of alliwe do like'the"new terminol.ogy.- Me ' real i r.e, L I-'
d v
-12.
guess itLwas in the.. congressional law Itaelf-that they-p 13 called it "below regulatory concern.". We-believe that J
7]I x
a c
,w 14.
~ " exempt i ons from. regulatory control" is n. much more
..t 15-accurate name.
,p; R
IGL Now,: youIhavn - nsked t he ~ st af f 1 Tor n' Lreview '
j
'i
~ 17 -
ofithe implications of BEIR V.
We will be t bold es
' l so
'r e
18' to offet some comment on - t hat ': and. i-t woul d: be: in a l
(
' 19 -
complimentary sense because you - have-so. careful:1y "and' 40.
correctly and with. great. foresight st at ed 1.t hat NRC
'[
21
-does not assume "en absence or threshold for rirk, 3
~ t 22
.rather a.buseline below which-further. efforts-to 1
.z 23 reduce risk are unwarranted."
In other words, that's
-s 4
e 24 what you're seeking.
L W
25 Well, in a-sense, BEIR V,
in my opinion'and'
^
+ _,.
,n l,,
NE'AI R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
i v
Washington, D.C.
20005 i -< a~ "
(202) 234-4433
+
fM+
w-c ; G *-
m 3,
k.
? 'i W 4 d 7 dt e.m 1
3 pt;gg
.t
=_
=
t t
b i
G u
59
- s. s.
'p#4 v
"2 cl.
based upon whatVl'velread.of;it, i's1 not! going.t o-givel j
L..
g 2'
';you. ariy problemsj at all'.
They do f say1 t hat nit'. looks.-
9 e
kr::
3 liko-solid, tumors f o l l ow -- a linear non-threshold
,i q
~
f4 relationship-whereas BEIR III pushed for - the. linear-
._p' 5
quadra t ic:- relat ionnhip, bu t -'in~ my-opinion 1.t hat 's, no t -
9q
(,
0; going to bother you because you - liave been L so ' careful -
1 t:
(L w
7:
'.to state your premise and it's-so'.well expressedi 8
Going on t o- ~ a t hird = it em, ;I ' believe,- in-
~
9
' hindsight, and, reading your s t a t eme n t s
much. more 4
10 ca re f ul.l y,
which fyou should always read things 34 11-carefully,- that tyour. onemmillirem - per year has a dose v'
12 rate io begin= wii h, until more experience is gained, t-
" ' ~ ~ '
13 is-probably_or it is a very good approach. 'Iffwe read w
14
- what you've said enrefully, we find thatEyou'sny_on ~ n-b 10 case by case basis you'll look at higher dos e.ra.t es.
=lG So, I belicve 'in liindsight -. we would ' have been wiser t o
- 1.7 hav'e' agreed with what you'reDdoing.
18
. M o v i'n g on, nn-I say, we have not reviewed.
~
l
- 1.9 the policy s ta tement sin ~det ail,._ but' we do ' find' t hat
[
20 it 's giving us some-problems at least at~this-day'and 21-at this time.
Maybe again' if we read-it more' 22 carerully some of these problems wi11 dissolve.
.But a.u..
-O:,
123.
let me tell you what our liasi c problem is.
V e. a r.e 4
H m.
'24 totally in f avor of. t he concept..
We would promot e
- 25 vigorous pursuit of the establishment of~
the
,1 F
.c ;_
I NEAI R.
GROSS 1323 Rhnde Island Avenue, N.W.
j Washington, D.C.
20005 j
(2021 234-4433 1
. i h
O'-
QY';fy A.
j;t f 7, s
JW M
60' p.
'l exemptions from regulatory control.
However, in the-2 draft policy statement, the staff is-. at t empt ing ' t o 3
address the subject in. a generic. manner.
I;believe
.v, 4
that there is-where they're getting into' trouble.
5 Now, let me ' explain - what - we ~ mean..
If you!
e U
G take. the policy statement-and : apply it to
-a 7-decommissit.ned f acilit y, it'seems to app 1'y very well'.
f 8
In other.words, you say thnt it's all right to release 0
ihis-facility-for public
~ access' if you.
have r
10' decontominnted it and brought the dose rates down io-11 whatever level, ten millirem'a year, whatever it would
-12 be.
};nowi ng t hat the cleanup-is:en expensive process,;
s 7G 13 thut ' represents, and.as-the policy' stat ement.would
.. J.
i 14-correctly-etnie in ihis ense, it retires en t s ALAHA.
In t
15 other words, you've cleaned it up-enough.
There's-no i
10-reason io spend more money to go'further.
17 llow e v e r, if r
'12 and if you've. enrefully segregat ed t hem and-if perhapr;
&p
- ?
13' irr some cases you may even have,to wait and let them.
.i
.l
.wx:.w b "'
14 decay.for a-few mon t hs. to get down to below what ever p
_1 A-the' level i r,, then,it'n' permissible to disposefin the h
k
-1G-e.n n i t a ry landfill.
(*
s?,
17 11u t to repent,.1 do not
- t. e e the counto> ion h
p 18 between that and ALARA and-so I
think the policy 19 statement in attempting io be generie, you-must be I: '
20-more careful.
The staff needs to be more careful.
V
{
21 Let's take n third exampic, the effluent-h, 22' releases from a nuclear power plant.
~Now,-those have - '
23 been covered in Appendix 1,
Title 10, part 50.
And 6 :.
ff.
24-.
again, there ALARA is appropriate.
You said and after v
.25 long rulemaking of ten, 15 years ago, or 20, wbnte er
+
g1 -- ' JLf 5
~
i NEAI W.
GROSS s
pp 130'1 Rhode it. land Avenue,
'!. W Washington, D.C.
20005 (2021 234-4433 f
m.p m._
a.
y 4~
j t.!
3e s
" (?
4 i
. y---
-02 o ".
l it was,.the conclusion was that if utility controlled
-2 their. waste at the nuclear plant such thaty a 3
hypothetical person at defense post' did not receive-1
(
.f 4 -
.more than five or ten or whatever it 'is-millirem, it's J
m
.5 a'few millirem a year, ihen you1 declared-that. t o ; be G.
ALARA and ihere' the ALARA concept is correct.
The 7-proposed policy' statement would apply directly.to this R.-
in contrast to, in my opinion, not. apply.to low-level
'9
, waste.
4 10 And further i n that, not only did ' you : say 11-
- thnt was ALARA, but you. also said, however,.t hat ~in 12 t e rm t.
.o f colleet ive dose, that if by. spending less-13 t han 'tl,000.00 you can reduce it hy one additional.
.~J 14 person rem, you have to do it, within a radius'of 50 15 miles of the ' p l a n t '.
- Now, that.is the. correct 1G npgtlit n t ion -of ihe ALARA concept to col 1octive dose.
l 'T That is, if by spending a certain amount of money you;
- 18 enn reduen the colleetive. dose.by n-one-person rem or 19 one person'nievert or whatever it is, then you must do
+
To say that if the distrib~ution of this consumer 20 it.
21-product or t he practice of-t his cerisin operation does 22 not result in n$ ore than 1,0'00 person rem and therefore 23-that-represents ALARA,.it does not represent ALARA.
-l 24 1.menn I'm coming. on a little bit strong, l
i 25 ti u t - I really beiieve what I'm saying.
So - here. are l
,Ig
.y u.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Isinnd' Avenue, N.W.
Wa s h i n g t o n,. D. C '.
20005 e- -
(202) 234-4433 b
[
,j ' -
au 1 j
be.'
% yyyfi &,
x.... <
- v. :,,
.q.<
a t
ag/
,:q
?. $[.
t
. ;h E
- g( (
G3 L'
')
tbree examples I've cited.
Two'out.of'thectbree, the 1
-n.
2 exis>t ing - policy st at ement comes very close t oimpplying.'
.3 en'd_you can run with:it.
4
- Now, on a
third example which would. be.
existing- - policy z5
-consadar
- products,
.again the:
+
.G-statementi at least I
am unable to apply it to.
)
di 7;
consumer. product s. and 'I?.11 tell you J why fonce again.-
8=
.I f L1 hnve n consumer product such _ns.a: smoke det ector:
B e
.9
- end it only yields a tenth of a millirem per year =and 10
- it han-the potentla) for tremendous-sovings of. lives, f
i 11
'which i rideed. t hey do, and we know that4 millions.of m 1
12" people the world over can benefit,
t hen; you permit S
f~
13'
.that to be generally-licensed and_to be nynilable: t o.
t u_.J 11 4' the general public.
But it's not_to me necessarily 15 A 1. A R A,
ob slGE I n -. foit, i f_
1 hnd two; smoke.det ect or4 4
'17 companies that came i n. ' and appl i ed - t o t he. NRC for.
18 licenseh-to make nnd - sel l. smoke det'ect ors, J ond ' t hey
.y 19:
both did ihe same; t hing' and accomplished the 'same" d
3
't 20 t hing,. but one produced nine-tenths of a millirem per:
21-year and --t he other one one-t ent h -. of = a-- : millirem.' per N
22 year,-11would not see you nor t he st af f just blanketly:
3 A
l23 granting.npproval to both.
But rather you would any 1
'24 to the nine-tenths millirem a year company "What are
.u 25 you doing different*
Why can't you get down to't.he:
j P
!. h -
- m. g,
't NT' A T. R. C R0 f' S j
1303 Rhnde 1eInnd Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
-[
(202) 234-4433-m d
iW t
_ _,- m
m, sym_
4
~
./
W_,'t.. V " > s'.
r
.. fJ O i6
' M dq
- *\\
q.
J' Q;8. c[
9
/
l 4
t
,~
f 64
, p i,.-
c g ["
x 1~
one-tenth?"
+
-l
.2' So, as I_ say, 'we :sce it: as moving, along well 3
_buti unless we're. wrong, we -believe1 more-work; is-
~
4 4;
needed.
I-would-certainly-encourage 'a
- generic'-
P
.h 6'
approach, but. massage it. aL littIc-bit-so tliat 'thik-
,.m 0-confusion-can: be removed, at L1 east what. is confusiori-
?
M' Ti vtoiusi
-Q Ww
- 8-~
COMMISSIONED -HOCERS:
Now.t het 's. what you;
.9 were referring to in:
your January Intter : en-1' O v n r i ab i__111 y.
Is that 'what you're tniking about?
3 A
r 11 DOCTOR MOELLER:
Okay.
On ihe-variability, ji n
110
- on that we -think-there --
>b
-13 COMMISSIONER ROGrHS:
If it's different,;youf'
^ ^ ' "
.O
- w-
~
11 4 can-come t o ihut ~ Int er.
15 DOCTOR MOELLEll:
.There is_-
,the variability 1_G -
ihere is an -- ex cell en t_
ex ampl e. _of - t hia._ appli en t l oti ' o f what, we have. cauggest ed.and L we' re biased' buf we L are r
T y;
-18!
Lsoldfe L
11 0 -
CilATHMAN CARH: -Not as..much as we. pre..-
a m
20-DOCToli'M0ELLER:
We're biased.
We're pretty.
r 21' much sold t hat we' re. ri. gh t and :therefore we're going:
k ._
a.?
22 tn keep' shouting, 23:
There's an excellent example of the sliding (n
(d4-scale standard -that we're proposing you consider 90 n'd opt i n g.
'In your proposed decommissioning initini 00 (Jg h *; m l ':A O A;
~
NEAL F.
GROSS Q
132:1 Rhode 1 s i n n d - A v e-n u e, N.W il Washington, D.C.
20005 J
1 (202) 234-4433 g
4 m
4 r
-4' e
- < lG l ?:
9 9
%.;; !ih b'
j.p V-- @
8 s
~
-1
' staff d r a f t s'~
standards or regulations for on
[
2 decommission'ing, your. stating, at least ~if I've read 3
it. properly,.that you might approve >the release of..a 4:
decommissioned facility for access by the public if it
- ,L' 5-didn't cau6e more t han ~ 10 millires'a year.
- Well, O
_ we're happy 1 wii h that becauseLwe know 't hat not' more W
7-t h a n.1 100. Peop1e = or so you know, pick a number--
'8 could' crowd into that facility or will-be there-on n-9-
singlefday'and living and working around it.
So, what-10 we'reLoeying t o you is -- and s.o we're hnppy with that 11-hecoube ihe c ol 1 e c t.i ve dose wi11 be small.
12
.S o,
we're bimply saying to you that ~ we
~7 13'
. believe-it would be n wise policy that the higher the LJ
.11 dose rate associated wit _h t he exempt ed-pract ice, the 15 l ower t he col'l ec t i ve dose that you permit.
That takes
.: 1 G enre of. your problem of - : multiple sources.
It-
- -17.
_ automatically tukes_ care of >.t hat because if'something_
.1 R can' be u s. e d.b y millions' of peopl e,z i t) has-af_very
.19 extremely low'L associat ed. done, ra t e.
It's only; the
-n 20 hicher dose rat e pract ices or exemptions'can 21-possibly -- well, the higher dose rate practices - or.
22 exemptions would be restricted to those which can'
- 23 affect only a small number of people, n
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, would ~ you see
- 25 that us a relationship that could be fixed once and
- o.y s. _J :
NJ:A 1. R. GROSS l1323-Rhode 1sland Avenue, N.W.
.e Wnsh i ngt on, D.C.
20005 (202' 231-4433 2;
r k
GG I
1 i
t this have to be different for 1
for all or would you 2
each pr act ice that one w a s. c o n s. i d e r i n g ?
3 DOCTOR MOELLER:
I would try something 4
generienlly, again leaving in your caveut on a case by 5
case basis.
We'll look into it in more detail.
But I C
belie e it could be done on a generic basis.
7 CilAIRMAN CARR:
Any more on that subject?
8 DOCTOR MOELLER:
No, e,ir.
O Cil A I RM A N CARR:
Any questions, C omm i s, r. i o n e r 10 R o b e r t e
11 commissioner Rogers?
12 COMMISS10NER ROGERS:
Oh, a couple commentu.
13 1
think you've said that you did support the 14 C om m i e, s. i o n '.s i n i t i n t i v e t.
in t h i t.
direction.
I ri D OC TOR N 001.1.F R :
Yes, sir.
1C COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Could you be specific 17 as to the b e n e f i t s, of establishing on exemption policy 18 that -- n e, you see them" 19 DOCTOR MOELLER:
I believe in the case of 20 the waste manngement it will promote much better waste 21 management practices at the waste generators.
In our 22 letter on ihe waste, we have said, of course, that you 23 should look -- we would encourage the staff to look at 21 it with a s y s t e s t, approach, but using ihis ii will 25 encourage better wnste management prnetices.
t a
NEAI R.
G R O S ".
1""3 Rhode Isinnd Avenue, N.W.
W o r. h i n g t o n,
D.C.
20005
/202T 231-4433
G7 y
1 1 believe in terms of disposing of low-Icvel 2
warte, it will have many advantages, in relieving seine 3
of the burden, the unnecessary burden of extremely--
4 only slightly contaminated warte now filling up our 5
limited burial site capacity.
I see it as having many G
benefits there.
I would hope that it wo.Id have 7
benefits in promoting and encouraging consumer il 1.r od u c t r.
s.u c h as smoke d e t e c t o r e..
I'm sure ihere are 9
other things out there.
Of course, your new -- the 10 newly developed device for det ect ing explosive s nt the 11 airports, t hat 's very significant.
And indeed, if it 12 enn be done, which you've enrefully reviewed it nnd at 13 very low d o t> e rates, then let's encourage it.
.....)
14 COMMTSSTONrit ROGrpS:
Good.
Thnnh you.
15 There's been a struggle over the name and 1C you've alluded to that and expressed a f a v o r a':> 1 e view 17 of the name " exempt from regulatory control.
Names 18 are i mpor t tin t bernut.e very ofIen people can remember 10 the n a n. e, but-they can't remember any details about 20 the statement except the name and if ihe nnme doesn't 21 adequately convey what the notion is, then there 22 certninly can be mi si nt erpre t n t i onr.
of intent and 23 purpote thnt enn occur.
And it seems to me ihat both 24 those names, "helow reguintory cont r ol,"
and " exempt 25 from regulatory cont rol," r,uffer f r o n-the deficiency Fl L-NPAI R.
GROSS 1323 libndo Isinnd Asenue.
N.W.
Wa r.h i n g i on,
D.c.
2000',
'202' 234-4433
i 4
68 g
- i I
that they convey a
sense of finality to the 2
cetegorization that I find inapproprinte.
3 In thinking about that, it seemed to me that 4
the addition o.' n word such as " conditionally," or 5
" provisionally,"
to the name might help with that.
~
O Have you thought about that a s.p e c t of the name?
not so much in 7
DOCTOR MOELLER:
Yes.
We 8
ihe nnme, h,u t certainly the concept and we commented 9
on that in one of our earlier letters.
Indeed you 10 wi11 continue to follow tbese prnetices.
The e, toff 31 will, from t i m e-in time, check to be sure these smoke 12 detectorn are being properly made and so forth.
So, 13 the word " conditionally," or something like that would
~
14 he helpful.
15 CilAIRMAN CARR:
linving been arisoc i at ed with 10 a p r o,l e c t that never lost its original name no matter 17 how mnny times you changed it, enlled Sanguine, I'm 18 not sanguine ni all that anybody is going to forget 19
- BHC, You can call it whatever you want to and it will 20 stay BRC.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Y e s,, it's hard to kill 22 some of these things once they get into the lexicon.
23 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
Well, let me,i u s t add the 24 comment that the focus is on the final
- activity, 25 namely n inndfill, and nt that stage of the game, the I
.1 w
NEA1 R.
GROES 1?"3 Hbode Island Avenuo, N.K.
Washingt on, D.r.
20005 (202' 234 1433
69
['
I term
" conditional" lacks a
certain amount of 2
credibility if you talk about regulatory control.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, it sort of comes 4
back t.o some of the issues you were touching on.
The one atatement doesn't really seem io serve all ihe C
purpot.es that we want to apply 5t io.
7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, I think the BRC term B
is renlly "below regulatory concern."
0 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
Concern.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
11 011 AI RM AN CARR:
And it s e e m t.
to ru e ihet's 12 r e n t. s.u r i n g to people.
If you say i t ' r.
Something that so low a
regulator shouldn't be 13 e
regulat or 14 concerned with it, that's perfectly plausible to me as 15 a r e r, u l a t o r.
10 COMMISSIONER ROCERS:
- Wel1, one can take 17 quite ihe opposite --
18 CHAIRMAN CARR:
That's why I want the level 10
- e. o high.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Quite ihe opposiie 21 point of view thnt there should never be any lack of 22 regulatory atiention to anything ihat has any kind of 03 a health implication that somehow it might be high or 24 low priority but never totally out of sight.
So, I'm 25 not suro that I would make that some assessment.
O
- i. ;
N P A l. R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
W a r.h i n g t o n,
D.C.
20005 (200' 234-4433
I 70 g
I-J
.1 CHAlHMAN CARR:
I only brought it up because 2
1 think we'll have a hard time get ting rid of the tog.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes, that could very 4
well be.
5 In your letter, you also expressed upproval G
of the NRC staff's efforts to include in the policy 7
- r. t a t em e n t recommendations to discourage frivolous uses 8
of radionet ive m a t e r i a l t,.
What's your opinion of who O
should decide whnt i t.
frivolous and what would you 10 suggest to be the criteria for deciding if a proposed 11 use is or i s, not frivolous?
12 DOCTOR MOE L1.E R :
We have discussed that in 13 detnil and let me j u t-t respond on two ways.
One is in 14 the SECY document.
We thought the parngraph that was I r.
in there that u n i, suggested as a means for covering 10 frivolous applicationn, we thought that was a good 17 paragraph.
We were careful in our letter to say we IR have no idea how you determine what's frivolous.
19 Wh a t ' s.
f r i v o l o u t. -- like in the U.K.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Doesn't that really 21 introduce a new dimens i on into the thing?
22 DOCTOR MOELLER:
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And why do we have to 24 worry about anything except the health and safety 25 nspects: of tbene
- s. o u r t e s ?
And if one ialL*
about 9
Nr Al F.
GROKS 132? Rhode 1tland Asenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
'200' 2?1-4439 l
i 71
' h' "'
i something totally different, as to whether it's a
2 frivolous use or not a frivolous use, it's a totally 3
new dimension, it seems to me, in the consideration 4
wherens what we're really concerned about is henith 5
and safety.
If there are good reasons to have benith 0
and safety doubts nbout something, then we should be 7
properly conservative in how we den) with those, it 8
seems to me.
judgment n r: 1o whether something is 9
But n 10 frivolous or nomething is essential depends. very much 11 on wher e one i t.
coming from und one's point of view ns 1'
we've learned with the gemstone issue, for example, to 13 hent the comments there of how essential thnt was for
'~~
11 a cert nin part c.f the commercial actisitios.
13 ri! Al HM t.N CARH:
If the mantle in the lump is 10 for reading, i t ' t, not frivolous.
If it's for camping, 17 it's f r i v ol uut;, iicht^
18 COMMISSIONER ROCERR:
Well, you may even say 19 shot it i-you're rending that's f r i v o l o u t.
or not 20 frivolous.
Who's going to decide that?
21 DOCTOR Mc E 1.1.E R :
You alrendy though are 22 practicing judgments, 1 believe.
In terms of the 23 policy statement, n r.
I ret 011, at lensi some of the 24 earlier drafts, said that before you would approve of 25 a i ndionct ive source to do s orae t h i n g, you would check t
- i. -
NhAl H.
GHOSS 1322 khode Island Avenue, N.K.
Wa,hington.
P.r.
2000; (202' 234-4133
o 4
l l
7' C,: J I
to be sure ihere was not a cheaper, non-radioactive 2
way of necomplishing the some task.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
4 DOCTOR MOELLER:
So, you are making some 5
judgments already.
G COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, presumnbly 7
that's because we're concerned about a health issue 8
rather than an i s s, u e of frivolous.
9 DOCTOR MOEl.t.ER:
Oh, whether it's frivolous.
10 T h a t ' s.
corrert.
That's a good point.
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I find that frivolous 12 judgment one very, very touchy for us to cet into.
13 DOCTOR STEIND1ER:
You obviously have been 14 listening io our conversutions in our meeting because 15 ue had a very similar sort of discussion.
1G COMMISS10NER ROGERS:
Well, I haven't been.
17 DOCTOR STEINDLER:
The issue, however, has 18
- got, like everything else, two sides and the concern ID on the other side of the coin is whether or not one 20 would nilow, recordless of the absolute magnitude of 21 the health issue, someone to introduce a radioactive 22 source for one reason or another into the crib blanket 23 of a
small child.
The arguments about numerical 24 standards and henit h ef fect s, BEIR V or whatever else.
25 rapidly take on a much different view when we get into R
4.
w NErl R.
CROSc 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
K n <. h i n g t o n,
D.C.
2000S (20?T 234-44'?3
]p; y
y E
1 jm
^
Gjf '
j L73 k.,N 3-
'the non-technical' area.
And it's in.that context thot w
1 s
2 --
the not ion of frivolit y - now h a s,, I.think, some more<
3 meaning.
4' 1
- ngree, however, that
' t iie
'm e,t h o d of
{f Si adjudicating t_h a t is an issue.which you need :to: looki A
' O.-
at very enrefully because it 's - out of 'your normni 7;
charter. I would guess.
But' that 's the concern that 4
~~
'O COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The concern. is ~ ar 7
'10
.healt h concern.
.It - deals with perhaps a donnin that
'1 11' we d6n' t-undere.t and; i hnt well 'and we're not cure 12' enough about and e.o'we want.to be very careful to---
- y i
'13 -
-DOCTOR STEINDLEU:
I'm t rying'.io move ' t he o
,1 od t he~. n on-14
. concernout -of t he numerieel value and into 5
15'
'numerieni nren.
'b;>
hjp l G:
COMMTSS10NER~ ROGERS:
Eine.
Ri gh t L.
'Yes, l
17 I ' in with.ynu there.
-18:
DOCTOR STEIND1,ER:
And i t 's' i n = t hat ' con't ext?
19 ~-
that it's difficult.
.I 20.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes..Right.
21.
Does anybody else want to talk about<
~
'22 frivolity?-
n 123 DOCTOR HINZE:
We've tried to change.ihnt; L24 name, but with no success.
Ws 2 f, -
-COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Y e t..
Well, i t ' s 'J u t.t i
n$
. 3, NEAI. h.
GROSS 3323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
m Wushington, D.C.
20005 5 g:: '
(2021:-234-4433
-m-s p
m.
Q Ajg..,
o l
74 0
'2 1
that t her e's certain aspects of it that I
find 2
troublesome from a reguintory agency point of view.
3 Just one other question that deals with 4
nothing that we've been talking about today.
But how is the division of responsibilities between ACNW and G
AHCS working out?
llow do you s.ee that now?
That was 7
something that we've been looking at, hearing a little
, h a t ' t: your opinion on t hat ?
8 bit nbout.
W 9
DOCTOH MOE l,L E H :
- Overall, I
think it's 10 working very well.
In fnet, 1 cannot reu11y cite any 11 truly --
nrens that would truly be problems.
The 12 decommir.rioning item, n e.
you may know, recently came 13 up t h r c.u g h Mr.
Fruley and Carlyle Michelson and nnd agreed 14 m y e. e l f.
We've written up a memo which 15 between the two committees and then I believe he's.
16 writing - Mr.
Prnley i t.
writing to Chnirmnn Carr to 17 tell him -- or r.uggest or at.k for his npproval of what 18 we're considering doing.
But it ren11y --
19 COMMISSIONEH HOGERS; You seem to be able to 20 work thone i s s.u e n out.
01 DOCTOH MOELLEH:
We have more ihnn enough 22 work to do, so it's not a e n e. e of them taking things 23 over that we want to do.
We all have more than enough 24 to do and 1 see no problems.
25 COMMISSIONEH H0GERS:
Wel1, i1's real1y not I-~l
. a NEAl H.
CHOSS l'!O3 khede Island Avenue, N.W.
K p h h.i II C t oli, II. C.
2OOOb (202' 231-4430
o.
o I
75 I
jumt ihat but whether anything ihen falls between the 2
cracks.
3 DOCTOR MOELI.rR:
We hopo not.
We'll try to 4
be sure that it does not.
5 CRAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Curtiss?
G COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Just two quick 7
quer.tions on BRC.
First, what led you to conclude 8
that one aillirem for the individual dose was too low 9
and a three to five millirem would not appear to be 10 uniensonable, I think your words were, first.
11 DOCTOR M001LER:
Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
And secondly, would 13 ten millirem appear t o be unrensonable?
11 DOCTOR MOELLFR:
1 think, in response to 15 thnt, ihat ten mil 1irem would be unrensonable if it 16 were a source or a practice that could affect millions 17 of people or hundreds of thousands beenuse those same 18 people would also be affected by other s o u r c e t..
If 19 you combine too many ten millirem sources, you're 20 reaching nn unacceptable level.
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Under the approach 22 that's been discussed, if widesprend practices were 23 established on a
level of one millirem and ten 24 millirem were reserved for releases from regulatory 25 control for decontaminated sites and for waste streams rq L J NT Al R.
GROSS In2" ribode i t. i n n d Avenue, N.W.
We hincton, D.C.
2000G
'202' 211-4133
76 L~
l from low-level waste facilities, would that appear to 2
be unreasonable' 3
DOCTOR MOELLER:
Really not.
We were 4
pushing the higher level than one mil.lirem just to get 5
it up to a higher level.
I'm curious to know 7
whether -- i t ' t.
an int erest ing discussion.
8 CHAIRMAN CARR:
It's not a real technical 0
basis for -- ten,
- one, three, four, five, you know, 10 ii's o few.
11 COMMISSIONER Ct!RTISS:
Thnt was my question, 12 whether three to five is tensonable beenute that's 13 what other people do or bernuse there's some technical 14 conclusion that's driven you to that.
15 DOCTOR MOELIER.
Well, mainly, the three to 1G five would be based on the premise that most people 17 woold not be exposed io more thun ibree such sources.
18 We'd like to stay in n ten or 15 millirem t ot al. dos e 10 rate range.
You need to gnther some in format ion on 20 thnt or we do.
21 CRAIRMAN CARR:
Even though we're in a
22 hundred millirem bnckground?
"3 DOCTOR MOELIER:
Right, right.
And again, 24 the one millirem, one reason it troubled us a little 25
- bit, hot as I
- sny, on rereading your proposed R
.)
NEAT R.
GROSS 1323 Rhod.- It. land Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 e20"'
234-4433
I I
I 77 j,
i 1
statement, it makes very good sense that it's a
2 beginning level and you'll look on a case by case 0
basis at higher levels.
But one millirem concerned us 4
since that is the level at which the NCRP truncates 5
its collective d o e.e calculations.
That was simply our G
concern.
7 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
No further questions +.
8 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Let me ask you if you're--
9 what p l a n s, you have for replacing Doctor Smith.
Would 10 your a c t i v i t i e r, be impacted if we kept you three 11 menibers?
12 DOCTOR MOELLER:
They would be, y e t,.
Y e s.,
13 sir.
And, in fact, our next agenda item as soon as 14 this meeting is os er u n s.
to d i r.c u s s nominations or 15 candidaten for the poi eu t ial positlon.
10 CilAIRMAN CARR:
All right.
17 DOCTOR MOELLER:
I would ask, please, that 18 you do r e r. t o r e u r.
to four people, 19 Cil A IRM AN CARR:
And how chout the staff 20 ree,ourcen?
Are they adequate to provide tne types of 21 constructive comments and detailed rationales that are 22 most helpful io u t. "
22 DOCTOR MOELLER:
They are rapidly reaching 24 that level.
Iloward Larson has joined our supporting 25 staff and so that gives us at the moment three people, rq L
.1 NEAl R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
War,hingion.
D.C.
2000."
(200' 234-4433
o 78 p
uJ l
Charlotte Adams and Richard Major and Howard 1.a r s o n.
2 And we have n fourth position which either will be a 3
fellow or a full-time staff member.
And I think when 4
we rench t hat, we can really move along the way we 5
want to.
We've been definitely hampered up to the G
present.
7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
All right.
Well, I'd like 8
to thank
- you, Doctor Moeller, Doctor Steindler and 9
Doctor
- Hinze, for providing this updat e on ACNW 10 activities..
I know these periodic discussions are 11 helpful to each of u t.
on the Commission in providing 12 an opportuni1y io dicruss your recommendations on
~
13 wuste management issues.
14 ACNW has had a formidable task since its
' I P, inception in 1988 in liecoming f amilinr with the broad 10 cepe of w a s. t e management issues confronting the 17 Commission.
Now i hnt this period is behind us, I
18 apprecinte your willingner.s to focus your nitention on 10 the e.p e c i f i c technical it. cues of particular interest 20 to the Commission that I forwarded in my November memo 21 to you.
22 1
urge you to work with the staff in 23 formulating your quarterly program plan to optimite 24 the timing of your ACNW r e v i ew r;.
I niso encourage you 25 to continue the practice of attending major meetings I
' P Al It. C R O '4 "
132" !?hode Island Avenue, N.W.
F <hincton, P.r.
20005
' O ' ' 234-4433
o, 79 i
1 arranged by the staff on key technical issues to 2
enhnoce communiention und to optimize the u t. e of our 3
resources.
4 I apprecinte your continuing efforts to keep G
us informed of your Committee's efforts through our 6
personal staffs.
7 Do any of my fellow Commissioners. h a v e-any 8
additional commenis?
9 COMMISSIONER HOGERS:
Just that I thought ii 10 w a *. on excellent session und --
11 COMMISSIONER HODEUTS:
it c e r t a i n l y w o n..
12 COMMISSIONEH HOGERS:
-- really enjoyed it 13 very much.
14 DOCTOP MOELLEH:
Thank you,
- s. i r.
I I.
C11 AIRMAN CAHH:
We stand adjourned.
10 (Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m.,
ihe nbove-entitled 17 matier was udjourned.I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
L _a NEAl H.
GROSS 1329 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Koshi n gt on, D.C.
2000n U
f2021 234-4433
.,o e
g o
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclect Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRItFING BY ADVISORY COMMITTFE ON NUCLEAR WASTE PLACE OF MEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
FEBRUARY 21, 1990 were transcribed *by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
+
1 4 fu
-,-,,m,.-,
s Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch i
HEAL R. GROSS COURT SID0 tith $ AND TRAN5ChitlR$
1323 RHODE 15 LAND AVENUI, N.W.
(2o2) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C.
20005 (202) 232 6600
Al#A8UWW@d%MdddAd%%%%%%%%%nd%%%%%%dffffffi g gg g TP.AHSMITTAL TO:
M Occument Control Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room h
.3//Tl90 b
CATE:
FROM:
$ECY Correspondence & Records Branch i
I Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related eetting 3
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Dat)y Accession List and g
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or g
3 required.
Meeting
Title:
h-(I2, h A
OL Nd C.A)h))
d[A//90 Open I Closed Meeting Date:
i Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS
- 8
- Copy, to POR o
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 j
i i
i
- 2. b h O
/
/
I
/2M.du nt/n
!n
- 3. det,~h n
/
/
i ij
%~ AhL /Mu/M l
L
< fewLan b I
I t
k d hL t/p /90 l
- 5. YNth b
I l
fn stA%L t/p/9o l
f I.
6.
m_
- i l
^
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
'i C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY IICE papers.
,f
\\
a 1
AJAa
\\
(OM7 ACNM ff >m #80g3%
UNITED STATES l
o-g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?
3 e
I ADVISOMY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 1
1
%... * /,.f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20M6 0,
i
=
January 26, 1989 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
SUBJECT:
WEST val. LEY DEMONSTRATION PROJEC1 During its sixth meeting, January 23-24, 1989, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with representatives of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), its contractors, and the New Yert State Energy Research and Development Authority for a review of the West Valley Demonstration Project.
L We discussed, among other concerns, the procedures that have been developed and are beine applied in solidifying decontaminated supernatant low-level wastes and testing the melter for_ vitrification of the high-level wastes.
As a result of this review, the Committee concludes that the program is appropriately focused and that the results are f avorable.
Although there appears to be good communication between the DOE contractors and staff and the Nuclear Pegulatory Commission (NRC) staff, there may be' a need for additional input from the NRC staff in two areas:
1.
Acceptance criteria for the vitrified high-level waste, including the enumeration of testing procedures to indicate conformance with these criteria, need to be identified by DOE for the waste pro-L ducers, and these criteria, in turn, need to be reviewed by the NRC to determine if they are acceptable; and 2.
Public health and safety criteria for the facilities and land areas being decontaminated and decommissioned as part of this project need to be established.
l We plan to schedule a visit to the West Valls/ site within the next six months.
?
He trust these comments are responsive to your request.
Sincerely, DadeW.Moe1Ier 7
Chairman
& 0%C h *l(f x
--- {,
.S l
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
2-January 26, 1989
References:
1.
V.
5.
Department of Energy Report, DOE /NE/44139--15
" West Valley Demonstration Project Plan," January,1989 P.
Letter dated August 3,1988 from R. D. Hurt, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory.
Consnission, to W.
W.
Bixby, U.
S.
Departrent of Energy, regarding comments on the revised West Velley Demonstration Project Plan i
L l
nog'g I
- /
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
Aovisony couwms oN wuctaan wam WAEMlWOToN D.C.EEs g
December 21, 1989 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
SUBJECT:
CONNENTS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS OF DA'S HIGH-LEVEL WASTE STANDARDS During its 15th meeting on December 20,
- 1989, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Wasta met with the NRC staff and representatives from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for additional discussions pertaining to the Standards for a high-level waste (NLW) repository currently being revised by EPA.
We previously discussed this matter with a representative from EPA during our 14th meeting on October 11-13, 1989 and the ACNW or its predecessor, the ACRS, have had continuing interactions with the NRC staff on the matter over the past several years.
We also had the benefit of the documents referenced.
On the basis of these discussions, we continue to doubt that compliance with the EPA standards can be demonstrated for a specific repository site, even recognizing the caveats included in the standard, such as the " reasonable assurance" phrase that allows for certain flexibilities in the interpretation of probabilistic
- analyses.
If the construction of a Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function clearly demonstrates compliance with the EPA Standards, then the need for interpreting the
" reasonable assurance" phrase is removed.
If, as is more likely, demonstration of compliance is not clear, it will be necessary to have a definitive understanding of how the NRC staff plans to interpret the wording in the EPA Standards thatt Proof of the future performance of a disposal system is not to be had in the ordinary sense of the word in situations that deal 1
with auch shorter time frames.
Instead, what is required is a reasonable expectation, on the basis of the record before the implementing agency, that compliance with 191.13 (a) will be achieved.
I The preferred alternative in the plan as outlined in SECY-89-319 I
for amplementation of the EPA Standards calls for the NRC staff to resolve the major problems concerning implementation of Section
]
191.13 (a) through rulemaking.
It is not clear to us, however, how
-G)vo i v 5 & 1 'i '))
p 1
j i
The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr 2
December 21, 1989 such rulemaking would resolve the uncertainties in applying probabilistic techniques, nor is it clear that this method represents the best approach for coping with problems that are, in the main, a result of what we consider to be an unacceptable set of standards.
We believe that the NRC staff in SECY-89-319 has not provided the Commission an adequate range of alternatives.
one such alternative that we recommend would be that the Commission object to the EPA Standards on the basis that:
i 1.
There are no obvious _ ways for demonstrating compliance of any specific repository site with the standards.
)
l In this sense, the Standards may be unrealistic.
2.
The Standards are also overly stringent and inconsistent.
There is strong evidence that they will be wasteful of resources with little commensurate benefit.
The EPA standards are internally inconsistent, in that lower level quantitative limits are more stringent than upper level qualitative goals.
Thus far we have been provided no information to convince us that less stringent Standards would not provide adequate protection of the public health and safety.
The NRC subsysten
/;
performance criteria have the potential for imposing even more A
stringent requirements on the repository.
While EPA has attempted to justify the added conservatisas as a means for allowing for uncertainties, we fail to understand the logic of this approach.
Resolution of the problems of uncertainties would best be pursued through site characterization and performance assessment.
The latter process in particular, can be used to reveal where and to what degree unce,rtainties exist, and can provide guidance on where additional andbetter data are needed.
To resolve these issues, we recommend that the NRC staff be more aggressive in dealing with EPA.
The task of the NRC staff, as we interpret it, should be to ensure that the EPA Standards are scientific. ally
- sound, consistent, and readily subject to interpretation and implementation.
With the EPA in the process of revising their Standards, and DOE having announced an overall reassessment of its NLW program, this would appear to be an opportune time for the NRC to undertake these initiatives.
We will be pleased to discuss these matters with you in additional detail, if you desire.
s
- rely, ade W. Moeller, Chairman
l i
O The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr 3
December 21, 1939 Rafaraneaar 1.
" Implementation of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's High-Level Waste Disposal standards,"
dated October 17, 1989 2.
EPA Working Draft 1 of 40 CFR Part 191, dated June 2,1989,
)
-" Standards fcr Management end Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastas 4
e 3.
40 CFR Part 191, " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes
- 4 I
6 9
l' e
e 4
_... _ -. ~ _. -
i i
[puergIo,,
UNITED STATES
{
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
o,
[
ADVISORY COMMITTEC oN NUCLEAR WASTE WASHINGTON. D.C. 20086
%,...../
January 30.1990 1
I i
The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
SUBJECT:
NRC PROGRAM ON LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
)
l i
During its 16th
- meeting, January 24-25,
- 1990, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste met with representatives of the Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning for a review of matters pertaining to the production, treatment, and disposal of low-level radioactive wastes (LLWs).
These matters had also been discussed with other members of the NRC staff on several previous occasions.
As a result of these reviews, we offer the following comments.
1.
While considerable attention has been to the development of requirements for the siting, given construction, and operation of disposal facilities, there appears to i
be a lack of coordination of these activities with the processes that produce the wastes.
It is these processes
- which, in turn, determine the chemical and physical characteristics, radionuclide content, and volumes of the wastes.
In our
- opinion, these processes and the resulting products may have as much bearing on the a
protection of public health and safety as do the requirements for the disposal facilities.
We believe this is an excellent example where a systems approach could yield dividends.
Before this can be accomplished, however, there is a need for closer coordination of relevant activities by NMSS, NRR, and RES.
~
1 Under the requirements of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 2.
Policy Act and amendments, a number of states and state compacts are moving forward to develop plans for the siting and construction of low-level radioactive waste l.
disposal facilities. Although the NRC staff has prepared a multitude of reports containing information that would be useful to the Agreement States and LLW facility developers, there is currently no single document containing comprehensive guidance or a "IggLpp" to 2p.To EDO for Appropriate Action..Cpy to: RF, Chairman
@ og Ov g 90-0095 TPO
- ~ _.
The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr 2
January 30, 1990 s
reports that pertain to this topic.
To correct ' this situation, we recommend that a guidance document contain-ing a summary of relevant laws and key regulations, regulatory guides, NUREG documents, and technical posi-J
- tions, suitably annotated and.. cross-referenced, be prepared.
To the extent practical, pertinent standards developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and applicable key documents developed by the U.S. Department of Energy might also-be cited in this report.
The Committee continues to believe that a need exists. for 3.
a system through which the benefits of operating ex-perience can be factored into NRC activities related to the generation and disposal of LLW.
One contribution to this subject would be the preparation of a report based on a definitive review and digest of the experience gained at the Maxey Flats, Sheffield, and West Valley l
i disposal. facilities, l
4.
The Committee is concerned about the availability of adequate disposal capacity, licensed under the provisions -
p of 10 CFR 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, to accommodate LLWs after the scheduled closure in 1992 of the currently operated Bar well, JSouth Carolina, and Nevada, disposal fac
.ies' We urge that the Co sion increase its efforts to encourage the States to accelerate the process' l
for developing suitable disposal facilities.
We hope these comments will be helpful.
L Sincerely, b
Dade W. Moeller Chairman i
t l
l.
Em i
7y
/
ps m,,).,
e 4
t UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s,,
a i
o,,
[
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE WASHINGTON. D.C. 20066 g-j e
January 30, 1990 1
The Honorable Kenneth M.
Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGUIATORY CONTROL During its 16th
- meeting, January 24-25,
- 1990, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste reviewed the above subject report (SECY-89-360).
Because this has been a matter of continuing interest to the Committee, we take this opportunity to offer the following comments.
1.
We believe that expressing the Policy Statement in terms of " Exemptions from Regulatory Control" is a positive step.
We have, for some time, believed that the term, L
"Below Regulatory Control," was a misnomer.
In fact, for the case of low-level radioactive wastes, the objective is.to develop a system for granting approval for certain (exempted) wastes to be disposed of in facilities not licensed by the NRC.
We' agree that the Commission is wise to be conservative 2.
in the selection of applicable dose rate limits until such time as more experience is gained relative to assessing the potential for individual exposures from i
l multiple practices.
However, we believe that the limits of 1 mrem /yr for individual dose rates and 0.1 mrem /yr for the' truncation of collective doses are too low.
Neither would' be directly measurable and both would have l
large acccupanying uncertainties.
From our perspective, it appears that the Commission would need to take experience into account only in the establishment of an annual dose limit for individuals.
Even so, a limit of 3 to' 5 mrem /yr for each individual source or practice would not appear to be unreasonable.
In the selection of a limit for truncating collective dose calculations, we suggest that the Commission adopt the 1 mrem /yr value being used by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
2/1...To EDO for Appropriate Action...Cpys to: RF, Chairman 90-0091 W U1UhU
&2 u
x 9
g - 4 '.
The Honorable Kenneth M.'Carr 2
January 30, 1990 1
3.
As stated in our letter dated December 30, 1988, we believe that the collective dose limit should be variable.
Following this
- approach, higher annual collective dose limits would be permitted for exempted practices that contribute smaller dose rates to individuals.
It should be noted that the suggested 1
)
collective dose rate limit of 1000 person-rea require the Commission to reconsider existing exem/yr may.
- ptions, such as those that permit the. incorporation of licensed materials in smoke detectors and in luminous-watches and clocks.
Both of these applications appear to yield annual collective doses exceeding the proposed limit.
i 4.
We believe the NRC staff is correct in urging that the Policy Statement include recommendations to discourage
" frivolous a of radioactive materials.
Although uses which practices constitute such uses may be subject to-interpretation, most people would agree that exemptions should not be granted for the purposeful introduction of radioactive materials.into food or toys, regardless of how' low'the associated dose rates might be.
We hope these comments will be helpful.
Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman
Reference:
SECY-89-360, Commission Policy Statement on Exemptions From Regulatory Control, December 1, 1989 (Predecisional)
__