ML20059L155
| ML20059L155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/26/1994 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9402030247 | |
| Download: ML20059L155 (47) | |
Text
'L
' M M WEh8 bNhTvYrY/N NNY/NY.M/M.!WNNN N M % $hh k 8gyghgygygy g f 3.
~0AMSM1**A1. TO:
M Occument Control Cest. 016 Phillics
~
j. -s 6
10VANCEO ;0PY ~0:
The Public Occument occm
//b 7
- ATE:
3
}
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Recoros Branen g
6 Attacneo a'
.:cies of a Corr:nssion meeting transcript and relatec meeting g;
decu=entis;.
They are being forwarced for entry on the Daily Accession List and a
placement in the Public Document Roem.
No other cistribution is recuested or g
recu1 rto.
a
$h u /% htLLO
-clut (L u %
k Yeeting
Title:
i hk/w h'
f ts us
//,2 (4 /9 Ocen Closee Meeting Cate:
y
/
t y
5
=
~
M 3
h Item Cescripticn**
Comics Advanced DCS O
to POR g
- 8 I,
t:
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 F.:
?.
E 5{
2./'bbbm,ct /m /b /$v a1 l
l
-f
& 8.jh. )
N u,({ h{ //b 68W a
l 3.
-l
=s" E'
- S-4 g,
b 5
3
~%
- ii:;
9L 2
S$
0101 a
Ei
~~
=
~
PDR 10CFR jl 9402030247 940126 l
5!
PT9.7 PDR
. e0R is acvanced one copy of eacn document, :wo of each SECY ::acer.
g$
01R Branen files the original transcr19t. witn attacnments, withcut SECY
- acers,
3Fol l
\\
.t iM
..........m.m............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,................mm.......,m..................-.-...u.
="en--n n n emen en en nnfmn e m m m rmn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nnn n n n n n n n n n
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION i
fkk6l BRIEFING BY NARUC NUCLEAR WASTE PROGRAM OFFICE I
LOCatiOD ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND b3kO JANUARY 26, 1994 j
Pages:
31 rActs i
t NEAL R. GROSS AND C0., INC.
COURT BEPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest i
Washington, D.C.
20005 3
(202) 234-4433 j
a f
I
DISCLAIMER
~
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on January 2b, 1994, 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 b e.'. 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.
i e
G HEAL R. GROS $
cover nuoenas Ano raANscaretas 1313 rho 06 ISLAND AY9 hut. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGToM. D.C. 20005
' (202) 232 4600
4 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' r
BRIEFING BY NARUC NUCLEAR WASTE PROGRAM OFFICE P
j PUBLIC MEETING f
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Wednesday, January 26, 1994 j
The Commission met in open
- session, 3
i pursuant to
- notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
Ivan
- Selin, Chairman, presiding.
l i
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
l IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the' Commission
)
KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner
.FORREST'J. REMICK, Commissioner E.
GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner
.)
'i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
..:.a u_
-n-
-p e
2
- 2 STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
SAMUEL J.
CHILK, Secretary MARTIN MALSCH, Office of the General Counsel
?
CAS M. ROBINSON, Director, NARUC Nuclear Waste Program Office t
L I
t
.t E
i h
t
}
+
f l
h
!-l l
+
f NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOCE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
LI (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 5
s -
_=
~. _ _
3 f
1.
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
2:00'p.m.
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Good afternoon, ladies 4
and gentlemen.
5 The Commission is pleased.to welcome Mr.
6 Cas Robinson, the Director of the Nuclear Waste 7
Program Office at the National Association 'of 8
Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
Mr. Robinson will 9
brief the Commission today-on the missions and 10 activities of'this relatively.new office.
I needd't 11 go into the importance of nuclear waste both to the 12 Commission, but also to the state regulators that Mr.
13 Robinson represents.
We're pleased to see. the 14 increased interest of the industry and of !the 15 regulators in the solution to this issue.
We look 16 forward to hearing more to learn more about.your 17 organization and your current programs.
18 Commissioners?
19.
Mr.
- Robinson, I'm pleased to see you 20 again.
21 MR. ROBINSON:
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
22 It's a pleasure to be here.. In fact, I'm very honored 23 to be before you today and toLtalk with you about the 24
. National Association-of Regulatory Utility 25.
Commissioners Nuclear Waste Program Office.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005' (202) 2344433.-
N 4'
i 1-If I may have personal _ word also,'let me.
2 express my appreciation and gratitude to Commissioner r
3 Ken Rogers for his work with NARUC on your behalf, I'm 4
sure.
But his reputation is well : known' and-well 5
established among state regulators for his' faithful 6
attendance, for his active participation and for.his-7 general support.
It would be inappropriate not-to-8 recognize that and express our. gratitude to him 9
publicly and we do.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Oh, thank you.
-i 11 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
We're pleased that you-12 recognize that, Mr.. Robinson.
l 13 MR. ROBINSON:
I'm pleased to have the 14 opportunity to review. with' you the historical i
15 perspective of the creation of our office, its mission i
16 and its specific activities we've undertaken during 17 the past year and anticipate undertaking in the year
{
18 to come.
19 NARUC and particularly the ' Electricity '
20 Committee and the Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues and 21 Waste. Disposal has always had a very strong interest 22 in the Department of Energy's Nuclear Waste Program.
l 23 This. interest'has'its-genesis in the responsibility i
24 that state regulators have to protect the' economic.
i 25 interest of the ratepayers of the utilities.that' they 1
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
3; (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
-]
. + -
e
-.a
=*
-..w--
1-w
5 1
regulate. As you well know, all nuclear utilities pay 2
.into the Nuclear Waste Fund at the' rate of 1 mil per 3
kilowatt hour for electricity they generate with 4
nuclear power.
5 State regulators have thus far, underscore-i 6
that, thus far permitted these co'sts to be recovered 7
by the utilities.
But there is concern on the part of 8
state regulators, which is, I must say, intensifying, 9
that because of the uncertain progress in -DOE's 10 development of the waste program, that ratepayers may 11 indeed be asked to pay twice for the same service.
12 There's some doubt on the part of some regulators that 13 they might be willing to approve of paying twice for 14 the same service, and that is under active informal 15 discussion among regulators even as we speak.
16 As you well know, storage pools are at a l
17 point where they could reach capacity. in the near 18 future and utilities may ;very w e l l'. h a v e to find 19 alternative storage opportunities for. the'ir spent 20 fuel.
The information I have is'.that by '1998 l
21 approximately 30 percent of'the nation's spent fuel 22 pools will have reached capacity and by the year 2010
.l 23 that number could' increase to about 80. percent.
If
[
l' 24 tnose numbers are not precise, they're at least 1
25 approximately correct.
Even if DOE does provide some..
j NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
6)
]
1 compensation arrangement as a possible way to meet-2 the'ir obligation to address these problems, there are-3 cost implications 'that are ~ of-concern to state.
l 4
regulators that could impact utilities and. their l'
5 ratepayers.
6 Compensation settlement is not going to be 7
a simple matter as far as ' state regulators are 8
concerned. There are a bundle of issues that surround -
9 any compensation plan that might be put forth as an
- l 10 alternative to actually accepting spent fuel and' 11 honoring the responsibility that DOE has.
There's 12 much debate and discussion that must take' place around -
13 that issue.
14 Because of the immediacy and the urgency 15 of the problem, several members of NARUC's Electricity 16 Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues - and Waste Disposal i
l 17 several years ago decided that NARUC should ' establish 18 an office in Washington to provide a technical review 19 of the Nuclear Waste Program on behalf of state'.
20 regulators.
- This, in fact, was ' our - predecessor l
21 office. Twenty state regulatory commissions agreed' to 22 a voluntary contribution of funds' for two years to
- l i
23 support Fuen an office..
The Michigan State Public l
i 24 Utility Commission provided a staff person ~on an on-25 loan basis to staff this. fledgling office for a two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISi AND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433-WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433.
f 6
7
'l year. period.
t 2
During those 24 months, several things 5
3; occurred that affected the future of this effort. The.
4 weakening of the national economy forced a number of 5
state commissions to reduce' the size of their own t
?
6 professional staff during that period of time and all 7
commissions experienced either a freeze or a reduction s
8 in their. operating budgets.
Salaries. were not.
9 increased and in some cases were reduced by
.j 10 involuntary furloughs or by other mechanisms.
11 Economic times were not good for state commissions and 12 for that matter economic times are still not good for 13 state commissions.
(
14 Another thing that : happened; during -that 1
15 period of time was that I became the. Chair'of the 1
16 Electricity Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues and Waste j
.1 l
17 Disposal with about eight months. remaining on the two 18 year funding commitment..
Upon-assuming that 19 responsibility, I came to two firm conclusions fairly 20 quickly.
One, it would be unrealistic given the 21 serious economic times to go' back to the state 22 commissions to try. to get an extension on the'ir 23 funding commitments.to support.the office.
.Two, the 24 concept of a NARUC technical review office was 25 unrealistic.
Neither the NARUC nor its commissioner NEAL R. GROSS
~
' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
U (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344 433
8' 1-members as a general. rule are expected to 'have 2
~ scientific or technical expertise.
3 It is in the public policy arena where the 4
NARUC and its members are particularly qualified to 5
speak and to act. Therefore, I proposed to NARUC that 6
the office then in existence be closed at the end of 7
its two year life cycle.
And concurrently, I also-8 proposed that, with the approval of NARUC to DOE 9
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Mhnagement, that..
10 the funding be made available to open.a new office 11 focused on the public policy issues related to the 12 storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
The 1
i 13 proposal was accepted by DOE and NARUC entered into an 14 agency agreement with DOE as opposed to a' grant.
15 Agency agreement for a five ' year period for. the 16 creation of the office as it now exists and we're just 17 now beginning in January of this year our second year.
18 of operation.
19
- Now, as it was finally. approved, the 20 office has a bifurcated line of accountability. :The 21 office _is administratively accountable to the NARUC
. 22 Administrative-Director and programmatically
~
23 accountable to the Electricity Subcommittee on Nuclear 24 Issues and Waste Disposal and to the Electricity.
1 25 Committee as a whole.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
9
~ i 1
That is sort of the historical perspective 1
2 under which our office came into being and what I want l
3 to do with you very briefly, without reading the whole 4
litany _ of things, much to your relief I'm sure,: is to a
v 5
tell you something of the mission and the task _that we 6
try to undertake to carry that out.
l
-- t 7
Our mission really-is; quit'e 8
straightforward.
It has three components.
One is;to
\\i 9
conduct a continuing review of the waste disposal 10 program.
Two, to represent NARUC's interest with the 11 Department of Energy and other governmental agencies, 12 such as the NRC, and other relevant stakeholders as 13 well.
And three, to make information available-to 14 public utility commissions and their staff, to aid in 15 the development of NARUC policies on nuclear waste 16 issues.
17 Now, this mission as stated is carried outL 18 in the general framework. of seven particular tasks
~
. 19 that we have. undertaken.
I confess to yo'uzthat some 20 of those tasks have an appearance _of overlap and some i
21 fuzziness and some confusion -- and I think: that's 22 because that is true.
If we were rewriting this-23 proposal today, I think we would tighten that up 24 considerably and'some of.the obvious areas of overlap 25 would be eliminated.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOHTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
10 1
Task one is simply.to publications.
Any 2
office must has some publications, as I'm sure you 3
realize.
But one of the things that I concluded quite L-I 4
early is the one thing this world does not -need is 5
another newsletter.
- So, we decided not to have a l
6 newsletter.
But there is a need.to have formal L
7 communication and written communication.
So, we p
8 publish on a quarterly basis what we call an issues q
9 report.
It's a very specific document that is -- the 10 target audience is state utility commissioners.
t 11 That's who we mail to, that's who we write for.
It's 12 not a
technical
- piece, it is a
fairly general 13 informational piece that takes on many forms.
We've 14 not always done the same thing.
15 I've listed here the three that we've i
16 published in 1993.
We didn't have four because the.
jj 17 office was just in its opening stage.
We did'one on j
18 reprocessing. A lot of controversy around that issue.
1 19 We did one on the multiple purpose container, and then 20 our third one was a different sort.
It was.not an 21 article type piece, it was simply a resource directory 22 of some of the organizations and agencies that are 23 concerned with civilian high-level waste that would be 24 of interest in particular to state regulators.
25 Now, in the one that we're working on now NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 1
L____im.
___.___m_.J____'._
4 11
'1 that will be coming out soon is still a' different-t 2
style.
It will be an interview with maybe 10 or"12 state regulators on some interim storage issues and it
- 3 '
4 will begin.to have state regulators talking..to state.
5 regulators around that issue.
We've identified'some.
6 of the thought leaders in NARUC to participate in that~
7 and we've been very encouraged by their response and' 8
we take some credit in the depth of their knowledge to I
9 say that we perhaps have succeeded in part of our:
-]
-1 10 mission because we've been pleasantly surprised at the 11 level of knowledge that they've displayed' in 'their
- j 12 response, to which we claim all the credit.
13 These are mailed entirely
'the only..
14 mailing list we have maintained for any purpose really -
15 are state regulators.
We print 500 copies each time
-16 we publish and we give them out to other people'who 17 ask for them upon request without any charge.
We do 18 not routinely mail them out-to anybody except state 19 regulators.
i 20 Our second task is to monitor and review-
'i 21 program components and we do.that-in a number of ways 1
22 that cause us to attend a lot of meetings actually.
23.
We tried to also keep up with any legislation that is 24 pending or' being proposed and any new regulations that 25 might be proposed by you or EPA or whoever, do some NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(20?) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 234 4433
.~,.. _ -. - -
12 1
' assessment of that to the extent we ' re capable. of.
2 doing it and call attention to these changes certainly i
3 to the chairs of the respective committees.t'o whom we.
4 report so that they can exercise the leadership 5
response as may be appropriate.
We also would call 6
attention to other people as well as it might be 7
appropriate.
8 From time to time we would even send out-l
~
9 notices to the general membership of NARUC of 10 activities or events or changes that might be under i
11 consideration just for their. information.
We may or 12 may not suggest an action that would be appropriate
'i 13 for them to take, but we certainly do want to. inform 14 them.
15 Task three is stakeholder and interested 16 party consultation.
Participation in the meetings of 17 our own organization are' an important part of what we 18 do.
So, we have built into -- with that fancy title, 19 we've built in an opportunity for us to have the.
' l
. i 20 resources to attend our own meetings, as wellas the i
- \\
21 regional meetings of state regulatory bodies around 22 the country such as SERUC or the. Great Lakes 23 Conference.
It also allows'.us'to attend technical-24 conferences as its appropriate to do so and we.try to 25 do that.
We've listed here for you for illustrative-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
-4
1
.I i.
13
.{
'I 1
. purposes some of the' kinds.of seminars and activities-j
-l 2
that we want to take advantage of, i
We also would take advantage.of informal 3
i 4
opportunities to consult with leaders in this issue,.
5 whether they be local leaders in Nevada or Indian 6
tribes that may have some interest in the issue,-or-7-
utility executives themselves from time to time, f
8 Task four is education and technical 9
transfer of information.
We-provide either directly
.i 10 or indirectly information and materials to members of 11 the subcommittee and to the Electricity Committee and, 12 upon request, of course, to anybody who.is 'a member of q
13 NARUC who might want to get information.
We.make~
l 14 ourselves available as a kind of a research arm on a 15 limited basis to state commissioners or state 16 commission staff.
If they want information on a.
17 particular subject, then we'll try to obtain it for
.i 18 them or direct them to where they can get..it..
.L 9 At the same time, we are also trying to'be 20 responsive to agencies such as DOE or'NRC that might e
21 have some interest in knowing where state regulators 22 are on an-issue, how they feel about'.it'and we will
l' 23 try te broker that information back to the appropriate.
24 agencies'as well.
25 Task five is a major part of what we do in l
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
~*
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
14 1
that we have a general. confercuce that we arrange for 2
every year.
It has a broad range of issues.
It's 3
intended to bring together a diversity of opinion so 4
that there can be an interactive discussion of the 5
issues.
Again, its primary target group are state 6
regulators and state regulatory staff, but we actively 7
encourage participation from government groups, from 8
industry groups and others to be a part of the 9
dialogue and the discussion because we think this will 10 enrich the. debate-and help-regulators as they 11 formulate their own policy positions..on these issues.
12 We also have three workshops which we 13 define as being very different than a conference.
14 Workshop by our definition is a very short event, 15 generally about three hours long.
We schedule that 16 prior to the three regularly scheduled meetings of 17 NARUC.. Our next event will be February the 26th here 18 in Washington.
The NARUC winter committee meetings 19 commence the next day.
So, we will begin the evening 20 before and have a brief program.
This year's program 21 as is currently being planned would be to. provide a'
]
22 report to NARUC on the interim-storage' dialogue that-23 our office helped to facilitate this year.
We will 24 ask the regulatory members of that dialogue to make a-25 presentation about the process and the content'and the
'{
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
GKI2) 2344433 W
. ASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433.
15 1
outcome of that dialogue and we'll have a panel to 2
react to that because the report as anticipated will 3
be presented to NARUC the very next day.
So, this 4
will be a way of informing them of what they're going 5
to be getting and initiating the debate and the 6
discussion in an informed way about that.
It's open 7
to anyone who would care to come.
But there's also a 8
schedule for your information of some of the other 9
things that we are planning.
10 Our conference this year we anticipate 11 will be in Las Vegas and will include a site visit for 12 the participants in the conference.
I'm sure that 13 those people get tired of doing site visits, but 14 nevertheless we're goirig to call on them to do it one 15 more time.
16 Task six has to do with DOE meetings, 17 program project reviews and site inspections.
That's 18 an ongoing site inspection kind of activity than 19 related to the conference.
We do participate in the j
20 meetings, the monthly program reviews we go to, we go 21 to TRB meetings.
We are very active in your own 22 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
We have a 23 presence there every time it meets.
Last time I 24 believe Janice Owens of our staff made a presentation 25 at that meeting and we find that to be a very useful NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (20?} 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
16-t 1
opportunity for us to listen, to learn and on that'
)
2 occasion to make some input as well, and ' we will 3
continue to do those kinds of things.
l 4
Finally, just communication. Again you!11 5
see some possible area of overlap ' with DOE-and 6
relevant operational agencies.and to that extent I i
7 guess what I'm doing at this very moment might. fall.
8 into task seven as one illustration of that.
But.we 9
do want to keep the lines of communication open both 10 formally and informally with both government agencies-11 and private groups.
i 12 As a consequence, let me sort of come to 13 some closure by giving you a little scenario of how 14' something is played out.
Last. February - we had ' our 1
15 first workshop or forum, whatever you might wish to
'16 call it, prior to our meeting with NARUC.
That. led.to 17 a resolution calling for a dialogue with appropriate-g 18 parties on the interim storage of nuclear. waste. LA 19 delegation from NARUC met' with the Secretary.
She I
20.
gave us strong encouragement to proceed with whatever.
i 21-efforts we could put forward to' create'a dialogue.
o 22 Our first hope was to find an independent third party 23 who might facilitate that dialogue.
L We went -to
^l 24 Keystone, a group that you well know, and who has 25 considerable skills in doing these kinds of things and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
- ~
17 1
great-credibility. They considered the-possibility of ~
2 acting as our facilitator.
But for reasons'that were 3
internal to them, not because of the lack of interest 4
in'the issue, they found that it would not be prudent
'l 1
5 for them to pursue that.
What that really means is 6
they could not even get the planning group to agree on' 7
the subject matter or the questions to.be dealt with 8
because it's a very difficult thing.
They took a 9-considerable amount of time coming to that conclusion i
10 and did not do so easily.
It was a difficult decision 11 for them.
They considered it very seriously.
12 But when they finally concluded they could 13 not do it, we decided that - the dialogue' ' was still.
14 important and needed to be done and so our office 15 undertook to convene a dialogue which ' began '-- our-16 first meeting was in September of this past year.
The 17 intent was to have three meetings.
The dialogue was' 18 to be made up of state regulators, industry CEOs and 19' the groundrules were very strict, very serious.
20 We wanted environmental participation and f
21 participation from Nevada.
We got into a little bit.
22 of trouble over that which'you read and I won't try to
^
23 go'into that' unless you have a question of it.
But we 24 got past that. hurdle and proceeded'with the' dialogue..
f 25 We've just had our final concluding meeting this. week NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 -
(202) 2344433
18 1
in Chicago and have reached some. conclusions on what' 2
that group at least wishes to recommend to government 3
decision makers, principally DOE and perhaps Congress 4
and the NRC actually for the interim storage issue.
5 We're in the process now-of writing that 6
report,- putting language, specific language around the 7
recommendations that the majority of.;the group, not-8 all of them, not total consensus, have agreed to.
It 9
was an overwhelming majority but not an absolute' total 10 consensus.
I expect there'd be a minority report, 11.
.maybe.two, maybe more, but at least that many.
12 I want to say that the mission of our 2
13 dialogue was very simple.
I'm of a mind that mission 14 statements ought to be very simple, very concise, very l
15 rememberable.
This one is one sentence long and it~
16 was to prepare a report to government decision makers 17 containing specific' recommendations for the: interim' 18 storage of spent nuclear fuel.' We will do-that.
19 I'll be glad to respond to questions if.
20-you have them around that, but that's all I wanted to 21-say at this time about that, except that I want-to 22 express' particular appreciation to-Mr.
Charlie' 23.
Haughney of your s'taff who was not a participant in~
24 the dialogue.
We had two government people sitting.
l 25 there with us.
We had Lake Barrett from DOE and Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS
. COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 -
~
-w.
19 1
Haughney from your Agency, I want to be very clear.
2 They were not asked to be there as participants but as 3
resource people. They did serve admirably as resource -
4 people and, frankly, we would not have been able to 5
make the' progress that we did.without the_able and 6
competent assistance as a resource person for'Mr.
7 Haughney. He in no way tried to influence the 'outcone 8
of the dialogue, I want you to be aware of that, bilt 9
he was very active in providing information that was 10 needed at the time we discussed that and we're 11 grateful to him, as we are to Mr. Barrett.
12 Well, in conclusion, let me thank all of 13 the NRC Commissioners for your interest and for your 14 support in the NARUC Nuclear Waste Program Office.
15 I'm grateful, even honored, for the opportunity to be 16 here today and describe our purpose'.and work, the 17 activities of our office.
I want to stress. my 18 interest in having a cooperative relationship with' the 19 NRC and my desire to receive your suggestions on how 20 we can be more effective.
I want to simply'close by 21 saying thank you very much.
22 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
23 Robinson.
24 Given that introduction, Commissioner 25 Rogers I think we'll start --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
~
.~.
20 1
MR. ROBINSON:
Was that a. setup?
2
. COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, you did a 3
pretty good-job in the beginning, but it started to 4
fall apart-after the-first paragraph.
1 5
'You mentioned-the meeting in ' Chicago just 6
briefly.
Is there anything that you could share with 7
us of the flavor of that?
8 MR. ROBINSON:
Yes.-
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Maybe a little bit 10 more -- some details.
I know you said you might 11 expect ~ minority reports and not a total consensus, but 12 just something that some aspects of it that you i
13 think might be useful for us to know about.
14 MR. ROBINSON:
The' overwhelming position 15 of the participants in the dialogue ic strongly in 16 favor of having some off-site interim storage 17 facility.
No question about that.
It's.
an 18 overwhelming position.
To. simply do nothing, to.
19 continue to store on-site in perpetuity is an 20 unacceptable option for this group.
There's some 21 recognition that there has to be'some flexibility on 22 all these things,.but I think-it's vitally important 23 for the industry, for the disposal of' nuclear waste, 24 the future of the industry, for any number of-reasons, 25 to hav'e some off-site capability.
That might mean NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005
. (202) 234-4433.
. ~.,
- }
21 1
using a federal site.
It. might mean. continuing to 2
work with the voluntary siting process, 'although I 3
must tell
- you, I'm 'not reflecting my own view 4
necessarily, 'that there's -not-a great level of~
5 optimism about the volunteer siting opportunities that 6
exist at the moment.
I think people would like for it 7
to work, but are not.sure that it will work.
8 But. off-site is at-the core of the' 9
recommendation. To that extent, 'I think that they may 10 be wanting to ask you folks to go back and review' 11 again your regulatory requirements for off-site to, of 12 course, look at the safety factors but to see if there l
13 are ways to make that as cost effective as possible.
14 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Remick?
4 15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'd be.
Very l
16 interested, and I know you've been heavily involved in I;
~
17 this area, as we have been, but from your perspective 18 of NARUC, any general comments about what you feel the 19 status of the overall waste management process that we 20 have ongoing. is.
Is there anything in' general, 21 observations that you would care to make?
q 22 MR. ROBINSON:
Well, I think I could and d
23 certainly I'm speaking for myself and perhaps one or 24 two.Others, but certainly for myself.
One,-there is i
25 a great appreciation for the Secretary, Secretary I
I i
NEAL R. GROSS i
ovURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
.i 1323 RHODE ISLAND A\\iNUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
22
'i 1
O' Leary.
I think certainly in my opinion, and I think f
2 others would share it, that she is doing an
?
3 outstanding job on the nuclear waste' issues as the 4
Secretary.
She has a strong interest in it.
I think 5
she has given a clear mandate that she would like to-6 see some' resolution of this issue to come forward and 7
we're encouraged by her leadership and she 's. 'very _
8 informed about that.
'We realize that - the nuclear.
i i
9 waste issue may be only a very small fraction of her 10 total responsibility and she is giving it attention 11 disproportionate to its size and her budget and in'her 12 total operation.
We're grateful to that and she 13 understands the urgency of it.
14 We think the leadership team that she's t
15 acquired around that is quite good.
We take great 16 comfort in the fact that Dan Dreyfus is doing what.
17 he's doing and has gotten Lake Barrett-to work with i
f 18
- him, 19 We think there's some progress being made f
.i 20 at Yucca Mountain.
Not enough, but there. is some.
t 21 progress.
Generally regulators want-to see the 22 characterization process continue.
There obviously i
~
23 are exceptions to.that.
But as a rule, regulators 24 would take that position.
The regulators from Nevada
!q 25 probably would certainly be exceptions to that, but i
NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (20?) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 f
l 23 1-others think.it needs to go forward.
If there are y
2 reasons why it cannot serve.as a repository, we need 2
to find that;out as early-as possible.
4 There seems to be a growing sentiment.
5 among regulators that the 10,000 year model doesn't 6
make a lot of sense. The kinds of objections that' are 7
being raised by the National Academy and others to the B
absolutist approach as opposed to -- I guess i";'s a 9
relativistic
- approach, should be brought into.
10 question. There is some thought that maybe there'd be 11 more credibility if you were to be able to go in and 12 monitor and remove that haterial or do remediation as 4
13
'might be
- required,
.something like ani extended 14 underground g.o'ogic ' retrievable storage disposal 15 facility.
We're not scientists, they're not i
16 scientists.
They don't know all'the ins and out of I
- .1 17 that, but the phased approach seems to make some sense 38 to a lot of state regulators.
19 We're a little concerned that there's not i
20 as much active energy behind the interim storage need
~
4 21 that state regulators feel that there should be.
i 22 Have I adequately answered that?
l 23 COMhISSIONER REMICK:
Yes, that was very.
24 helpful and revealing my own personal. opinion's.
Of 25 course, if you want to enhance retrievability, you NEAL R. GROSS
' COUTlT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
(
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEN' E. N W.
U fM12) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
- (202) 2344433
,24 1
keep it-above ground.
You.
don'.t'. even-put-it-2 underground.
3 MR. ROBINSON:
Well --
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Were any views 5
expressed along that lin.e by any members?'
6 MR. ROBINSON:
Well, certainly there are 1
7 views exp essed by some members along all lines.
But 8
I think there's a gs. cral awareness on the part of l
9 state regulators that there's a great mystique that i
10 has been developed around the nuclear waste issue and I
i 11 that you could very safely store it above ground for l
~!
12 X number of years, for very long 1'riods of time, j
13 beyond their lifetime certainly.
But I think they.
14 also recognize that they probably do need to have some 15 geologic storage.
l 16 COMMISSIONER REMICK: For some waste, yes.
- i 17 MR. ROBINSON:
And that those-two things 1
18 could be combined.
Given the fact that there is.a l
19 rather-long safe'
- 1. indow for above-ground storage j
J 20 that does give an opportunity to rethink the basic
'l 21 concept of what the geologic storage facility might be 22 based upon.
I 23 COMMISSIONER R! MICK:
Any --
24 MR. ROBINSON:
But we don't have a long 25 window in interim storage.
I want to be very clear.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
.j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
r:
35 1
about that.
We're at a crisisLposition on interin 2
storage 3
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes, I understand.
4 4
Yes. Are there any specific consensus views about our 5
regulations or about us that'you would care to share?
6 MR.
ROBINSON:
Well,.none come right-7 quickly to mind.
I think there is a
general 8
recognition that the NRC has donc a superlative job of 9
protecting the public safety and health.-
This is 10 speaking just for myself because I don't want to 11 impose somebody else's thought on that.
There is.
12 perhaps a hope that there might be a greater' openness 13 to a higher degree of flexibility. to entertain'new 14 thought.
Just because that's the way you've always 15 done it doesn't necessarily mean that's the way.you-16 have to keep on doing it.
I know that's difficult 17 because'your responsibilities are serious and are not 18 minor at all and people do not even understand, and I 19 don't, others don't either, the full depth of your 20 level of responsibility for a long period of time and 21 don't want to minimize that.
But some openness and 22 flexibility.to things that might be more cost 23 effective -- maybe you need to have a. tittle more 24 sensitivity to what things cost --
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEfdUE, N W.
- (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005
' (202) 234-4433 ;
.l-
26 1~
MR.
ROBINSON:
in. relationship to.
I 2
safety.
In all. likelihood, 100 percent absolute I
r 3
safety for all for infinity is an unlikely goal and an -
4 economically unattainable goal.
It's how much risk-
=j r
5 are-.you willing to pay for.
Those tradeoffs nobody-6 can easily make, but those are the. kinds; of things 7
that might' be helpful for you to take another look at.
-[
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I-think those are-9 reasonable comments really and observations.
10 I want to thank you very much for coming.
11 It's a pleasure to see you again.
1 12 MR. ROBINSON:
It's a pleasure to see~you-l
'?
13 too.-
f 14 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Commissioner de Planque?
E 15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Since you're an
.j q
15 old quoter of Yogi Berra, that reminds me of the one-17 I think you used, when you come to the fork in.the l
18 road, take it.
1 19 MR. ROBINSON:
I'll never get over that.
l 3
20 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUF:
Going back to 2.'
the consensus or more or less consensus that you were.
22 mentioning on the need for off-site storage, on many.
t
[
23 issues various stakeholders can come to the same l
24 conclusion, but for very di *ferent reasons.
Was that.
25 the case here and, if so, could you give us a little.
r NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS.
[
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
f W) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 '
(202) 2344433 e
(
27 l
1 more flavor of the reasons'behind.that~ view?
I i
--(
2 MR. ROBINSON:
Well, one does>not always-j I. -
3 know everybody's motivation.
4 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Right.
5 MR. ROBINSON: And I don't presume to know
.i 6
that.
But the public motivations for the vast in u
7 majority of the participants seem to be the same.
I I
8 didn't see a lot of trading off of motives to' i
9 accomplish the same end.-
As a practical and-factual.
l
~
10
- matter, on this issue, if no other issue, state:
'l 11 regulators and the nuclear. industry can. and should
]
12 stand in exactly the same position because they should j
13 and do have the ultimate responsibility to look cat 14 for the interest of the ratepayers and to provide not i
4 15 only their safety but their economic well.be'ing, but.'
16 also the future supply of-electricit'y to the country.
'l 17 As you well know, 20 percent of our-electricity in l
I 18 this country comen from nuclear power.
That's not an j
'l 19 insignificant number.
To be able to continue to meet cl 20 that need and we in this area ' have been faced just 1
21 recently with rolling blackouts and we know_ how 22 important having an adequate supply is.
So, anything 23 that can he done to make sure that our existing plants 24 and, if there should be new plants in the future, are 2 85 able to properly dispose of their fuel is~of a common NEAL R GROSS-COURT HEPORTERS AND TRANSCRfBERS
,1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
GW) 23444.
WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433,~
.]
2.
.a.
F i +:i l'
interest.
I attribute only'the very highest motives; 2
to~the participants who were there and I think that's
+
3 true.
i 4'
. COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
- Okay, j
3 5
MR.
ROBINSON:
Does that: answer your l
6 question?
'I 7
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Well, sometimes 8
you wonder off-site is a good word if it's-not on your l
9 site.
Off-site is somebody's on-site.
10 MR. ROBINSON: That's very dif ficult. But 11 you'll notice that we did not say MRS.
.I 12 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Right.
l j
13 MR. ROBINSON:
MRS has a very technical.
-14 meaning.
We're not opposed to an MRS, but off-site i
15 storage does not have to have the - full technical 1j 16 definition that an MRS carries with it.
So, we're 17 very particular about caying simply off-site.
18 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Making that 19 distinct. ion.
i 20 MR.
ROBINSON:
It's
'an important 21 distinction because go down to Surry.
They're doing 22 on-site storage but it's out of pool storage and it's 23 a concrete pad and a chain link fence. 'It works, and 24 using your licensed casPs, I believe.
Those kinds of i
25 distinctions can be'made'at a lower cost and we.can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBE.RS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433
. WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 -
(202) 2344433 r
- y; 39-l 1
get.on with it.
I'think people simply want to-solve 2
the problem.
They want to be_able to move fuel ~off 3
the pool, out of their pools. They want to keep their 4
plants running and they. don't want the ratepayers to j
l 5
pay for it twice.
6 Now, the state regulators' don't want to
'j 7
have to pay for it~twice and I guess the industry-q 8
people are worried that they might not~~- if they do.
9 have to pay twice, that they may not be able' to i
10 recover.the second round of those costs.
.i 11 So, I hope T answered your question.
12 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
That was clear, 13 yes.
- Yes, j
14 Your one task of preparing informational 15 material, do you ever get any request from the public?.
16-Has the public become aware of you yet or is'it mainly.
l 17-requests from within your own regulatory. community?.
18 MR. ROBINSON: We're a low prof'ile of fice.
19 We don't try to gain a lot of publicity and certainly..
20 don't -- we would not turn the public away.- We'would.
21 try to serve anyone that to the extent that we could 22 with proper priorities of course.
State regulators-23 would come first, their staffs would be right in there:
24-and government agencies such as yours. But if someone 25 wandered in off the street and asked for information NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 -
(202) 234 4433 M-
30.
-1 and we could get it for them without interfering with 2
our other responsibilities, we'd certainly. do it, but 3
that's,not our mission.
-4 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
4 '
5 MR. ROBINSON:
That would be outside of" 6
our mission, but we would do our best.
7 COMMISSIONER de PIANQUE:
Within your.
.; f 8
- group, do you have much of a connection in - the 9
international community ' to anyone resembling your 10 counterparts in other countries?
11 MR. ROBINSON:
Well, limited.
We have; 12 some.
I've met since I've been there with Japanese 13 delegation that's been into town to talk about'Ltheir 14 own waste problems.
I don't know if it's the same 15 group or not, but they're scheduled to meet with.me 16 and Janice Owens later this week, I believe.
They're 17 coming into town, some group.
So, we have' limited 18 contact.
19 COMMISSIONER de PIANQUE:
- Yes, 20 MR. ROBINSON:
I should tell you, but-I 21 left that out, our office is quite small.
.There are
- 22
'only three. people, myself and my colleague Janice:
23 Owens and we have an administrative. person.who does a 24-lot of the things for us is Olga Kruger. -~It was never 25-intended that this be a large office.
We ' re. not~
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
- (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4 33 s
31-1 trying to don ' t - plan ' to grow.
Don't want to.
2 increase staff.
We just want to sort of do it at that' 3
Llevel.
If we need outside help, then we'll contract 4
for that beyond our own ability to do that.
But we ' re 5
not trying to get any bigger.
6 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
Well, I 7
thank you very much.
8 MR. ROBINSON:
Yes, ma'am.
9 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
It. was very 10 interesting.
11 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
12 Robinson.
13 MR. ROBINSON:
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I don't have any 15 questions for you beyond those.
We'd like'to keep in 16 touch and see how opinion evolves over the time.
17 MR. ROBINSON:
Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank you.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Thank you.
20 (Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m.,
the.above-21 entitled matter was concluded.)
22
.r.
23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
?
a
/
.i i
'f CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a. meeting-of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
- 1 TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING BY NARUC-NUCLEAR WASTE PROGRAM,0FFICE PLACE OF HEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF HEETING:
JANUARY 26. 1994 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription
-]
is accurate and complete, to the best of-my ability, and that the i
transcript is a-true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
.i N
Af iG' lti
]"
Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch
~{
h
}
I I
- I
!i i
?
?
l 1
?
?
s L
t i
.)
b HEAL R. GROSS COURT #990 mists AND TRAMSCatetes 1323 eMODE ISLAND AVIMUt M.W.
(fot) 234-4423
- WA300MGTON, D.C. 10005 (702) 232 4 000 i
G
.JATEMENT FOR THE RECORD PRESENTATION TO THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
REPORT ON THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILIT( COMMISSIONERS NUCLEAR WASTE PROGRAM OFFICE t
BY CAS M. ROBINSON, DIRECTOR JANUARY 26,1994 1
INTRODU_ClLON Thank you for the opportunity to brief the Commission on the National -
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners [NARUC] Nuclear Waste Program Office. Let me also take this opportunity to publicly express-appreciation and thanks to Commissioner Ken Rogers for his dedicated support of the NARUC and his constant active participation in the meetings of the Electricity Committee and its Subcommitt% on Nuclear issues and Waste Disposal. ' His commitment and support of these committ s is widely known among state regulators and I am confident they join me in expressing our gratitude to Commissioner Rogers for his commitment and positive contribution.
s I am very pleased to have the opportunity to review with you the historical perspective for the creation of our office, its mission and the specific activities we have undertaken and plan to initiate this year.
BACKGROUND First let me remind everyone that the NARUC is a quasi-governmental, non-profit organization of the governmental agencies engaged in the regulation of public utilities and carriers located in all fifty states, the 1
1 i
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The chief objective of the organizations is to serve the consumer's interest by seeking to improve the quality and effectiveness of public regulation in the United States and its territories. In general, state utility regulators are charged by state statute to promote economical energy subject to various considerations for environmental safety, economic development, and public safety..
The NARUC, and particularly its Electricity Subcommitt on Nuclear sues and Waste Disposal, has always had a strong interest in the Department of Energy [ DOE] nuclear waste program. This interest has its genesis in the responsibility that state regulators have to protect the economic interest of the rate payers of the utilities they regulate. All utilities must pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund at the rate of one mil per kilowatt hour of electricity generated by nuclear power. State regulators have thus far permitted these utilities to recover this expense from the rate payers, but there is a concern on the part of state regulators, which is continuing to intensify, that, because of the uncertain progress in DOE's development of the waste program, the rate payers may be asked to pay twice for the same service. As storage pools reach capacity, utilities will find it necessary to find alternatives for the storage of their spent fuel. I would note that approximately 30 percent of the Nation's spent fuel pools will reach capacity in 1998 and approximately 80 percent of the Nation's pools will reach capacity by the year 2010. Even if DOE provides some compensation arrangernent as a possible way to meet their obligation to address this problem, there are cost implications that could impact utilities and their rate payers.
Because of the immediacy and the urgency of the problem, several members of the NARUC Electricity Subcommittee on Nuclear issues and Waste Disposal decided that the NARUC should establish an office in Washington that would provide a technical review of the Nuclear Waste Program on behalf of state regulators. Twenty state regulatory commissions agreed to a voluntary commitment of funds for two years to support such an office. The Michigan Public Sen/ ice Commission provided a staff person on loan to this fledgling office for the two year period.
2
~
During those 24 months, several things occurred that affected the future of this effort. The weakening of the national economy forced a number of state commissions to reduce the size of there own professional staffs. All commissions experienced either a fr%ze or reduction of their operating budgets. Salaries were not increased and in some cases were reduced by involuntary furloughs or other mechanisms. Economic times were not good for state commissions, and for that matter, economic times still are not good for state commissions.
Another thing that happened was that I became the Chair of the Electricity Subcommittee on Nuclear issues and Waste Disposal with about eight months remaining on the two year funding commitment. Upon assuming this responsibility, I came to two firm conclusions: 1. it would be unrealistic, given the economic realities, to go back to the state commissions and get extensions on their funding commitment to support the office, and 2. the concept of a NARUC technical review office was also unrealistic. Neither the NARUC nor its commissioner members, as a general rule, are expected to have scientific technical expertise. It is in the public policy arena where the NARUC and its members are particularly qualified to speak and act.
Therefore, I proposed that the NARUC close the office then in existence at the end of its two year life. Concurrently, I also prepared a proposal, with the approval of the NARUC, to the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for a new office to be focused on the public policy issues related to the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The proposal was accepted by the DOE and the NARUC entered into an agency agreement with DOE, for a five year period, for the creation of the office as it now exists. We are now beginning our second year of this agreement.
As it was finally approved, the office has bifurcated lines of accountability.
The office is administratively accountable to the NARUC Administrative Director and is programmatically accountable to the Electricity Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues and Waste Disposal and to the Electricity Committee as a whole.
3
MISSION AND ACTIVITIES OF THE OFFICE The Mission of the Nuclear Waste Program Office is very straightfonvard.
It is:
- 1. To conduct a continuing review of the waste disposal program; 2.
To represent the NARUC's interest with the Department of Energy, other government agencies and other relevant stake holders; 1
l 3.
To make inforrnation available to public utility commissioners and their staffs to aid in the development of i
the NARUC policies on nuclear waste issues.
l This mission is accomplished by seven tasks and specific activities related to each task. At the sarne time, every effort is made to maintain an openness to unanticipated opportunities and emerging requirements.
Iask 1 - Publicathi 1
The NWPO publishes a quarterly ISsteSBaport with topics to be determined in consultation with the Chair of the Subcommitte on Nuclear issues and Waste Disposal and the DOE. The purpose of these publications is to provide public utility commissioners and state regulatory staff with a concise report on relevant current nuclear waste issues. The reports are intended to be informational in nature and do not take an advocacy position on the issues discussed.
In 1993 only three reports were published since this was the inaugural year for the office. The subjects of the 1993 reports were:
' Reprocessing: Is it An Option for U.S. Utilities"
' Universal or Multi-Purpose Containers for Storage, Transport, and Disposal of Spent Fuel" 4
' Directory of Organizations Concemed with Civilian High-Level Radioactive Waste".
These publications are routinely mailed to all the NARUC public utility commissioners and to the members of the NARUC staff subcommittees of the Subcommitte on Nuclear issues and Waste Disposal and the Electricity Committee. It is available to other interested parties, upon request and without cost, as long as the supply lasts. At each publication 500 copies are printed.
TaslL2 - Monitor and Review of Progam Components The Nuclear Waste Program Office monitors and reviews proposed and pending legislation and regulations affecting the storage or disposal of high level nuclear waste. As appropriate, the Nuclear Waste Program Office assesses these proposed changes to determine their impact on state regulation, rate payers, and the nuclear utilities regulated by state utility commissions. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Subcommitt on Nuclear Issues and Waste Disposal are advised of the relevant issues pertaining to pending legislation and regulations so they can exercise a leadership response as may be appropriate.
On an occasional basis, advisory notices are sent to the members of the Subcommittee on Nuclear issues and Waste Disposal and the Electricity Committee to apprise them of significant developments on emerging issues or events worthy of special notice. Such advisory notices may or may not suggest responsive action that could be taken by public utility commissioners.
To acconplish this task the Nuclear Waste Program Office:
- 1. Participates in the regular program reviews of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management [OCRWM] and its q
contractors; 5
i
- 2. Monitors relevant Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]
meetings and the meetings of the NRC Advisory Committ% on Nuclear Waste [ACNWj;
- 3. Monitors the ineetings and activities of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board [NWTRB] and reviews their recommendations;
- 4. Monitors the relevant activities of the nuclear utility industry and its industry association [s] to stay current on their views and priorities on nuclear waste issues;
- 5. Monitors relevant Congressional hearings on matters affecting the high level nuclear waste program; and
- 6. Maintains contact with key Congressional staff members to stay current on their legislative priorities and initiatives regarding the nuclear waste program.
IaskJ. - Stake Holder and Intemsted Party Consultation Participation in the meetings of the NARUC is an important part of the work of the Nuclear Waste Program Office as is attendance at the regulatory regional conferences. The Nuclear Waste Program Office also participates in selected technical conferences on nuclear waste issues to stay informed on current ideas on nuclear waste.
The Nuclear Waste Program Office meets with and consults with other relevant stake holders and interested parties to exchange information and views regarding high level nuclear waste issues. In eddition, the Nuclear Waste Program Office does, from time to time, meet idormally with senior managers of nuclear utilities and decision makers of other stake holder organizations to facilitate good communication and a o' etter understanding of their concems and positions on nuclear waste issues.
1 To accoqiish this task the Nuclear Waste Program Office willparticipate in the following events:
6
- 1. Regulatory Events a.IMRUC Wnter Committ% Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Summer Committw Meeting, San Diego, CA.
Annual Convention, Reno, NV.
- b. Regulatory Regional Conferen s,
Southeastem, Charleston, SC.-
Great Lakes, White Sulphur Springs, WV.
Mid-America, Milwauke, WI.
New England, Portland, ME.
Western, Seattle, WA.
- 2. Other Conferen s
- a. Symposium on the Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management, Boston, MA.
- b. Spent Fuel Management Seminar XI, Washington, D.C.
- c. Intemational High Level Waste Conference, Las Vegas.
- d. American Nuclear Power Assembly, Washington, D.C.
- 3. Informal Consultations
- a. Nevada stake holders, Las Vegas and Reno, NV.
- b. Nuclear Utilities, Southeast and Mid-West or New England Iask 4 - Educati.on and Technical Transfer of Information The Nuclear Waste Program Office directly or indirectly provides informational materials to members of the Subcommittee on Nuclear issues and Waste Disposal and the Electricity Committee and to the staff i
7 t
w
F subcommittee of the Subcommittee on Nuclear issues and Waste-Disposal. A library of current periodicals related to nuclear waste. is maintained in the Nuclear Waste Program Office' as a reference resource to public utility commissioners and state regulatory staff.
The Nuclear-Waste Program Office responds to requests of public utility.
commissioners or state regulatory staff to assist in obtaining information pertaining to nuclear waste issues. Upon request, the Nuclear Waste Program Office will meet with public utility conmissioners to provide a L
briefing on the nuclear waste program and nuclear waste issues.
The Nuclear Waste Program Office responds to requests from the DOE, other government agencies or interested parties for information on state regulatory positions or views on nuclear waste issues. Accordingly, we are available to meet with them to present and discuss this information upon request.
Ipsk 5 - Conferences and Workshoos The Nuclear Waste Program Office convenes an annual conference on nuclear waste to provide an interactive forum for regulators to. discuss -
nuclear waste issues with one another and other stake holders. The conference is intended to address a range of nuclear waste issues.and attempts to bring a diversity of opinion to the discussion.
The goal is to provide information to public utility. commissioners that will assist them as they formulate policy positions on nuclear waste issues.
Although the primary audience is public utility commissioners and state regulatory staff, participation by the nuclear industry, govemment and others concemed with these issues is encouraged. Such participation will enrich the discussion and better inform utility commissioners on the issues.
Three workshops are to be convened in conjunction with the three scheduled meetings of the NARUC. These workshops are more. narrowly; focused than the conference and are much shorter. The usual format is a dinner and meeting on the evening prior to the beginning of the NARUC l.-
8
meetings. In most cases, the focus will be on a single topic related to nuclear waste.
In ordar to acconplish this task the Nucicar Waste Program Office will:
- 1. Convene an annual conference on Nuclear Waste, Las Vegas, N.V., September 28-30,1994. [ dates tentative]
- 2. Convene three workshops in conjunction with the thre scheduled meetings of the NARUC Washington, D.C., February 26,1994 San Diego, CA., July 23,1994 Reno, NV., November 12,1994 Iask 6 -- DAFJAcetings. PrograrWProiect Reviews and Site inspe.clions To fulfill the goal of mutual assistance betwwn DOE and the NARUC, formal and informal interaction is necessary. The NARUC must take full advantage of opportunities to review and understand tha OCRWM program and plans and se first hand the work being undertaken by DOE.
Participation in program reviews and on-site inspection of facilities
. enables the NARUC members, state regulatory staff and the Nuclear Waste Program Office to become better informed about the waste program, progress on the characterization of Yucca Mountain and related issues. Participants will be better able to evaluate policy options on matters related to nuclear waste within their jurisdictions or on proposed actions by the NARUC.
To acconplish this task the Nuclear Waste Progam Office vill:
- 1. Participate in the DOE OCRWM/M&O Project Reviews.
- 2. Conduct an annual Yucca Mountain Site Inspection for public utility commissioners, Las Vegas, NV.
9 e
- 3. Conduct an annual Yucca Mountain Site inspection for state regulatory staff, Las Vegas, NV.
Iask 7 - Communication with DOEland Relevant.Querational Agencies Having a direct stake holder interest in the performance of the OCRWM program requires substantial ability to communicate with appropriate agencies regarding current or proposed activities, program plans and rules. The Nuclear Waste Program Office represents the NARUC and rate payer interest to the DOE and others regarding high level waste management issues.
In addition to its communication role and contact with DOE, the Nuclear Waste Program Office, in coordination with the Chair of the Subcommittee on Nuclear issues and Waste Disposal, confers with various governmental agencies associated with the high-level waste program to provide briefings, comments or position statements of the NARUC. These agencies include the NRC, the Nuclear Waste Negotiator, NWTRB and various state agencies or organizations.
To accomplish ttis task the Nuclear Waste Program Ollice willparticipate in meetings of the following agencies:
- 1. The National Academy of Sciences Ecard of Radioactive Waste Management.
- 2. The NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
- 3. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
- 4. The National Council of State Legislatures.
As a consequence of the Workshop held in conjunction with the NARUC Winter Committee meeting in February of last year. The NARUC passed a resolution calling for a collaborative dialogue on the issues related to the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. A delegation of state regulators 10
and the Nuclear Waste Program Office subsequently met with Secretary O' Lean / to discuss this concern and were strongly encouraged by her to pursue the dialogue.
it was initially hoped that the Keystone Center would undertake to e
facilitate such a dialogue, and they did give the possibility very serious consideration. The Keystone Center finally concluded they could not undertake facilitating this dialogue.
The Nuclear Waste Program Office was then called upon by the Electricity Subcommittee on Nuclear issues and Waste Disposal to convoke a Dialogue on Interim Storage issues. The plan was to convene three meetings with state utility commissioners, and utility CEO's, along with representatives from the State of Nevada and the environmental movement to explore the interim storage options. In addition, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be requested to provide a resource person to assist in the discourse. These persons, while active as discussants, are not to be considered participants in the same sense as the other invitees.
The mission of the dialogue is to prepare a report to govemment decision nakers containing speci6c reconwendations for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel.
The third and probable final meeting was held this wmk in Chicago. Full consensus was never anticipated and is still not expected. However, substantial agreement among the participants is likely. Since the issues under consideration are difficult and complex, it should also be expected that one or more minority reports will be attached to the final report.
A special word of thanks to Mr. Charles Haughney for his excellent assistance in this process. The expertise he brought to the dialogue was both helpful and appreciated. Thanks also to the NRC for making it possible for Mr. Haughney to assist as a resource to the dialogue.
CONCLUSION in closing let rne thank all the NRC Commissioners for your interest in and your support of the NARUC Nuclear waste Program Office. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today to describe the purpose and 11
f
~
work activities of our office. l want to stress my interest in having a very.
cooperative relationship with the NRC 'and my desire to receive your suggestions on how we.can be more effective. Thank you very. much.
4 2
t
\\
d 3
S 12-
.