ML20133G909
| ML20133G909 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/29/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8508090120 | |
| Download: ML20133G909 (80) | |
Text
' '~
O. ~
.2 ORIGINAL L , 1 4,7 7
= i 't
- . r. ,t .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -$
s :1
.3
.c
~ ';
- -- . ... .==
. 4 In the matter of: -
5 8 ^ T t y ,
d*
COMMISSION MEETING -
~
- - - r .. . ;)
. Discussion of DOE High Level w
" .j Waste Management Program 0 7, ...-
(Public Meeting)
,2
- *W *-* m. r .~+.am e._ e, ,.,,.,,m,.,,, _ . _ _ , , _ _ , _
Docket No. .
- . - . .. . .. .. - . ...~ . . .
~
(
( - .'
b Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Monday, July 29, 1985 Pages: 1 - 72 8508090120 PDR 850729 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES
/ Court Reporters L' 1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
V
!O i
1 D I SCL4 1 M ER 2
3 4
5 6 This is an uncfficial transcript of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Monday, 3 July 29, 1985 in the Commissien's office at 1717 H Street, 9 N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observat. ion. This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is i
15 not part of the Formal be informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No
- 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in
- 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may
?
j 21 authorire.
22 23 24 25
- -- -- -, n ,-
1 t
Y s's i
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3-4 5
6 DISCUSSION OF DOE HIGH LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 7
8 i.
i 9 i
10 PUBLIC MEETING
- 11 1
12 Monday, July 29, 1985 i
i ('
13 Room 1130 14 1717 H Street, N.W.
15 Washington, D.C.
i 16 1
17 The Commission met in public session, pursuant to 18 notice, commencing at 2:05 p.m., Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman 19 of the Commisson, presiding,
, 20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
21 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
, 22 -James K. Asselstine, Commissioner 23 Frederick M. Bernthat, Commissioner ,
24 Thomas Roberts, Commissioner 25 Lando W. Zech, Jr., Commissioner .
t
Cf 2
s 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 S. Chilk 3 M. Maisch 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 e 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
9-3
.e m
( P ROC EED I NG S 1
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good afternoon, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Would you please take your seats?
4 We are here today to be briefed by Mr. Ben Rusche, 5 Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 6 Management in the U.S. Department of Energy.
7 I understand that Mr. Rusche will brief us on DOE 8 high level waste management programs, specifically focusing on i
The meeting 9 the Mi,ssion Plan recently provided to Congress.
10 should-he'1p the Commission to stay current with DOE's waste 11, management activities and serve as a forum for discussing
', 12 important issues between our two' agencies.
(
13 Among the topics that I hope will be addressed this 14 afternoon are two of interest to me. The first is the timing 15 of the preliminary decision relative to site characterization,
! 16 including what the purpose of that decision is, and the second 17 is comments on why DOE feels that the Staff time required for 18 licensing can be 27 months instead of 36.
19 Let me ask whether other commissioners have opening 20 remarks.
21 22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No.
I i
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No.
'~
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH: No.
o 4
m '
1 COMMISSIONER-ASSELSTINE: Those are good questions.
2 CHAIR' MAN PALLADINO: Let me also alert the 3 Commission that Mr. Rusche has to leave at 3:30, so without 4 further delay, let me turn the meeting ever to Mr. Rusche.
5 MR. RUSCHE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 6 the Commission.
< 7 I appreciate the opportunity to continue our series 8 of informal discussions, which I hope we will be able to have 9 throughout the evolution of this important program, and I 10 hoped that it gives you and it certainly gives me an 11 opportunity to explore and keep ourselves abreast of progress 12 in a manner that is, hopefully, helpful to you and me. I
/
13 appreciate it very much.
14 I visualize the meeting this afternoon as one in i,
15 which we exchange information. I do not come with any 16 , , petitions or requests for decision on the part of the 17 Commission, and I will try my best to be responsive to-any 18 questions that you have.
19 What I propose to do is to try to address a number 20 of what I would call general information items about many 21 aspects of the program in which I will just touch highlights, 22 and a few details of current interest, and then, as you 23 indicated, I would like to spend a few more minutes on 24 the Mission Plan, its purpose, and a number of the 25 ramifications attached to it, as well as particularly some
9 6
5
.m 1 discussion on the timing of the oreliminary determination.
2 I would like also, as time permits us, to speak 3 briefly and to invite your attention and awareness to the 4 state and progress we are making with respect to the 5 monitoring of-the frequent storage proposal that we made and 6 is being pursued vigorously. If that sequence sounds 7 reasonable to you, I will run over the first items first.
8 First I would note that one of the important 9 management tools that is to be used by DOE and is required by 10 the Act is what ia called Project Decision Schedule. The 11 Project Decision Schedule is the document that establishes
'12 baseline schedules and identifies the functions and roles of 13 various Federal agencies and is for the purpose under the Act 14 of establishing our priorities and your priorities and having 15 those identified in a way so that if either of us are unable 16 to meet the pricrities that we want to commit to, that the 17 Congress can be made aware of it.
18 We issued the Project Decision Schedule in a 19 pre-draft form in January of 1985 and received many helpful 20 comments from the Commission and others in the Federal 21 Government and have just issued earlier this month the formal 22 draft of Project Decision Schedule and hope to receive any 23 formal comments by September 13th, with the hope that we can 24 issue the Project Decision Schedule by November of '85.
25 I believe members of your staff have all received
.)
G-I 6
r\
1 copies, and we will anticipate and look forward to your 2 response.
3 I want to speak very briefly to a number of items 4 related to transportation. Transportation is a matter that is 5 taking on increasing importance in all of our minds. I 6 believe in our last discussion I indicated to you my view that 7 the subject of transportation was very pervasive. It involves 8 many elements of our program and certainly touches many 9 states, if not most states in the nation, and that it was one 10 which we plan to give considerable attention to.
11 We are given specific admonitions in the Act with 12 respect to transportation, and as the process unfolds, I would 13 like to keep you abreast of what is going on and perhaps have 14 any feedback that you or members of t h e -- s t a f f give us, and we r
15 have extensive interactions with the staff as we are moving 15 forward in various traditional licensing modes from the time 17 of certification of casks and so forth.
18 Under the Act, DOE will be responsible for the 19 shipment of civilian fuel to the repositories or to the waste 20 disposal system. The Act admonishes us to make maximum use of 21 the private sector without specifying just what that is, and I 22 will speak in a moment as to how we are going about that We 23 anticipate this being a fue'y-licensed system by you, the NRC, 24 and by DOT.
25 That system will not actually begin shipping fuel
- i. .
' t 4
7
,m i '
1 to a repository or to an existing waste disposal system until 2 sometime in the early 1990s. In the meantime, we are 3 conducting a number of experiments, have begun some 4 experiments in Idaho, and the Act gives us authority to 5 acquire a small amount of civilian fuel for the. conduct of 6 these experiments.
7 What it amounts to is that we are now moving from 8 the existing system that DOE uses to ship fuel -- and you will 9 recall that DOE has been using a system in which the i
10 operations officers or other entities within DOE issue 1
11 certificates of certification that are nominally equivalent to 12 the-Commission's actions but are done internally by DOE and 13 are consistent with DOD rules.
14 I think it would be fair to say these do not -- at 15 least in the letter of the law -- do not fully conform in 16 every respect to what the Commission would do, if for no other 17 reason than the Commission has not spoken on every one of the 4
18 cases. It is our intent to move for the civilian program to a 19 fully-licensed exercise.
20 In the meantime, we have this transition from the 21 DOE system, which we ha se occasicn to use in some hybrid 22 form. As an example, we are now shipping some fuel from 23 Virginia Power Company which is being used in some experiments
~~
74 in Idaho, We are using the DOE transportation system per se 25 but are using NRC-certified casks.
8
- m
. 1 It is my desire and intent to see us move as rapidly 2 as we can to exclusive use of NRC-certified casks as far as 3 elements in this program are concerned.
4 Now, what that means is that during this testing 5 period that we will be working through over the next severak 6 years, I think it will be important from a management 7 standpoint that we stay closely in touch so that allocation of 8 resources and setting of priorities will permit your staff to
~
9 accomplish what they need to accomplish and us to accomplish 10 on the schedule that is essential what we have to accomplish.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Aside from certifying casks, 12 what will be licensed in this issue?
13 MR. RUSCHE: To the best of my knowledge, that is 14 all. I believe that is all. It is traditional, We are just 15 like a private entity.
\
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Fully licensed system.
17 MR. RUSCHE: Implying that we would act just like a 18 private entity following NRC rules and DOT rules in that 19 regard.
20 Now, one of the immediate questions that we have I
21 before us is that we will probably want to ask the Staff to '
22 give some priority attention to consideration of some new ,
1 23 casks that we have acquired for the purpose of shipping some 24 of these'small quantities of fuel from the West Valley 25 facility to Idaho for purposes of testing in our Idaho l
4 9
(' " .
1 program.
2 The casks are new casks, and it will be important i
3 for us to have the benefit of interaction with the Staff I 4 acquaint you with this only in the sense that over the next 5 two or three months, we will be talking with your folks and 6 hope that they can find a way to get this high enough priority 7 that it can fit into the schedule of the program so it does 8 not cause a major delay in the West Valley effort.
9 As far as I know, we wouldn't anticipate problems.
10 We have had internal work done, but it is a matter we want to 11 work together on very closely.
12 As I indicated, during this transition period we 13 used to some extent the DOE transportation system. To that e
14 end, we have developed an understanding with our colleagues in 15 the defense program. They not only operate the DOE systems; ,
16 they have been shipping such fuel and operating the system for 17 an extended number of years, and we have just reached an 18 understanding as to how we can do that, for example, in the 19 hybrid effort that we have under way with Virginia Electric
+
20 now.
21 We will continue to do that until we are able to 22 obtain both the casks and the system so that we can move 23 to a fully-licensed system with fully-certified by NRC casks 24 exclusively, and I hope that won't be too long, 25 Two important transportation documents have been
4
. 10 l[ One is what we would call the Transportation
- 1 identified.
1 I 2 Business Plan, which is a document in which we hope to suggest i
3 various options of how we establish the transportattun system
'4 .from a business standpoint: who would own it, how.they would 5 operate it, under what ~ kind of. contracts,_ terms and so forth.
6 We have issued an earlier preliminary draft to kind
- 7 of.give some members of.the community, the states, some flavor 6- of the content of_such a plan. We hope to have a draft of 1
i 9 that plan ready for circulation and-comment sometime in 2
i j 10 . August, perhaps towards the end of August.
11 A companion document called the Transportation e.
i -
f l( '12 Institutional Plan is an attempt to articulate the principles 13 of interactions between the Department, the States and.other i
14 Federal agencies, but particularly between the public and the J
15 states. .
4
. 16 We hope to have that institutional plan ready for 17 circulation in iraft form to have the benefit of comment from 18 all interested parties in about October. We have had 2 19 considerable discussion,-informal meetings, workshops with the i .
f' 20 states, representative states, representatives of your staff l 21 and the public over the last several months.
1 i
! 22 Unless you have a question about transportation,
)
, 23 that kind of covers the subject area that I hope to-cover, and 24 I will move on.
i 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do any commissioners have
. , _ . _ . ~ , _ ~ _ _ _ . . ~ . . _ , . _ __ . _ _ .. - _ _ . . - _ _. ..
O 11
.~
1 questions?
2 [No response.]
3 MR. RUSCHE: I thought it would be worth taking a 4 few moments to talk about the repository schedule. This 5 constitutes a.very large activity within the program. If you 6 recall, the first repository is authorized by Congress and we 7 are proceeding to select sites for characterization. .We 8 issued draft environmental assessments for nine sites in 9 December of last year, have received extensive comments from 10 the states, from the Commission and from the public.
11 I think the total number of comments is of the order 12 24,000, 21,000, perhaps now, so they were popular documents, 13 or maybe some would say the-y were unpopular documents, in that 14 they certainly gave rise to a wide readership and a number of 15 comments.
16 We are in the procesa now of analyzing those 17 comments. We have had meetings with each of the states. We 18 have had meetings with your staff to be sure we understood the l
19 comments that were made, and we are moving toward completion 20 of the EAs and their publication, perhaps in December or 21 toward the end of the year.
22 The EAs would then provide the basis for the 23 Secretary's nomination of five sites and recommendation to the 24 President for selection of three sites for the 25 characterization. At that time we would talk about the u m e- --
12 r
,_,-s t
i 1 preliminary determination decision.
t 2 I will reserve'that for our discussion on the 3 Mission Plan, if I_may, but the President under the law has 60 4 days in which to review the Secretary's recommendation and 5 take any of a number of courses. We would hope the President 6_ would make a decision early in the calendar year, perhaps in f
7 the first 60 days or so of the calendar year, and it would
! 8 then permit us to be in a position to proceed with i
i 9 characterization activity, i 10 'An important element in proceeding with 11 characterization is we have to have site characterization
), '
12 plans, which are being developed. We have had a number of i 13 discussions internally, we have had discussions informally
~
! 14 with your staff, we have had discussions with members of the
! 15 public and states, and when these get in what we would call a 1
I 16 draft form, there will be a specific period of formal review 17 and comment.
i 18 The schedule we are on now, we hope to have the site 1
19 characterization plans for the, tuff project and for the basalt
, 2 0,. project, presuming those are selected, as was the case i
- 21. predicted in our draft environmental assessments, ready by 22 about March of next spring, and if we allowed five months for J
23 the interactions, for comment and review and so forth, which i
1 .
we would expect.to be extensive even though we have had thia 24
- 25 ongoing program, we would be ready, presueably,.to begin shaft
, , ,y - . , , . - -
13
.O 1 construction a b u u, t August or September of 1986.
2 For the salt project, we have not proceeded quite 3 that far, and we would expect that the SEP would be ready for 4 circulation about September or October of '86, and five or six 5 months later we would be ready to begin work in the salt site.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Which one was for August of 7 '86?. ,
8 MR. RUSCHE: Either tuff or -- or if those two 9 are -- I am assuming in these discussions that the choices 10 that we made in the preliminary documents or draft documents 11 prevail, and I would want to be careful to note that the 12 comments were pretty extensive. We have not yet reached a-13 conclusion, and I would not want to convey to you that we have 14 reached a conclusion that the preliminary preferences that we 15 indicated are necessarily going to prevail. That remains open 16 until we have completed the full analysis of the comments that 17 we have gotten.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I'm sorry, Ben. When did 19 you say the EAs would be done?
20 MR. RUSCHE: December of this year is-our schedule 21 and expectation.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is that a slip from what l
23 we heard before? , i 24 MR. RUSCHE: I think at one earlie* time we j 25 indicated October or November. The bulk of comments was, if l
14
.m J
1 not overwhelming, at least challenging. and we are not going 2 to move until we have had a chance to look at them.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I gather that our staff 4 felt fairly rushed, including our comments on the draft EAs.
, 5 I think you have gotten a number of comments from states'and 6 other interested parties and groups about the limited time in 7 getting the comments in given the fact that this has slipped a e few months. Have you thought about entertaining additional 9 comments from people to the extent that they may have looked 10 in further detail at the draft EAs?
11 MR. RUSCHE: I think the short answer would be we 12 have thought about st and didn't think it was necessary. What 13 we did was indicate, after we had extended the comment period 14 from 60 to 90 days from December, we did indicate to the 15 states and essentially to anybody that it.was important, to 16 try to meet the schedule we were on, that we have comments by 17 that time.
18 We did not receive comments from all parties by that 19 time, and we indicated we would continue to receive comments 20 as long as people cared to' send them to us and incorporate 21 them to the maximum extent we could.
22- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So right up until they 23 make a decision --
24 MR. RUSCHE: Sure. If.somebody came up with 25 something in November -- we can think of all possibilities --
15 1 if they were definitive enough, we would certainly take them 2 into account.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did'1 hear correctly, 21,000 4 comments?
5 MR. RUSCHE: That's about right. I'm not sure any 6 of the Commission documents have been that popular.
7 Chaughter.3 8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: On the draft site
- 9 characterization plans, you mentioned tentative deadlines for 10 tuff, at least your targets for tuff, basalt and salt, and 11 then you mentioned a five-month period of time to resolve
~1 2 whatever comments you receive. Does that mean that we would 13 have a final site characterization plan before significant 14 site activities began so that we assure ourselves that we had 15 a common understanding of what the plan was before work that 16 has a potential to damage the site would be unds.ttaken?
17 MR. RUSCHE: I think when you use words like " final" 18 and i' complete" and so forth, the site characterization plan is 19 probably going to be a document that will continue to change 20 with time. I think we have clearly come to the conclusion 21 that before we began shaft work, we would want to have full 22 and complete feedback on that portion of the. plan.
23 I think that to suggest that we might have a plan 14 that was immutable and that at that time we could be sure in 25 1989 in August that we.would be doing this kind of in situ
16 T
/^N 1 test is, I think, unrealistic.
2 So in that sense I don't think we will have a final 3 plan, but we certainly want to have the benefit of full 4 comment. The Act requires us to get comments; it does not 5 require approval, as you will recall
- 6 COMMISSIONER ASEfLSTINE
- Yes. I certainly 7 understand that point, although I would hope that what we 8 would be aiming for is enough of an understanding and a 9 consensus on key issues that could affect characterization so 10 that while we may not understand everything, while we may view 11 this as an evolving process, that we at least have a common 12 understanding of all of these things that might affect the 13 integrity of the site for the purposes of its later use.
14 One thing we don't want, and I think you would 15 agree, is initial site characterization activities going on
' 16 in a way that is going to render the site unacceptable later T
17 on or call into question its acceptability later on. ,
z 18 M F, . BUSCHE: I think the maximum potential attaches 4
19 to the sinking of the shaft, and that is why I made the 20 specific comment.
21 I think that the characterization effort is clearly 22 a very crucial and important matter and we do not want to find 23 ourselves in a position where we have jumped before we were i
24 ready to jump, but if, for example, we found ourselves with a 25 common view and confidence that we could sink a shaft, and if
s i 17
,,,~.
1 we found, for whatever reason, we had made a mistake for one 2 purpose or another and we could restore the situation, I think 3 we would be preparrd to move even though we might not have a 4 detailed in situ test plan finalised in that sense.
5 1 think that, without putting my tongue too far in 6 my cheek, we recognise that what comes out of the 7 characterization-program is for the purpose, first, of 8 assuring ourselves that we have a site that is suitable and 9 acceptable, but in addition to that, requtres what is an 10 absolute legal requirement, something that would satisfy the 11 regulators, so it is to our mutual advantage to meet the 12 schedule that we jointly agree on, that we do to the best of
(
13 our ability determine that we have a consensus approach on 14 what it is we ought to do in characterisation.
15 There is no value in trying to find us getting ahead 16 of you or vice-versa on that issue. So I think the close 17 working relationship, countless meetings that people have had 16 we will continue to have. If your staff finds that something 19 needs to be investigated or measured, I think there is a 20 pretty good chance we are going to agree it is important and 21 that we need to do that.
22 Have I covered that enough?
23 Let me just mention, in regard to the first 24 repository, it is still a long time before we end up with 25 something like an application, but in the scheme of things and I
( 18 ,
s 1 in the timing as things unfold, it is not too early for us to 2 begin planning in that direction. We are looking at how we 3 are organized and how we gather data, how we want to analyse
! 4 .it and how we present it and, in effect, have a planning l
l 5 effort under way to try to determine,-both for ourselves an'd 6 you and for interested parties such as states and affected 7 tribes, how we bring ourselves to that process in 1991 or 1992 8 or so to have an application that is full and complete and
+
9 appropriate for requesting the Commission's authorisation to 10 construct.
11 That is an activity that is just beginning, and we 12 will continue to have discussions over the next several years (w - --
13 with all the parties that are interested, and I wanted you to 14 know that we have begun work in that area.
15 Somewhat in the same sense, we have begun work in an 16 area that I believe we discussed in one of our early meetings, l 17 namely, what I will call a licensing information system. I I
18 believe we have tentatively agreed that there really nee'ds to 19 be but one system in which you have full access and we have 20 access, the states have. access and other interested parties 21 have access.
22 We are embarking on the early stages of the design 23 of such a system, and I hope that with the cooperation of your 24 staff, both legal staff and technical staff, we will be able 25 to develop a system which will meet the needs of all the
! , +
l l
l 19 c., l i -
i parties that are concerned.
2 From the standpoint of management of the program, we 3 clearly don't need to have two of them. I think that both 4 expendi.ture of the money and the confusion of two systems
. 5 could be nothing.but*a negative factor within the program.
6 That means that it needs to have attributes and parameters 7 that are adequate for all.of us, and that is the intent that 8 we have. We are working with the staff to develop the 9 parameters of importance, and I think we are moving toward a 10 system that will lead to full text recovery of documents that 11 are generated in the program.
i 12 We will probably start with something less than full s
13 text recovery, in that over the period of the next five years 14 when that kind of consideration will be more important, there 15 no doubt are going to be advances in technology, advances in 16 equipment and approaches which will permit us to do things l 17 better than we can do them today.
18 The key factor is to get ourselves to a place where 19 we are getting as much of the information converted to 20 electronic means, magnetic means, as early as we can, 21 COMMISSIONER A S S E 1,S T I N C - Would such an information 22 system include not only those documents and that information 23 generated as part of this program but also any pre-existing 24 documents that are relevant to the issues that will be of t
l l
25 concern for any _ of these sites?
t 20 1 MR. RUSCHE: Yes, if I use the word " relevant" and 2 we can agree on the meaning of the term. The way I would 3 visualize it today, even though we have not reached a 4 conclusion finally on how we do it, I would guess that 5 documents that are clearly relevant would not be in text full 6 form in the system but would be abstracted, and if a body 7 needed to go back and get an old reference, there would be 8 adequate referencing within the system that we could get to 9 the right document and then go back to hard copy.
10 I have asked our staff, and to the extent that it is 11 appropriate, your staff, to look to the place where work that 12 we are doing from now forward that depends on older documents 13 or prior documents ought to embody that information in the new 14 document rather than just say go read the document in 1978, 15 and that's the best way, ,I think, to be sure that the relevant 16 information is put into the system in times future.
17 That is the kind of approach we are talking about.
18 When you get down to the bottom on the subject, it's 19 a large information system, very large, but by no means 20 something that goes beyond the scope or bounds of anything 21 ever done.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Were you seeking comments on 23 parameters that ought to be considered?
24 MR. RUSCHE: Yes, sir. We have had a lot of 25 discussions with the Staff and will continue to have
21 s
1 discussions, both legal and technical discussions.
l 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was also thinking states and 3 Indian tribes.
4 M2. RUSCHE: Yes, we had the benefit of and will l 5 have the benefit of input from them. I guess if there were 6 states present, they might say they have not had an 7 opportunity to do much more than see where we are" now, and the 8 system is just beginning to emerge. We don't have much we can 9 talk about yet. I think reaching a conclusion that we ought 10 to have s u'c h a single system is an important point to come to, 11 and that is where we think we are.
12 Another matter related to the first repository that 13 is under discussion has to do with retrievability.
14 1 Commissioner Bernthal left the room.]
l 15 If you recall Section 122 of the Act that deals l
16 with retrievability, we are beginning discussions to develop a 17 common understanding between us and your staff as to what
- 18 retrievability means, what kind of principles would be applied ,
l 19 to test it and how we design the repository system so that it 20 meets those, and that the Act only. mentions the requirement 21 for retrievability, and your Part 60 likewise mentions
! 22 requirement for retrievability to assure performance from the i
I 23 safety standpoint.
24 This is a major early decision matter that we will i
25 have to deal with as well.
4 7 .
.I i
22 ps t
1 Now, this is consistent with the approach that we 2 have agreed we would take, namely, to try to, as early as we 3 can when we get to such issues. to have sufficient involvement 4 of all interested parties so that we can reach agreement, put 5 the matter to bed so that in 1990 we don't come back together 6 and say, why did you do that? The program just will not 7 proceed on the base suggested by Congress if we don't find a 8 way to identify issues that can be addressed and about which 9 we can reach conclusions on as the program unfolds.
10 If the first time those matters are addressed is 11 when-the licensing application appears, then we are in i
s 12 trouble. Then we have not done our job, in my opinion, and we 13 are trying to work toward that.
I 14 That speaks to the question of schedule, and again, 15 I would like to reserve the question of 27 versus 36 months to 16 the discussion that I will talk about in a few moments with 17 respect to the Mission Plan, but I can't help but note here 18 that taking steps of the sort of a common licensing 19 information system, dealing with subjects like retrievability, 20 our staffs and the public working together, even af it amounts 21 to having rulemaking hearings at some point -- and I can 22 imagine that that might be the case -- to reach resolution 23 that we have visited that subject and we have agreed that this 24 is the condition or the parameter or the c i r c ums t anc e's which 25 must obtain or we must do and have the matter dealt with, and
23 1 hopefully get to the place where we don't find somebody two 2 years later coming back and saying, well, I forgot about 3 that. Obviously, if it's a. matter of great importance, we 4 will have to go back and look at it, but to the extent that we S .can, we need to visit these issues as they arise.
6 That is something that it is not possible to do in 7 the current programs before the Commission because of the 8 circumstances we are in, I guess is the best way to put it.
9 I would note that the principal interactions we have 10 with the Staff right now are in the area of transportation, 11 which I have mentioned, and in the first repository, and I 12 think we continue to find a say to work together without 13 violating the proprieties of independence and so forth. We do 14 not find ourselves in discussions of technical issues that we 15 are trying to resolve.
16 We do have discussions with respect to priorities 17 and allocation of resources, and which ! appreciate and would 18 hope that we could continue, 19 Let me quickly turn to the second repository. The 20 second repositery is not authorised by the Act, but we are 21 continuing under the authority of the Act to mount the siting 22 program. There will be in at least the next six months an 23 important step taken to issue the region or the area narrowing 24 of sites from about 200. About October or November we will 25 issue the draft determination of the sites that we propose to
24 t 1 spend time-on for more definitive exploration and 4
2 investigation as we continue in the site selection process- 1 1 3 believe the timing is about November of this year.
I 4 (Commissioner Bernthal returned to the room.3 1
! 5 With that, I think I would pass on from the 6 repository to mention two or three other quick items and then l
I 7 turn to the Mission Plan.
l 6 We have all had the opportunity to testify on i
9 Price-Anderson, and I believe that the views we hold are 10 probably well known to all of you, and I don't know of any 2
l 11 major problems. I would be glad to hear any comments any of r
4 [ 12 you have, but I think you know that we believe Price-Anderson i^
13 ought to apply. - t lieve that there ought to be a waiver of 5
4
- 14 defenses so that we can deal with the issue effectively.
i 15 We think the cost ought to be borne by the fund, at 16 least in the first readily available segment, and we believe 17 that the Congress ought to commit itself to visit the issue in 18 the event there are claims greater than those that might be 19 specified in the first preauthorization of the Act.
I 20 That is the position I have testified to in at'least j 21 one or two hearings, I believe, and I believe there is at i
! 22 least one more set of hearings that I understand is yet to l
i 23 come.
i.
24 If there are no questions, I will pass that.
25 COMMISS!CNER BERf4TH A L : Is there any disagreement on
25 i i that point?
-2 MR. RUSCHE: -I'm not sure I can speak to that 3 question.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would certatnly say that 5 whatever amount of' money is provided to deal with accidents at 6 reactors, a comparable amount ought to be provided for waste j 7 storage and disposal facilities. I would certainly go that 8 far.
9 MR. RUSCHE: That is the view we have taken. I i
J 10 think you know that we have taken -- and some have criticized 11 us for saying that -- on the one hand noting that the
~12 potential is probably less because we don't have energetics 13 and so forth involved in the waste system as we do in a 14 reactor -- that until we have a more objective and definitive 15 study, which is under way, we would take that same view.
16 If we have a basis for reducing it, it would be all 17 right, but I think the first approach would be to make it just 18 like we do for licensed reactors, and I think it is
'9 appropriate that that first pre-authorized segment be 20 identified by the Congress and that Congress reserve for 21 itself the right to look beyond that to take care of any 22 unlimited considerations that might arise.
23 COMMISS!bHER ASSELSTINE:t We part ways on that 24 issue. But at least on comparability, I would certainly agree l l
25 with you. j
26
,q 1 MR. RUSCHE: I suspect Congress is going to make the 2 choice for us.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right. It's their 4 decision and not mine.
5 (Commissioner Roberts left the room.)
6 MR. RUSCHE: I thought I would note that on 7 lawsuits, we have a number of lawsuits that have been filed, 8 most of which deal with either our relationships with states 9 or the guidelines or the procedures we follow with respect to i
10 identification of sites. These are at vartous stages of j
11 evolution in the courts, and to the best of my knowledge, we 12 have not had any major new filings that go beyond the scope of
(
i 13 what we talked about .i n the past. ,
14 Our attempts to work with the states, I think, have 15 met with some success. I suspect the states would probably 16 say far too little success, and-we recognize and they 17 recognize that we must try to work together better than we 1
l 18 have, and that is our commitment. I suspect what we each t
19 think is acceptable is probably different, but it is going to 1 20 be a continuing necessity for-us all to try to address the 21 interests of all the parti >b that are involved.
22 It seems to me that when we move beyond the stage 23 that we are now in -- that is, when we move to the 3
24 characterization of three specific sites -- the focus will l 25 become somewhat clearer and our relationships with states will 1
i
I 27 f
1 take on a different flavor, at least in those three states. !
2 hope that we can find working relationships that will be !
i 3 satisfactory to folks.
4 As some of you know, I have had some discussion, I 1"
5 guess even in.the Price-Anderson era, with respect to i 6 consultation and cooperation. agreements. We are committed to 7 try to reach agreements with the states on the basis of 4
6 consultation and cooperation, f
l 9- We have discussions that were initiated early by the 4
1 10 State of Washington, now by, I believe, two Indian tribes, and 4
l 11 we will continue to tr'y to bring those to conclusion. We are i[ 12' obligated under the Act for DOE to pursue such discussions on 13 our own initiative even after the sites are selected for J
14 characterisation. These discussions heretofore have been 15 discretionary on both the states' parts and our parts.
- 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO
- Will the attitudes be different i 17 or will they just be stronger?
18 MR. RUSCHE: They will be different,
- i 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO
- I guess to a degree I was 20 thinking will they change color?
! 21 MR. RUSCHE: I think they will I may be naive. l 22 Some of the states will probably be in a better position.to I
23 speak to the issue than I am. We note, at least in one of the l 1
- 24 states, the form and the type of structure and organization
25 has'been addressed and modified slightly.
o l
28
,~
l 1 (Commissioner Roberts returned to the room.3 i
2 I think it will probably gmprove our ability to work 3 together, but I'm not sure. It la just being put in place. If 4 nothing else, it will have been determined from a national 5 standpoint that in that particular state is a site that we are 6 going to characterize, and for that state's purpose, it seems 7 to me it is as important to them as it is to us that we do the 8 job right and on time and cost effectively and have a valid 9 basis for making a choice about the acceptability of the site 10 in the end.
11 I think at this stage there are still discussions 12 amongst the states as to how they might find themselves not 13 amongst those three, so in that sense I think the character 14 will change. That may be more a matter of degree than kind, 15 though.
16 Then finally, as a matter of brief information I 17 would note that --
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What's in it for a state that 19 does accept the repository? Do they get some financial gain?
20 MR. RUSCHE Yes. The Act provides for the period 21 of characterisation, that we certainly can take care of 22 impacts,' payments in lieu of taxes, grants and such things as 23 that. Those are in addition to the economic benefits that I
24 might attach to the activity-itself, that is, the jobs that 25 are provided, the business that is attached thereto.
29
.s i
1 Beyond that, when one of the sites is selected, 1 2 believe we will all find it appropriate, the Congress will 3 find it appropriate to look at ways that we can take 4 additional steps. I have taken the view that until we get te 5 that stage, it doesn't do a whole lot of good to speculate I 6 about how we do it. I'm going to tell you when we get to the 7 MRS that we are kind of to that stage now and we will be 8 considering how we provide incentives or compensation, if you 9 care to call it that, to the State of Tennessee should to Congress authorise -- or Congress " approve," I guess would be l
11 a better word -- should Congress give us the go-ahead on the j 12 MRS.
13 Just how we do that is not clear yet. 'd e have 14 stated from the MRS standpoint that we want to make it as 15 productive and valuable to the community as at least a private 16 business would be, and we have asked the state to help and I 17 think they are working to that end. %
i l
18 1 suspect that when we get to the point of picking a l 19 single site for the repository, that we will take a course i
i 20 similar to that, but we will learn a lot between now and l
21 then. So ! think that I would want to l' eave that kind of l
22 open, but ! do believe it will be valuable to a state. If the 23 assurance that you can provide to the public that what we are 24 trying to do meets health, safety and environmental standards l
25 serves the purpose of the state having confidence that what we
f 1
I +
30 1 are doing does not negatively impact or only impacts to a 2 defined amount, then I think we can address the matter.
3 With that, I will turn from general information and 4 try to use the rest of the time, to the extent it is 5 worthwhile from your standpoint, to talk about both the 6 Mission Plan and the MRS.
7 I would like to turn first to the Mission Plan. 1 8 think that each of you received a copy of a handout that !
I 9 prepared. I extracted from the Mission Plan itself two or 10 three pages'from the chapter on strategy, and what I would 11 like to do is talk about the Mission Plan in general, and in
'12 a moment I will focus your attention on those two or three 13 charts, 14 The Mission Plan is a document that has been under 15 development for an extended period. It is required by the 16 Act. It is a documented intended to give today's best 17 estimate of our plans and intentions. In many cases the Plan 18 states not that a plan is in hand but that we will develop a 19 plan. It is not a detailed implementation document, it is not 20 a contract; it's a living document, in my opinion, subject to 21 change, and we will from time to time as we find new 22 information have to make a change or want to make a change to I
l 23 have available for the public and the Congress a current I
l-
! 24 statement of what our then-existing plans and intentions are.
25 To that end, then, the document serves, 1 think, an I
I f'
31 l _
i 1 extremely useful purpose. We issued it. It has been out in 2 two drafts before now, and the draft that was last out brought 3 comments following May of 1984. Since May of 1984, we have l 4 had an opportunity to review the draft and review the comments 5 on that draft, but I would note that two or three things have 6 happened that extended the period far beyond that necessary 7 .just to look at the comments, 8 One was the program atill was evolving. Another was 9 that a permanent director had been confirmed by Congress and 10 had come aboard, and there are clearly two or three areas that 11 1 thought needed attention, and the staff has been looking at 12 those, but perhaps the most important thing that caused us to 13 take as long as we did was the fact that I determined that 14 moving ahead on the schedule Congress had asked us to was 15 important; that even though we could not sacrifice quality to l 16 meet that schedule, we ought to proceed as rapidly as we could i
l 17 consistent with doing the job in a quality manner.
I 18 The preparation of the draft environmental substance i 19 and the accompanying document, many of which I referred to 20 today, have been and continue to be a major task, and we just 21 do not have staff sufficient to do the Mission Plan l
22 concurrently with those.
l l 23 The Mission Plan which issued early in July was the 24 document that came as a result of all of those considerations.
i 23 From the 2500 or so comments we received on the
. .- ~. ~ ._. , ,
O 32 1 ' draft' there were about ten or so areas of concern or comment 2 that we 'r e identified, and let me just note those for you very i
I 3 quickly. Some of them had to do with institutional 4 relations. In that case, we litrJally added a new chapter on 5 institutional relations. I suspect it will still be. viewed by 6 some as being inadequate, but it is clearly a much better 7 statement than we had before and is an attempt on our part to f
4 indicate how we would react.
9 A number of comments had to do with defense waste.
10 That issue has now been resolved as a result of the i
11 President's determination that he-finds no basis for a 12 separate' repository, and se that issue is resolved.
13 A number of comments went to the 1998 acceptance l 14 date, or beginning acceptance date for spent fuel or high 15 level waste. Comments in many cases suggested that we were 16 being unrealistic and there was no way we could get to 1998.
17 I'have taken the view then and we take the review in the 18 report that we are committed to meeting the date.
19 I don't think there is any one of us here or 20 anywhere else who could guarantee that we will, but I can 21 guarantee you that it is our intent and that we are going to 22 conduct the p*. gram in a way that will give us the best ,
i i
23 possible er ace of making that date consistent with quality in 24 both.the technical and institutional relationships that we i 25 have to exert.
33 i
1 We have noted that there are many intermediate 2 milestones that are identif'ed i in the Act itself We give 3 those all weight but we have not felt that each of those 4
individually were of comparable value and deserved comparable 5 attention as did the 1998 date.
6 It is to that point in a moment that I will speak 7 about the 27 to 36 month schedule consideration.
8 1 think the bottom line you come to is that when you construct a large program like this, either you construct it, 9=
10 assume that you are going to take the steps necessary to be 11 successful and attempt to proceed, or yott identify all the 12 contingencies you can and attempt ta set a schedule that will
(
13 be br'oad enough to accommodate them in the worst form.
14 1 think Congress by adoption of the Act said that 15 this is an important issue and we ought to get on with it, and 16 we have adopted, I think it is fair to say, an optimistic 17 approach. 1 do know that in a program of this sort, that 18 adopting anything less is absolutely self fulfilling. We will 19 certainly not do anything better than we plan to do. We may 20 not do as well as we plan to do, and we may find reasons that 21 what we had planned are not appropriate when we get down the
[
22 road, and we will change them if that turns out to be the t
23- case, 24 But until then, it seems to me that the right 25 management choice, the right choice from the public interest u __ _____ ______ __________ _ _ _ _________ _ _ _ ___ _ _________ __ _ __ _ ______ _ _ _ ___ _ ___._ _ _ __ _ ____..___._____ _ _____
34 1 is to proceed with the expectation that legal challenges, 2 institutional issues and technical issues we will be able to 3 address, and that is the course that we have taken.
4 The repository schedule brought a number of comments 5 that were in the same vein and, I think, fit that pattern.
6 The site characterization approach and the 7 preliminary determination issue was spoken to, and we wk11 r
8 come back to that as a separate item in a minute, 9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE! Are you going to say to something more a out the ^27 months versus 36?
11 MR. RUSCHE: I will come back to speak to those two
~ 12 in a fairly specific way in a' minute, if I may just run over 13 this in broad form first. '
14 , COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay.
15 MR. RUSCHE: There were a number of comments on the 1
l 16 second shaft as to'whether or not we had been overzealous in I
l 17 requiring a second shaft. I think if you have had a chance to 18 look at the plan, you know we took the view that, at least 19 from a safety standpoint, that to meet both mine safety and l
i 20 health rules as w'e l l as prudent judgment, that it wts not 21 appropriate to conduct these operations underground with a 22 . single shaft, single egress, 23 Some, I think, had the view and the view might.have 24 existed at'some. time that two shafts were aimed at giving us a 25 leg up on construction and therefore might bring the site
O t
35 1 closer to readiness when we file the application. That is 2 clearly not the case. In many cases I suspect we will find 3 that the design of the repository will probably not use both 4 of the shafts and in many cases may not use either of the 5 shafts, or in some cases may not. You just can't tell until 6 you get underground and see what the lay of the rock is, and
- 7 therefore we have adopted the view that we are going to use I 8 two shafts *primarily from a safety standpoint, s
9 There are a number of comments with respect to the 10 second repository schedule. The schedule that is in the Act 11 tended to presume that the second repository would be about 12 five or so years behind or trail the first repository, and the 13 steps that we are taking now seem to suggest that we might, 14 had we continued on the course that we were on and indicated 15 in the early drafts, might have sort of gotten out of phase 16 and only lagged by two or three years.
17 ~We have rescheduled the second-repository activity 18 so that that five-year differential remains throughout the 19 program.
20 There were a number of questions with respect to 21 MRS, and I think that issue has been spoken to both in the 22 report and in the Mission Plan itself, recognizing that 23 Congress has not authorized the MRS, has directed us to bring 24 a proposal,'and that'is what we plan to do.
~
25
~
A number of comments went to transportation.
- ~
q w erm -
s 4
i 36 1 Transportation is going to be, is, and I think will always be 2 an issue that provides the greatest opportunity for extensive 3 comment with the folks in the states and perhaps even the 4 general public, not just state s, p e c i f i c .
5 It is an area that I hope we, DOE, I hope that you
! 6 in NRC and DOT can reach an appropriate position so that you l
l 7 in the exercise of your regulatory authorities can define a l
8 set of requirements and a set of conditions which, if met and 9 certified and validated by the regulatory bodies, will provide l
l 10 the public confidence that what_we are doing meets the 11 requirements of protecting public hea14h and safety and the 1
12 e nv i r onme n t' .
13 We have added additional information as to how we i
i 14 plan to proceed on transportation issues, identified two of 15 the plans earlier, and I think that we will see the effort 16 increasing apace over the next several years.
l l
17 There were a number of questions with respect to 18 management of the program, whether or not the activity was 19 sufficiently centralized and whether or not we had adequate QA 20 organization and attention being given. We have greatly 21 strengthened our OA activity and we have expanded and 22 documented them. We have developed plans in concert with --
t 23 that is, in concert being under the review of your staff.
24 We have further taken steps to.centralise and 25 coordinste'to the best of our ability.the management of the
s O
37
,w.
1 program. We continue to believe that the use of the DOE
- operations offices and contractors managed by those offices 0
3 provide us the best capability for getting the program carried l
4 out. Nevertheless, during these first few years, there are 4
5 still many questions to be resolved, many policy decisions t' o ,
6 be made, and to that end, we have strengthened our 7 headquarters staff and will propose further strengthening as 8 it is needed to assure that we have got a program that is well 9 coordinated and that is consistent throughout the execution of 10 the multiple projects attached to it.
11 The plan attempted to articulate our policy goals 12 and how we propose to give priorities from a policy 13 standpoint. Let me note these very briefly. The protection 14 of public health and safety and environmental acceptability i s 15 the first important goal that we articulated. The program 16 must be credible to the public by virtue of its integrity and 17 technical excellence, secondly.
18 Thirdly, the program must neither subsidize nor 19 penalize nuclear power as an energy source, and fourthly, the 20 program must be conducted in.a cost-effective manner with full 21 cost recovery.
22 Those are kind of the programmatic, philosophic,
~
23 management and. technical principals that overlie-the program, 24 I believe the plan we have produced is consistent with those.
25 Let me then quickly get to-the strategy and. direct
-m
, , - , --n -r, 7 4,,-r
38 s
i 1 your attention to the two or three-page excerpt that I handed 2 out. I think for the first time in the Mission Plan we had 3 reached a state of understanding and an ability to articulate 4 that understanding'as to how we should approach the program 5 strategically.
5 The first page that is in your handout depicts the 7 authorized system from Congress, and it shows that there is 8 authorized in the Act adopted a first-geologic repository, a 9 transportation system that would take both commercial and 10 defense high level waste. It provides authority for Federal 11 interim storage is it is required and suggests that we or 12 directs us to begin preparations for a second repository but 13 does not authorize one.
14 So siting a second repository up to the point of 4
4 15 final site selection is authorized.
16 We identified an. improved performance system, which 17 is shown on the second copy that you have, which introduces.
~
18 monitored retrievable storage as an essential operating 19 element in the system, which we believe will enhance the 20 performance of the system from the standpoint of safety, 21 reliability, cost-effectiveness, transportation, and in no way 22 . detract from its safety and environmental effectiveness.
23 And I think perhaps to a degree better than we ever 24 had before, we attempted to look at the contingencies such as 25 are shown on the third page as to what happens in any number
l 4
39 1 of cases. I don't propose to discuss these in detail but call 2 them to your attention because in the limit, if all of the 3 efforts that we are attempting to carry out fail, then the 4 fuel stays in the fuel pool, and I think it is important for 5 all of the parties who have an interest in this program or 6 have an interest in nuclear power in the United States realize 7 that at this stage, that's where we are.
S We believe the program will be successful We 9 believe that Congress made a wise choice'in selecting geologic 10 disposal as 't h e right permanent basis, and we believe that an 11 operating system including an MRS will give us the best chance
'12 for putting the system into place on time and operating 13 effectively.
14 But on that latter point, it is a matter that 15 Congress will have to d e c,i d e , and we will-bring a proposal to 16 Congress in January of 1986, and Congress can see whether we 17 have been persuasive.
18 I think that if nothing else, I would want to 19 communicate to you that I come not so much as an advocate of 20 a particular set of these, although my judgment is clear and I 21 think we have articulated our current judgment, but rather to 22 make known to Congress and the public and yourselves what and 23 how we are going about trying to bring into being a permanent 24 waste disposal system for the country.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I thought at one time MRS was
t 40
. ~ .
1 to be an alternative to geologic repository. You have it 2 there as an integral part of the whole system.
3 MR. RUSCHE: That is an improved performance system, 4 that's correct, sir. But if you look at the con.tingencies, if j 5 a repository were not constructed, there are two contingencies 6 at the bottom of the plan. If, for whatever reason, we are 7 ' unable to construct a repository, a geologic repository, and 8 MRS were authorized ~, then we would take the material at that 9 MRS and store it there until other action were taken. In that 10 case 'i t would be an alternative. Or if it were not, then we 11 would continue to store at reactors, either in pools or in dry 12 storage.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You mean you would keep them at 14 reactors. You wouldn't put them in the MRS?
15 MR. RUSCHE: If we have an MRS, we would certainly
, 16 put fuel at the MRS up to the capacity of the M R S .. The 17 - proposal that we will make to Congress will propose that we 18 only establish 15,000 tons, which is about 10 percent or 19 a little bit more of the total amount of storage that we would 20' need for the entire . life cycle.
r 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But then that wouldn't be an 22 . alternative;to geologic repository.
23 MR. RUSCHE: It would not.
24 CHAIRMAN-PALLADINO: That would lead to a lot of
- 25. MRSs~, one at each site.
e 41 l
1 MR. RUSCHE: That, or if Cc:3gress in its judgment I 2 concluded that MRS was preferred over a repository, could 3 expand the MRS or direct that other MRSs ce located. In 4 fact, Congress could next year embellish the proposal that we l 5 make and decide that we made a bad choice or a choice that is l
6 not fully accepted. Then instead of 15,000 tons, Congress can l
l 7 do whatever it will.
8 We have tried to give expression to our view of hov 9 we can integrate an MRS into the system to achieve the maximum
~
l 10 benefit.
! 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The reason I raise the question i7 12 is because it would impact on our continued licensing of spent I
13 fuel in the pools, and some of that may go well beyond the l 14 lifetime of some of these plants if there is no repository or l
15 not MRS.
16 MR. RUSCHE: We fully believe'there will be a 17 repository, and we will take Congress'. view next year as to 18 whether there is an MRS. My own personal view is that it i 19 would be desirable for there to be an MRS as well, but we will l 20 have to see how Congress reacts to that proposal when it is 21 finally there.
22 I would say that if the question of . continued 23 licensing or expansion of fuel pools is the only alternative, 24 that is, the status quo obtains, then we have got lots of 25 other problems and you have got lots of other. problems that we
c 42 1 are going to have to look at as well 4
2 I think that now what we wanted to do was to display-3 the fact that if all these other things fail, that is, in 4 effect, the fall-back position, as it were, you come to.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, it's fallback from 6 the stahdpoint of management of the fuel, but it's n o't' really 7 a fallback in terms of the ultimate resolution. .
i 8 MR. RUSCHE: Oh, of course not.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think the Act is pretty 10 clear that interim storage even in an MRS is-never a 11 substitute for -- it's not the ultimate solution. It's not an 12 acceptable ultimate solution.
13 MR. RUSCHE; It's unacceptable. But, Commissioner, 14 you know from your congressional experience that Congress 1
15 might change its mind. It is not our intent and certainly not 16 our view that Congress will I think Congress acted very 17 wisely. But we wanted to -- I guess our friends in OTA even 18 asked us to be more specific with these contingencies, and I 19 think it's just worthwhile to tell people that if we don't 20 succeed, then here is what happens. We are going to succeed, 21' though.
22 'Let me then try to speak to two points that we 23 talked about out of the Mission. Plan. I don't plan-to talk 24 anything more'about the general features of the Mission Plan 25 unless you care to express some, but speak specifically to
43 1 preliminary determination timing and to the schedule.
2 The question with respect to timing of preliminary 3 determination was first visited in my hearing a little over a 4 year ago when we were discussing guidelines before this body.
5 We had a number of discussions. I am sure the Sta!(, and 6 perhaps you did too, before I arrived, and the conclusion we 7 reached at our s'ssion last year was that -- I believe I am 8 characterising it correctly. Obviously if I am not you will n
9 correct me. But I think we clearly agreed it was a subject 10 that ought to be addressed in the Mission Plan and by 11 Congress. And therefore was not included in the guidelines.
12 That is what we have done. And I am sure you.are 13 aware that since we have addressed it explicitly in the 14' Mission Plan, that I have a number of friends in Congress who 15 have been kind enough to communicate with me their view about 16 how we have visited the issue.
17 I think there will be at least four or five sets of 18 hearings on the Mission Plan in the next, say four to six 19 weeks, in'which Congress will have a chance to discuss the 20 issue.
21 So, I think in.the first place covering it in the 22 Mission Plan was the right decision to make.last summer. That 23 it is an issue that is not related to health and safety -
l 24 particularly, but as a matter of policy and determination it 25' is-an appropriate _p' lace, either with the agency, namely DOE, ;
44
, s 1 and/or Congress to make its choice.
2 But beyond that last summer in our discussion there 3 was additional dialogue between me and you with respect to the 4 question of its inclusions. That is inclusion in preliminary 5 determination-in the guidelines. And I think the outcome of 6 that discussion was mixed. I think I said at least two or 7 three different things, and perhaps there was more than one 8 view that even was evident within the Commission.
9 I think it is clear that Commissioner Asselstine --
10 excuse me. I think Commissioner Asselstine probably took the 4
11 view that his comfort in covering the matter in the Mission
~12 Plan was attached to an understanding about the 13 one-site /three-site issue. And I must say that may or may not 14 be his view. I am sure he will want to make that clear in a 15 moment. ,
16- But, we did have discussions about the relationship 17 between the preliminary determination and the implications 18 it had with respect to the number of-sites of necessity found 19 acceptable at the completion of the characterization process 20 or at the time the EIS was then prepared.
21 I took the view then, and I have to be reserved 1
22 since I have not fully analyzed-the documents'that I just 23 received from my friends in Congress, some of which I got 24 about twc hours ago -- one of which ! got about two hours ago.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So did we.
45 i 1 MR. RUSCHE: There may be new information that 2 deserves consideration.
1 3. But, in the absence of those, that possibility, I f
4 still hold the view and we have discussed in the Mission 5 Plan our view.that we consider it essential that we select 3 three sites for the characterization, for which we can make a 7 preliminary determination at the time we select them, because B we believe that they are the best amongst those possible, and 9- that we need to find at least one of those suitable for a 10 repository at the time we file our application with you.
11 That does not mean that we might not find three. In I
(
12 fact, my current view is that we'will find the-three sites 13 that we characterize acceptable and the differences between 14 the sites will come down to a point of how much it costs to 15 make them acceptable.from the standpoint of construction or 16 whatnot. All three of them.can be made to meet health and
, 17 safety environmental requirements.
4
-18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Ben, could you take a minute 19 just to highlight at least what-you, in your own mind, feel 20 the purpose of the preliminary-determination is and what is 21 the-pros _and cons of-doing it when you submit the sites to the
} 22 President, or doing them after' characterization.
23 MR. RUSCHE: Well, I don't have the benefit of 24 having been in the minds of the Members of Congress. Some of 25 the minds have been expressed --
46 y
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That's why I say as you see it.
2 MR. RUSCHE: But, as I look at the Act, if I took 3 the Act, it would seem to me that the requirement or the 4 charge to make a preliminary determination of suitability for 5 development, is very appropriate at the time we make the 6 selection for characterization to assure that the Secretary 7 is prepared to document and certify that we have made an 8 earnest and complete effort on the basis of then available 9 information to select the. three best sites, the sites that
-10 will'have the best potential, highest probability of being 11 found acceptable. And that the country needs an opportunity
/
12 to see that we have done a good job.
13 To my mind, making such a preliminary determination 14 -- and if I might reflect on last summer's discussion -- was 15 less clear to me last summer. I did not have nearly as good a 16 feel then as I do now as to how much we know about those 17 sites. We know far more about those sites than many sites on
- 18. which we make final choices in other areas of endeavor within 19 the government.
20 We have extensive boring data for all of the sites; r 21 we have in some cases companion data, that are relevant from a 22 subsurface standpoint from excavations nearby.
23 So I believe that in the final EAs, particularly 24 taking advantage of all the comments we have received, we will 25 have an entirely valid basis to make that preliminary
47 1 determination.
I 2 Now, from a purely logical standpoint, I have 3 difficulty in seeing how one would rationalize making a 4 preliminary determination after we have completed a
5 characterization. Once we have completed characterization,'I 6 am prepared to make a final determination as to the site's 7 suitability.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Except that there really 9 .can be no' final determination until we make our licensing i
10 decision.
1 i~ 11 MR. RUSCHE: Oh, I can make a final determination.
i 12 The Secretary can make a final determination.
1 13 It doesn't guarantee an authorization. You don't I
14 have to be a party to that determination.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Nothing that might come to i 16 light during the licensing process might change your mind such
- 17 that you would want to reverse yourself --
18 MR. RUSCHE: Sure.
19 COMMISSIONER A S S E L ST I NE.: -- cancel out a site at 20 some point down the line such that that would be the final
- 21 determination.
22 MR. RUSCHE: Wb n we bring environmental assessment 23 and construction application to the commission, we will have 24 made our best judgment of'what is the site that ought to be 25- used. And if we have done the job that.we ought to, that is
. i 48 1 to the best of our ability a final determination.
2 I certainly would not sergge s t that nothing could 3 ever change that view. But, I think that when we hace 4 completed characterization, we will know whether that site is 5 acceptable from the standpoint of meeting Part 60 and from the 6 standpoint of meeting the guidelines. And that is what the
~
7 Act requires us to do, particularly meeting the guidelines.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, the Commission must 9 license a site in any case.
10 MR. RUSCHE: Absolutely.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: In which case the 12 Commission has to make the final determination as to 13 suitability of the site.
14 MR. RUSCHE: But that is not in the language of the 15 Act at all, Commissioner.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It all depends on what you.mean 17 " preliminary." Preliminary to what? It could be preliminary 18 to licensing, it could be preliminary to a Presidential 19 selection.
20' MR. RUSCHE: Well, it is clear from the 21 correspondence that I have gotten, that there are several 22 views on the subject.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes.
24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: That is abundantly. clear.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, we got some new
_ _ , . . _ . ~ .__ __ . _
49 f)
\ __ ) i correspondence I haven't. read yet that was handed to me just 2 about an hour before, a half hour before.
3 MR. RUSCHE: It reinforces the fact that there-are 4 multiple views on this subject.
5 Now, with respect to the implications of such a 5 determination, if the Congress had had in mind that there 7 should be found three sites fully acceptable, I can't imagine 8 a group of responsible people directing that we only 9 characterize three. And that is what the Act does.
l -
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It limits you to three?
i i 11 It says -- ,
4 [ 12 MR. RUSCHE: No, it directs us --
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It says you have to
! 14 characterize at least three.
15 MR. RUSCHE: Co,rrect.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It doesn't preclude you 17 from characterizing any more.
\ -
l I can characterize 50, I guess.
16 MR. RUSCHE: No.
. 19 But, I can't imagine the Congress having the view 20 that if we must find three fully acceptable, that that would 21 be the minimum number that we would find appropriate to l 22 characterize.
23 I think we will find all three of them, but I 4'
24 believe that the way the Act is written, we are only obligated i
25 to ~ find one.
50
.m 1 Now, if we were to conclude that we had to find 2 three acceptable, it.is clear that we would probably 3 characterize more than three. And, as Commissioner Asselstine 4 has alluded, we are not precluded from characterizing more 4
5 than three. In fact, we have nine that we --
i 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Except by dollars.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Waste expands to meet the B ' need.
9 MR. RUSCHE: And the ratepayers pay it.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.
I 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Congress has to appropriate
! 12 it, though.
13 MR. RUSCHE: And Congress has to appropriate it,
]
j 4
14 that's right.
15 I'd say that at this stage of the game, one might
.16 even take the view that if we in fact have picked the three 17 s best sites out of the ensemble of nine that we have, that 18 adding another site does not increase the probability of 19 finding a site that much more -- the probability of finding 20 sites acceptable that much irt that each one of them is at-21 least no more acceptable than the three that we have picked. ,
i'e' 22 And in many cases we have two sites in the same geohydrologic 23
~
me rl i a , for example two.in ---two basins in the bedded rock 24 bpsins and the one in salt domes.
'2 5 So, I think.that from a purely practical standpoint,
51
, ~
1 what it amounts to is expending additional dollars without 2 giving very great additional assurance that three sites would 3 be found.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Ben, what happens to your 5 Mission finally in terms of Congressional approval?
l 6 Must they approve it?
7 What if you say.this is the way you are going to 8 proceed on preliminary determination?
9 When do you know whether it is the acceptable course 10 or not?
11 MR. RUSCHE: The Act provides that the Mission Plan
[ 12 lies before Congress for 30 session days. And Congress has i
13 the opportunity to take any course it cares to during that 14 period.
15 If no action has been taken by the end of that 16 period the Mission Plan becomes a management document for the 17 program. .
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Would this be-notwithstanding 1
19 any suits that might arise?
20 MR. RUSCHE: We will have to address whatever suits 21 occur whenever they occur.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay.
23 MR. RUSCHE: There is the view you can.take that if-24 one. thought-that three sites needed to be found acceptable, w ,
25 and Congress was wise in ~ its selection or identification of-
52 1 three sites to be characterized, that the issue was moot until 2 we find that we don't have the three 3 We are going to characterize three. We don't k rsow
- 4 until we get it, at some point, maybe not until we get to the 4 5 very end whether all three are acceptable or not.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: When was it officially 7 submitted?
8 MR. RUSCHC: The Mission Plan? I don't recall the 9 exact date. But I think the time, the 30 days -- considering to the several recesses and s o' forth that Congress has at least 11 considered, will, probably not end at least until some time I 12 late September. I don't know whether we can predict the exact 13 date, but it is toward the end of September.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any other questions on this 1 15 point?
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess maybe a comment 17 more so than a question.
18 Ben knows, since we had a little chat about this a 19 couple of weeks ago, I am fairly troubled.and disappointed by 20 this aspect of the Mission Plan, and I guess I'm disappointed 21 and a little concerned from three standpoints.
22 First, it appeared to me a year or so ago when we 23 made our Concurrence Decision that things were not in very 24 good shape from the standpoint of development or building of 25 'a consensus that I think is really necessary in this area,
.a--
- e'+
-d 53
. ,m 1 particularly in the earlier prelicensing phase of the 2 repository development program.
3 We had an awful lot of states, as I think all of us 4 remember,' t h a't were pretty upset by the site selection 5 guideline process and by the guideline documents themselves.
6 There were a fair number of really strong objections to the 7 quality of-the guidelines, lack of~ detail and specificity,.and j .
8 the assurance that the guidelines really would result in the 9 identification of good sites
- 10 I think that is what led the Commission really to l
a 11 express some of the concerns that we did express a year or so i
1t / 12 ago and to try and reach an agreement with you, Ben, on how to
! k.
i 13 go about addressing those things.
4
} 14 I have to say that my understanding of our agreement i
. 15 is different than the understanding that you just expressed.
16 You said our understanding was that we agreed to cover the t
17 timing of the Prel.iminary Determination and Mission Plan. I 18 think that we decided more than that. In fact, I will read i
19 you a paragraph from our July 10th Concurrence Decision where 20 we said:
f 21 "At the June 22nd, 1984 Commission meeting,- the 2
'2- 'Commiasion and DOE.' agreed that the preliminary-determination
- - 23 required by Section 114(f) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act i
- 24 should be made.after the completion of site characterization 25 and not at the time of site nomination and recommendations.
54 jx
- 1. The Commission and DOE therefore agree that the last sentence 2 of the first full paragraph in Section 960.3-2-3 of Subpart B 3 should be deleted.
4 I think that is a broader agreement than what you 5 mentioned. And I have to say, I' guess I am concerned that if 6 you felt that that wasn't'the. agreement when you saw the 7 decision-last year, I wish you had come back to us then and I B wish we had gotten this sorted out a year ago rather than 9 having to deal with it now, because I think that was a part of 10 what the Commission and we agreed -- you and we agreed on in f
11 terms of what our Concurrence Decision would be. And it l
a
, 12 troubles me that now we are dealing with this a year later 13 rather than back then.
1 14 I think that we have got a problem because, as you 15 say, we don't have a cone,urrence or approval right on a-lot of 16 things in this preliminary phase. But, if we don't set up a 17 good working relationship and agreement, and in fact a sense 18 of trust and credibility among ourselves and with the people 19 that were involved in that process a year or so ago, I think 20 we have got a difficulty.
21 You lose and we lose with a very_ contentious and I
22 very heavily contested-licensing process and a-licensing 23 proceedin'g. ~I think you lose and we lose with lengthy 24 challenges to the adequacy of the site selection guidelines, 25 or more questions about the adequacy of.those guidelines that
55 1 are raised by this kind of an approach of this kind of a 2 process.
3 And, I think that the one situation that we don't 4 want is to have at the time, when the states have an 5 opportunity to lile objections to the selected site, to have a 6 state be in the position of saying, "We were never dealt with 7 fairly in this process. It is not just that we disagree with 8 the outcome or the conclusion, we weren't dealt with fairly.
9' We weren't given a fair opportunity, the process was distorted 10 and you didn't work in a way that gave us a fair shine.
11 I'm also, I guess,' troubled by the fact that by at I 12 least your version, your interpretation of the agreement that 13 we had last year, from the standpoint that the one thing that 14 .we did have a concurrence right on, or right of approval, was 15 the site selection guidelines. And it certainly appears that 16 what is happening here is that when you ran into difficulties 17 over where your concerns developed as to what.the implications 18 of this decision might be, the approach is to shift an element t
19 that was part of a decision where the Commission has the right 20 of approval, out, and deal with it then in another way, in i 21 another area, or another forum, such as the Mission Plan, where we don't have a right of approval 4
22 23 I guess I am concerned that what this appears to do 24 is to essentially circumvent the one area where we have a 25 . formal approval right,
s
) 56
.m 1 As you say, there are different views among the
-2 Congress as to what the legal requirements are one way or the 3 other on the timing of preliminary determi' nation. But I guess 4 I am troubled by the way this process has unfolded, and 5 particularly by the differences that now seem to arise over 6 what we had agreed to.
4 7 No question at all in my mind that you and I had a J
- 8 different view a year ago of what the implications of this 4
9 decision were. My view as I expressed it at the time.was that 10 I think this means you have to have -- if the timing of the 4-11 preliminary determination is after site characterization, then i-f- 12 you have to have three good sites at that time. Your view I
13 was, that was not the case.
14 But at least in terms of what we agreed to, and now i,
15 how we go about addressing that, I have some concerns with 16 what you have said today. And I guess my feeling would be, I
! 17 don't-have any problem if basically you want to come in and I 18 say, "Look, I can't live with what we agreed to a year ago as l
19 part of the timing of the site selection -- the timing of the 20 preliminary determination and within the context of the t
21 Commission's decision, and I want the Commission to seconsider J
22 that' decision." l l
4 23 I don't have any problem with that. We can look at
~
24 those issues and.we can make a decision on where we think the
- 25 best view is, both frcm the standpoint of what we felt a year 4
.~
57 1 _ago and how we feel now about what the site selection 2 guidelines are supposed to do a r. d what is necessary to make 3 those guidelines an effective tool in this process and from 4 the standpoint of what the Act requires.
5 But that is different than what I hear you saying
^
6 today and I guess I have got scme problems with what I am 7 hearing.
I 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Can I make a comment or two j
9 before you try to answer?-
10 COMM'ISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I agree with the way
- 12 Commissioner Asselstine characterized what our agreement 13 seemed to be last year, because in some set of notes here I 4
14 have that "Palladino and Roberts would have preferred to i
15 remain silent, but because the agreement was reached, we said, t
16 well, we don't want to stand in the way'"
i 17 - However, with regard to motivation, I don't ascribe 18 the same apparent or perceived motivations that perhaps 19 Commissioner Asselstine sees, although I do agree with him i 20 that it would have been wiser, and wo would have been in a C
21 better position had we been approached forthrightly and had 22 this identified as a change.
23 CCMMISSIONER ZECH: If I may make a comment, i~ 24 Mr. Chairman.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO': Surely.
~
58 1 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I was not a Commissioner when 2 this meeting took place that you have been discussing. I have 3 reviewed what happened. It seems to me that there was 4 certainly room for disagreement or misunderstanding, I believe 5 is probably a.better way to say what happened.
6 But it seems to me that now is the time to clear the 7 air. And I would agree that perhaps the Commission should 8 reconsider a proposal so that we can get on with this very, 9 very important issue. It seems to me that that is a 10 responsibility we have and we should get on with the 11 reconsideration process.
12 So, I would suggest that we have -- Ben, you put
(
13 some words together or some options for us.and ask us to 14 address them, and we should do that forthrightly in my 15 judgment.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And I think that also 17 means hearing from the other people that are interested in 18 t h ,i s process, just as we did before we made the first 19 decision.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, we didn't hear from a lot 21 of people on this. Ben came in and he made -- there-was an 22 agreement made, and that was it. So, we didn't have a lot of 23 input.
24 Somehow I wasn't sure that we ought to be making 25 that, and I.think Commissioner' Roberts joined me that we
59 1 should remain silent, in part because we didn't have all this 2 other. input. But nevertheless, there appeared to be an 3 agreement, and so one --
4 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, this seems to me ought to 5 be one of the options, because it seems to me from my 6 standpoint that this perhaps is -- v* have plenty of 7' responsibilities in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with 6 regard to licensing and regulation and other things to do.
9 Now, I am not at all sure that~perhaps this is 10 something that ought to remain in DOE, Department of Energy, 11 and with the Congressional Oversight, which you are obviously 12 getting, and the decision be made there. But I am not certain 13 in my own mind whether we really.should be involved. But this i
14 is an option that I think you should present to us as well as 15 the other ones.
- i 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well it is presented in the 17 Mission Plan. I guess maybe one 'tep s might be to call our j 18 attention to the fact that this is not in accordance with what 4 19 we believe was the agreement and we --
20 COMMISSIONCR ASSELSTINE: And which we made the 21 condition of bur concurrence on the site selection guidelines.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I'm not sure that we went that
< ' 23 far, but maybe on research I might be able to confirm that it 24 was in the --
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I'm just speaking from our
L.
- 60 1 Decision, that's all 2 MR. RUSCHEi Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
s .
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Sure.
1 4 MR. RUSCHE: I guess of all the . things that has been-
'i 5 said, the only one that really troubles me is Commissioner 4
6 Asselstine's attribution of motivation to circumvent the 7 Commission rules.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What I'm concerned about 9 is the appearance that it gives, 10 'MR. RUSCHE: W e l l ... b u t you said that you. thought i
i 11 that --
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The appearance that it
(
13 is. Yes. .
i j 14 MR. RUSCHE: Well, that's not what I thought I heard 15 you say. Maybe I ought to hear-you pay i't again.
16 But I-can assure you that 1.have not only full
..i t
17 respect, but legal obligation with resp ct.to this body.and 18 that anything.we do in this program is going to be done in 4
19 full concert with and full-recognition of your obligations and 4
20 responsibilities.
- 21 The course we took was in concert with my 4 22 understanding of^the agreement we made. -I have read the 23 record [Us t like:you have read it. And the record is. pretty 24 clear in'my mind as to what we agreed to do.
25 Now clearly, people can'come to different
61
,r'y
, 1 conclusions, and I am prepared to accept that. If the 2 Commission wants me to take a course such as you have 3 identified, Commissioner Zech, or you, and put in writing my 4 understanding and what course we have taken, and you can react 5 to it however you care to, I think that is fine.
6 I would note that we would want to be careful that d
7 we don't find ourselves in a procedural question with respect 8 to the-Congress in that the Congress has the Mission plan 9 before it.
10 And I would note as a matter of information for J
11 both of us, that the fact that this was our view was not first 12 called to your attention by the appearance of the Mission 13 Plan. You and I both have made speeches, at-least in the last 14 six months, which recognized that we had different views and 15 understandings about this. So, I didn't have any question in 16 my mind that you ~ knew what we were doing. In fact, I believe 17 you said it. .
18 COMMISSIONER ASSEbSTINE: Certainly in terms of the 19 number of sites that have to survive the process.
20 MR. RUSCHE: Even the preliminary determination 1 21 believe you have made speeches on and participated in public 22 meetings to that effect. So, I felt like what we were doing 23 was fully consistent with what we had agreed with, 24 I'm prepared, even so, to try to take any course 25 that would make it complete and comfortable for you to
62 1 readdress the issue however you want to. But I would urge
?
2 that if we take that course, it would be one that would be 3 done promptly in light of the fact that the plan lies before 4 Congress'now.
5 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I agree 100 percent with t h a t .'
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Why didn't you, last year, 9
7 when you saw this statement in our Decision, before you 8 finalized ~the guidelines, why didn't you come back to us and 9 say, " Fellows, that's not what I think we agreed to. That's 10 not right. That's not what I'm prepared to agree to and we 11 ought to get-this sorted out before I issue these guidelines."
12 That's part of what troubles me. Because I think 13 the Commission was as clear as it could be on July 10th, on 14 whatt our understanding of the agreement.was. And now you are 15 [e?1tng 3
us it is very different from what your understanding 16 is.
17 MR. RUSCHE: I had the record that I looked at, and 18 I looked at the statement that you made in light of the 19 record, just like you had the record. And I made the 20 . interpretation that I just made.
21 I think your statement is not inconsistent with the
- 22. interpretation that I have applied to it, given the 23 conversation and the record that attaches thereto. So, I 24 cer(ainly would make the point, as I have already today, that
.)
25 I did.not have'nearly the impression of' association between
4.
63
~
1 these two that-undoubtedly you did. In that sense, I was not 2 as smart as you are.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think we generally are 4 in agreement on that issue now.
5- (Laughter) 6 MR. RUSCHE: Well, I'm not sure.
7' COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: We were in disagreement on 8- it a year:ago.
9 MR. RUSCHE: I may not be as smart as you are now, 10 but I know I was not as smart as you were then.
11 (Laughter)
[' 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me make one comment to the
\.
13 Commissioners,-that we do have.a Policy Issue ? aper, SECY 14 85-237 on this that we have to'take action on.
15 Options are already identified in there. And I 16 think that is maybe one way to get to where we are going, to 17 give attention to that paper.
+
. 1e Fred, you had a comment?
19 Cf,MMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes. I 20 I want to --
21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: We are over time. I'm 22 looking -a t the clock,'too. ;
23 MR. RUSCHE: But, let's take another minute or two
. 1 24 to see if we can come to some action. !
i 25 -CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was just trying to be !
l 1
64 1 helpful.
2 MR. RUSCHE: I' appreciate it, sir.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I want to assure the press, 4 first of all, that I have not had a three-martini lunch. My 5 dentist decided to.do a preliminary determination on 6 remodeling my mouth this weekend. Notwithstanding the fact 7 that some people might think that is a good idea, I would like 8 you all to bear with me.
9 (Laughter) 10 The matter of courtesy aside, with respect to our 11 communications and questions of whether it would have been
'12 good for Ben to have come forward earlier, I agree _that the
(
13 Commission has hardly oeen unaware of what has been going on 14 here for the last six or eight months. And perhaps we_should-15 have had a public meeting to discuss the things that various 16 individuals here -- some more than others -- have discussed 17 in various public fora-previously.
18 But it is true that our own legal office, the Staff 19 Legal Office recommended in 1983 -- didn't recommend, I should 20 say provided us with an analysis that suggested, and I could 21 probably find the quotation, that this particular issue along 22 with some others, as nearly as they could tell under the 23 Statute were discretionary with the Department of Energy.
24 That doesn't change the fact'that.the Department and -
25 we *7parently had agreed on a different interpretation, or a
. - . . _ =..
65 1 particular interpretation. I'should say, not so long ago.
2 I guess the question I'm left with, though, aside 3 from whether there should have been an earlier and public 4 communication and airing of the interpretation, is now the 5 question of where you go from here. And what the implications 6 would be if the Commission's concurrence on the entire package 7- were, in fact, to depend on this preliminary determination 6 schedule.
9 And I must stay that in view of the communications 10 that we have received from the Congress and the opinions that 11 have been received, not the least of which is.the one that I
12 came in a short time ago, I'm left to wonder whether the 13 Commission, when it all were to be said and done, even if we 14 had had that and this and s<veral more meetings, whetaer we 15 should let our concurronce e nge on what clearly is a matter 16 of opinion under the law.
17 I was wondering whether that is an appropriate thing 18 for us to do. We have expressed our epision. We reached a 19 kind of understanding a year or so ago
. 2C But how we go from here to the 1axt step in view of ,
21 the fact that Congress is apparently going '. e make its wishes 22 known, and perhaps leave Ben with some black ani blue marks 23 here and there in the process, I'm just not sure .gm whether 24 that is the single thing that we should have our further 25 action'. hinging on. j
.- - . _ _. - . . ~ . -
o
. $I 66
.~
s - 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But I don't believe that we 2 made our -- that we gave our concurrence on the siting 3 guidelines on that condition that this is the way we make a 4 preliminary determination. I don't believe that --
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: We l l', whether we did or not,
.6 they certainly --
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, there was a separate item 8 that came up and it was --
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It was part of the package.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It was part of the 11- package.
/ \ 12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: There were some words in 13 there that are clearly saying some things about a few matters 14 that have changed.since_then. .And whether or not one or more 15 of us would have voted' differently had those words been 16 different, I don't know.
17 It may not be true that any of us would.have voted 18 differently. But that-is history, and the. question is where 19 . we are today.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, there is an action paper
.21 .before us,-SECY 85-237.that will help us focus on this issue, 22 And if we need further input from Ben, I would say.that could 23 be"a part of our action.
24 COMMISSIONER-BERNTHAL: But I would emphasise that 25 our -- unless it has changed -- our own Staff legal analysis
e f
67 1 in 1983 recognized that this was discretionary to the f 2 Department of Energy. And it is going to be discretionary to 3 the Congress in the end, I think.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Or the courts.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, .one of the options is no 6 action by the Commission at this time, and that is listed in 7 . our list of options.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess whether this 9 particular aspect was viewed by one or more, a majority, less i
10 than a majority, whatever, the Commission as the crucial point i
11 for concurrence in the guidelines, I think the fact is it was
( 12 made part of the Concurrence Decision and-part of the 13 concurrence process. Whether it was the factor, whether it
, 14 would have changed things one way ~or the other, I don't know.
15 But my concern is embarking on a process that
-16 cha,nges at least the judgment that was embodied in the -- or 17 the agreement that was embodied as part of the Commission's 1
18 Concurrence Decision, without going through at least a fairly 19 careful review of that, I think hurts us. And I think what it i 20 does is call into question our own credibility in the'way that 21 we approach the site selection concurrence process.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think our document is rather 23 clear. Roberts and I wanted to remain silent.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: There were only -- I think
68
- 1. there were only two others. But, since an agreement had been 2 made --
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No, I don't think so.
b 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I don't remember, maybe there 5 were three of us.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, there were three.
7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Victor was here until --
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So then there were three.
10 I think we need to examine our own course of 11 action. We have a vehicle for doing it. And, if it is the 12 feeling of Commissioners that they h a'd made this condition of 13 the siting guideline approval, well, we would have to address 14 that.
15 I certainly didn't' consider it that way. I just 16 acquiesced because Ben had agreed to something that others 17 felt they wanted. And I thought it was better to be silent.
18 I went along with it.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It certainly had not 20 ascended to that rank in my mind, because the issue never I
, , 21 arose. We simply had.a discussion and apparent concurrence.
22 'And therefore, it-hardly would have arisen.
23 The Commission has said what it thinks. And I think 24 that stands today.
3 25 DOE has now said what it thinks.
- - - y , , ,,
69 1 And, unless it is a legal matter that the courts 2 will take out of everybody's hands short some Congressional 3 action, I think Congress and the DOE as our legal staff have 4 told us, are going to decide.
5 It seems to me what the Commission has said stands, 6 and we have said, and that's enough said.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That may be where we conclude.
8 Let's see. Ben, I know you are way ~ over time. I 9 don't know if you want to say anything about 36 versus'27 or 10 leave that for --
11 MR. RUSCHE: If I might say two things quickly --
[ 12 three things right quickly.
13 One is that I do appreciate the opportunity to 14 discuss this matter. I hope the fact that I have taken the 15 initiative to discuss it ,today would dispel any of your 16 concerns about the integrity of my person and of this process, 17 and that it.is important that you'be kept informed.
18 And I believe if you would look at_the last such 19 informal meeting we had, I did indicate that we were going to
'20 discuss it in the Mission Plan. And that was about four or 21 five months ago.
22 I respect each of you and will do my best to see 23 that we do not have such impressions created, however thew 24 might be. And I apologize to you, if that has affronted any 25 of you.
$~
e i .
70
_ 1 The two other points, on the 27 versus 36 months 2 schedule, the law allows 36 months with a possibility of a 3 12-month extension.
4 I indicated earlier that we have programmed or 5 conducted the program, planned the program for success. We 6 understand the Staff's view. We want to try to meet 27 7 months. And the way we try to meet 27 months is to schedule 8 for.27 months.
9 We have agreed with the Staff and with you that we 10 will work in these intervening years to deal with issues as 11 quickly and as promptly as we can, to develop common systems 12 like the licensing information system that will make it
(
13 possible for that process to proceed in 27 months.
l 14 In the Mission Plan we identified that the period 15 might be longer than 27 months by an extended period. And so 16 I believe that from a planning standpoint, 27 months is the 17 right course to follow, t
f 18 And the third point that I was going to make is, I
-19 that MRS considerations are proceeding.
i 20 We have kept the Staff folks who have interest 21 apprised. We have had extensive public meetings with l
l 22 officials and the general public in Tennessee. And the matter 23 continues. And we are on schedule to have a proposal to 24 Congress in January of 1986, and Congress will work its way in
- 25 this matter as well i
' ~ ^
71 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you Ben.
2 Let me make a couple of comments.
3 Having known you for a number of years and worked 4 with you in various capacities, one thing that I would say is 5 that I never had any reason, do not have any reason to doubt 6 your honesty, forthrightness and your integrity. And I am
! 7 sure that your leadership will imbue your whole staff and has l
- 8. imbued yestr whole staff with that approach.
9 Now. I sometimes do recognize that perceptions can 10 be generated that are different from reality. And I think 11 that is what was intended by Commissioner Asselstine's i.
12 comments, although he can speak for himself.
i 13 But, I do appreciate your coming over, and I do t
! 14 appreciate your taking up these issues and discussing them l 15 freely. And I think I speak for all the Commissioners when I 16 .say that.
17 MR. RUSCHE: I look forward to our next occasion, 18 Mr. Chairman.
1 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think Ben and I have l
l 20 known each other for a long time as well. And my concern is l.
21 with the perceptions of these things. And that is what l
22 troubles me.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Anything more?
^
24 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Let me just say that I think the 25 country is fortunate to have Mr. Rusche 'n i this job. It is a l
i L.
72 m
i very difficult- task and I think he is performing it to the i i 2 best of his ability, certainly. That is my opinion.
T 3 MR. RUSCHE: Thank you very much.
i.
i
! ,4 -CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Anything moret i
5 '(No-response) i
.l 6 Well, thank you very much.
I 7 We. stand adjourned.
! 8 (whereupon, at 3:45 p.m. the Commission meeting was f
9 adjourned.)
- d. 10 i
(
! 11
, 12 13 14 t
15 15 l
't 17 18 i 19 1
20 21 22 g c 1
23 I
24
-25 t
1
.. , - - . - - _ , . . . _ . , - . _ , . _ . . _ _ _ . .. _: - , ~ . . -- . . - . , _ . .. - .-..,,.;.
p --
,y g
.( .
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICipL REPORTER 2
3 l
4 5- This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6 before the United States-Nuclear Regulatory Commission in t'h e 7 matter of. Commission Meeting e
9 Name of Proceeding: Discussion of DOE High Level Waste Management Program (Public Meeting) 10 11 Docket No.
( 12 place: Washington, D. C.
18 Date: Monday, July 29, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
18 . -
,g (Signature) 4j g \ -
(Typed Name of Repo'rter) Mimie Mefdzer 20 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd, 24 25
o OCE/RW-00C5 eann s e 3 vowee 1
t
_, ._ gwa - _ = = - -
-- "~:r = " -- =.:. =_-z - ~~~~~* * * **^7
-. me:,w .~, m,m-. 'wg --
- - . .. - - - - - - - - =
wuu cm--~- 9
?$'.??Y "f5E~$ ?l h$n ~pk. hN;Y 3--hYbb'YE505YYAb$5YEYYAk
~~
, n n s. y _
gn mppp,mg ,
STM .
r
. k -he%'.a
%w:ww;w-
/- -
c N % t m ir ~ &n- w e *.
w A n
' r.
B P - 'w:e+ 30t<vfyh.,-M:w ~
w+ eNYA* nft&r%'g c [
a.....,.
vy s...e, 1 w
- e *
- h + QL a . dw- $ rr=~;hum w u' antrw w e'av.,g>
- n. .e
- q uy* C e-e e>v,r, s
.n. b. .- r-~w ~r--_m~um- _,O,ww-
>-~+,.
. 9 r . o.n-- m-w, ,<1 ie ,, a,v,, w-.nw. ,.gs.u c4
% . . s ,- 4 .. ..
y:Mwv"e-www. . .n,~wmae -
w,e v
-,--.+-uy-wen w:v~rre vr -
z v .-~ ,- w
,-s
~ ~ -- . ~ ax. --2..r.__.-r r- n- - - -a ~ ~- - - - -
- s e'*cy e* 9
- pf s a f,+
- r* m. y-v i ta.C .n,s.th ri u ~ .y -p A. ' T. O 1 b"* T
+wr.a 9 .-t *te'b June 1985 U.S. Cepartment of Energy .
Office of Civahan Radioactn e Waste '.fanagement
.c Authorized System First
""" Geologic Repository Transportation System -
Spent Fuel h J L I
I r 3 l
__l Second l T Geologic l Commercial and .
l Repository l Federal Interim Defense High-Level Storage 1 (if IsConstruction-Authorized l Radioactive l (if Required) Waste by Congress) l L __ __ __ _J
Impr@ved Performancs Syatcm -
) First
" Geo'ogic l
Repc .titory i
- Monitored i
Transportation Retrievable i
Spent Fuel : Storage +
j j
fg
- L (if A'uthorized by Congress) i E i i
!1
) Federal Commercial Second j interim and Defense Geologic High-Level Repository j Storage Waste =='
i (if Construction Is Authorized j! by Congress) i i
I t
i
. x
" Improved Performance Plan" Contingency MRS e Enhanced Acceptance Rate e Optimized System Performance
$Q$
l
" Authorized Plan" l
'
- Limited Acceptance Rate No MRS
- Storage in Pools at-Reactor
- Possible Additional at-Reactor Storage in Dry Casks p*
& e Acceptance and Storage at-MRS MRS e Minimum Additional at Reactor Storage i First Delayed Geologic Repository Delayed or e Delayed Acceptance No MRS
- At-Reactor Storage in Pools e Possible Additional at-Reactor o Storage in Dry Casks
\ c.
% e Acceptance and Storage at MRS b MRS Until"Second" Repository Available E At-Reactor Storage Possible l
e Continued at-Reactor Storage No MRS o Possible Storage in Dry Casks o Acceptance When Second Repository Available o Alternative Disposal Options (e.g. Subseabed)
Ik G f fEf ( i GhGhphgh(hfghphfhfhf 9 12/82 TRANSMIITAL TO: / Docunent Control Desk, 016 Phillips j ADVANCED COPY TO: / / The Public Document Ibcm 5
DATE: h/ ./ f J cc: OPS File [:3 p
- C&R (Natalie)
Attached are copies of a Ormissicn meeting transcript (s) and related meeting h w nt(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List 1
i:
and plamt in the Public Ibcunent Bocm. No other distribution is requested or required. Dcisting DCS identification numbers are listed on the individurl docunents wherever known.
Meeting
Title:
[k) H' dof W45/_) A 3) A s W W i*rc e w fA u s e J l:
! seeting Date: 7/>+ /C open / Closed 3 DCS Copies 3 (1 of each checked)
~
Item
Description:
(bpies
- Advanced original thy Duplicate 3 , To PDR , Document be Dup
- Copy
- El *
- l 1. TRANSCRIPP 1 , 1
'3 When checked, DCS should send a ,
r3 copy of this transcript to the ,
3 DDR fr: ,
N/ wWD _
,, 2. / -
f ,2 0 E , /
3 / *
- 3.
- 31
- g 3. , ,
E
- 0 J 3
- 3
- 4+
- 4 3
- lC 1 *
- \
-h * 'l 0 (PDR is advanced one copy of each document, *
- Verify if in DCS, and '
j two of each SEUY paper.)
j(
- Change to "PDR Available." hj il -
W :
- e l
l
. I I - - - -