ML20134D925
| ML20134D925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/1996 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-0109, ACRS-T-109, NUDOCS 9610310095 | |
| Download: ML20134D925 (200) | |
Text
'T Official Trcnscrip$ ^"'ft h0N'Y[~0l0$
.i5EEISifFY$0 efhrec cdings O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
~0RIGINAll Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 87th Meeting
- 3 08 (Acq JWHy g NAL 8
Docket Number: (not applicable) 2s2s 7[3439 WANKSI Location: Rockville, Maryland O oate: Tuesday, October 22,1996 Work Order No.: NRC-891 Pages 1-120 22 9gMQR;s961 T--0109 PDR NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
O//
^
f Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 30000 ACNW0FFICE COPY- RETAIN FOR THELIFEOFTHE COMMITTEE
- . . - . - . _ . . _ - - . - . _.=. .. - . .- _.
O DIBCLAIMER '
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE OCTOBER 22, 1996 The contents of this transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory !
Commission's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste on October' .
i 22, 1996, as reported herein, is a record of the discussions
, recorded at the meeting held on the above date. !
O This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected I
and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.
f I
I i
I l
l l
l.
O NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. LA5 (202) 234-4433
1 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 +++++
87TH MEETING
~
4 5 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 6 (ACNW) 7 +++++
8 TUESDAY l
9 OCTOBER 22, 1996 10 +++++
11 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 12 +++++
l 13 The Advisory Committee met at the Nuclear
.~
(
'v 14 Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room T2B3, 15 11545 Rockville Pixe, at 8:45 a.m., Paul W. Pomeroy, l 16 Chairman, presiding.
17 l
l 18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
19 20 PAUL W. POMEROY, Chairman 21 B. JOHN GARRICK, Vice Chairman 22 WILLIAM J. HINZE, Member 23 GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Member 24 I
25
()
l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
! 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33 l
2 1 ACNW STAFF PRESENT: l
,S 2 JOHN T. LARKINS, Executive Director N) 3 MICHELE KELTON, Technical Secretary
\
l 4 RICHARD K. MAJOR J 5 HOWARD J. LARSON 6 LYNN DEERING 7 ANDREW C. CAMPBELL 8 RICHARD P. SAVIO 9 MICHAEL MARKLEY I i
10 CAROL A. HARRIS ;
11 SAM DURAISWAMY 12 THERON BROWN 13 VIRGINIA COLTON-BRADLEY C)
(_s' 14 15 ALSO PRESENT: l l
16 JIM MILHOAN 17 CLAIRE DeFINO 18 JESSE FUNCHES 19 MAL KNAPP 20 JIM KENNEDY 21 TIM JOHNSON 22 JOHN AUSTIN i
23 MEG LUSARDI 24 MIKE WEBER 25 HEATHER ASTWOOD NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I
3 1 A-G-E-N-D-A l
n 2 Acenda Item Pace l (' )
~-
3 Opening Remarks 4 4 Strategic Assesment and Rebaselining Overview 5 and Status Briefing 13 6 Branch Technical Position on Requirements for 7 Radioactive Waste Land Burial Sites 8 Authorized Under Former 10CFR 20.304, 20.302, 9 and Current 20.2002 85 10 11 12 l
13 s
.- 14 1
15 l
l 16 l l 17 I
I 18 19 i I 20 21 22 1
23 24
.Os ;
(,) 25 l
l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
! 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S e
n <
2 (8:43 a.m.) !
\
\'~j 1 3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: The meeting will now come 4 to order. This is the first day of the 87th meeting of 5 the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. Today's entire 6 meeting will be open to the public. i 7 During today's meeting, the committee will 8 first listen to a discussion of the Commission's strategic 9 assessment and rebaselining effort. Two, review a 10 Division of Waste Management Branch technical position on 11 requirements for radioactive waste land burial sites 12 previously authorized under 10 CFR part 20. Three, 13 receive our annual ethics lecture from the Office of
/~'s t !
\/ )
14 General Counsel during lunch at the table here, I believe.
15 Fourth 2y, and our principle activity for today and 16 tomorrow, will be the preparation of a ACNW reports.
17 Mr. Richard Major, second on my right, is the l 18 designated Federal official for today's initial session.
19 This meeting is being conducted in accordance with the 20 provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We have 21 received no written statements from members of the public 22 regarding today's session. 1 23 Should anyone wish to address the committee, 24 please make your wishes known to one of the committee
( ,) 25 staff. It is requested that each speaker use one of the l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4435 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 microphones, identify himself or herself, and speak with 1
,s 2 sufficient clarity and volume so that he or she can be
( )
\ /
3 readily heard.
4 Before proceeding with the first agenda item, 5 I want to cover I think one or two brief items of current 6 interest. The only printed current interest item that I 7 have is from the industry press, which announces 8 essentially that the chance of a new volcanic center 9 forming and disrupting a potential repository at Yucca 10 Mountain, Nevada, over the next 10,000 years is about one 11 in 70 million per year, according to DOE's probablistic !
1 1
12 volcanic hazard analysis for Yucca Mountain, which I think 1 1
13 we have all read now.
p kY 14 The report was compiled by a panel of 10 15 independent scientists with experiences studying volcanic 16 systems. The panel evaluated the probability of a 17 volcanic event disrupting the proposed repository, and ,
1 18 quantified the uncertainties associated with the 1
19 assessment. Scientists from Los Alamos National Labs have '
20 been studying the basaltic volcanoes west of Yucca 21 Mountain and in the surrounding area for about 15 years 22 now. The volcanos range An age from about 20,000 to 3.5 23 million years.
24 The panel's analysis indicates data and
/
(3,) 25 conclusions collected by DOE's Yucca Mountain project are 1
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 6 l
.1 appropriate for use in a performance assessment.and the t
2 department expects to conclude volcanic studies at Yucca l i ,3 s /
3 Mountain this year.
l l 4 As the committee knows, we have scheduled a r
l 5 two-day working group on volcanic-activity. .
Both the !
L l
6 probability, which this particular item discusses, and l
7 consequences, which we feel now are the critical element
. 8 in the process, and our working group now on volcanic i
! 9 activity will be held during our January meeting. I don't i
10 have finalized dates for that, but we'll get to that in l 11 the discussions tomorrow on future agenda items.
12 The second thing I wanted to tell the 13 committee.was that it was officially announced at the 14 meeting I was at last week on probablistic seismic hazard l
15 evaluation that the configuration or the footprint of the l
16 repository has been officially changed. It now will be 17 entirely to the west of the Ghost Dance Fault. There will i
18 be no repository area to the east.. To make up for the 19 space requirement, the repository footprint will be 20 extended to the north by what I believe is still an j 21 unspecified distance, but I am not positive of that. j 22 MEMBER HINZE: May I ask are we going to be j 23 getting some formal information on that which -- some l l l l 24 presentation from the staff or the DOE on this and the !
() 25 motivation behind it?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLN10 AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ,
i
7 1 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Well, I hoped. You know, p- 2 the logical process for that would be to have Margaret N 'i 3 talk to us about it at a meeting. Unfortunately, we 4 haven't really scheduled a briefing by Margaret into 5 either this meeting or the November meeting because we 6 have or had pressing commitments that we need to meet.
7 I certainly think it would be critical to find l
8 out what the rationale for that was.
9 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Bill, is this a 10 variation on your theme of consideration of setbacks? ,
1 11 MEMBER HINZE: It certainly is and could well i 12 be, yes, sir.
13 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: It might be an
,m s- 14 exaggerated variation. l 15 MEMBER HINZE: That's right. I think there 16 are a number of implications here.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Of course it's interesting 18 because all the alcoves from the ESF are going to the east 19 to the Ghost Dance or in that direction. I don't know l 20 that once you turn the corner, that there are any alcoves 21 scheduled to go to the west at all. Except for the I l
l 22 surface geophysics and geology, the information on the l l
23 sub-surface was extremely minimal to the west. )
24 It's something we should hear about and
/"N
( ,) 25 understand what the implications are for what is going on, 1
NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I I i
l 8
1 but I don't have anything scheduled. I guess what I'm 2 hearing is that we would like to hear something as soon as
,~')
l /
~'
3 we can.
l 4 Does anybody have any other opening
- statements 5 or issues? We are still ahead of schedule because we are l
6 -- we have people still in the process of coming, I l
7 believe.
I 8 MR. MAJOR: You may want to think about the 9 December meeting. You had four days planned. The 10 majority of that was to look at igneous activity. Two of 11 the members are going to attend the NRC technical exchange 12 on igneous activity here on the days I guess we would have 13 had the working group.
l ty I a l 'N / 14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: On what? What's the 15 subject of the technical exchange?
16 MR. MAJOR: Igneous activity.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Oh that's right.
18 MEMBER HINZE: The igneous process is on the 19 10th and lith, but the last letter I had is that that was 20 not established yet with DOE. Do we have anything formal 21 on that?
22 MR. MAJOR: I haven't seen anything formal l 23 other than what we learned at the conference call. When 24 was that, two weeks ago.
()
s-25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: And Margaret Thayer NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
9 1 indicated that that was not the final date. So I don't
,3
, 2 know whether that's going to happen or not. We don't have
! 4 3 a number of other issues though.
4 MR. MAJOR: We don't have any other formal 5 presentations for the December meeting. You may want to 6 look at whether or not it's worth holding a December 7 meeting, if this technical exchange pans out for the 12th 8 and 13th. I guess it depends how much progress you make 9 in the next two months of letter writing.
10 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I have been, as you 11 know, Paul, struggling with a conflict that same week. I 12 lost part of the struggle in that if we have an ACNW 13 meeting now, it looks like the only two days I could be
[h k/ 14 here would be Thursday and Friday which would be the 12th 15 and the 13th. I am just unable to find a way to get out 16 of the other commitment for the loth and lith.
17 So if we didn't have the agenda items that we 18 were thinking of and wanted to push the 12th and 13th into 19 the planning session, you know, that's one alternative.
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right. That would give us 21 the November meeting to work on letters essentially, to
. 22 finally get some finalization on some of the letters.
l l
l 23 The other alternative is to think about 24 canceling the December meeting in its entirety. I see an O
( ,/ 25 affirmative nod.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. . -...~ -, ...- . ~ - . . _ . - - . - - . _ . - . ~ . . - - _ . - - - - . _ - ~ . . _ . _ - . . . . - .
i 10 1 MEMBER HINZE: Well, one of the things that l >
l 2 had been discussed was the possibility of still having ;
i-l 3 some igneous process discussion on the 12th and/or 13th.
1 4 I think that we -- that is coming out of the 10th and the '
L L 5 lith technical exchange, but I really would support ~
i 6 delaying that a bit so that we have some gestation time-on !
! 7 just what we're hearing at that meeting and seeing what l I l 8 the staff's response will be to that meeting. !
l ;
9 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Is there documentation !
10 coming out of the meeting on the lith? l l
l 11 MEMBER HINZE: No. The technical exchanges of i 12 course are without documentation and without really even i i
13 superficial minutes. So it will have to be transmitted i 14 internally I guess.
i l
15 MR. MAJOR: Something else to keep in mind too l l t l 16 is we had originally scheduled a public briefing with the 17 commissioners in December. Now I have pushed that back so !
l 1 18 you may want to start thinking too when is an appropriate j 19 time to schedule the public briefing and the 1
I 20 commissioners. I think we've pushed it into January, but 21 now January is going to be filled up with two days of i
22 igneous activity.
23 You might want to give it some thought just to t
24 when we're going to have enough products done and when
{
25 we're going to have enough done to be able to sit down NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . -
11 ;
1 with the commissioners to go over those products. i l'
2 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I think we should certainly O
3 do that. I have also asked Lynn to think about what she 4 might like to say to us about how our briefings,.how the i
5 Commission responds to our briefings and how they respond j i
6 to our letters to the extent that she can. I think we're 4 l
l 7 going to try -- that was.an initially, we thought we would
! t l 8 try to do something like that at our November meeting. !
l r
j l 9 I think it is important, because the ;
- i 10 Commissioners attach, apparently, a great deal of weight l
11 to the public briefings to summarize in a nutshell what we i i
i 12 might find out in more detail in November. Consequently, i l
l' 13 those briefings assume a greater importance to us both in l 14 terms of effectively communicating our ideas to the l
l 15 Commission and for our own purpose in having them bring to l 16 bear their thoughts on what we have said and to get {
l !
l 17 feedback from them.
18 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Do we want to make a l
19 decision about the December meeting now or do you want to 20 --
21 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I think I would rather have 22 us think about it for an hour. I don't know, we're going 23 to be here anyway if there's going to be a technical t-
- ! 24 exchange. But we need to find out something about whether 25 there is going to be a technical exchange or not. So I NEAL R. GROSS ,
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 l
1 would rather hold off on making a final decision. We do
- 2 have the input.
V) 3 Do people still have those four days, with the 4 exception of John? Okay, let's try to make a final 5 decision on that temorrow then.
6 MEMBER HORNBERGER: But I have some other l
7 possibilities.
l I
8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Oh, I do too. The sooner l
9 the better.
10 Okay. Let's see, are we -- very good. Well, j l
11 if we can then, let's proceed with our first agenda item. l i
i 12 Our first agenda item at 9:00 this morning is the l
- 13 strategic assessment and rebaselining overview and status !
i /~'s i (m- 14 briefing. That will consist of three parts this morning.
15 The first, the overview and status of strategic assessment 16 and baselining, rebaselining. It will be given to us by 17 James Milhoan, the deputy EDO. Welcome here.
18 MR. MILHOAN: Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: And John Craig, with 20 research, I believe is with him.
21 MR. MILHOAN: John is not here. I will be 22 giving his part of the presentation.
23 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Okay, fine. And the second 24 part hopefully will be a question and answer session on
() 25 some of the particular issues if that's amenable to you, i NEAL R. GROSS
! COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 i
13 1 Thirdly, whatever action we might want to take j l
l g 2 as a result of that is something that we have been
)
(,
3 discussing and will probably discuss into the future.
1 4 MR. MILHOAN: When we go in the presentation I I 5 have got a little more detailed agenda that I think you 6 can react to. I know that you had requested we cover l l t 4 7 about four issue papers in addition to the other questions I l l
8 you may have. We are prepared to do that also during the J 1
l 9 presentation. l l
l l 10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: That would be wonderful if l 11 you could do that.
I l
l 12 MR. MILHOAN: Okay. We'll do that. I am i
l 13 getting people to join me at the table now.
b)
\-) 14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: You almost outnumber us.
1; (Laughter.)
l l
16 MEMBER HINZE: He said in number, not in l
17 weight. l l
18 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: In any case, welcome here.
l 19 Please proceed.
l 20 MR. MILHOAN: Thank you very much. We are l 21 here to give you an overview and status briefing strategic l
22 assessment rebaselining initiative.
23 With me at the table, as I said, I am Jim 24 Milhoan. I am one of the deputy EDOs. With me joining me (n) 25 at the table today is Claire DeFino. Claire has been with NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l l l 14
! 1 us on strategic assessment and one of my special l
l 2 assistants on support staff to the Strategic Assessment 7_
( )
\
3 Committee. She has been a contributor to the papers. i I
I I 4 Also with me is Jesse Funches, the deputy I i
l 5 director of the Office of Controller. Jesse has been a 6 member of the Strategic Assessment Steering Committee and i
7 is leading up to phase III effort on production of the 8 strategic plan. We'll be talking about that today.
l \
9 Also with me at the table is Dr. Malcolm l l
1 l 10 Knapp, who is deputy director of NMSS. Mal has also been l
11 a member of the steering committee and been in production 12 of issue papers and materials area, been leading that
! 13 effort. I
(~
t k-m 14 As I said, we have a little more detailed l 15 agenda that I would like to show you that we're prepared 16 to discuss today. I will provide an overview of the ,
t I
17 strategic assessment and rebaselining phases and discuss I 18 phase II status and a summary of the directional setting l
19 issues, stakeholder meetings, expectation for comments, 20 review of comments. Then Jesse Funches will discuss the 21 strategic development of phase III, as we call it, phase ;
l l 22 III of the effort in the NRC strategic plan. Then Dr.
l l
23 Knapp will lead up a discussion of DSI's 5, 6, 9, and 12.
24 Then we'll be prepared to answer any other questions you
,r\
i 25 may have.
% >) .
l
[
! NEAL R. GROSS f COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 15 1 Next slide there, Claire. The strategic i
~s 2 assessment and rebaselining project was started in August 3 of last year, of 1995, in response to Chairman Jackson's 4 memo to the EDO requesting such an effort be established 5 in part because of the changing environments the NRC is 6 affecting both internal and external, such as changes 7 because of budgetary pressures, changing because of l
l 8 external situations, changing because of internal 9 situations of staff, more experienced staff retiring, the 10 need to retain staff in other activities. l l
l 11 The organization is set up to respond to ,
l l 12 Chairman Jackson's request by establishing a steering 1
13 committee. Myself and Jim Johnson from the chairman's ;
i ('~x) 1 l (_/ 14 office were co-chairs of the steering committee. I 15 The steering committee then was made up of 1
i 16 senior NRC managers. Ed Jordan, who is the director of !
I 4
l 17 AEOD was a member of the committee. Frank Moralia, the )
l i l 1 I
18 deputy director of NRR, member of the steering committee.
i 19 Dr. Knapp from deputy director of NMSS, steering committee l
20 member. Jesse Funches, deputy director, Office of 21 Comptroller. Noel Levin, deputy director of IRM. Jim
, 22 McDermott, deputy director of Office of Personnel. Dr.
l 23 Speiss, deputy director of Office of Research. Luis 24 Reyes, deputy regional administrator in region II O
( ,/ 25 represented the regions on this effort, and also the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISuND AW., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 i
1 deputy director of admin. was a member of the steering
- 2 committee.
/
\
3 We had a oupport group to support the steering a committee in our efforts. We also had a contractor, 5 Public Strategies Group, assist us in our effort.
6 The effort is a four-phased effort. I will be 7 discussing phase I in a little bit more detail on the next 8 slide, but it involved basically the assessment phase of 9 the review of the NRC activities, the development of the 10 strategic issues and the further development of what we 11 call the directional setting issues. I'll discuss that in 12 a little more detail on the next slide.
13 Phase II involved the production of the issue r~N
(_-} 14 papers and the stakeholder involvement process in which 15 we're at now.
16 Phase III involved the production of the l
1 17 agency's strategic plan, based upon the Commission's 18 decisions on the directional setting issues, going through 19 the stakeholder process that we're going through now.
20 Then based on the final Commission views on the 21 directional setting issues would be the foundation for our i 22 preparation of the agency's strategic plan.
23 Then phase IV is the implementation and the 24 budget phase of putting the strategic plan into action.
fm
(,) 25 We're trying to do that. Jesse will discuss that when his NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i
l
17 1 part of the presentation is done, in relationship to the 73 2 budget call next spring for the FY 99 budget, and then i 1 3 preparation of the future budget activities. We'll 4 discuss that a little bit later also.
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Jim, you perhaps will 6 mention this, but I just wanted to ask. Once the i
7 strategic plan is completed, that is, when the 1
8 Commissioners have made their final decision and so forth, !
9 will that go out for public comment?
10 MR. MILHOAN: The strategic plan, the 11 foundation for the strategic plan is the Commissioners' 12 decisions on the issue paper. But once the strategic plan J 13 is developed, and it should be the early part of next (3
\m_/ 14 year, we will make that publicly available. But at this 15 present time, do not expect to ask for public comment on 16 that because we're asking for public comment on the 17 foundation for the strategic plan. But it will be 18 available and the public will have --
19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I'm sure there will be 20 comments.
21 MR. MILHOAN: If they want to provide 22 comments, I'm sure that we will get reaction from the 23 public on that. It is a living -- obviously it will be a 24 living document. We'll discuss that a little later in the (O,) 25 presentation also.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 l
18 1 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Fine.
l 7_
2 MR. MILHOAN: The next chart really is a block j
'-] 3 diagram showing the process that we used in phase I. When 4 we started out in phase I, it says phase I was an !
5 assessment of the NRC activities. It was a bottom-up l
6 approach from -- the first part of phase I was a bottoms- j i
7 up approach of looking at all of the agency activities.
8 We developed a request to go out to sll of the 9 offices back last September and asked the offices. We 10 talked about the lowest basically functional level in an I 11 office. Normally that's at the branch level in our i 12 organization charts. In other offices, they may be called 13 other things other than branches.
(/T
,) 14 But we asked at the lowest functional level l
l l
15 for all of the offices to provide to the steering 16 committee response to our request to describe first of 17 all, what activities are you doing. What is the basis for 18 the activities you are doing. It can be a regulatory 19 basis in response to a statute or in response to a 20 regulation, or it can be as simple as we think it's a good 21 idea. Other than that, we think it's something we should 22 do.
23 We also asked at that time for them to discuss 24 the internal and external factors that might influence the
/-
(\j 25 way they do their activities over the next five to 10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W (202) 234-4433 WA0HINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 years. We got all of that response back in. We found I i
7 .s 2 that we had about 4,500 individual activities described to l
~
3 us. So we now have all of this. We had all of this l 4 response in, so we then said okay, we need to operate on l j l 5 this response and really reduce the organizational factors !
l l
6 now. Take away the organization, but describe the NRC l l
7 does, never mind what it is called inside of the NRC, but l l
8 what does the NRC do. j l
1 9 So we operated on these 4,500 activities. We 10 grouped them into what we call the three major groupings.
11 It's not a surprise, the reactor grouping, the materials i
12 grouping, and the management and support grouping. That i J
13 is not too much of a surprise on the NRC, the way we do
'<~'s 1
'w /
14 business.
l 15 Inside of those groupings, we then provided, l 16 developed what we call a matrix form of describing what we 17 call the lines of business in each of these major I 18 groupings and then the functions within a line of 19 business. A line of business, for example, in the 20 materials area would be low level waste, high level waste.
21 I have got a problem I think with the view 22 graph machine. There we go.
l l 23 So we described them, tried to develop the 1
24 major lines of business in these three major groupings and r~N
() ,
25 the function within a line of business. The function, for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 t 1 example, in a line of business would be licensing ,
4 2 compliance, regulation development. But those are sort of. ;
O 3' the functions within what we call a line of business.
. 4- So we took each of the 4,500 activities. We :l i t i 5 bin these activities into these. lines of business and 6 functions so that we could operate on these at a higher j i
. 7 level for our purpose. We developed narrative write-ups ;
t !
i B
- 8 to describe within a line of business and a function what
9 is done and what are the activities that are discussed in i
10 there, and also, to describe, to carry along with it.the l
^
11 basis for the activity we performed in a function in a i 12 line of business, and carry with it the internal and l . .
13 external factors that influence that. I
~ /~N .f
!Ii s 14 We also found when we did this there were i
15 certain areas that cross cut all'three areas. So we have t
16 another grouping calling cross-cutting function. For i l.] 17 example, training crosses all three major groupings. So s
i 18 we had a cross-cutting function.
i 19 We developed the narratives as part of our 20 phase I report. The importance of this now was that we 21 now wanted to take this, now that we had described in a 22 line of business in a function narrative form what the 23 agency does, and why we do it and what are the internal 24 and external factors that affect it, we then wanted to l
() 25- take that and look at it and say from now a top-down NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 approach, after we consider all this, what are the 7s 2 strategic issues that are raised by these considerations.
i
)
3 What we found as a group, as a steering 4 committee, is we identified approximately 170 issues, what 5 we considered strategic issues that needed to be 6 addressed. That's a very large number to operate on. So 7 we then said okay, we really need to look and see these 8 170 issues, are there groupings that we can group these 9 into.
10 What we found was that we had about 25 11 groupings of these 170 strategic issues. These groupings, 12 when we started looking at these groupings, then we said 13 is there a central issue out of this grouping that raises C'1 NJ 14 what we call a directional setting issue, one that's 15 really the higher level issue out of all of the grouping 16 and strategic issues.
17 What we found was out of the 25 groupings, we 18 had 22 of them what we considered raised directional 19 setting issues. We identified that in the phase I report 20 to the Commission.
21 The Commission in its review of the phase I ,
I 22 report requested the steering committee to consider two 23 other issues which also we considered directional setting 24 issues. Those being the issues of reactor decommissioning 25 and regulatory excellence.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
i 22 I
1 The committee, you asked well why didn't the l
! ,s 2 committee really identify reactor decommissioning as a
, / \
l
\
') 3 directional setting issue. It is a very important issue.
4 We initially looked at it and said because of the 5 rulemaking activities that we already have going on, we 6 thought it was already being addressed. The Commission 7 said no, we still want you to address that.
l 8 So we then took the directional setting issues 9 and went and developed what we call issue papers for 10 Commission consideration on the directional setting )
l 11 issues. That took us, development of the issue papers, 12 took us into phase II. If I can have the next slide, i
13 The issue papers, development of the issue
/N I (m,/ 14 papers for Commission consideration started us into phase j 15 II. The issue papers the Commission asked us to develop l
16 on the directional setting issues were weak in one aspect. i 17 They do not follow the regular SECY paper format. The ;
l 18 Commission requests us not to follow the regular SECY 19 paper format.
20 They ask us to develop for their consideration .
l 21 what they considered a rich set of options. So if you 1
22 look at the issue papers, there is a wide range of options l 23 developed in the issue papers which address the 24 directional setting issues. That was the intent to
( )~)
25 develop in both directions what we call out of the box l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
_. _. . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ~ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . _
1 23 1 thinking on the issue papers.
l 2 The other aspect of Commission. consideration O 3 was that the Commission requested us not to develop a 4 preferred option, but to provide a range of options for 5 Commission's consideration in its development of its 6 preliminary view. So the steering committee did not 7 provide to the Commission its recommendations on a 8 preferred option in the directional setting issue papers.
9 So we did that.
l l
10 The Commission then in the August time frame, 11 provided its vie.ws, its preliminary views to the steering 12 committee. In providing that views, the Commission also 13 provided its views on 16 papers. Also, eight other papers 14 ~ indicated,.and it's covered in the document, the framework 15 document which I'll discuss next, provided its direction l
16 on the eight other issues of saying some of them were j j 17 issues which should be decided after the decision on the l
18 16-issues it made a. decision on. Some of them were issues 19 that they request us to combine with the other issue 20 papers, so that they were no longer separate issue papers.
21 As I say, the framework document discusses, l
22 has a matrix of the 24 issue papers we sent to the l
l 23 Commission and what the Commi ssion resolution was on those l
! 24 issue papers.
I
( 25 In phase II, the key documents are the issue NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 !
I I
24 i i papers,.what I consider.the strategic planning framework-gg 2 document, and the process paper. Those are all available,- ;
(_)
d 3 publicly available. They are on a' wide variety of l
. i
[ 4 different. systems that the public can access to and the *
- i l- 5 NRC employees can access to.
f 6 First of all, they~are on'our internal AUTO-i 7 LAN system now, that each employee can access that system j' 8 and can look at them on the auto system. Our NRC i
9 employees can also request hard copies of the papers from-l !
i 10 our distribution system. We have made it available on the :
11 Internet. We have made it available in FEDWORLD, and we ,
12 have placed the documents in the public document room.
13 The framework documents, stepping back to the O' 14 framework document, is a document which lays out the 15 process for what happens with Commission decisions on the l 16 issue papers, and then the later production of the 17 strategic plan. So if you want to see a framework for.how 18 we produced the strategic plan, the framework document is 19 a very good document to go to to look at that process that 20 we are using.
.21 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Can you give your view i
22 of what you consider to be the most important filters for 23 going from 4,500 activities to 16 issue papera? You have
.4 d, scribed the process. Can you kind of illuminate us a
() 25 little bit with respect to what was really the most NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 important factors for this processing the information?
7~ 2 MR. MILHOAN: I think I would answer in this
( )
3 way. Obviously we had a lot of information to act on 4 initially. We asked it for all organizations. We had 5 functions, for example, in the regional offices we asked 6 all four regional offices, just to give you an example, 7 responded. Well, there's activities and functions that 8 are similar in the regional office. So we did not want to 9 carry all that together. So we wanted -- the most 10 important thing was to make sure that we didn't lose any 11 data, but we could get to a higher level in our analysis 12 where we could then look top-down on the data to make sure 13 that we had all of the data available and we were not i
x_- 14 missing anything when we were trying to define the 15 strategic issues facing the Commission.
16 So we had a process of let's say of binning 17 the data so that we didn't lose it, but accumulating it 18 and binning it together so that we could then at a higher 19 level define and describe how will all of the activities, 20 how will these 4,500 activities fit together in one 21 coherent process that the NRC does.
22 So I guess it's the filter of carrying that 23 out so that we could get to the higher level information 24 without losing anything I think was the most important r-()x 25 aspect of phase I. It was a very intensive process NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 because of all of the data that we had to act on to make
- 2. sure that we didn't lose the data as we put it together.
O 3 The last paper I would like to talk a-little-4 bit about ~is the stakeholder involvement process paper.
5 That is publicly available. That process paper describes 6 in briefer terms what I have described to-you today. But 7 it also describes how the public and the staff can submit 8 comments on the issue papers.
9 The next slide I now will not go through in
.10 any detail. It's just a listing of the 16 issue papers 11 that are available for public and staff comment. It 12 describes what we consider the directional setting issues 13 which the Commission is provided in its preliminary views 14 on. We are going to be discussing four of those papers 15 later in the meeting today, and will able to answer any-16 other questions you may have on that.
17 We are in.this phase attempting to get comment 18 on the issue papers, comments on the Commission's 19 preliminary views on the issue papers so that we can i
20 provide that feedback to the Commission in the first part l l
i 21 of December time frame, which will assist the Commission 22 in making its final decisions on the issue papers.
23 We have already had a series of meetings with 24 the NRC staff. We have met with the senior staff. We
(/ 25 have encouraged the senior staff at staff meetings to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 inform the employees of the issue papers, to encourage our
()
2 employees to provide comments on the issue papers.
i 3 We have also, our steering committee has l l
4 visited each of the-four regional offices and also ,
5 presented, made a presentation of the process that we've j i
6 had and encouraged the regional employees to comment on 7 the papers. But we have met with ACRS this month. Then 8 we're meeting with you today. We are meeting with the 9 agreement states organization tomorrow. We have a public 10 meeting October 24 and 25 in Washington. We'll be 11 traveling to Colorado Springs as indicated, October 31, 12 and November 1. Then November 7 and 8, we'll be in ;
13 Chicago to attempt to encourage the public to submit i
)
i 14 comments on the issue papers, because we do want the views l l l 15 of the NRC and-employees and the public to assist the 16 Commission in making its final decisions on'the issue l
17 papers.
18 The next slide discusses, as I say, the 19 external stakeholder meetings where we're having them. We i
i 20 will have a process where we will have a plenary session i l i 21 to discuss the process we went through. Then we will l
22 attempt at the conference to have an issue paper j i
l 23 discussion on each of the issue papers at the two-day 24 conference that we have in the locations I described. Our l
25
~
contractor has assisted us in planning the conferences. I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 We will have the benefit of facilitators at the public I
,3 2 meeting. Those public meetings will be transcribed to A
3 assist us in our review of the comments received.
4 Our expectations for comments are really we 5 want to know, we're extremely interested in getting 6 stakeholder views and comments on important considerations l 1
7 that we may have omitted from the issue papers.
8 We are also interested, we provided our i
1 9 assumption and projections for internal and external l
l 10 factors that may affect the way we do business. We are 11 interested in getting comment from our employees and the l 12 public on whether or not they agree with those 13 assumptions. I k-) 14 We also would like to receive comment on the 15 Commission's preliminary views on the issue papers.
16 Lastly, the Commission in certain issue papers 17 requested us to get feedback on specific questions that 4 l
18 they had on some of the issue papers. We have identified 19 that in the individual issue papers, and specifically 20 asking for comments on those individual issues the 21 Commission identified.
22 Comments can be provided in a number of means, l
23 by mail, electronically. All comments will be docketed by 24 SECY, so that we can keep track of the comments and
/-
( ,s) 25 operate on the comments. The comment period is closing
(
l NEAL R. GROSS
! COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 j
i
29 1 November 15. We have had out the papers for comments 2 since mid-September.
3 Review of the comments, we will review the l
comments received both at the conferences, written in '
4-5 electronically. We will produce what we call a '
6 stakeholders interaction report,to the Commission, which t
7 is due to the Commission the first part of December. We l 8 will provide a brief analysis of the comments by'.
t 9 individual issue paper. We will identify substantive ;
10 comments that may have a direct bearing on the 11 Commission's preliminary views.
12' The comments in our stakeholder interaction 13 report will be available to all internal and external 14 st.akeholders once we forward it to the Commission, so that 15 they can see how we summarized their comments.
16 At this point, I will pause and ask Jesse 17 Funches to pick it up from here, and discuss the phase III 18 portion of the effort that we've been underway.
19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Fine. We can go right 20 ahead I think. I had one quick comment. Do you have a 21 feeling for are you going to receive 10,000 comments or 22 100,000 or 107 l
23 MR. MILHOAN: I-hope it's more than 10. I 24 hope we get as many as possible. I know we have had on l.O 2e the 1nternet we've hae cver 2.000.
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
30 1 MS. DeFINO: Twenty four hundred.
7_
2 MR. MILHOAN: We have had 2,400 I guess
( )
3 interactions on the Internet so far, people have 4 requested, people have accessed this on the Internet. It 5 doesn't mean they submitted a comment.
6 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: No, but at least access.
7 MR. MILHOAN: But we encourage that, but at 8 this time, I really do not have a good feeling. I think 9 after Friday, after the public meeting in Washington, I 10 will have a much better feeling of where we stand on it.
11 It is also human nature, wait until the end of 12 the comment period to provide comments. So we have had 13 more than 10 comments provided so far, but I wish we had
(~\
k_s/ 14 more than what we have at the present.
15 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Let me ask you another 16 question, Jim, if I may. I don't know that you will be 17 able to answer it. But of course both of the advisory 18 committees have been contemplating what their role is.
19 Perhaps Mal might want to join in the answer here too. We 20 are wondering, we don't -- I think neither of the advisory 21 committees that I am -- the ACRW and ACRS, regard 22 themselves precisely as stakeholders in this l
23 consideration. In that although our paychecks do say l
24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission on them, nonetheless, our (m) 25 reporting function is directly to the Commission. So it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE IS!AND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
.. _ _ __ _ __._ _>_.._ _.____.. _.m . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . _ . . . . _ _ . - _ __-
31 !
1 a little bit different when we comment.
2 I wondered if you have any thoughts or ideas f 3 with regard to the place for input from the advisory i i
4 committees to this process. f L !
i 5 MR. MILHOAN: I guess first of all, answer 6 specific comments. I agree ACRS and ACNW has a special l l
7 status, but the way we have defined stakeholder, it's very -l l
i 8 broad. But we also understand your other reporting i i
9 relationship to the Commission. We would anticipate and ]
L 10 we would certainly request that that -- we'll accept l l
l
' ll comments in any form we have. You can give them. But'I l l
l 12 would anticipate that we would receive comments in the I 2
i, 14 MS. DeFINO: We already have received a ,
t l
15 written comment from the ACNW on the low level waste 16 program that we will be considering as part of the 17 comments.
18 MR. MILHOAN: I would following this meeting, 1
l 19 any comments in your normal fashion would certainly, we t
1 20 will certainly take those into account. They may be 21 submitted to the normal mechanism, but we will certainly l 22 have access to those comments. Then the stakeholder 1
i.
l 23 interaction report we would recognize the fact that we did 24 receive those comments and incorporate those into the j '25 stakeholder interaction report that we provide the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l I
32 1 Commission, even though they may be submitted separately, 7s 2 we would also attempt to put those in our stakeholder t i 3 interaction report for completeness.
4 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Could I ask if you have any 5 other comments, Mal?
6 MR. KNAPP: No, not a great deal. But in case 7 I forget it later on, when we talk about the low level 8 program, I think you will find that the Commission's 9 preliminary decision is not very different from the 10 recommendations that you made last year. Certainly a 11 comment that I would be pleased to hear is if you see that 12 there are substantive differences, or if there is 13 something that you would like to be considered in q
(_) 14 particular in the low level program, that you might want 15 to expand on or elaborate on your comments from last year, 16 I would particularly like to hear that.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Okay. Thank you.
l 18 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Can I ask something?
19 If this is going to be covered later, please let's go on.
20 But one of the things that I am always concerned about in 21 these kinds of activities 3.s industry participation. In 22 the philosophy of the NRC to keep considerable distance l 23 between them and industry, I can understand that they 24 wouldn't assume a position like they might in other q
( ,, 25 nations that have regulatory functions and don't have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
l
33 1 quite the same philosophy with respect to how to handle l l
,s
- 2 industry. But just as we have been trying to figure out
- \
\ /
3 the role of ACNW in regard to this process, I guess I am i
4 still struggling with the role of industry, which I also )
5 consider to be quite a different status than other 6 categories that might impact this.
7 I am always surprised that industry isn't more i i
8 prominent in this kind of activity, given that they are I 1
9 doing a lot of the work and they are the licensee and the l l
10 applicant. They are the ones that are going to be hit I i
11 with any impact that this may have down the road. Is 12 somebody going to talk about this a little bit? Or is it 13 the stakeholder mechanism that is pretty much the process I i
\/ 14 by which industry participates?
15 MR. MILHOAN: We regard first -- I thought you 16 were answering from two different ways. I understand you 17 are asking the question from the standpoint of the 18 industry comment input to the process we have. l 19 We would expect the industry -- we made a 20 large number of mailings to industry organizations and to 21 the utilities. We would certainly request that they i
22 participate in the stakeholder meetings. We would
! 23 anticipate that we would certainly receive comments from 24 industry organizations, which would be reflective of the
/^N 23 groups.
()
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 l
34 1 We've received already one comment from one 1 r
)
4 7 2 industry organization. We would anticipate we would !
('~')
3 receive more. But we see their interaction to be part of 4 the comment process on the issue papers that are before !
5 you. ,
l 6 We also, and I thought you were asking a I 7 question from another standpoint. One of the issue i
l 8 papers, as you notice, is the subject of the role of the ,
4 9 industry in the regulatory process. So there's that one 10 that addresses the central issue. Then there's the issue 11 of how can the industry comment on what we have done so 12 far. But we would see the latter one being a part of our 13 ccmment process that we would have, that are going on
(~}
\s / 14 right now.
15 VICE CHAIRMAN GARR::CK: Okay. Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Can I ask one more, I 17 guess, Jim? I will understand if you don't want to 18 discuss this. But of course at one point in time, the 19 advisory committees themselves were subject to one of the I 20 DSI papers. That has changed I recognize now. But in 1
21 specific terms with regard to this particular committee, 22 there are statements there that say basically that the 23 committee is scheduled to go out of business in 1999, and !
I l
! 24 in particular, that its work load is decreasing, a subject l
. ()
I s_
25 that I find hard to believe frcm my side of the table.
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 :
i 1 I was wondering if you could give us some idea >
2 of the process by which those comments, the basis for that ;
O 3 kind of commentary. .I will understand if it's better not t
4 to do that. I t t l 5 MR. MILHOAN: Myself, we do not.have -- Mal, ;
6 do you want to comment on that? I do not have the writer l 7 of that particular --
l \
8 MR. KNAPP: No, that writer is not here. -I l !
=
9 can -- about the only -- I think there's maybe a double-10 barreled comment here, our question. One was the i
11 committee going out of business in-a few years. The other !
l 12 is the need for the committee. I l
13 With respect, I can't speak-to the committee's 14 -- the thought on the committee going out of business. I 15 can give you an analogy that may be helpful. That is, as l
l 16' you know, according to current plans, subject to strategic 17 assessment review, the low level waste program itself 18 would be terminated within at the same time. That 19 particular decision was made several years ago under what :
l J
20 one might call extreme budget stress, with a recognition !
21 that we simply could no longer trim from programs. We had l 22 to actually select programs and set them aside. ;
23 That does not mean that there was a 24 willingness or desire to shut down the low level program.
25 It was simply that we had to shut down something. At that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
i !
36 I 1
i i point, it seemed as though it would have the least adverse.
L i
l -2 impact of the selections available to us. Obviously that O 3 was not a decision that the staff was comfortable with, or i 4 as you've seen by.the Commission's rethinking and desire ;
l 1 5 to include it in the strategic assessment that they were l
, 6 comfortable with, l
i 7 Unfortunately, I don't have firsthand l 8 knowledge on anything regarding the ACNW's going out of 9 business in 1999, so I can't tell you what happened there.
10 I can only give you the' analogy with the low level. That i l
l 11 may provide some insight. ;
i 12 With respect to the work load, as we'll go i I 13 over within the next couple of hours exactly what is going i O 14 to happen in the waste management over the next few years 15 is very much up in the air. Certainly arguably, the waste ;
4 l
i I
16 management business could be said to decline a great deal l
I' 17 in the next few years.
18 I can also give you a scenario where it is 19 going to increase dramatically in the next few years. In 20 the event one were to argue that waste management in 21 general would have less status in the NRC -- that's a poor 22 choice of words -- would have less activity, then one 23 would ask to what extent would oversight of that business
!i 24 be as important as maybe it was a few years ago. That's 25 the best I can tell you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 But as you can tell from the issue papers and 7-s 2 from pending legislation and other things, where we are i /
3 going and where we are headed is very much up in the air 4 on that. That's the best answer I can give you.
5 MR. MILHOAN: As you said, the Commission on 6 that particular issue paper has provided separate 7 direction, and has decided that's not one, an issue that's 8 directional setting but has provided other guidance in 9 their staff requirements and memorandum to address the 10 issue. I think you'll have an opportunity to do that.
11 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right.
12 MEMBER HINZE: In terms of the process, I note 13 that you are giving special consideration to the meeting O)
\/ 14 with the agreement states. That is certainly a very 15 reasonable thing to do.
16 I am wondering, however, if you are also l 17 making some type of effort to receive input from other 18 Federal agencies that you very much impact. This regards 19 the waste area in particular, because we don't live in an 20 insulated world.
21 MR. MILHOAN: I think Dr. Knapp can address I
i 22 that.
l 23 MR. KNAPP: I personally provided appropriate, 24 well entire packages of the strategic assessment papers to
(
O) 25 EPA and asked that they comment. I have given pertinent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
! (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 I
I
38 !
l 1 strategic assessment papers to the various DOE i
l 2 organizations that are involved, such as high level and l
3 such as the 1"O Committee on External Regulation with l
'4 respect to those papers'. Again, we certainly seek their l 'S comments. I don't know exactly what we'll hear, but I I i i 6 know that they are' reading them and that they are I l
7 interested in being involved.
l 8 MEMBER HINZE: Great. Thank you, l
9 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Please go on.
i' 10' MR. FUNCHES: One of the major output outcomes I i
11 of the strategic assessment rebaselining will be an NRC 12 strategic plan. This is also referred to as phase III. !
-13 The activities that Jim has been talking about earlier, i 14 identification of issues, development of issue papers, and 15 a Commission preliminary decision, will provide the ,
16 foundation for the strategic plan. {
17 Internal and external stakeholders comments !
18 will be another important input to the Commission as they 19 make their final decision on their particular plan.
20 The primary purpose of the strategic plan will 21 be to set the direction for the NRC for the next five or 22 10 years. It will also meet the requirement of the l
l 23 Government Performance and Results Act.
1 24 What that act requires us to do is to develop
'25 a strategic plan, whose purpose is as I have already NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 l
39 i
1 discussed, and also requires us to develop an annual l
,_s 2 performance plan which would include measurable goals and
! \
\ '~' ) ,
3 outcome performance measures. Then later on, we would j 1
4 have to have an annual performance report which would 5 report on execution of the performance plan. I 6 The strategic plan, as Jim mentioned, we plan i
7 to have completed early next calendar year. That plan j 8 then will give us the basis and the framework for 9 developing the fiscal year 1999 budget and the fiscal year l 10 1999 performance plan. Both the strategic plan and the 11 budget and performance plan for fiscal year 1999 is due to 12 the Office of Management and Budget in September of next 13 year, of 1997. It will cover fiscal year 1999.
p v 1
(_ 14 The performance report that will report on 15 fiscal year 1999 will be due in the year 2000, I think 16 it's March of 2000, which will be after the fiscal year i
l 17 end. i l
18 The last phase of the strategic assessment l
19 rebaselining is the budget and the performance plan, as I 20 have talked about. We're starting that next year. There .
1 21 will be other activity that will result from that. Those 22 we will know as we make the final decision on the issue 23 papers and on the strategic plan, what those additional 24 activities will be.
l f.
i ,) 25 Before I talk about the actual contents of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 plan, I'll give you just a short feel of what it is and 2 what it isn't. What we envision the plan to be is a
,-)
(
' ~ '
3 relatively short document on the order of 30 to 40 pages.
4 That document will guide the program decisions and 5 resource decisions. It would not specify what the 6 programs are or obviously what the resources are, but it 7 would guide those decisions.
8 It will provide important agency level goals 9 and objectives. It will provide, but it won't give you i
10 objectives and goals for each organization unit, for 11 example, each branch, it won't specify each organization i 12 unit goals, but it will be written at the agency level.
13 It will include strategies for achieving the 7
k/ 14 goals and objectives. As Jim mentioned earlier, it will 15 provide a provision for periodically updating the plan.
16 As a minimal, we will be required to update the plan every 17 three years to meet the requirement of the act. But we l
18 expect to have a process where we will be updating, at 19 least making some type of review of the plan annually. If 20 obviously we get feedback once the plan is made public, 21 feedback from people, those things will be considered as l
22 part, in the update of it.
23 This chart is somewhat kind of a schematic of 24 what we see the plan as being. We see five basic elements
/~N
() 25 of the plan. We see a mission, a vision, set of values l NEAL R. GROSS
! COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
41 1 and principles, a set of goals, and a set of strategies.
,s 2 The mission basically will state the purpose
( )
~
3 for NRC existence. I think we all have seen statements of 4 that mission. It will be extracted from the Atomic Energy 5 Act and the Energy Reorganization Act.
6 The vision will basically be a portrayal of 7 where NRC wants to be in the future. The values and 8 principles, we'll be reaffirming those beliefs that guide 9 the NRC employees in their day to day work.
10 The goals and objectives will be what we are ,
l 11 likely to achieve. The strategy will be how we plan to 12 achieve the goals and objectives in the mission. j l
13 In May of this year, the Commission provided i s
\~/ 14 the steering committee an early version of its mission, 15 vision, and general goals, prior to us developing the 16 issue papers and prior to their decision on the issue 17 papers.
18 As part of their final decision on the 19 strategic plan, they will be taking another look at that i 20 in view of the issue papers and where we are today and 21 making a decision on whether those ought to be updated.
22 In terms of the values and principles, we'll 23 be using the principle regulation that has been 24 promulgated by NRC, the organization bias. There's a s ,/ 25 safety philosophy that was promulgated earlier this l NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
42l l
l.
i 1 calendar year.
2 Those documents are listed in the framework l f~%
\- 3 and the content of all those documents are in the 4 framework document that was provided with the package for 5 public comment. ,
i l
6 To articulate the strategies that we plan to 7 pursue, we have organized those in three broad categories. ,
8 The first category is what we call mission critical 9 strategies. Second, mission enabling strategies. The 10 latter one is the core resource strategies.
11 In the mission critical strategy area, we have 12 basically a set of strategies for achieving safe-13 operations of nuclear reactors, assuring safe use and ,
14 handling of nuclear materials. The latter one is in this l 15 critical arena on waste. That would include both high 16 level waste, low level waste, and material ;
17 decommissioning.
i r
18 In the mission-enabling. strategies, we have an 19 area on building public trust and confidence, providing 20 research expertise, and supporting national objectives in 21 the international area, and providing the internal support 22 that would enable us to meet our mission critical
! 23 strategies.
l 24 We define three core resource areas, one i
l- 25 basically in our human resource, our people, our finances, 1
i NEAL R. GROSS I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W l
'(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 *704 (202) 234-4433 l
...~. . . - - . , _ . . - . . . . . . .- . - . - - - . - ._~ . - - - . - _ . - . - . . . . - - . . .
43 '
?
l .
1 and our information resources, both technology and the l l- I
! 2 information management area. !
3 For each arena, the strategy.is we plan to f l
l 4 write up, we'll discuss the key external and internal i
5 involvement, factors that drives us in.the future and'the !
'6 objective we're trying to achieve and the strategies for I 7 achieving those objectives.
8 As I mentioned earlier, we will be relying j l
9 heavily on the Commission preliminary decision and the-10 issue papers for drafting those strategies. That's all I
- 11. have. I'll be glad to answer any questions that you might i
12 have. ,
i 13 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Questions? i
+
(./ ' 14 MR. MILHOAN: If not, we are prepared to go !
15 into the discussion of the individual issue papers you 16 have requested.
17 MEMBER HINZE: A brief question, if I may, ,
18 please. Under the core resource strategies, I am very l.
19 pleased to see you have managing information there as one 20 of these core resources. Where does that come in in the 21 DSIs? ;
l 22 MR. FUNCHES: There is, at this point there is l 23 no DSI that was released on that particular area. We are
! 24 doing some additional work looking at some earlier work we 25 had done as part of the issue paper development, but there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P
-..-y- , , - m-- , .,.,.,m .,
- -. , - - -___- - . .. . ... . .- . - _ - . - -.-. . ~ -- - - .. -. ._ . .
44 1~ is no Commission preliminary decision on that particular k 2 area. ;
L O 3 MR. MILHOAN: We had an issue paper on that 7
4 subject because of the CIO Act, and the. Commission has !
)
5 already consideration of the CIO Act in its decisions on .
6 that one.
.7 MEMBER HINZE: Excuse me. What is CIO Act?
i.
8 I'm sorry. j l
9 MR. MILHOAN: A chief information officer. ],
10 MEMBER HINZE: Oh, okay. Fine, .thank you.
11 MR. MILHOAN: And its decisions on how-to
(~ 12 handle the chief information officer function. They i i
( 13 indicated that they did not want us to go further with ;
i i ,
t .
, 14 that paper because of their earlier decision. But we will l
)
15 capture information management in the strategic plan.
1 i 16 MEMBER HINZE: Well, it seems to me that's one 17 of the areas in which we might expect the NRC would change l
l 18 most from its present status with rethinking this whole l
l l 19 process. That might be in the information area. So I.was l
l 20 wondering where that was in the DSI.
1 21 Does this discuss as specific elements within, i
22 for example, high level waste and spent fuel? Or how is 23 it -- is it handled at all within the current DSIs 24 elements?
25 MR. MILHOAN: To the extent that it drives NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i
__.m -
l
' 45 l
l
! 1 internal and external factors affecting an option, it
-m 2 would be discussed to that extent. But it would be a l( \
\~/
3 separate discussion of internal and external factors.
l 4 MR. FUNCHES: For example, I know that it is a 5 factor that is mentioned in the operating reactor DSI, and l
6 I can't recall any other ones, from the perspective of how 7 you interact with the licensees in terms of documents and 8 maintaining certain documents. So yes, it is addressed 9 there.
10 We will be talking to that core resource in 11 terms of how it would provide the necessary infrastructure 12 to support those mission, critical mission enabling 13 strategies.
\-s/ 14 MEMBER HINZE: I suspect the words managing 15 information mean a lot of different things to different 16 people, and certainly different to me than it does to some 17 of you. It would be I think helpful to the committee to 18 have a little clearer insight as to what that managing 19 information is in the minds of the steering committee.
20 MR. MILHOAN: When we looked at it, and I 21 think we're going to capture the Commission decisions in 22 the strategic plan, obviously you have in managing .
1 23 information you have two different considerations. You l l
24 have the technology consideration itself. Then you have l
i
,(j 25 the actual handling of the data in management information NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 )
I systems of the different data elements, the different_ ways l
that you can handle that, the different system l()
2 3 developments that you have. But the technology itself j 4 overlays that and affects the information management l
! 5 systems that you do have. It's a big factor. So there 6 are two different ways.
7 You look at the way, for example, that we have 1
8 handled public comments. In our staff comments and the 9 way that we have, the broad nature of what we've done so l 10 far, you ask if that would have been possible five or 10 11 years ago. There's a different information management 12 function we have now. We have the benefit of Internet.
13 We have the benefit of FEDWORLD. We have the benefit of a i 14 larger distribution of comments. We have the benefit of l 15 both the public and our employees to individually submit i
l 16 comments directly on these papers in electronic form, the 17 way we didn't have. But still we have to manage, we have 18 to have an information management system to manage those 19 comments.
20 MEMBER HINZE: You have to have principles.
21 MR. MILHOAN: No matter what form that they 22 are received in. So there's two different functions you 23 have to look at in_that regard.
24 MEMBER HINZE: Well, it seems that that could i
() 25 very much impact budgetary considerations for 1999 and for NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 f 1 ongoing years.
l ,
2 MR. MILHOAN: It does. We're going to reflect lO l
3 the' Commission decisions in the strategic plan in this 4 area.
l l'
l 5 MEMBER HINZE: Thank you. I wanted to reflect l
6 the committee's strong interest in information transfer.
l 7 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Mal, before you start, can
)
8 I just interject a management note here? I suspect we'll l l
9 want to ask you a lot of questions. Two of us have a L
10 10:30 drop dead date. I would like to certainly ask a lot
( 11 of questions from you and from other people I suspect, i
12 from what I do quickly see in the handout. So I hope we i 13 can get through the presentation by 10:30, if that's V 14 possible.
l 15' MR. KNAPP: Well, let me offer a suggestion.
16 We are really here to serve you. I could probably take 17 until 10:30 to talk my way through all these handouts.
18 Equally, we can just -- I am ready to move directly to l 19 questions if you would like to do that if that's more i
20 convenient for you. It's basically whatever the committee !
21 will find serves-you best.
22 .I could also try about a real fast one or two
, 23 minute walk-through of the DSIs one at a time. So it's
- 24 your choice.
' 25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: How about something like a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
'48 1 five minute walk through for each of the four. Is that'a ,
l i
! 2 possibility? i 3 MR. KNAPP: All right. Let me, five minute :
4 for the whole set or five a piece?
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: No, five a piece.
6 MR. KNAPP: Fine.
7 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: If you want to try that.
8 MR. KNAPP: All right. Let's see what we.can l .9 do. Let me suggest let's do them in order and I'll do the 10 walk through, and then we'll discuss that one and then do I 11 the next walk-through, if that's okay.
l l 12 Skimming very briefly, in the first place, I ,
l 13 would like to note that for the papers today for the first l
[)
\> 14 I
three we'll be talking about, I have been fortunate enough l
i 15 to have the authors present with me. In the case of the ,
( 16 first paper, Jim Kennedy is principle author of that 17 paper. When we get to questions that I can't handle, of ;
18 course I will give them to Jim and put him on the spot.
l 19 Moving very quickly, the cover question is i
20 what should be the role and scope of the low level 21 radioactive waste program. I think with the various 22 situations that have occurred over the last year or two
. 23 and the ACNW's letter, I don't need to explain why that's 1
24 a critical question.
25 Moving to the second slide, this has to do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33 l
l . .. . - . -. -
. _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._m ___ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _
.'49 1 with subsumed' issues. You will recall that we took that
.g 2 170 or so issues and dropped it down to about 24 direction ;
3 setting issues. Some of those.were what we called ,
4 subsumed. These are issues which are generally driven by i
5 the decision on the direction setting issue. Among other 6' things, in this case , should we decide to terminate the 7 low level program, these three-issues would be mute. l 8 I would just as soon pass along on this slide l
i 9 since as you can see, the first two issues have to do with 10 our response to reduction. With the Commission's current 11 preliminary views, that does not appear to be in the 12 cards.
t 13 The next slide has to do with the key factors 14 that those of us on the staff, the steering committee, i .
15 Chought were important in this area. Here is a place 16 where I would be particularly interested in hearing the :
- 17 ACNW's views as to whether there are other key factors i
y 18 that are more substantive, recognizing of course that I am 19 skimming here. As you look at the paper, you will find
! 20 these developed further.
r 21 But to go over them very briefly, we are l
22 developing the sites, so the nation is developing its 23 sites. In agreement states at this point, there is some i
j 24 interest among non-agreement states, but the likelihood of l 25 receiving an application from one of them in the near NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 future does not appear to be high. This is something to 2 consider when we think about our resources.
7._
( )
3 We recognize that a problem that needs to be 4 addressed by anyone developing a facility is the lack of 5 broad-based public acceptance of a site. We also 6 recognize that it's somewhat different than 1980 and 1985 7 when the Low Level Waste Acts were passed. There is at 8 this point reasonable access to storage. There are 9 management options available which were not. I'm speaking 10 more specifically to the fact that Barnwell will be open 11 for about another eight and a half years or so, unless l 12 things change.
l 13 And a recognition that as of the moment, as I
~
/~N.
I \
(_ / 14 said earlier in this talk in response to budget demands, 15 the low level program has been decreased from what it was 16 a couple of years ago to a much smaller role today.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Don't you think though, l
, 18 Mal, that that's a little -- that fourth bullet is a l l
l
\
l 19 pretty strange situation? Barnwell certainly is open l 20 today. It could be changed by the legislature tomorrow, 21 and it wouldn't be open, creating what would be at this l l
l 22 point some severe interim storage problems until something l
23 else became available.
24 Other sites, yes, there are other sites under
(%sg) 25 development. One can be an optimist or a pessimist about l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
. _ _ _ _ . _ .__ . _ .~. _ _ . _ __.-. _ _ .. _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . - . . _ . _
r- i
[ 51 !
1 those sites. Do you have any feeling for that? You
- l. -
l 2 certainly have been involved.
O 3 MR. KNAPP: I can argue very persuasively on !
4 either side of the issue. If memory serves, I have. [
I i
5 (Laughter.) i 6 MR. KNAPP: Some of the things that are I t
! 7 different from say a decade ago, we have the experience of !
l 8- I think something in the neighborhood of about five years ;
9 where the state of Michigan'did not have access to 10 disposal facilities. As a result of the various 11 machinations of the act and the compacting process, I was i 12 pleased and very relieved to find that we did not have any F
13 major disasters as a result. The generators and various O 14 brokerP .n the state of Michigan appeared to be able to s
j 15 deal with their wastes in a satisfactory manner.
16 Unfortunately, that does not cause me to lose 17 -- I don't sleep any better for it. I believe that, and I l 18 am not going to go into specifics, but we have had a -)
19 couple,-three cases we have had to cope with in the last i l
20 few years where a generator or a broker would go belly up. l I
21 We would then have to scratch with the help of somebody j 22 else, .to figure out exactly what to do about those wastes.
23 That's a problem in any case, but it's certainly 24 exacerbated if you don't have access to a disposal 25 facility.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 l (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 I
52 1 I can only say that with as many licensees as 7~ 2 there are in this country, the more years we go without t A N'~)
3 decent access, the more likely we are to have that kind of 4 a problem. So I am not saying what about this at all.
5 But we also need to recognize that we have had 6 a number of states store away successfully for some time. .
l 7 At this moment, the Barnwell policy legislation does 1
8 appear to give relief for some time. I think we need to 9 recognize that under those circumstances, some states 10 which are presently moving in the direction of citing may 11 be less likely to push that at a time with tight state l 12 budgets at a time when citing undesirable facilities is an 13 agonizing process for the government.
,a
(~
)
'N / 14 I can understand why states would be motivated 15 to slow down. As that happens of course, demand for our 16 regulatory support would decrease.
17 You know, I do not want to put any of my money 18 down on what is going to happen, except that I think we 19 need to remain vigilant. I would have to tell you that 20 from my perspective, I am very comfortable with the 21 Commission's preliminary decision.
22 MEMBER HINZE: Mal, if I might, please. What i 23 is the effect of decommissioning of nuclear reactors on 24 the low level waste facilities?
3
(_) 25 MR. KNAPP: You know I am more inclined to i
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i
I 53 1 answer from the perspective of what's the effect of low I
- g. 2 level facilities on the decommissioning of nuclear
\
3 reactors.
4 The only real experience I can talk about 5 right away is some of the stuff that's happened with 6 Yankee Rowe, where that decommissioning process as I 7 believe, in part went on hold for a while because of not 8 having access and I believe, and perhaps somebody over 9 there, Tim or Jim can help me out in a moment, but when 10 Barnwell was made available, I think that a number of 11 packages of low level material that were in a sort of a 12 holding pattern at Yankee Rowe immediately were in a 13 position to go to Barnwell.
(-
V 14 If you are talking about the impact such as is 15 that going to have a large volume impact, again, I don't 16 have a good answer to that. In addition to Jim Kennedy, 17 someone who will be talking or who will be supporting us 18 this morning in decommissioning is Tim Johnson, who is the 19 principle author of that paper.
20 Let me just ask if either Tim or Jim can i
21 comment on the impact of reactor decommissioning on low l l
22 level sites.
23 MEMBER HINZE: Before they do that, perhaps 24 Pathfinder might give us some clue. I am trying to recall j
(- l V 25 just what the impact of Pathfinder was. I i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
..__m . . _ _ . _ . . .__m _ _ . _ _ .-. _ _ _ . _ _. _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . __
54 1 MR. JOHNSON: Pathfinder I don't think had 2 much of an impact because there was a relatively small
)
3 amount of waste that ended up being shipped, but that was 4 because of the nature of the facility. It was not very i
5 contaminated.
6 I think that the reactors also have the option 7 of going into SAFSTOR, which can put off waste generation 8 into the future. So I think for most power plants, it's 9 not going to have that much of an effect.
I 10 MR. KENNEDY: I know a lot of the state
- 11 organizations are looking at this issue of course with L
l 12 power reactor decommissioning including the effect of l
l 13 utility deregulation on how long plants are going to 14 operate and whether they shutdown prematurely.on wheterh 15 they go for license renewal, as Tim said, whether they l 1 i 16 SAFSTOR or whether they decommission immediately, so there l
f: 17 is quite a few uncertainties.
l 18 I know I work an awful lot with the low-level 19 waste form and the developers, and this is one of the l
1 20 issues that they're tracking all of the time. And I know l ,
f 21 they are also interested too in costs and volumes and l
l 22 amounts of low-level waste, and I know NRC has had a
( 23 couple of studies over the years and continues to have 24 some and they are interested in that and tracking that.
i l, 25 MEMBER HINZE: Well, let me ask the question:
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 is that not included in this list by omission or e,,.
2 commission? Is it a key factor, or was it just not s
\'
3 considered?
4 MR. KNAPP: At the time that we put it 5 together, I don't think we considered it a key factor.
6 Certainly, that's a comment from ACNW we'd be happy to 7 receive and we will pursue.
8 If I may, I'd just as soon move on to the 9 options. I'd like to note that you see here a broad set 10 of options, and you'll see this in other DSIs discussed 11 this morning. One of the charges was to come up with out-I 12 of-the-box thinking, some novel ideas. We tried to do l 13 that without going too far out, but nonetheless stretch 1 i ("% j 14 the hour and the Commission's views as to what we might l i
15 have.
16 To very briefly skim these, there are a couple i
17 of aspects that you might be interested in. Assuming a 1
l l 18 greater leadership role in the national low-level waste l 19 program would be taking a rather proactive stance with 20 respect to Congress and the public, perhaps of the view l
l 21 that the NRC's job is to ensure safe management of nuclear 22 materials, which includes ensuring their safe disposal.
1 23 And, therefore, we should, one could argue, 24 become more proactive as to the importance of developing f%
y 25 disposal sites beyond our current posture, which is as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. _...___._____.-._.._.-_.__.,_____m -
i
. 56 :
'l sites are developed we certainly stand by to provide 2 technical assistance and to regulate. But we have not O 3 attempted to proactively endorse development of disposal 4 to the extent that we might if we wish to influence l 5 national policy. l 6 Assuming a strong regulatory role in the -
7 national program is largely to return to the low-level !
i 8 waste program that we had about two years ago. To retain l
9 the current program, it is more or less the status quo, 10 although it would be declining if we stayed with our 11- current budget.
12 Option 4, to recognize progress and reduce the 13 program from a resource perspective, is not unlike O 14 Option 3. But in the case of Option 4, if we were to say, i
II 15 take the position, progress has been weighed, we do have' 16 management disposal facilities available, and our role l
. 17 might become more.one of ensuring that the current 18 operation is done safely and less one of supporting those 19 who are developing additional facilities.
20 Option 5, transferring the low-level waste 1
f 21 program to EPA. Again, this is out-of-the-box thinking.
l 22 It recognizes that EPA is regulating WIPP. With the 23 experience that they have there, one could argue that they i 24 would be in a position to do this if we simply wish to
()
25 streamline the national program in that direction.
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33
57 1 And finally, excepting assured long-term 2 storage, I suspect the committee is aware of the proposals 3 on the table for long-term storage. I think it's 4 something that we arguably should consider in view of the 5 seriousness with which some folks are taking those 6 proposals.
7 So those were options we provided~. I'm not 8 going to tell you they-are a complete set. I'm not going l 9 to tell you that by themselves they were intended to be l 10 orthogonal. We thought perhaps combinations might very 11 well be in order. We simply wanted to give the Commission 12 something to think about.
! 13 And again, with respect to the general
!O
! \-s/ 14 questions that are asked on these papers, if the committee 15 feels that we have missed an important option, or there is 16 some perturbation of the options here that you think would 17 be more appropriate, we'd especially like to hear them.
18 I'd like to just go along, talk about the 19 Commission's preliminary views. They do endorse Option 2, 20 support a strong national regulatory program. They also 21 particularly sought public comment, and we would like very 22 much to hear from the ACNW on ways in which the NRC -- and 23 here are the words. We have tried where we could to 24 repeat the Commission's exact words. They are obviously
() 25 in the papers -- "should the Commission, or should the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 58 1 NRC, involve itself to a greater degree, so as to 2 encourage an integrated approach to the regulation of p
I <
( 3 handling processing, recycle, and disposal."
4 Another way to look at that, put it a 5 different way, is given that there may be some folks 6 storing wastes for some time, some folks may be 7 compacting, should we step back and say, okay, what is the 8 best way to minimize risk? To minimize exposure? Looking 9 at the process as a whole, not simply waste disposal or 10 management or compaction, but looking at the whole thing.
11 Should we step back and look for an integrated approach, l 12 which might be somewhat different than what we have right i l
1 l
13 now? !
i \
l C/ 14 The second question: how should NRC address 15 unauthorized disposal? To what extent should we be 16 concerned about the potential for what is commonly known l
17 as midnight dumping? Should we work harder at it? I l
l 18 think our knowledge of -- or my experience is that we have 19 had very limited problems in that area, but that does not l 20 mean that we could not have more problems in the future as i 1
21 access becomes more limited, if that happens.
l 22 So we'd particularly like comments, or the l
l 23 Commission would particularly like comments on those l 1
l 24 areas.
(~N (v ) 25 MEMBER HINZE: Do I have time for a quick NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C, 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i
.. - --..~ - ~ -.- - .. - - _ - - . - . - _ .~. - - - - - - . . ~ - - - . - - . . ~ .
I 59l ;
-1 question? l l
2 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Please. Go ahead.
O i U 3 MEMBER HINZE: Where does mixed waste fall i 4 into this? l i
5- MR. KNAPP: Um -- !
l 6 MEMBER HINZE: Thanks a lot.
, 7 (Laughter.) ;
l I i .
8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Next question? l 9 (Laughter.) l l.
l 10 MR. KNAPP: That is a good question. At one l i
l ;
l 11 point we had a direction -- we had an issue paper j 1
12 concerning regulation with other agencies. The concerns I f 13 about how we might regulate, how we might involve other j l 14 agencies, have slipped into a couple of other papers. -
The !
i l
15 question of dual regulation appears in the last paper 16 you'll hear about today -- risk-informed performance-17 based.
l 18 It also appears in a paper you will not hear i 19 about today but you might want to take a quick look at at j i
i l 20 some point, which is the materials paper -- paper i
l l 21 number 7. I think there is a lot of linkage between that ;
i 22 paper and some of the waste papers, particularly the low-23 level decommissioning. i i
i
! 24 Where does it fall out? At this point, it is l l 25 not explicitly addressed It is mentioned as an issue two l l
. NEAL R. GROSS !
COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS !
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. [
, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l l
60 1 or three places an the -- in various parts of various
,s 2 issue papers, but we don't have an explicit question about i 1 3 mixed waste. And again, your suggestions, your comments, 4 particularly your suggestions as to how we might do better 5 in that area than we have, would be very much appreciated.
6 I'm ready to head on to high level, if that 7 works.
8 Now, how are we doing? I burned more time 9 than I had anticipated.
10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: No, we burned more of that 11 time.
12 (Laughter.)
i 13 We've assisted in that. Now you're doing
/~N
- 1 l
\_/ 14 fine. l 15 MR. KNAPP: Okay. i 16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Just please keep going. I l l
17 think it is appropriate to go to high level.
18 MR. KNAPP: Fine. Okay. I'd like to note 19 that among the others over at the staff table are John 20 Austin and Meg Lusardi, who are the principal authors of 21 the high-level paper, and they've put in a lot of good 22 work. John brings his experience on high level to bear, 23 and Meg brings her experience on spent fuel management 24 transportation and storage issues.
(n) 25 The title I think speaks for itself, and I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
___...-m. . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . __ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ .__ ..
t 61 }
1 don't have to talk to you about in recognition of current !
f- 2 uncertainties. We are referring, among other things, to l 3 the budget. uncertainties and to the potential for -
i 4 legislation in the high-level area. l 5 With respect to the subsumed issues, how l 6 should we address high-level standards and regulations? l 7 We are talking here about concerns with respect to the 8 direction that the National Academy -- or that the 9 Congress gave the Academy to provide ideas, and then EPA
'10 to take those, turn them into standards, NRC to turn those j
11 into regulations. The question comes: how proactive do j 12 we want to be on that working with EPA to try to achieve 1
13 some sort of a combination? Or should we let them proceed O 14 and then implement their standards at a future time?
i 15 The question of how NRC should position itself i
16 to meet its responsibility on disposal of greater than 17 Class C -- so I think you're well aware. It's been more 18 than a decade that DOE has had responsibility for disposal 19 of greater than Class C. I think they have been able to 20 make only limited progress in the area, and a question 21 occurs: should NRC take any proactive steps to encourage 22 or assist DOE to perhaps more forward? Or are we doing 23 about the right thing?
! l l
24 As I said, this issue paper also addresses j 25 handling and transportation and storage of spent fuel, as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHih3 TON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33
62 1 well'as high-level waste, and that leads to questions 2 associated with what we should do about spent fuel storage O 3 and. transportation. Over the next decade, I think we're l F
4 going to have some interesting issues in this area.
5 You're well aware of the concerns about ,
i l 6 centralized interim storage, whether such a facility will l l
7 ever be available under any direction. That means we {
8 could very well have tens of sites with dry cask storage. I t l
! 9 Transportation issues will be involved. What's our best ['
10 way to try to come up with a safe and cost effective way ;
l i 11 to both store and transport? How can we go about dealing
( 12 with that? Do we need to look at our regulations? And I .
j l 13 should we perhaps heavily involve industry in this to get t
l .
14 their suggestions, benefit by the experience which they l I
15 have so far?
16 With respect to dealing with Part 50 licensees 17 that have terminated their operations, here is a situation 18 where we are looking to what we might best do about l 19 greater than Class C in this area. Licensees obviously i
l 20 are in a position to store spent fuel in dry cask storage. !
i l l
l 21 But at the time that this paper u.as written we had limited l
22 availability to do exactly what they -- as to what they 23 could do with greater than Class C waste.
(
24 And so questions become such things as should
(
25 we be pushing again DOE so that licensees have something I
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 to do with the greater than Class C? Should we be making l
p-_ 2 arrangements so that they might be able to store greater i 1
'# 3 than Class C, perhaps in the same casks or containers that 4 they'd be using for high level?
5 Moving along, I'd like to briefly hit what DOE 6 identified a few years back as the key factors in high-7 level waste and spent fuel operations. Although these are 8 a few years old, they are I think pretty current today.
9 Maybe it's a statement about how we're doing that problems 10 we had five years ago are --
11 (Laughter.)
12 -- pretty much the same. But again, here is a I
l 13 . place where if there are key critical factors, I think in
, /~T 1.
ksl m 14 particular here where the ACNW might wish to comment on 1
1 15 these or suggest other factors that we should consider --
l 16 excuse me, the Commission should consider in deciding 17 future policy -- we'd be happy to hear about them.
18 Scanning thu very briefly, obviously there 19 is, and I think will be for decades, debates as to the 20 importance and the answers to some of the scientific and 21 technical questions as we cross the technical community, 22 NRC, DOE, and intereste parties like the State of Nevada, 23 recognition tre." geologic disposal for these time periods 24 is unprecedente. ,
/~N
() 25 A concern that DOE had at the time, which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . - _ . . _ . ~ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _
64 1 remains a concern.today perhaps in another guise, is the 2 legal. relationship between siting and construction of a O 3 facility, which for.some time'made it difficult.-- excuse ;
4 me,. I'm speaking too quickly here -- siting a facility and j 5 siting and constructing an MRS. Again, there are legal' 6 difficulties associated with that, and as the law may or 7 may not change that will continue to be cui issue.
8 I think we're well aware of the public 9 resistance to disposal of high-level waste at least in 10 their community, and I think you are well aware from i
11 previous briefings of the budgetary constraints that both l 12 NRC and DOE are facing today, which are somewhat more than 13 they were a year or two ago. But again, your views'on 14 other key issues that should be considered would be of 15 considerable interest I think to the Commissioners.
16 With those factors in mind, we have provided 17 actually a rather large number of. options to the 18 Commission, and we initially did that. Upon reviewing the if 19 issue paper, we found that we could pretty much cluster 20 those in four principle options. But within each option, l
21 there are some different things we could do and your views !
i 22 on those would be of interest. !
23 If we were to try to refocus the national 1 24 program, there is a number of things that could be done.
,( 25 For example, as we say in the paper, would it be l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 . WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 worthwhile recommending that some of the decisions that l 7\ 2 the NRC would make should perhaps be made by Congress,
( )
3 simply recognizing that there are important national 4 decisions and it may be difficult in our licensing process 5 to achieve timely resolution? Should we take an activist 6 role and make that sort of suggestion?
7 To what extent should we reduce uncertainty by 8 modifying our own program? There are a couple of 9 possibilities. Again, you can see them in the paper, but 10 such things as coming up with some sort of a process to 11 try ;o pracedurally, administratively, resolve some of the 12 issues associated with Yucca Mountain now so we would have 13 them resolved prior to licensing, come up with a process (3
V-) 14 that might work.
15 Another thing we might do because there has l l
16 been some debate that some of the issues that the NRC l 1
1 17 brings up may be too broad or too uncertain, should we l l
18 create something like a CRGR within the NRC applied to 19 high level? To scrub some of the technical issues and 20 ensure that, in fact, they are appropriately focused? And 21 certainly we're making a lot of progress with our work on 22 key technical issues and vertical slices, but that's a 23 possibility. And you can see others in there that because 24 uncertainty is such a concern, perhaps our program could f
( ,) 25 be modified in various ways to reduce it, i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 Option 3, of course, is to maintain the 2 existing program, wl h I think you're all pretty familiar
, ,_ s
\ I
'/ 3 with. And Option 4 would be to take more of a minimal 4 approach. It's simply a candid recognition that over the 5 years this country has spent a great deal of money, the 6 NRC has spent a great deal of money, and progress has been 7 limited. Recognizing that we have limited resources as an 8 agency in the future, is there merit to reducing our 9 activity in high-level waste until such time as we believe 10 that the nation will have more momentum?
11 Those are the sorts of things that we provided 12 for the Commission to consider. Their preliminary view is 13 to keep up the present pace, that we are on about the
,rs
- \
(/_
14 right track. We would maintain the existing program as 15 described in Option 3.
16 But to a degree, not unlike in low level, the i
17 Commission is looking for ways that -- any suggestions as I
18 to how we might be I think maybe more proactive might be a 19 good way to describe it. How could we do more to help 20 resolve the issues in the national program yet remain 21 consistent with the NRC's mission? And which, of course, 22 we are not in an advocacy role, nor should we be. And as 23 you can see, we particularly -- the Commissioners 24 particularly seek comment on what we might do.
fm Questions on high-level
( ) 25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
-. - .-. . ... . . - .. . . - - . . . - . - . - - - - - . ~ .. .-. - . . . . - . -
67 l l
1 waste?
t
.2 MEMBER HORNBERGER: I'm just curious what your l
, I 3 view is of the level of proactivity, if you will, right ,
4 now in terms of' working with EPA with regard to the ,
5 regulation. ;
l
! 6 MR. KNAPP: All I can tell you is that both 1
-l 7 NRC and EPA are working hard. I think that there is, in )
i 8 my view -- because frankly I am very comfortable with my 9 opposite numbers at EPA, I think that we would like very :
10 much to. resolve the issues. I think that we are working l
11 in an atmosphere of considerable goodwill. I think l
l 12 superior to maybe what we had a few years ago. l 13 on the other hand, and this -- I could devote l l
l - 14 the rest of the morning to this, and there are fundamental
)
j 15 differences in regulations., in laws, and in regulatory 16 philosophies of the two agencies that are extremely l
17 difficult to resolve. So while I believe we are working l
l- 18 together, I believe the work we have done on risk l
19 harmonization and other areas is a big step forward from 20 where we were a couple of years aco. I think we have a l
21 long way to go, and I cannot tell you at this point that I 22 see an immediate resolution of our differences within the 23 next few months. But that's about as close as I can come.
I 24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Mal, at the expense of 25 taking a few more minutes, let me try to follow up on that l
l NEAL R. GROSS ' ;
I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RH0DE ISLAND AVE., N W.
s (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 I
68 ;
1 just a little bit. One of the concerns that I've had is l .
2 that if the EPA promulgates 197 at some point, or at least ,
l 3 even brings it out for public comment, at some point it is 4 going to be extremely -- it is going to be litigated. I !
5 think that's a safe assumption.
6 That litigation may take a considerable amount [
i 7 of time. The NRC's regulation, which has to conform to i
i 6
! 8 those standards, probably will be litigated also i l 9- extensively.
[ 10 It is perfectly possible, then, that DOE may, 1
- 11 in fact, submit a license application, which I admit there 12 are lots of ifs to that too, without ever having an in l 13 force standard or regulation to work against. Do you ,
D i 14 foresee that as a problem, as far as the NRC is concerned? I l
l 15 Did you discuss that in one of -- in some of the points i 16 here, I thought you might have. j i
l- 17 MR. KNAPP: I don't think we specifically j l 18 discussed that chain of events. I'm going to give John 19 Austin a chance to say something about it. But before I l 20 do -- I guess my answer won't be very satisfying from my 21 perspective -- I can give you a half a dozen scenarios, l
22 maybe a dozen, like that, most of which are like going to I
L 23 the air in football when there's only one good thing that l
t j 24 can happen and the rest are bad. )
l 25 I guess -- just I'll give you my perspective. ;
1 NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
1
, _ _ _ . _ . . __ _ _.._. _ _ .-. . . _ _ _ _ . . ~ . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ .-
i 69 l 1 I'think the program -- I think there is a good chance that j
'2 the people.who submitted legislation in the past Congress O 3 are' going to attempt to do so again. I think we'll have a f, 4 real good idea in about two_ weeks as to what -- how i
5 Congress might deal with that. I guess I am concerned --
i l
6 I think it may be unsettled for a while.
7 Now, for all I know, we may get' legislation j
! l 8 and it may come through, or they may abandon attempts. !
i 9 But the thing that I see that is the biggest perturbation 10 as to whether or not a smooth application can come in with l 11 a sound' regulation in place could be the impact of the 12 law. And I think you well know that should legislation 13 comparable to that which has been proposed come out,
! 14 obviously that'will have a significant impact on NRC 15 regs., and in fact could even have an impact on whether 16 EPA participates.
i 17 But John may want to improve on my answer. He 18 may not have a comment.
19 MR. AUSTIN: John Austin, NRC staff.
20 If I could add to what Mal said, recall that 21 we promulgated Part 60 before EPA promulgated its 22 regulations, and EPA was in court and lost, But that did 23 not get in the way of our Part 60. DOE is modifying its 24 960, which will serve as a basis for viability assessment, f 25 site suitability, and part of the application.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
! (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 :
1 It is of concern to DOE and NRC that there not 2 be a regulation in place that they can compare their O 3 application to or justify compliance. However, I think i 4 our relationships with EPA have been very positive. As 5 Mal mentioned, there are one or two policy areas where 6 there are still differences between EPA and NRC, but these 7 must be resolved. And it's a matter of the will of the f
l t 8 agencies to go forward and do what's right and put a ;
9 regulation in place that DOE can prepare an application to 10 address, 11 And I think with some of the things -- some of 12 the legislation that is being considered on the Hill, it 13 is reflective of the frustration of Congress, that 14 difficulties in establishing standards in Congress may 15 well step in. So we have a few years and I am optimistic l 16 that we can get something on the books.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Fine. !
i 18 MR. AUSTIN: Now, if I could add just one more !
l 19 for the record. We had five options in the paper.
I i
20 MR. KNAPP: My apologies. I'm sorry.
21 MR. AUSTIN: And that fifth option was to take 22 a position on storage of spent fuel. That was developed l 23 with the thought that either because of difficulties in
! 24 the repository program, or if one thought that spent fuel I
25 was an asset, not a liability, should there be a NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-37::1 (202) 234-4433 i
- 71 1 Commission position on the storage of spent fuel, either
~
2 atfreactors, at regional sites, or at some central site. I O 3- ~ MR. KNAPP: Thank you, John. I am trying to -;
4 go through these rapidly. ,
f 5 RMR . AUSTIN: Right.
6 MR. KNAPP: But eliminating options was not i
7 one of the --
l 8 (Laughter.)
.I 9 -- was not one.of my. strategies there.
l 10 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Mal, can I just make a !
11 comment, which will turn.into a question I believe? I 12 think there is a lot of people that would like to see NRC 13- take a more active role, but it depends upon the. context.
14 I think if the role is asking Congress what should be ;
15 done, there is not much interest in that.
l 16 On the other hand, if the role, given the l 17 expertise that the NRC has, and it has some unique i
! 18 expertise, if the role is one of making very strong 19 recommendations to Congress that have the context of 20 solutions, that that's a very appealing form of being 21 proactive. I assume that's the direction that if this 22 option were exercised that you would be going.
.23 MR. KNAPP: That's correct. I don't think we j- 24' had an-interest in sort of asking Congress. We had i
() 25 interest in saying, "Okay. Here is something we think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
t 72 _;
l 1 that-would make a very good difference, and here is" -- I r ,
2 think we'd probably accompany that with proposed n
~# 3 legislation, should we do so.
! 4 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. I think that !
5 there's a lot of people who believe that_given the ;
6 expertise that the NRC sits on the side much too much in 7 the solving of these problems, and that maybe there is a l 8 real opportunity there being missed.
. t
'9 MR. KNAPP: I think that's exactly the i 10 question in the Commission's mind, and that's where they ,
11 would welcome your views as to how we can properly be 12 constructive about solving the problem and recognizing we i
13 are not in an advocacy role. But I think I would agree .
14 entirely. If we're going to take action, our action 15 should be one of coming up with reasonable solutions that 16 look like they have a chance of being workable and then 17 advocating them. l 18 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Let's move forward then, ,
20 Mal. ,
23 MR. KNAPP: Okay. The next issue paper has to 22 do with decommissioning non-reactor facilities, and L
23 largely addresses the site decommissioning management plan j 24 concerns because the issues that arise arise from the
[(
l 25 sites that have proven difficult to decontaminate and NEAL R. GROSS
! COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
73 1 decommission. !
2 I would like to scan this very.briefly, so ,
' l 3 that we have time for questions you may have. To sort of t
4 perhaps merge the key factors, the options, and the i
5 Commission's views, these sites become site 6 decommissioning management plan sites because they are ;
7 tough to cope with. We may be unable to find a licensee. !
L 8 If we find a licensee they may be financially unable or l
9 perhaps unwilling to do what needs to be done. We have a l .
i
[ 10 lengthy process at this time for how we ensure that their
! l l 11 site characterization plans are proper, that their site .
12 remediation plans are proper.
13 .We also have limited authority in some cases 14 to. impose our will on these folks, because we do not have I
15 a serious and immediate impact on public health and.
L
.16 safety Many of these sites, in fact, have rather limited 17 radiological hazards associated with them.
l 18 Recognizing some of these concerns, and asking i 19 whether there are ways that we could clean up these sites l
20 that might be less resource intensive for us and for the l l
l 21 licensee, and more responsive to the people in the public V !
l 22 that would like them cleaned up promptly, we put together L
23 -- and I have to give a lot of credit to Tim Johnson, the i
- 24 author of this paper, for identifying a number of the
. l
( 25 options that you see here. And they included ways that we NEAL R. GROSS '
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
_ _ _ . . , _ _ ._._m_._ . _ _ . _ _.___. _ _ .-. _ _ _._ __.._ _ __ -
74 1 could streamline the review process, ways to consider 2 turning over some sites to the Environmental Protection
.O V 3 Agency, ways to seek perhaps-regulatory. change that.would 4 put more-teeth into our present rules and our ability to l l
5 deal with licensees,'and responsible parties who may not l
6 be licensees. 1 l
.i 7 The response of the Commission -- I think- '
8 Claire has probably had a really good time trying to keep 9 up with viewgraphs on this.
10 (Laughter.)
l 11 The response of.the Commission was I think 12 generally stated "go for it." You've.got some good ideas 13 here; there are several-that you ought to try. And let's l . 14 -- again, I'm just trying to move rapidly to'give you a l
15 chance.to discuss these things. But if we were to turn to 16 what is probably -- well, let's see, good choice -- the l 17 first of the Commission's preliminary views, they are 18 prepared to change the decommissioning review process. ?
i i i
i 19 In cases where we have confidence that a 20 licensee or a responsible party can do a good job, we i
21 would provide them more flexibility to move ahead without j l
22 a step-wise review. The Commission recognizes that there 23 may be some concerns with this if we had a licensee who 24 was not competent, and so we would be looking very
' 25 carefully at a pilot program. We would also be looking at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75
- 1. providing workshops or educational opportunities to I 2 licensees as to whether or not they would be able to lO 3 handle these concerns. The' Commission is looking for 4 views, comments on that.
l 5 The Commission also endorses the idea of I L
6 transferring stalled sites to' EPA. As you may be aware, !
7 EPA has a lot more legal teeth than we do'to find 8 responsible parties to assess triple damages or tripleL -
'9 I fees for cleanup. And some licensees that might not be ;
10 too interested in working with us might become a lot more-
)
l
~11 interested when they saw the alternative, recognizing, on l l
l 12 the other hand, that EPA has a very long list of things to 13 fix and these would fall where they fell on their priority 14 list. I 15 The Commission likes the idea of taking an-16 aggressive position to develop a framework for lowering
'17 costs for decommissioning. There is a couple of things we 18 can do. There is a number of these sites that look an 19 awful lot like uranium mill tailing sites. We might be 20 able to handle them the way we handle mill tailing sites, 21 or some of the materials might be readily transferrable to 22 an existing mill tailing site. So these are things where l
l 23 if we had the right regulatory tools we might be able to l
l 24 save some costs, and the Commission endorses that.
25 And they also endorse developing a strong L NEAL R. GROSS
! COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
! 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C.- 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
-. ..- - _~ . - .- , .. . - - . - -. - - - .- - . - .-
76 1 litigation strategy, where.we are more empowered to go
, 2 after the funds and the' responsibilities of the people O 3 involved. ,
4 I don't want to editorialize too-much, but I 5 think that their preliminary views here are going to give us some_ good things we;can work with and some
~
6 l
7 opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness ;
i 8 of this program. j 9 That was very much a thumb-nail sketch, but I .
l l
10 was looking at the clock and I wanted to try to get it all i
l 11 in before 10:30.
12 . CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Howard, can I'ask you to
(.
13 make a call for us and see if we can postpone for about 10 14 minutes.or so?
15 MR. LARSON: Okay. I'll see what I can'do.
!- 16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I think the one nice thing ,
17 that I see on that is looking at risk of the various j l 1 l 18 sites, and noting that the possibility is'if we've got a l 19 low risk site that is stalled, it's going to'be low on the 20 EPA's list. It's going to be -- it's relatively low on 21 our list as well, in general, and to concentrate on the l-22 high risk problem sites certainly is a valuable thing to 23 see if this goes forward.
. 24 MR. KNAPP: I agree.
25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Other comments? Then NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
_ . _ _ _ .. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ , _ . _ . _ ~ ~ , _ _ _ _ - ~ - . _ ~ .
77 1 let's --
2 MR. KNAPP: Should we take-a crack at the Q) '3 last, which is -- )
l 4 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right.
l 5 MR. KNAPP: -- issue paper number 12, risk-
]
6 informed, performance-based regulation. I think that l
7 expression is -- I presume that's reasonably well known to
! 8 the committee. We debated those words a little. bit 9 earlier on, but I think those are now pretty well in 1
10 common usage. '
11 Recognizing - .and again, I think I may sort 12 of skim this and give you a sense of it. Recognizing that 13 the Commission already has in place a policy statement
>O 14 where we are going to move towards risk-informed, 15 performance-based regulation, the real question that we 16 have on the table is: exactly what is-the best way to 17 proceed? And I am shifting here and focusing pretty much 18 on the materials area. Obviously, we have PRA and, you 19 know, that is a major part of'the reactor program. It is i
L 20 not at this point really a major part of the materials l
21 program. l
.. 22 And questions come up as to, well, exactly. )
23 what should we be doing about PRA with respect to l
l 24 materials and risk-informed, performance-based regulation 1
25 in general?
r
!- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
! (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
I _ , . _
. _ . - - . - . - . - . - - . - . - . - - . . . - . . . . ~ - . . - .--..-..-- - --~..-.- -, ..
78 :
1 on.the.viewgraph in front of you there are a i i
2 couple of points to be made that we do have in the :
i ;
3 materials. program already some initiatives underway, and i
4 we also have, considering materials broadly, a number of i
5 things that are already what I'd call risk-informed i
6 performance-based.
I 7 I don't have any trouble saying that the -
4 8' performance assessment that goes on in high level, similar. j l
9 work in low level, is very much akin to PRA, and that l l
10 certainly as we do a total system performance analysis l
11 that's the intent of it. The integrated safety '
- 12 assessments that we do at fuel cycle facilities are also l
13 very much like risk-informed, performance-based l 14 approaches.
15 On the other hand, as we look at materials.I 16 think there are some areas where we would question whether c 17 it's a real. good idea to go too far in. terms of risk-j 18 informed performance-based. And an example that jumps i
19 right out at me is regulation of radiography. That's a l
l 20 very simple operation. Frequently, the people who engage 21 in radiography have limited training, and I think that i
L 22 they would probably be most comfortable and most 23 auccessful with the continuing approach, which is pretty i
24 prescriptive, without their having to carefully understand 25 what-risk-informed performance-based means. l l l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
=.
. . . . . _ - _ ~ - - . - . - . - . .- -. .. ..-.- .. . _ .-_. _ . .
79 1- If you accept that, then you recognize that 2 depending on who we look at in the broad' range of~
3 materials licensees, how far we will go with' risk-informed j 4 performance-based is likely to vary. And so I think a-key 5 issue here from a materials viewpoint is: how best do we
.6 go about moving towards' risk-informed performance-based in 7 recognition of what we already have? And that there may l i
8 be some areas where we don't want to proceed 100 percent.
9 Moving on with that, I would like to at least 10 put up the list of subsumed issues. I don't know how many i
)
11 that you would be interested in talking about. I think' 12 the only one that jumps out at me I'd like to mention a i I j 13 bit is that there's a third subsumed issue. It recognizes !
, i I
% 14 that in materials -- in some ways the nuclear materials 15 industry is mature. In some ways there are ongoing .
- - 16 changes. I don't want to go too far afield of the
i i
17
! committee's interest'.
I i 18- But'in such things as a gamma knife we have l
19 development of pretty advanced technology. And a question 20 that we want to ask is: as technological changes occur or 21 are foreseen, what should we be doing about risk-informed 22 performance-based applications to these areas? How should 23 we posture ourselves to avoid learning the hard way from l 24 some of the new technologies?
!' 25 If you don't have any particular comments on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 i
.c-. , - ~ ,. . , . - - , , . .-
l 80 ;
1 ;
-1 the subsumed issue, I think I'll just flip on to the'next ;
2 slide.
O 3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Why don't we go ahead, 4 then.
L 5 MR. KNAPP: That shows the options that have 'l I 6 been provided to the Commission. The Commission,.from 7 their choice, is clearly ent husiastic and intending to go -l t
8 forward with risk-informed performance-based regulation. ;
l l 9 The first option was continue the current process. ,
10 The second would. move a little more slowly. ,
i 11 We would take a hard look at the changes we're going to i
12 make in ady,Ance. I i
13 The third one was to move aggressively. Let's 14 take a look now at what all of the' opportunities.are for 15 risk-informed performance-based and get the show on the 16 road, broadly.
1 17 The Commission decided that they would 18 continue with the first one, continue the process, but add 19 elements of the third one, a more aggressive approach. So 20 the Commission, at this point, would be moving more 21 broadly to considering risk-informed performance-based and l l
22 more aggressively than they have in the past. l 23 If you go to the last of the slides, I think j
24 the -- you do get on the last bullet -- you mentioned f 25 mixed waste earlier. This is a little broader than mixed
+-
i l NEAL R. GROSS I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
81 1 waste. But in the very last bullet the Commission is 2 particularly interested in public comments about how the 7-3 NRC should deal with dual regulation.
4 Now, this is in recognition of risk-informed 5 performance-based philosophy, but certainly that question 6 could be addressed as the committee sees fit. It comes in 7 part from a recognition that we have worked, as you know, 8 on risk harmonization with EPA. We are trying to look at 9 risk and dose and their relationship. But to the extent 10 that there may be suggestions as to how we can better cope 11 with dual regulation from that perspective as well as 12 others we are seeking comments.
13 That was pretty quick, but that at least gives f)
- 4 k/ 14 you a chance to comment on that one.
15 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: All right. Thank you, Mal.
16 Comments on that one?
17 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Just a comment. I've 18 got far too many questions to bring up now. But one thing )
19 that occurs to me is that while it is true that the waste 20 field is behind the reactor field, in terms of applying j l
21 and understanding the technology of probabilistic risk 22 assessment, there is an opportunity, it seems to me, for l
l 23 the waste field to take a giant leap forward. Because 24 unlike the reactor field, the waste field is facing a n
(_,) 25 risk-based standard in the high-level waste area, at least i
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 we're anticipating one.
2 And so that fact, together with the transition
(_
'- )
3 of the performance assessment activity from basically a 4 deterministic activity to a probabilistic activity, would 5 seem to be a vehicle for rather impressive progress in the 6 waste field if the opportunity is taken advantage of.
7 The reactor field has safety goals, but they 8 have never been implemented in the context of risk 9 standards, at least officially. So it seems to me the 10 stage is set for a rather important and proactive step 12 forward in the use of risk-informed performance-based 12 regulatory thinking at least.
13 MR. KNAPP: Obviously, that's a comment we
/~N i
(/ 14 will be interested in hearing in the process.
15 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. The performance
]
16 assessments have not taken the real final leap to being 17 PRA based, because they still present results primarily on 18 a conditional basis rather than an unconditional basis.
19 They still talk in terms of if you take this assumption 20 set this is what you get, and if you take this assumption 21 set this is what you get. Well, somehow we've got to get 22 over that hurdle to really have them accepted as adopting i
23 a PRA format. But I think there is progress even in that 24 area.
(mv) 25 And I guess my question is: would you not NEAL R. GROSS j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 l 1 agree? Or is the feeling within the waste field that this l
l ,_ 2 is not an opportunity and that there is an interest in 1(.)
l 3 going much slower than the combination of the standard l
4 that we expect to get and the application of performance 5 assessment is providing us?
6 MR. KNAPP: John Austin is in a particularly l
7 good position to comment on this, because he is not only 8 involved in high level, he is also very much involved in 9 the overall PRA group within the NRC.
l l
10 John? l l
11 MR. AUSTIN: Yes. There is a PRA coordinating 12 committee, which is composed of branch chiefs from NRR,
! 13 RES, and AEOD, and NMSS. And I am the representative for
(~h
\-) 14 NMSS, and I am being overexposed to the PRA technologies.
15 (Laughter.)
i 16 With the thought I think that you are trying l
17 -- that you are expressing here is to make sure that the l 18 agency is using these techniques where appropriate, where 19 cost effective, where justified, and do it in a consistent j 20 manner throughout. And that's one of the functions of the l I l 21 PRA coordinating committee.
l <
22 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Jim, do you have -- l
)
! 1 23 MR. MILHOAN: No, that finishes our l
24 presentation. )
(m)
R./
25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Jim, I think there are no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
m _- ._ _ _. . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _..- - . _ _ _ . _ - - _ . _ - _ . . _ _ . - - _ . _ _ _ _
.84 .
v 1- further questions from the committee. We certainly your 2 all taking the time -- especially you, of course -- to l O 3 come down and explain things to us. We are deeply 1
4 appreciative and particularly for the concentration on the ;
5 initiatives that we're most concerned about. 'We certainly l
6 have others, and we probably at some time will discuss 7 some of the others. But we do appreciate your taking.the 8 time and presenting us an excellent viewpoint.
I 9 MR. MILHOAN: We appreciate your interest in i 10 having us, and we certainly seek your comments, and the I
11 Commission does' and we'll certainly give consideration to I
l 1
12 comments when they go to their final decisions on the 13 issue papers. But we appreciate you having us. l 14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you very much. I
!. 15 hope we see you down~here again sometime.
16 MR. MILHOAN: Okay.
l 17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: With that, I'd like to take l
l' 18 a half hour recess at this point until 10 minutes after t
l' 19 11, and hopefully.two of us will make it back by that 20 time. So we'll recess until 10 minutes after 11.
21 (Whereupon, the proceedings in the foregoing i 22 matter went off the record at 10:44 a.m. and went back on 23 the record at 11:14 a.m.)
?
! 24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: The meeting will come to 25 order.
f l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
! (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 We now have the four members of the committee.
g 2 Mike, as always, it is a pleasure to see you O 3 here. I assume you'll. introduce that much prettier person 4 to'your,left at some point.
l l
5 MR. WEBER: Yes. I 6- CHAIRMAN POMEROY: So the next item on our 7 agenda, to get the full appreciation of this, is the 8 Branch Technical Position on requirements for radioactive 9 waste land burial cites authorized under former 10 CFR 10 20.304, 20.302, and current 20.2002. It would be nice if- l l
11 I could read that.
12 Anyway, our presenters today are Heather !
l 13 Astwood and Mike Weber. And I presume you are going to I 14 start, Mike?
15 MR. WEBER: Yes, if I could.
16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Welcome here.
17 MR. WEBER: Well, it's a pleasure to be here.
18 I want to thank the committee for looking at this. We 19 have been over the last several months working on a 20 methodology to help existing licensees determine what l 21 future actions are necessary for these former burials.
l 22 So what I'd like to do is provide you with j i
i 23 some background information, provide the regulatory j 24 framework, and then turn it over to Heather Astwood, who f 25 is the lead technical individual in our branch, for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
- , _ _ . ~ , ._ _ . . _ . _ , _ . , _ , . -_. , , , _ _ .
86 j l
1 development of the methodology. And she'll walk through
,_, 2 the methodology in more detail. !
( \
\ #'
3 We're particularly interested in any comments 4 that the committee may have, because we do plan to go out 5 with this position shortly -- like this week -- on an 6 interim use and comment basis. And as Heather will 7 elaborate a little later on, we plan to hold this open for l
8 public comment until the end of the year, so that there is l 9 an opportunity for the committee to provide its views.
10 By way of background -- could I have the next 11 slide, Heather? Actually, give me slide 3.
12 MS. ASTWOOD: All right.
13 MR. WEBER: As you pointed out, Dr. Pomeroy,
(%
(_/ 14 the NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.304 and 302 previously 15 authorized licensees to dispose of limited quantities of ,
i 16 radioactive waste at their sites. 20.304 was put into l
l 17 place in 1959 and was ultimately rescinded in 1981 on the 18 basis that the Commission had concerns that in all cases 19 the former burials may not be sufficiently protective of 20 the public. And, therefore, to continue to allow this i 21 provision to exist that would authorize these burials 22 would not be a prudent thing to do.
l 23 20.302 was put into place in 1961. Now, 24 unlike 20.304, 20.302 actually required the Commission to 7-s)
( 25 take action and authorize the on-site burial of the waste.
t l NEAL R. GROSS t
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
! 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 20.304 was tantamount to a general license authorizing 1
1 2 people to dispose of waste, provided that their disposal 7
l \
' '~'/
3 action met certain requirements.
l And if need be, we can I l
4 go into those requirements in more detail.
l 5 20.302 did expire on its own terms in January I
6 of 1994 when it was superseded by the current provision in 7 the regulations, 10 CFR 20.2002, which like 20.302 l
8 requires prior approval by the Commission of the burial. I i
l 9 And the way this process worked in the past, and the way 10 it works today under 302 and 2002, is a licensee would i
11 submit a variety of information describing the waste, 12 describing what they plan to do with the waste, describing 13 the site characteristics, and addressing the factors
,m
( )
! v 14 listed in the regulation, and would present a case that 15 it's safe to dispose of the waste at their facility and 16 not send it to a commercial burial facility.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Is this actually being done l
l 18 now, Mike?
19 MR. WEBER: 20.2002 burials?
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right.
21 MR. WEBER: Yes. Yes. We get on the order of
- 22 a half a dozen or so requests a year. They come to us 23 from material licensees, primarily through our regional 24 offices. And we have a database of some 30 or 40 past i 25
! burials that have been authorized that we are aware of.
s.J' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
_._ ___-_._..4....__ . _ _ - . - _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . - _ . . _ . _ - . . . _ .
-88 {
1 There are also probably several hundred l l
2 burials that may have occurred from previous licensees i O '3 whose licenses have since been terminated. They, of l
4 course, are not covered by the regulations that I'm going ,
i l
5 to be described here.
6 On-site burials are to be considered at the l l
l 7 time of decommissioning. The Commission established that 8 view when it promulgated the fundamental decommissioning -
l 9 requirements in 1988. These are the requirements, you may 10 recall, that apply to the procedures for decommissioning, ,
I 11 the financial assurance requirements, what information has ;
i 12 to be submitted, things of that nature. )
13 In the statement of considerations for the ;
i 14 1988 rule, the Commission said that it would take a hard ,
15 look at the extent to which licensed sites have been used ;
16 for on-site disposal of radioactive waste, and would 17 specifically consider whether additional action, including j 18 remediation and removal of the waste, may be required 19 prior to release of those sites for unrestricted release.
20 Now, to add to the regulatory framework, in 21' 1994 the Commission promulgated the decommissioning i
22 timeliness rule. And the intent of the rule. the 3
23 timeliness rule, was to specify the timeframes and .i 4 ;
i I' i- 24 schedules for materials decommissioning. Before 1994, 25 time requirements had not been included in NRC's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 regulations.
2 Specifically, the rule requires that formerly f
(:) 3 used buildings and formerly used outdoor areas that are no i
4 longer in use must be decommissioned in accordance with a :
5 specific schedule. knd specifically, the reference in the 6 rule to outdoor areas includes these former burial sites 7 that were used for 304 and 302 burials.
8 Licensees are required under the timeliness 9 rule to notify NRC about former burials by October 15, 10 1996, or request an alternate schedule by September 15, 11 1996. Now, of course, these dates have passed, and I am 12 told that we received notifications from several tens of L 13 licensees of former burials. However, as you'll see a l l 14 little later on, in my opening you'll see that there was l 15 some concern about the extent to which licensees'were-l L 16 aware of this rule, and we've' addressed that through L
l 17 another means.
l l 18 There are other scheduler requirements in the 19 timeliness rule, and I by no means intend to give you the l
20 full briefing on that, because that would be an entirely 21 different subject. But just to point out some of the 22 other scheduler requirements, if a licensee decides to 23 permanently cease the use of an outdoor area, or a j i
24 building, an entire building, then the licensee would have
() 25 to notify NRC within 60 days of the presence of NEAL R. GROSS '
i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1 contamination in the building or in the outdoor area.
, 2 So I don't want to just focus on the two-year
(
s i
3 timeframe from the affected date. There are other 4 scheduler requirements that may also come to bear.
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Are these licensees -- is 6 this the order of a few hundred notifications that you 7 might expect, Mike, or is there a clear picture of the 8 magnitude of this problem?
9 MR. WEBER: For on-site burials?
10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right.
11 MR. WEBER: Maybe Heather could address that 12 in more detail. Our guess is that there is probably on 13 the order of a hundred or so licensees that have on-site C's
'(s/ 14 burials. The figures I mentioned earlier were from l 15 formerly terminated licenses, and we have a database which l
16 actually tells us that there are at least 200 license 17 facilities with indications that on-site burial was used 18 as a means.
l 19 One of the limitations of the review of the 20 terminated licenses is that it is based on the record.
21 And if the licensee sought authorization at some point to 22 do on-site burial, but never chose to use it, of course l
23 what we would have in the record is some indication that 24 burial was practiced when, in fact, it may not have been.
!gv) 25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: But under 302 burials, you i
l NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 l
l
91 1 might not have -- would you know in all cases?
l l
! ,, 2 MR. WEBER: 302 burials we would because --
r ! ')
! \ /
3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I' m sor ry.
4 MR. WEBER: -- prior authorization is 5 required.
6 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: But 304 burials. I'm 7 sorry.
8 MR. WEBER: 304s we would not.
9 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Yes. .
l 10 MR. WEBER: And that's one of the things that i 11 we hope to address in the next slide.
l 12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Okay. '
13 MR. WEBER: Which is an information notice q/
(- 14 that the staff recently published back in August. And the 15 intent of the information notice was to clarify exactly 16 how do the timeliness rule requirements apply to materials 17 licensees. And specifically, this information notice 18 focused on on-site burials, ano the recordkeeping I
'9 requirements for on-site burials as well as the timeliness 20 rule requirements. And in that information notice, we 21 provided the hope to licensees that we would come forward 22 with a methodology that they could use to decide which of 23 these previous burials require more additional attention.
24 Keep in mind here we're dealing with an entire
/-
( ,) 25 range of license facilities, anywhere from a small l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS At'D TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAN".) AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
, . _ . _-_____m . - _ _ _ . _ _ ___ _ _.__ _ - _ _ . _ _ _
92 ,
t 1 academic or an industrial-type operation to a much larger !
I 2 industrial fabrication-type activity. So the burials can O 3 span the same gamut in terms of the total amount of .
4 activity, the duration of'the burial. It could be a one-- 1 5 time event. It could be a sustained effort. So it's a !
6 wide. population that we deal with.
7 The methodology _that Heather is going to 8 describe is intended to screen out those burials that
.9 based on the activity that was present and placed in the 10 ground don't warrant additional effort to do site !
11 characterization, because with the little information that :
12 we know, with the limited records that we have, we're '
13 confident that the public will be adequately protected, .
l !
l . 14 versus those other burials that might have involved a
. 15 greater amount of activity, or perhaps the site 16 characteristics are not very favorable to the continuation l 17 of.that burial at that site that really require additional 1
l 18 characterization, and in some cases maybe remediation. i l
, 19 And at this point, I will turn it over to l
20 Heather, who will lead us through a discussion of the 21 methodology.
' 22 MS. ASTWOOD: Okay. Can you hear me okay?
23 For-my part of the presentation I wanted to
! 24 walk you first through the methodology and then through an 25 example at the end so that you can see how it applies to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I
93 1 an actual site.
2 As Mike said, we wanted a simple methodology 7-3 that could be used by a wide variety of licensees to 4 evaluate a wide variety of burials. We also wanted 5 something that was conservative enough that we had 6 confidence in the result. The methodology that I've 7 developed consists of three steps, and I'm going to go 8 into those more in subsequent slides.
9 But just to run you through it here, step 1 10 would be to review the burial records and determine a 11 total inventory, what was the total inventory that'had 12 been buried at that site. They would then use that total 13 inventory to calculate a dose from ingestion, simply by i
a a k/ 14 the groundwater pathway, and then in step 3 they would 15 calculate a dose to a resident farmer, also using that 16 total inventory.
17 You should note that step 2 is a single 18 pathway, whereas step 3, when you move to step 3, you're 19 looking at a resident farmer scenario. So you're getting l 20 a slightly more complex dose assessment, a little bit more 21 site information, and a slightly less conservative i
22 scenario. Step 2 is considered more conservative than '
l 23 step 3 and should give you a higher dose than step 3.
24 So in this process what we are trying to do is
()
25 have people do step 2, and if they pass a screening
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 P'iODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 criteria that we've set up then they would not have to
, ,_ 2 move on to a more site-specific analysis in step 3. If
(' - '
)
3 they do not pass step 2, then they would have to go on to 4 step 3.
5 The methodology is based on a 100 millirem per 6 year screening limit. The purpose of this limit is to 7 compensate for the large conservatisms in the scenarios, 8 but the actual doses produced by these sites would be a 9 small fraction of that 100 millirem -- 10, 15, on that 10 order.
11 If a site passes the 100 millirem per year 12 limit, then we would require no additional work. The site 13 could stay as it is, remain, you know, untouched,
()
(_s/ 14 unremediated, and NRC would consider it acceptable for j 15 unrestricted use. The licensee could remove it from their 16 license at that point if they wanted to.
17 If this site does not pass the screening, then 18 we would require more evaluation of the site, more i i
19 characterization, better inventory, better trench 20 dimensions, etcetera, in order to do a more detailed dose 21 assessment.
22 MEMBER HINZE: Excuse me.
23 MS. ASTWOOD: Go ahead. l 24 MEMBER HINZE: I wanted to catch you before fN
( ) 25 you moved on to the next. Heather, how does that first NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 95 1 bullet there, if it applies to step 2, interact with the i
,,, 2 EPA standards on four mills?
l
() 3 MS. ASTWOOD: It doesn't. This was done l
4 independent of that criteria.
5 MEMBER HINZE: Well, what does that mean to 6 one of the people that you're regulating then?
7 MS. ASTWOOD: It's --
8 MEMBER HINZE: I mean, what is the 9 meaningfulness of this if I have to comply with the EPA 10 requirement of four millirem for potable water?
11 MR. WEBER: The four millirem per year maximum 12 contaminant level for beta and gamma emitters doesn't 13 strictly apply to license facilities directly. If it were ym.,
i 1
\_/ 14 to apply, it would have to be done through enforcement 15 action by EPA under the substantial endangerment 16 provisions, under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
17 Now, there are cases where EPA has applied the 18 MCLs under the drinking water program under, for example, !
19 the CRCLA program, the Superfund remediation program, 20 where they've identified the drinking water standards as ,
21 an ARAR, an applicable or relevant and appropriate I 22 requirement. !
23 Our intent -- and it might be opportune here 24 to point out -- the 100 millirem is not a new limit. The i' h
) 25 100 millirem, of course, is the public dose limit under NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. _ . _ . . ~. _ . _ _ . . _ _ _____ _ _.- _ ___.._ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . - _
96 1 Part 20. And as Heather described, the intent is not to ,
i i
2 use all 100 millirems of the dose for former burials. As i l
O 3 she'11 go through the methodology, I think you'11 see that 4 there is a-lot of conservatism built into the assumptions !
5 that are made. And because of that, we feel fairly 6 confident that if a site. passed at this screening i 7 criterion level that there is a reasonable degree of-l 8 assurance that the actual doses would be expected to be 9 far less than 100 millirem per year.
- 10 MEMBER HINZE
- This either step -- is this -- ,
11 this relates to the three steps of the preceding --
12 MS. ASTWOOD: Right. Either step 2 or step 3, 13 because if you do step 2 and it's less than 100'you're !
i 14 okay. If you do step 3 and you're less than 100, then I
-15 you're okay. l l 16 MEMBER HINZE: I guess. Well, okay. Proceed. ,
i l
17 I would like to consider this in the totality of what 1
18 you're talking about.
19 MS. ASTWOOD: One note on this slide is that j 20 simply because you don't pass a screening,- this screening i
21 methodology, does not mean that that site would have to be 22 remediated. It simply means that a more detailed analysis ,
I l 23 has to be performed.
24 To go through the steps now, step 1 is a l-25 record review. At the time that 20.304 was in place, l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
E. _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ ._._ _ _. - - _ _
,. . _.- _ . _ - _ . _ _ . . _ . ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _._ _ ._ _ .__ __ _ .. _ _ . . . .
l 97 ;
l l 1 I there was a recordkeeping requirement. Licensees were 2- supposed to keep records of what they buried in these l lO 3 trenches. They would then go through those records and- 1 4 estimate a total inventory.
5 Unfortunately, there are some licensees who do l
6 not have records because they moved or it was, you know, l
7 in the '50s. They changed management, it got lost. If i
8 they don't have any records, we're offering them the.
l
- l. 9 opportunity to use their license possession limits at the I
10 time that the burials would have taken place, and their 11 throughput from their operation, to come up with an l
12- estimrte for what's in the burial ground.
l 13 That's probably going to be.an overestimate, l
I 14 you know, of what they actually buried. But we felt that ,
a' l '
15 we would allow them the opportunity to use that as an l
16 estimate.
17 MR. WEBER: And, in fact, that's one of-the 18 real difficulties that we have with these past burials.
l 19 That's also why we would not propose to apply this i
20 l prospectively to grant approvals for future disposals.
l 21 The intent of this methodology is to really screen out, in l 22 this retrospective look at these past burials, which 23 burials had enough activity to warrant this additional l 24 level of scrutiny versus those that based on a very 25 limited amount of activity that they may have had don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
..- - - - . . - . - - - . . . . . . - _ ~ . - . . _ _ - . _ _ - - . . . . - - -
98 >
i I
i 1- warrant that. kind of scrutiny.
2 MS. ASTWOOD: All right. Once the total '
3 inventory has been estimated, the licensee would-move on 4 to step 2. In this step, we assume that the entire i
L -
5' inventory in the burial ground leaches.into the
- 6 groundwater in one year. That volume of water that it-7 leaches ~into we chose as 91 cubic meters. That's the ,
l 3
8 standard amount of water that is needed to supply a family I
l 9 of'four, a resident family of four, for one year. It's j 10- also the amount of water that is used in NUREG-5512 and in ]
i L 11 RESRAD for these types of analyses. That's why we chose L 12 that.
13 It is over and above just drinking' water. It
'O
! V 14 is wash water, cooking water, and things like that. So 15 that's more than the 760 liters.
16 So we take the entire volume and we place it 17 in this volume of groundwater, and we'll get a 18 concentration -- microcuries per mill - -and that
- 19. concentration is then compared to 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, l i
20 Table 2, the effluent release criteria. The reason we do 1 i
21 that is simply for them to be able to have an easy way to 1
22 estimate'a dose, because Appendix B was developed with a j l l 23 50 millirem per year limit.
24 So if you take your microcurie per mill for
[ 25 your burial-site and compa13 it to the m crocurie in i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. _ . - , _ _ . = , -. . ~_
. . , . . - . . ~ . . - - . . . - . _ . . - - . - . . - . . . - . - - . . . . ~ . - . . - -
l !
99 1 Appendix B, you can develop a' dose. j 2 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: So this turns out to O 3- be site independent, .except for the inventory. I 4 MS. ASTWOOD: Except for the inventory.
5 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. {
l 1
6 MS. ASTWOOD: And then this calculation is I 7 performed for each isotope that's in the burial ground, l'
8 and-their doses.are summed at the end.
9 MR. WEBERi You might consider this ultra r
10 SPAM.
11 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
f .
-12 MS. ASTWOOD: Some of the key assumptions in L
13 that scenario is that.the entire inventory is-available at I 14 the time that the calculation is performed, that we don't
- 15 allow for any migration to have occurred even if something 16 was placed in the 1950s. That entire inventory leaches 17 into the groundwater in one year, somebody moves onto the l
l '18 site'and drills a well that captures all 91 cubic liters i
19 of water, and somebody drinks solely from that well two 20- liters a day for a year.
21 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Do you have enough 1
L 22' experience to indicate whether or not there is a real 1
t l
'23 problem here?-
, 24 MS. ASTWOOD: As far as burial sites?
. 25 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. ._ _ . . ~ . . _
, 100 1 MS. ASTWOOD: If there are burial sites?
2 There are burial sites out there that do cause a problem lO 3 that would not pass this screen- .
1 4 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Is it 10 percent of. !
l l
5 them? 50 percent of them? 90 percent of them? !
l 6 MS. ASTWOOD: No, it would be a smaller l 7 fraction of the. total. The ones that I've:had experience f
8 with that haven't passed are from large fuel fabrication 1^
l 9 facilities that have large amounts'of uranium or thorium L
I 10 in the burials. Those would not pass this methodology.
l 11 MR. WEBER: Some of those former burial sites l
12 are now listed on the site decommissioning management 1
l 13 plan.
i 14 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
I j 15 'MS. ASTWOOD: So if they pass step 2, if it's j 16 less -- if that total dose sum io less than 100, then they j l 17 would not have to continue on to step 3. If it's over, 18 then they would continue on to this step 3. I 19 CHAIRMAN POMERO1: Just so I understand it, 20 though, also they could skip 2 --
21 MS. ASTWOOD: If --
22 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: -- come to step 3 --
j 23 MS. ASTWOOD: Right.
1 24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: -- which is less !
25 conservative, and if they -- I think the way it was
[ NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 ;
1 stated,'if they pass step 3 with less than 100 millirem i
-2 per year, then --
'3 MS. ASTWOOD: Right. l l .4 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: -- then they're free. !
i >
5 MS. ASTWOOD: Right. You wouldn't necessarily ,
!- 6 need step 2. You could do this using step 3. However, we l
7 wanted to give them something that they could do with very l
L 8 little site-specific information. If you know your total l
l l 9' inventory, and you've passed this really conservative
- 10 step, then you're okay and you wouldn't have to go out in l
11 the field and figure ont how big your trench was, or do l r
L 12 any extra work. So yes, you are correct. ]
13 Step 3 we calculate the exhumation.
14 concentration. Either based on the records or on some 15 kind of in-field measurements, the licensee would estimate i i
16 the volume of the burial trenches, not the burial area j l
l 17 itself, but the specific area that the waste was deposited j l
18 in in the trenches. 'You would use the total inventory and 19 come up with a concentration picocuries per gram for the 20 concentration in the trench.
21 Also, in this scenario we're assuming that 22 there is a resident farmer who moves on to the site, 23 builds his house right on the trench, has a garden on the 24 contaminated soil, drinks water from the site, all of f
l- 25 those things. So in building his house, we are digging l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
_.- . . _ ._ _ _ . _.._ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . .._ _ _ . _ _ ... _ _ ___ _ . ..__m ._
i l 102
! 1 into the trench waste and mixing it in with the clean 2- cover material. Most of these sites have some amount of 3 clean soil cap on top of them. So we're taking the trench 4 concentration and reducing it by a factor of four to
- 5 account for this mixing during exhumation.
6 The factor of four came from the EIS for i
7 Part 61-for low-level waste disposal facilities where they 1
l 8- had waste and a soil cover and they estimated the average l
9 size of a-house and accounted for site stability. So l l -10 that's the factor.
l 11 Now that you have a picocurie per gram i 1
1 12 quantity, we're-then using NUREG-5512 and the subsequent j l
l 13 tables in NUREG-1500 to calculate a dose the same way we j 14 did with Appendix B. NUREG-1500 has tables in it which 15 account for -- which list millirem per year or picocurie i p 1
! 16 per gram, or all of the isotopes based on several- l L 17 scenarios, one of which is a residential scenario. So by l l 18 comparing your picocurie per gram to that NUREG-1500 l
19 number, then you can come up with a dose.
l 20 One note about NUREG-1500 is those tables are 21 in the process of being revised, and there is less 22 confidence in the current numbers for atomic weights of 88 23 or higher -- uraniums, thoriums, radiums. So for step 3 i
j 24 we are not allowing licensees that have isotopes of atomic
() 25 weights of 88 or higher to use step 3, because we don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I
_ _ _ . . - . _ . _ _ _____ _ m. ._. . . . . . - _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ ._. _._ _
103 I- 1 have confidence in the NUREG-1500 numbers for those s 2 isotopes. So if they get a dose that's higher than 100 3 millirem for step 2, then they must come to us for a site-
- - 4 specific evaluation. They cannot move on to step 3.
l l
5 Okay?
6 Some of the assumptions that we used in this 7 scenario, I think I've mentioned ~most of these already --
8 total inventory is available. In digging into the house, 9 you are going down -- most of these burials are between l
10 four and ten feet. That has pretty much been my l
11 experience. You're taking that entire inventory from four l
l 12 to ten feet down and bringing it all to the surface. And 13 since we're using NUREG-5512 scenarios, one of those 14 scenarios is that all of the contamination is in the top
! 15 15 centimeters of soil.
l
! 16 These are some of the -- you can see that this 17 is a little more site specific. You're accounting for all 18 pathways, a little more realistic about how much somebody-i 19 drinks, but it is still very conservative to have contact l 20 with all of the inventory at the surface.
l 21 Okay. And now we'11 go on to an actual l ' 22 example site. This is a real site that has come in for 23 evaluation to NRC. It was a 10-meter cubed trench. It i
t j 24 was five meters by two meters by one meter, and it
- b g 25 contained cesium-134, iron-55, and ccbalt-60. These NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
' ~ D- - -
p- g- -
104 ;
1 numbers that I have calculated here account for decay 7s 2 since the burial was in place. We do allow licensees to
\
+V 3 account for decay.
4 As you can see, you simply take the microcurie 5 quantities, you divide it by the 91 liters cubed, compare 6 it to the Appendix B limits, and you can see the resulting 7 doses in the far right-hand column. Cesium-134 by itself 8 exceeds the dose limit, so the screening dose, once you 9 sum all of those, is approximately 230 millirem per year.
10 So this site would not pass step 2 of this screening.
11 These licensees would be forced to go on to step 3.
12 If you take step 3, since we do have the 13 trench dimensions, you can calculate a picocurie per gram
,m i
o
\/ 14 quantity based on a density of 1.6 for the soils, compare 15 it to the NUREG-1500 numbers, and you can see that the 16 doses come down substantially. The screening dose from 17 this step is 42 millirem per year, so it would pass based 18 on step 3.
19 The process for this would be the licensee 20 would do these calculations, they would send it in to us 21 saying "we did the calculations, we believe we passed,"
22 NRC would review those calculations to assure they didn't 23 make a mistake somewhere along the line, that they felt 24 comfortable with their assumptions, and then we would make 4
(G),
25 the determination whether or not they passed the l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
.._..--.______.m...m__m--. _ . _ .
! E i
105 1 screening.
I e 4 2 An interesting calculation that was done for l
. 3 this, to give you an idea of how conservative these are, !
l .
4 since this was a real site, a RESRAD analysis was done for [
i t
j 5 this, which is how we would evaluate these sites. Using 6 site-specific information that I knew, which was it did l
7 have a soil cap, it had a half of a meter' soil cap, I did [
8 not use the exhumation concentrations, the 4.2. .I used I 9 the actual. trench concentrations, so.those concentrations j
! .'13 went up by.a factor,of four, because I knew what those !
- 11 were. And I knew the depth of the groundwater, which was !
! i i
j 12 eight meters. l L i l 13 Just using those site-specific parameters and l l /~' l l\ 14 running RESRAD, I got a' dose of one millirem per year. l l
15 That's what -- if we did not have this screening +
t .
l 16 methodology, that's the type of analysis that would have l 17 been done, or was done, for this site. You can see the 18 difference in the dose.
19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Could you clarify for me 20 what.--
21 MS. ASTWOOD: Sure.
22 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: -- what the advantage of 1
I 23 using step 2 would be in this particular example?
24 MS. ASTWOOD: In this example, there wasn't an
() 25 advantage because they knew the trench size already.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l , , . -. .-_. . _. -
. . _ .._..__m.__.._. ._ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _
106 1 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Yes.
I I L 2 MS. ASTWOOD: It was an advantage to show it !
! -3 to you so that you could see the difference in the dose. j 4 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Wouldn't you do both and j L !
!' 5 submit one to the NRC in this particular instance, if you l 6 had the information?. l i
7 MS. ASTWOOD: If they had the information, !
8 they would probably go through it, find'they didn't pass l
t 9 step 2, and simply give us step 3 information, which would l l
10 be -- that would be perfectly acceptable. l
! 11 CHAIRMAN POMEROY.: Right.
I 12 MS. ASTWOOD: But for a licensee who does not '
l 13 know what their trench size is, "Well, I think we dumped a l \ l
, d 14 goat back there somewhere, you know, but I'm not sure," ;
I 15 then, you know, step 2 is very valuable.
l 16 Example conclusions -- as I said, if the site i 17 passes a screening, we are confident that even though we
- 18 have 100 millirem screening level that the actual doses
-19 represented by these sites are much lower because of the 20 extreme conservative assumptions that we have built into 21 the scenario, and that that site would be releasable for 22 unrestricted use and the licensee could take it off their 23 license at this point if that's something that they desire j 24 to do.
i
) 25' As far as next steps --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
i 107 l
1 MR. WEBER: Through an amendment process.
l ,,_s 2 MS. ASTWOOD: Right. I mean, they -- but they i ( \
l C/
! 3 would have to initiate that process.
4 And as far as this methodology and the next 5 steps involved, we want to publish it in the Federal i
6 Reaister to give it to the licensees, allow them to start 7 gathering information and start their calculations. We 8 also are asking for comments from the public for a 90-day j l
9 period. So by the end of the year we should have comments 10 from the public. We are also sending it to agreement 11 states for their comments at the same time.
12 And since we could receive comments that would .
I 13 show a fatal flaw in this analysis or some revision, we i
<~s '
~- 14 are not going to make any evaluations on whether a site 15 passes or fails this methodology until the end of the year i 16 and we've had time to evaluate the comments and assess 17 that the BTP is still valid.
18 That's really the end of my presentation. Do 19 you have any questions?
20 MR. WEBER: One other thing that I'd like to 21 add is that the driver here for the schedule is that once 22 the licensees submit their notifications to the NRC, and 23 if they are required to submit a decommissioning plan, i
l l 24 they have one year from the date that notification is n
( ) 25 received to submit that decommissioning plan. If a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1 licensee is unsure whether they need to do anything in
,, 2 addition to what they've already done, the more time that N /
3 they have up front before that deadline for submission of 4 the decommissioning plan, the better they will be able to 5 address the decommissioning requirements.
I 6 For example, if a licensee finds after running l
7 through the screening methodology that additional work 8 will be needed, they have only as much time as what 9 remains in that year to collect the site characterization 10 information and assess that information, and if need be 11 develop a decommissioning plan. I 12 And in some cases, particularly for the more 13 complicated sites, larger inventories, that may be quite a l I
r~'s J l
k/ '
14 challenge. So our interest is to get something out there 15 that at least people can start thinking about and start 16 applying in deciding which sites warrant that additional 17 level of attention.
18 Now, under the timeliness rule, a licensee 19 could come in and request an extension of the schedule on 20 the basis that they simply can't complete the site 21 characterization necessary prior to -- and develop the 22 decommissioning plan, and what have you, to meet that one-23 year deadline. But in the ideal, we would have had our 24 methodology out earlier, so that even in advance of the f3 i
s ) 25 notification date the licensees had the benefit of this l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
109 1 information. ' Business conspired against us, and here we 2 are in October after the date of the notification
-QQ ,
3 requirements.
l-l
~
l 4 Let me also just add that what we've struggled i
i 5 with in developing this methodology.is striking a balance j 6 between the natural desire for more information, for a
)
7 more site-specific evaluation, for consideration of.where 8 the large uncertainties in these kinds of calculations.--
l' 9 what are the likelihoods of the difference scenarios, i
l l 10 versus something that could be taken off the shelf and l
11 readily applied, given the limited amount of information
- 12 that most licensees, or a lot of' licensees, particularly N
13 with the older burials, have. So we have worked on that
, 14 and through that process developed this methodology, which l
! 15 we hope fulfills the need.
16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: ' Questions. George? . ,
l 17 MEMBER HORNBERGER: Do you have any guess at l 18 all as to how many of your sites would pass the site --
L l 19 the step 2 screening?
l 20 MS. ASTWOOD: I did an evcluation of probably l.
1 i
21 10 of the sites that we've gotten in the paet, and with 22 the exception of carbon-14 -- carbon-14 give3 you a 23 problem in step 2. But all of those sites did pass 24 step 3. I would say the rest of them that did not have 25 carbon-14 did' pass, but I chose only medical isotopes. As i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110 1 I said, the ones with uranium and thorium didn't --
,_ 2 MR. WEBER: What was your population set?
/ \
3 MS. ASTWOOD: I had 10. I did 10 of the ones 4 that we have gotten in that I picked because they seemed 5 to be -- fall in the range of what we typically see, which 6 is hundreds of microcuries. That's about the level -- the 7 standard that we see. It's usually in the range of 8 hundreds of microcuries.
9 MEMBER HORNBERGER: So you said a handful of 10 those passed step 2, or none of them did, because of 11 carbon-14? I'm sorry. I missed it.
12 MS. ASTWOOD: Okay. I would say I think it 13 was three of them did not pass step 2 because of carbon-(_) 14 14. But it does not take a lot of carbon-14 not to pass 15 step 2, and all 10 passed step 3.
16 MEMBER HINZE: Do you have any feeling for how 17 many sites are out there where the information is lost, 18 where the companies are bankrupt, where information is )
l 19 just not available? l l
20 MS. ASTWOOD: No. We really don't have a lot 21 of information about these sites at all. Since they j l
22 weren't required to notify us, we don't know how many ,
l 23 there are, so that we don't know -- we can't look at our 24 list and say, "Well, this many sites have been
() 25 terminated." That's not information that we have readily r
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I
. _ ~ = _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ .- . . _ _ . . - . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ . _ . _
i.
111 i
f 1 available.
i -
2 MR. WEBER: We know the sites where we have i,O i '3 authorized on-site disposal since about 1980, 1981. We I
[ 4 have a list:of those. That was under 20.302. But the l
- 5 natxce of 20.304, of course, allowed licensees to do this, l
i e e d the only record we may have of that is in a licensing l
7 correspondence where they may have mentioned that that's 8 what they plan to do with their waste, or in an inspection 9 report where an inspector noticed that they had disposed l
1
! 10 of so much of an inventory into this burial pit.
l 'll So our hope is that -- and what we strongly i
12 stressed in the information notice is if you have one of l 13 these former burials, tell us about it. It is better that 1
i 14 we know that now, and we can work together to ensure that I
15 it's deccmmissioned in a proper manner, than to find it j 16 out when they're ready to terminate their license and they I
] 17 may have an economic interest ao that point tc' get rid of l '
l- 18 the property. This is not something that would be i
j 19 attractive to them to discover at that late stage.
! 20 MEMBER HINZE: Do you have any field 2
21 monitoring arrangements with the regions? Is there any i
22 field monitoring of this? Is this based simply on the
{ 23 reports that are provided, or what goes on?
24 MS. ASTWOOD: Simply the reports that come in 25 from the inspectors. I mean, inspectors do do some field i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
- ! I
. - - . , _ - - , . _ i
112 1 inspections, if the people there know they had a burial,
-s 2 and they'll take them out. But --
\
'-'J 3 MR. WEBER: We have independent measurement 4 capability, if that's what you're getting to.
5 MEMBER HINZE: Well, that was one of the 6 things, of course, I mean, it was in the inspectors but 7 also the measurement monitoring capability.
8 MR. WEBER: Right. We recently had an 9 instance at a university in the midwest where they 10 inadvertently, or advertently, discovered that they had 11 four burials. And the way they found out about it was a 12 creek was washing the cover off of one of the -- or 13 getting very close to eroding tne cover off of a former t'~h
, (- / 14 burial trench. I 15 When they went back and checked their records, l l 16 they find out that they had more of these cases to deal 1
17 with, including one where the alumni building was 18 constructed on top of the old trench, and it was close to 19 a river. So they've gone back, and in that instance we 20 sent out our inspectors, and they made side-by-side 21 measurements co confirm the legitimacy of the measurements 22 that were being submitted by the licensca.
23 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: We hope that's not Purdue.
, 24 (Laughter.)
(}j
/
25 MEMBER HINZE: I'm just going to be very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113 1 quiet, because I associated with one of these in the-I l '
l i-2 midwest. And that is really prompting some of my i
3 questions. !
4 When there is a situation, do you have any. 1 l
5 guidance on the site characterization process that they 6 should go through in terms of number of wells or 7 exploratory holes or pumpage rates,' etcetera?
8 -MS. ASTWOOD: Yes. We have several documents 9 that have guidance for that, one of which is NUREG-1101, 10 which outlines the types of information that you need to 11 do an on-site burial. And we have used that, you know, to 12 look back at the records, and we also have several site 13 characterization guidances for larger decommissioning ;
L 14 sites. I 15 MR. WEBER: And the characterization guidance, l 16 the Branch Technical Position for decommissioning, which L
17 is the global document Heather refers to, is really 18 performance driven. So if you have a complicated site, 19 you're goi'ng to need more wells, you're going to need 20 perhaps multi-level pisometers, or something, and that's 21 to underpar.d the direction of groundwater flow. And it i
22 really then becomes a function of this more detailed 23 review and assessment to figure out what information is ,
! l l 24 needed and what answers are you trying to get to as part l 25 of your site characterization and assessment.
i NEAL R. GROSS l' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N W. j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l l
l 114 l
1 MEMBER HINZE: Has this ever gone so far as to 2 remove the material and ship it someplace else? This has
/ i l 3 gone that far in some of your decommissionings that --
l 4 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I always get a little 5 worried on any regulatory practice that is based on a so-6 called conservative assumption, because of the lessons we 7 learned by the design basis and the beyond ClDss 9 8 accident experience with re ctors.
9 And you used the magic word earlier, Mike. l 10 Have you thought about on specific sites actually trying )
l 11 to conceive different scenarios of what might go wrong? I l
12 guess my real question is, on a site-specific basis, could l l
1 13 a clever risk analyst come up with scenarios that were not j .
V)
I 14 to be ignored, that exceeded the conservativeness of your 15 assumptions -- that is, the basis of the whole 16 methodology?
17 MR. WEBER: Do you want to address that?
18 MS. ASTWOOD: You're asking if somebody could 19 come up with a scenario that would exceed this?
20 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: And, of course, it 21 would only be relevant if the likelihood of that scenario 22 represented any real risk.
j 23 MS. ASTWOOD: Yes, you could. I mean, for 24 example, step 2 with the ingestion scenario, ingestion is O
(G I 25 not the most restrictive --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 i i
1 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Right, j j
2 MS. ASTWOOD: -- pathway. And'there were
/ l
- 3 situations in'which you could develop a superconservative !
'4 external pathway scenario and come up with something that' 5' is higher than what the ingestion would give you. l
)
6 However, we did not feel that that was necessary because .
]
)
7 of -- we assessed those other pathways and those other !
1 8 scenarios when you look at the residential farmer. scenario l 9 in step 3.
10 Since we showed that step 2 is more.
]
11 conservative than step 3, step 3 deals with scenarios I
12 involving drinking water, direct exposure, inhalation, all l t
13 of the different scenarios that are involved with somebody l 14 on a site -- planting things, eating cows, things like !
i 15 that -- that those scenarios are evaluated and are covered i
16 and we feel that we have captured that in the conservatism j 17 in these scenarios.
18 MR. WEBER: But we did look also, I believe, i
t 19 at --
we ran microshield runs --
l 20 MS. ASTWOOD: That's correct.
- 21 MR. WEBER
- -- to look at direct exposure, and l
22 we did inhalation calculations --
23 MS. ASTWOOD: Right.
24 MR. WEBER: -- under step 2 to evaluate what l(:)
25 is the potential that a site could pass step 2 as we had NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. !
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33
116 1 set it out but still conceptually result in the es 2 significant dose through some other pathway.
( /
3 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Well, in the 4 low-level waste field, there had been some surprises in 5 the inventory in the sense that there has been more 6 uranium contamination than was expected or anticipated.
7 Have you run into any of these kinds of problems in this l 8 waste in terms of surprises in the inventory, with respect 9 to specific radionuclides?
I 10 MR. WEBER: We have had instances, for 11 example, where something like chlorine-36 becomes the 12 dominant radionuclide, even though at the time it was 1
l 13 disposed of it was a "no, never mind."
l
/~'8 .
E ) !
! 's / 14 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Right.
l 15 MR. WEBER: So those kind of surprises exist.
16 I'm not sure how -- what would happen if we
! 17 applied our methodology in those cases.
l 18 As heather pointed out, the typical problem j 19 sites that we deal with for past burials are the thorium, 20 uranium, plutonium sources.
l 21 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Right.
22 MR. WEBER: And, of course, a number of those 23 are already listed on the site decommissioning management 24 plan, and they're getting the full bore assessment and
/~N
( ,) 25 characterization, and so forth.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
_ _ , _ _ . . _ - . _ - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ . - _ - . _ , -_ .__m. __ . - _. - .
117 !
1 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I guess that's a' question I 2 think -- just let me jump in here for a second -- that I-J 3 had that in -- I was going to ask you whether there were i 4 cases that you could even hypothesize where there would be 5 major surprises in the buried inventory, particularly 6 nasty ones. But I guess that most of those probably would 7 be on the SDMP list. Is that --
8 MR. WEBER: Well, if you're talking about 9 nasty surprises -- !
10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: That's what I'm talking '
11 about. i i
12 MR. WEBER: -- there is uncertainty in the' t i
13 inventories that would be in these past burials, ;
14 especially in cases where the records.no longer exist and i 15 all we have to go on is somebody's recollection of the l
16 kind of activities and processing that they may have been 17 involved in at the time.
18 If somebody did something intentionally in j 19 conflict with the regulation, that could be a problem, and i
20 we wouldn't know that based on the record submitted by the l t i l 21 licensees.
23 What we have to balance that off is the l
l 23 additional effort that would be required to go in and l 24 exhaustively sample every one of these sites to find that 25 surprise. It's the old " needle in a haystack" syndrome.
l' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l
, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ;
f 1
l 118 1 We would not, as I said earlier, propose to apply this ,
,_ 2 prospectively, because today if you're doing this you have n
( i
\- 3 to keep the records necessary to support decommissioning.
4 But our real problems are those burials that took place in i
l 5 the '60s, and in some cases the '50s, and the '70s, where 6 theEs kind of records Were not retained.
7 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: So there could be a site 1 8 out there that has 1,000 times the inventory that we're 9 talking about here.
I 10 Excuse me, John. I didn't mean to interrupt. i 11 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: No , that's fine.
12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Other questions? Oh , yes, 13 Howard. Go ahead, gy
(_,) 14 MR. LARSON: Just a couple to close the loop.
15 When is the BTP going to be out? I mean, I 16 know it's -- is this going to go out this week with 17 everything else, Mike?
18 MR. WEBER: We hope to.
19 MR. LARSON: And, you know, the committee has 20 heard a lot of discussion on subsistence farmers and 21 residence farmers, but the resident farmer is not a 22 subsistence farmer in this case, right? If he isn't l
l 23 getting everything he eats and all of his food --
24 MR. WEBER: No, he's getting --
n
( ) 25 MS. ASTWOOD: Twenty-five percent, v
l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
! (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
119
- 1- MR. WEBER: -- 25 percent.
2 MR. LARSON: How much? ,
O 3 MS. ASTWOOD: Twenty-five percent.
t 4 MR. LARSON: Okay. That's fine. f 5 And is Morrison going to apply to these sites? j 6 MR. WEBER: To the extent that a site warrants ;
i
- i. 7 additional' review and radiological measurements are needed !
I i
! 8 in the' field, either surveys or actual destructive ;
i 9 sampling, it could apply. .Yes. Certainly if it went.into ;
t 10 exhumation and remediation, Morrison would be one approach !
11 that could be used to demonstrate compliance with whatever !
12 regulations are developed.
I 13 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Other questions? If not, ,
(O/ 14 certainly one final comment, I personally find something 15 as straightforward as this to be rather nice. It 16 certainly makes it applicable in most cases. So I commend 17 you, certainly, for that.
18 I guess I'd ask either one of you -- Mike, 19 what is your desire here? Are you looking for a letter j- 20 from the committee?
l l 21 MR. WEBER: Yes, that would be helpful, I 22 especially if you see a concern about the technical i
23 substance of the methodology, or have another idea that !
i 24 might be useful in terms of applying and screening these l 25 former burials. That would be valuable.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. _ . _ _ _ - . . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . __. _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ , _ . __.___m_ m.__
120 i
1 As I said earlier, we will be --
2 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Not this week.
1 3 (Laughter. )
4 MR. WEBER: No, not this week. We would I
5 anticipate'that whatever comments.would come back to us '
6 from the committee would be thoroughly considered as part 7 of our review of the comments that would come back as a 8 broader review. We, of course, would follow the normal 9 protocol of responding to the letter that would go'to the l
10 Commission, but we think it would be valuable. '
11 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Fine. And we'll probably 12 try to take up the question of what we ---whether.we will l 13 write a letter and what we will write during this session i .
J 14 either this afternoon or tomorrow.
15 MR. WEBER: Okay. Good.
16 MS. ASTWOOD: Great.
1 17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you both for coming l
l 18 down. We really appreciate the time.
l 19 With that, and seeing that it's three minutes
\ \l l 20 of 12, what I'd like to do is take enough time to get some !
l 21 lunch.
22 (Whereupon, at 12:01, the proceedings in the 23 foregoing matter went off the record.)
i 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l-WASH:NGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
' (202) 2344433 l (202) 234-4433 i
l l
. O CERTIFICATE l
This is to certify that the attached i proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: 87th Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Docket Number: (not applicable)
Place of Proceeding: Rockville, Maryland were held as herein appears, and that this is tne original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to u.)
typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
CORBETT RINER official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
l l c) l t
NEAL R. GROSS ,
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW )
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
O O O ARREGo
/ 4>
- , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E o 5 b O m STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
- z AND REBASELINING INITIATIVE o%g L #e l .
! ' OVERVIEW AND STATUS BRIEFING Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste ,
October 22,1996
e i
O 0 1 AGENDA. ?
INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT AND REBASELINING PHASES ,
PHASE 11 STATUS
SUMMARY
OF DIRECTION-SETTING ISSUES STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS EXPECTATION FOR COMMENTS !
lL REVIEW OF COMMENTS p STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT (PHASE 111)
NRC'S STRATEGIC PLAN DISCUSSION OF DSis 5,6,9, AND 12 i
I. . . . . .
9 O O :
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT AND REBASELINING '
INTRODUCTION O Purpose of Strategic Assessment o Organization i
-- Steering Committee
-- Support Group
-- Contractor: Public Strategies Group, Inc.
_ . . _ - . . - - - . - . - . - - . - - - = - - - . - -
STRATEGIC ASSESSdNT AND REBASELINI G OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT AND REBASELINING PHASES O Phase 1 - Strategic Assessment
-- Review of Activities
-- Strategic issues
-- Direction Setting issues (DSis) o Phase 11 - Rebaselining and Development of Decision Papers
-- Issue Papers (DSis) l -- Stakeholder involvement o Phase 111 - Strategic Plan
-- Commission Decisions on DSis i -- Strategic Plan o Phase IV - Implementation and Budget l -- Performance Plan /FY 1999 Budget
! -- Outyear Plan FY 1999 +
l -- Other implementation Activities
O .O O .
1 Phase I Terms and Process Flow i
1 e
M cIM
- l and 4 Narraems l FuncGons i 3 onmphys 4 Grape !
(1) Reactors (1) Reacters l (a esserises (2) nesserwe j (3)namneymmere a sippert (3) nemusemere a support j (4) wuske Famceans l 1 r l r
N Strategicleeues m leeue Papers m
-4.500 -170 "
i" 24 22 -
4 i l
StrategicVision, l
j Goets, and Meelon -
Statement Evaluation oI ActMues ,
l i
PhaseI Phase ll StrategicAssessment Rebaselining and Development of issue Papers t
PHASE STATUS :
i I
o Key Documents ;
Issue Papers (16) .
Strategic Planning Framework Document Stakeholder involvement Process Paper o Documents Available on AUTOS LAN, Internet, FedWorld, and Public Document Room Hard copies available upon request to help minimize need for individual staff members to print their own copies 4
I 1
Li
ISSUE PAPER
SUMMARY
DSI TITLE DSI 2 Oversight of the Department of Energy DSI 4 NRC's Relationship with Agreement States DSI 5 Low-Level Waste DSI 6 High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel DSI 7 Materials / Medical Oversight l DSI 9 Decommissioning - Non Reactor Facilities '
l DSI10 Reactor Licensing for Future Applicants 3 DSI11 Operating Reactor Program Oversight DSI12 Risk-informed, Performanced-Based Regulation DSI13 Role of Industry ,
l DSI14 Public Communications initiatives DSI20 International Activities "
DSI21 Fees l
DSI22 Research -
DSI23 Enhancing Regulatory Excellence DSI24 Power Reactor Decommissioning
STAKEHOLD R MEETINGS _
f INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS o Series of Meetings with NRC Staff I
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS o Meetings Scheduled To Discuss issue Papers As Follows:
October 23 (Agreement States) NRC Headquarters (OWFN)
October 24-25 Washington, DC--Washington Hilton October 31-November 1 Colorado Springs Sheraton November 7-8 Chicago, ll--Ramada O' Hare L
~
O O O '
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS CONFERENCE FORMAT O Plenary Session Summarize Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining initiative Describe Stakeholder involvement Process Conference Objectives O Issue Paper Discussions by Strategic Arenas i
o PSG Involvement in Planning and Conducting Conferences & Meetings o Meetings Transcribed t,
EXPECTATION FOR COMMENTS WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED FROM STAKEHOLDERS o Soliciting Stakeholder's Views and Comments on:
Important Considerations That May Have Been Omitted ,
NRC's Assumptions and Projections For Internal and External Factors Commission's Preliminary Decision !
Specific Questions on Individual Issue Papers Per SRM Direction i
o Comments May Be Provided by Mail, or Electronically--All Comments Docketed by SECY o Comment Period Closes November 15,1996
~
O O O !
REVIEW OF COMMENTS
~ '
t i
T o Written / Electronic Comment Period Closes November 15,1996 I o Sponsors / Lead Writers Collate and Review All Comments (Stakeholders Conferences, Written, and Electronic) o Stakeholder Interactions Report Brief Analysis of Comments By Individual issue Paper Identify Substantive Comments That Have Direct Bearing on Commission's Preliminary Decisions All Comments will be Provided to Commission in Stakeholder Interactions Report on December 6,1996 - Report will be Available to All Internal and External Stakeholders (Internet and PDR)
.. - _ _ _._ ._ ._. _ _ __ _ _ _ _._ _ _ . _ __._ _ _ ._ _ ._._...... _ _ .___ _ ____.. - _ ~ _ _ . _
~
O O O
STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT (PHASE 111) -
o Phases I and 11 provide foundation for Strategic Plan. -
j o Strategic Plan Sets direction for Agency Meets requirements of Government Performance and Results Act '
Periodic Updates will be Made o implementation (Phase IV)
Budget and performance plan Other actions
~.
O O O NRC'S STRATEGIC PLAN -~:
WHAT IS IT? .
I o Brief document to guide program and resource decisions at all levels o Delineates our important goals and objectives o Provides strategies for achieving our important goals o Living document subject to periodic change WHAT IT IS NOT?
o A budget o A detail tactical operating plan i
o An exhaustive listing of Agency work -
NRC'S STRATEGIC PLAN O .f ,> m s l
5.
?
2 NRC VISION )l h)
. Y l NRC MISSION l
j l
/ *g To regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection j 'y -
of the public health and safety, to promote the common
- defense and security, and to protect the environment
! I i NRC .
ORNME NRC GOALS 'N
- VALUES. pm I l l- o 5 ,&
j MISSION-CRITICAL STRATEGIES , .( "
Assuring' safe operation of nuclear reactors , --
l l Assuring safe use and handling of nuclear ~ b i materials JW GOOD i HEGULATM)N g Assuring safe management of nuclear waste
[
]
a Qw,.: ;jpg;; u' '
MISSION-ENABLING STRATEGIES Building putdic trust and confidence CORE RESOURCE STRATEGIES
(
Managing NRC's human resources j '? Providing research expertise
( Supporting National objectives in the %) ) Managing NRC's financesi l international area i
1
~l Managing infonnation
- I Developing internal support mechanisms that sustain safety activities W
j . . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .
o o o :.
DSI 5: LOW-LEVEL WASTE DIRECTION-SETTING ISSUE 1
WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE AND SCOPE OF THE NRC'S LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 1 PROGRAM 7 !
l t
_ - . - - - . - - - - - . - .. - - .. - - - - . . = . . .
DSI 5: LOW-LEVEL WASTE SUBSUMED STRATEGIC ISSUES e IF NRC CHOOSES TO REDUCE IS LLW PROGRAM, WHAT SHOULD BE ,
NRC'S APPROACH FOR RETAINING TECHNICAL COMPETENCY AND CAPABILITIES TO REVIEW A LICENSE APPLICATION FOR A NEW LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY FOR A NON-AGREEMENT STATE? ;
e IF NRC CHOOSES TO REDUCE ITS LLW PROGRAM, HOW SHOULD THE NRC POSTURE ITSELF TO ASSURE THAT TECHNICALLY COMPETENT AND KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF ARE AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO STATES' [
REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ON DIFFICULT AND CONTROVERSIAL LLW DISPOSAL ISSUES?
e SHOULD THE NRC PROCEED TO PROMULGATE FINAL GUIDANCE ON PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIES?
I
.i o o o ;.
DSI 5: LOW-LEVEL WASTE KEY FACTORS e MOST NEW LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIES ARE EXPECTED TO BE LOCATED IN AGREEMENT STATES j e NRC DOES NOT EXPECT TO RECEIVE AN APPLICATION FROM A NON-AGREEMENT STATE WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS l
e THE LACK OF BROADLY BASED PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE HAS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SITES [
e LLW DISPOSAL AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TODAY [
FOR WASTE GENERATORS c e LLW PROGRAM NAS BEEN REDUCED IN RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT-WIDE EFFORTS TO STREAMLINE AND REDUCE COSTS
O O O
'l.
DSI 5: LOW-LEVEL WASTE OPTIONS OPTION 1: ASSUME A GREATER LEADERSHIP ROLE IN THE NATIONAL LLW PROGRAM j OPTION 2: ASSUME A STRONG REGULATORY ROLE IN THE NATIONAL LLW PROGRAM OPTION 3: RETAIN CURRENT PROGRAM ,
f OPTION 4: RECOGNIZE PROGRESS AND REDUCE PROGRAM l
i OPTION 5: TRANSFER LLW PROGRAM TO EPA OPTION 6: ACCEPT ASSURED LONG-TERM STORAGE
_ij
. )
O O O l.
DSI 5: LOW-LEVEL WASTE COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS i -
- ASSUME A STRONG REGULATORY ROLE IN THE NATIONAL PROGRAM (OPTION 2). THIS OPTION WOULD ENCOMPASS ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT WERE PERFORMED BEFORE THE RECENT REDUCTIONS IN THE LOW- ;
LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM.
il
~
e THE COMMISSION SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON:
o WHETHER NRC SHOULD INVOLVE ITSELF TO A GREATER DEGREE IN IMPLEMENTING Ti4lS OPTION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENCOURAGE AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE REGULATION OF LLW HANDLING, PROCESSING, RECYCLE, AND DISPOSAL. l 0 HOW SHOULD NRC ADDRESS UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSAL?
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ .-_-________-__--_A
o o o ;
DSI 6: HIGH-LEVEL WASTE AND SPENT FUEL DIRECTION-SETTING ISSUE l IN RECOGNITION OF CURRENT UNCERTAINTIES, HOW SHOULD NRC '
APPROACH THE PRESENT HIGH-LEVEL WASTE SITUATION?
l t
v
o o ..l o
DSI 6: HIGH-LEVEL WASTE AND SPENT FUEL SUBSUMED STRATEGIC ISSUE
- HOW SHOULD NRC ADDRESS HLW STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS?
e HOW SHOULD NRC POSITION ITSELF TO MEET ITS RESPONSIBILITY OF LICENSING DOE'S DISPOSAL OF GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTES?
O O O :
DSI 6: HIGH-LEVEL WASTE AND SPENT FUEL RELATED STRATEGIC ISSUE i
e HOW CAN THE NRC STAFF ASSURE COMPATIBILITY FOR SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION IN THE REGULATIONS?
e WHAT SHOULD NRC DO TO ASSIST PART 50 LICENSEES THAT HAVE TERMINATED THEIR "
POWER REACTOR OPERATIONS AND ARE PLANNING TO DECOMMISSION THEIR POOLS AND OBTAIN A PART 72 LICENSE AND NEED TO DISPOSE OF THEIR GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTES?
d
O O O :
DSI 6: HIGH-LEVEL WASTE AND SPENT FUEL KEY FACTORS (ACCORDING TO DOE) e THE LACK OF CONSENSUS AMONG THE SCIENTIFIC ND TECHNICAL COMMUNITY AND THE MAJOR INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES ON FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAM e THE UNPRECEDENTED NATURE OF GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL e THE LINKAGES IN THE LAW BETWEEN THE SITING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE (MRS) FACILITY AND THE LICENSING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE REPOSITORY e STRONG PUBLIC RESISTANCE TO WASTE MANAGEMENT AND OTHER UNDESIRABLE FACILITIES o GENERAL PROGRAM AND BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS i
i
o o o ;
DSI 6: HIGH-LEVEL WASTE AND SPENT FUEL OPTIONS OPTION 1: APPROACH CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION TO REFOCUS THE NATIONAL PROGRAM OPTION 2: REDUCE UNCERTAINTY BY MODIFYING NRC'S PROGRAM OPTION 3: MAINTAIN NRC'S EXISTING HLW REPOSITORY PROGRAM OPTION 4: TAKE A MINIMAL APPROACH TO NRC'S HLW REPOSITORY PROGRAM b
_ _ _ . _ m-. m ---,--,W
DSI 6: HIGH-LEVEL WASTE AND SPENT FUEL '
COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS
- MAINTAIN NRC'S EXISTING HLW PROGRAM (OPTION 3).
e THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE TAKING A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN RESOLVING ISSUES IN THE NATIONAL HLW PROGRAM, CONSISTENT WITH NRC'S MISSION.
e THE COMMISSION PARTICULARLY SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON WHAT ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES THE NRC MIGHT REASONABLY UNDERTAKE.
v
o o o ';
DSI 9: DECOMMISSIONING NON-REACTOR FACILITIES DIRECTION-SETTING ISSUE WHAT SHOULD BE NRC'S STRATEGY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NEW AND DIFFERENT l APPROACHES TO OPTIMlZE SITE REMEDIATION OF THE SITE l DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OTHER PROBLEM SITES?
i e
DSI 9: DECOMMISSIONING NON-REACTOR FACILITIES SUBSUMED STRATEGIC ISSUE e WHAT IS THE OPTIMUM RATE OF REMOVAL OF SITES FROM THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANGEMENT PLAN?
e WHAT IS THE BEST STRATEGY TO USE TO IMPLEMENT NRC'S NON-REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING REGULATIONS?
e WHAT IS THE BEST STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH UNLICENSED ,
POSSESSORS OF LICENSABLE MATERIAL?
e HOW CAN NRC ENSURE THAT BANKRUPT OR NON-VIABLE CORPORATIONS APPROPRIATELY USE THEIR ASSESTS TO COMPLETE I
SITE REMEDIATION? i e HOW MUCH FLEX 1BILITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO LICENSEES WHO WANT TO PROPOSE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR COMPLYING WITH DECOMMISSIONING REGULATIONS?
L d
~
O O O :
DSI 9: DECOMMISSIONING NON-REACTOR FACILITIES FACTORS e SOME LICENSEES OR RESPONSIBLE PARTIES MAY BE UNABLE OR
- UNWILLING TO DECOMMISSION e THERE ARE LIMITED NRC RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS ALL SITES WITHIN THE TIMEFRAMES DESIRED BY CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC l
l
- LEGAL AUTHORITY IS LIMITED FOR MOST DECOMMISSIONING CASES ,
SINCE CONTAMINATION IS AT RELATIVELY LOW LEVELS l
e EPA'S PROPOSED GROUNDWATER REQUIREMENTS (4 MREM / YEAR) MAY l
BE DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT I
L
DSI 9: DECOMMISSIONING NON-REACTOR FACILITIES OPTIONS OPTION 1: CONTINUE EXISTING PROGRAM OPTION 2: CHANGE THE DECOMMISSIONING REVIEW PROCESS OPTION 3: CHANGE RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION CRITERIA AND REVIEW STANDARDS OPTION 4: ADOPT THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SUPERFUND APPROACH r
OPTION 5: REGULATE SOURCE MATERIAL CONSISTENTLY WITH NATURALLY OCCURRING AND ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS L
__]
O O O :
DSI 9: DECOMMISSIONING NON-REACTOR FACILITIES OPTIONS i
OPTION 6: FOCUS ON DECOMMISSIONING CASES IN WhilCH PROGRESS CAN BE MADE; TRANSFER STALLED SITES TO THE j ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S SUPERFUND PROGRAM '
I OPTION 7: TAKE AN AGGRESSIVE POSITION TO DEVELOP REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR LOWER COST DECOMMISSIONING WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
}
OPTION 8: DEVELOP A STRONG LITIGATIVE STRATEGY l OPTION 9: SEEK SUPERFUND AUTHORITY
O O O : '
DSI 9: DECOMMISSIONING NON-REACTOR FACILITIES COMMISSIONS PRELIMINARY VIEWS
- A COMBINATION OF OPTIONS SELECTED THAT WOU.LD PLACE APPROPRIATE RESPONSIBILITY ON LICENSEES TO REMEDIATE THEIR SITES WHILE GIVING NRC APPROPRIATE TOOLS TO DEAL WITH PROBLEM '
SITES AND LICENSEES.
O CHANGE THE DECOMMISSIONING REVIEW PROCESS (OPTION 2);
o FOCUS ON DECOMMISSIONING CASES IN WHICH PROGRESS CAN BE MADE AND TRANSFER STALLED SITES TO EPA (OPTION 6); l o TAKE AN AGGRESSIVE POSITION TO DEVELOP REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR LOWER COST DECOMMISSIONING WASTE DISPOSAL (OPTION 7) AND, o DEVELOP A STRONG LITIGATION STRATEGY (OPTION 8)
L
DSI 9: DECOMMISSIONING NON-REACTOR FACILITIES COMMISSIONS PRELIMINARY VIEWS e
OPTION 2 SHOULD BE TESTED ON A PILOT SCALE FOR A FEW SELECTED l MATERIALS LICENSEES TO DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL SUCCESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS OPTION IF iT WERE TO BE ADOPTED ON A BROADER SCALE.
e THE PILOT PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE VOLUNTEERS THAT ARE FOUND TO BE SUITABLE FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE PILOT PROGRAM BY THE NRC. i e WITH REGARD TO OPTION 2, THE NRC SPECIFICALLY SEEKS COMMENT ON WHETHER NRC SHOULD HOLD SEMINARS OR WORKSHOPS FOR LICENSEES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT NRC l EXPECTS OF THEM AND WHAT THEY, IN TURN, SHOULD EXPECT OF THEIR CONTRACTORS.
n
T\
O O
~
O :
DSI 9: DECOMMISSIONING NON-REACTOR FACILITIES COMMISSIONS PRELIMINARY VIEWS e WITH REGARD TO OPTION 6, THE STAFF SHOULD ALSO, CONSISTENT WITH DSI 12, EXAMINE THE LEVEL OF RISK ASSOCIATED WITH EACH SITE. STAFF SHOULD CONSIDER THE FEASIBILITY OF TRANSFERRING THE LOW RISK, STALLED SITES TO THE EPA'S SUPERFUND PROGRAM.
e DETERMINATIONS ON WHETHER TO SEND TO EPA'S SUPERFUND PROGRAM A STALLED, HIGH-RISK SITE OR A LOW RISK SITE WHERE PROGRESS IS BEING MADE, SHOULD BE MADE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
e THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS FOR OPTION 6 SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE TliE COMMISSION FROM REVIEWING A LOW RISK, STALLED SITE IF CONDITIONS WARRANT, NOR SHOULD THE PROCESS AUTOMATICALLY SEND THE SITE TO EPA'S SUPERFUND PROGRAM.
l L
O O O ).
DSI 12: RISK-INFORMED, PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION
! DIRECTION-SETTING ISSUE What criteria should NRC use in expanding the scope in applying a risk-informed, performance- ;
based approach to rulemaking, licensing, !
inspection, and enforcement?
l I
_T
! DSI 12: RISK-INFORMED, PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION FACTORS External e Executive Branch and Congress e Standards-Setting Organizations e Federal Agencies e Nuclear Industry e Public 1
Internal j e Nuclear Materials initiatives e Commission's PRA Policy Statement e Defense-in-Depth e Policy and Legal Issues i
1
- _ _ . _ _ . - - . - - . . . - - - . - _ _ . - _ . - _ _ - . - - - . _ _ . _ _ - _ - _ . - - - - - - _ + -
o o o ;
DSI 12: RISK-INFORMED, PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION SUBSUMED STRATEGIC ISSUES e What should be NRC's strategy and philosophy with respect to changing NRC's responsibilities and authority in areas of little public risk?
e What approach should NRC take in modifying the materials regulations to move toward risk-informed, performance-based regulation, recognizing the requirements will vary as a result of the range of products and the divergence of the licensees that use or possess byproduct nuclear material?
- Should NRC revise its regulations to address the uses of materials resulting from technological advances and changing human factors? If so, to what extent should NRC articulate objectives to prevent or limit the effects of i equipment failures and human factors / human performance?
e What should be the approach for licensing material uses with various levels of inherent risk?
- Given the new Government-wide goals for reducing Federal information collections, how should the agency prepare for possible reductions in its budget ceiling for information collection without compromising public health and safety?
e How should a risk-informed, performance-based philosophy influence NRC's handling of dual regulation?
t
DSI 12: RISK-INFORMED, PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION OPTIONS l
l l 1. Continue current process
- 2. More rigorously assess relationship to public health and safety ,
i
- 3. Perform a comprehensive assessment of NRC regulatory t i approaches l
- 4. Consider risk-informed, performance-based approaches primarily in response to stakeholder initiatives i
l t
DSI 12: RISK-INFORMED, PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS e Higher risk activities should be the primary focus of agency efforts and resources e Staff should continue current efforts (Option 1) on pilot programs and continue to evaluate performance data as it becomes available i
e Staff should proceed in the direction of enhancing the PRA Implementation Plan (some elements of Option 3) e Staff should perform a thorough review of the basis for nuclear materials regulations and processes to identify and prioritize those areas that may be amenable to a risk-informed, performance-based approach. This assessment should lead to a framework for applying PRA to nuclear material uses e The Commission is particularly interested in public comments on how NRC should deal with dual regulation when applying a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory philosophy L
a I
l DSI 2: OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Should the NRC seek to expand its regulatory authority and
- responsibilities to include DOE facilities?
COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS l Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's preliminary views are. ,
c The Commission preliminarily favors Option 4. This view would be consistent with the position the Commission has taken on this issue in the past that is, I l the NRC has not actively pursued the added responsibilities that would result l from regulating DOE activities but, given adequate resources and a reasonable !
time schedule to develop and initiate a regulatory program, the NRC could '
provide adequate regulatory oversight of DOE, if asked.
If NRC were to be given added regulatory oversight of DOE facilities, the Commission would prefer that the regulatory responsibilities be placed on the NRC on an incremental basis and that some tvoe of prioritization methodology be used to determine the types of DOE facil'1t1es that, if subject to NRC l
oversight, would provide the greatest potential benefit to public health and l safety. l j
l Since the Commission is tentativel accepting the o i take a position on accepting broad responsibility f! tion r DOEthatfacilities the NRC will not (Option 4), it would neither encourage nor oppose new legislation giving it broader
/ authority over DOE nuclear f cilities.
l 1
O '
r l
i l
L
.. a, DSI 4: NRC'S RELATIONSHIP WITH AGREEMENT STATES i What should be NRC's strategy regarding States becoming and remaining Agreement States?
COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS i
l Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's' preliminary views are:
The Commission preliminarily favors Option 3 (Continue the Current Agreement States Program,isIncluding Adop ing Current Initiatives). At the same time.
the Commission l
Agreement Ststes. preliminari1 in favor of encouraging more States to become i However, t Commission believes this should be l- accom)lished primaril tangi)1e incentives. y While through intangible tangible incentives incentives (i.e.,to States would funding) as opposed be an to effective mechanism for encouraging more States to become Agreement States, the Commission is concerned that the funding _ constraints imposed by the Omnibus Budoet Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) would have an inequitable i
i impact on NRC licensees in States that decide not to become Agreement States.
However, the Commission believes that the staff should explore the feasibility l
and desirability of providing " seed money" and/or financial grants, within the funding constraints of OBRA 90, to encourage States to apply for Agreement State status.
While the Commission has not made a final decision on this matter, a majority of the Commission is preliminarily in favor of a compromise :osition in which a the NRC would provide training to Agreement States without c1arge on a " space
' Q8 available" basis. Fundin by the Agreement States. g for travel and technical assistance would be borne The NRC particularly solicits comments on whether NRC should fund Agreement State training, travel, and technical assistance. Comments are especially sought from Agreement States, non Agreement States, fee paying NRC licensees
! and Agreement State licensees.
L l
l l
l l
! l
- O !
+
J l,. ..
I DSI 5: LOW LEVEL WASTE
\ What should be the role and scope of the NRC's low level radioactive waste program?
! COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS l Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper.
The Commission's preliminary view on this issue is that the preferred option is Option 2 (Assume a Strong Regulatory Role in the National Program). This option would encompass all of the activities that were performed before the recent reductions in the low level waste program.
In addition, the Commission seeks public comment on whether NRC should involve l itself to a greater degree in implementing this option in such a way as to encourage an integrated approach to the regulation of LLW handling
' processing, recycle, and disposal. For example, should NRC actively aarticipate in the development of new technologies for waste compaction and 3etter waste forms for on site storage for licensees, to maximize safety and efficiency across the entire waste management and disposal process? Further, how should NRC address unauthorized disposal? Adopting such an approach would, of course, require that the NRC have a strong presence in the National low-level waste program and maintain an appropriate set of core capabilities.
l t
i i
'l I
O
a s.
DSI 6: HIGH LEVEL WASTE AND SPENT FUEL In recognition of current uncertainties, how should NRC approach the present high level waste situation?
COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper.
The Commission's preliminary view on this issue is to proceed with Option 3 (Maintain NRC's existing HLW Procram). This approach would enable NRC to continue to support th national HLW program at whatever level is appropriate to keep pace.with the national program. However the Commission intends to revisit this issue if, and when, the Congress pro,vides further legislation on this issue.
In addition, the Commission would like to explore taking a more active role in resolving issues in the national HLW program, consistent with NRC's mission.
The Commission particularly seeks public comment on what additional activities the NRC might reasonably undertake.
O O
O DSI'7: MATERIALS / MEDICAL OVERSIGHT What should be the role and scope of the NRC's nuclear materials program, and in particular, NRC s regulation of the medical use of nuclear material?
COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper.
The Commission preliminarily favors a combination of Option 2 (Continue the Ongoing Program with Improvements) and Option 3 (Decrease Oversight of Low-Risk Activitjes with Continued Emphasis of High Risk Activities). In implementing Option 3 the NRC would utilize the risk informed performance based approach, as discussed in DSI 12 to determine which activities in the materials area, and specifically in the medical area, are low-risk activities.
5 The general approach described in Option 3 of this DSI aDDears to be a reasonable starting point for identifying the types of activities that can be affected by this process.
In implementing these options with regard to the NRC's medical program, the NRC would consult with its Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Radioisotopes (ACHUI) for guidance on low risk medical. activities, revisions to 10 CFR 35, and )ossible implementation methods. The NRC would also evaluate the feasi)ility of using professional medical organizations and societies as a potential source for developing professional standards and guidance that would be adhered to by NRC medical licensees and could be adopted by the NRC as regulatory requirements.
In the public comments on this issue the NRC particularly solicits the views of other affected organizations such,as the Organization of Agreement States and the CRCPD on applying a risk informed performance based approach to NRC's oversight of medical activities. The NRC also solicits the public's views on the feasibility and desirability of NRC's striving to have the remaining non-Agreement States acquire Agreement State authority for medical use only. In addition, the Commission solicits the public's views on whether a single agency should regulate radiation safety. Finally, the NRC specifically seeks comments on the Attachment to this issue paper titled " Regulation of Radiation-in Medicine IOM 1ssues."
O l
w i
DSI 9: DECOMMISSIONING NON REACTOR FACILITIES What should be NRC's strategy to take advantage of new and different approaches to optimize site remediation of the Site Decommissioning l Management Plan and other problem sites?
COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS I
Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's preliminary views are:
The Commission's initial preference on this DSI is a combination of options, subject to the modifications specified below, including Option 2 (Change the Decommissioning Review Process), Option 6 (Focus on Decommissioning Cases in which Progress can be made: Transfer Stalled Sites to EPA), Option 7 (Take an Aggressive Position to Develop ulatory Frameworks for Lower Cost Decommissioning Waste Disposal ions), and Option 8 (Develop a Strong Litigation Strategy). In combi tion, these options would place appropriate responsibility on licensees to remediate their sites while appropriate tools to deal with problem sites and licensees.giving NRC With regard to Option 2 the Comission believes that the option should be tested on a pilot scale for a few selected materials licensees to determine the potential success and effectiveness of this option if it were to be adopted on a broader scale. The pilot program participants should be volunteers that are found to be suitable for participating in the pilot program b
^ consider,yat the a NRC. Based later date, on thethis whether results optionof the pilotbe should prosram, the acopted onNRC could a broader basis.
Full implementation of Option 2 could significantly affect the way NRC licensees carry out their res nsibilities for decommissioning and remediating sites. Some licensees might in a poor position to hire and effectively use the contractors they would need to carry out these responsibilities.
Accordingly, the NRC specifically seeks comment on whether NRC should hold seminars or workshops for licensees to make sure that they understand what NRC expects of them ano what they, in turn, should expect of their contractors.
Such training could help to assure that limited cleanup resources would be effectively applied.
With regard to Option 6 the Commission believes that rather than focussing only on the progress being made on the site review, the staff should also, l consistent with DSI 12, examine the level of risk associated with each site.
l The NRC could focus on both )rogress and risk in making determinations on the l disposition of sites. The NtC could focus on the higher risk sites where l
progress is being made and place lesser emphasis on the lower risk sites.
Staff should consider the feasibility of transferring the low risk, stalled sites to the EPA's Superfund Program. Determinations on whether to send to EPA's Superfund Program a stalled, high risk site or a low risk site where ,
progress is being made, should be made on a case by-case basis.
The implementation process for Option 6 should not preclude the Commission
- from reviewing a low risk, stalled site if conditions warrant, nor should the
! process automatically send the site to EPA's Superfund Program.
i
!O
w p DSI 10: REACTOR LICENSING FOR FUTURE APPLICANTS V Given the current environment, what should the Commission's policy be on future reactors?
PRELIMINARY COMMISSION VIEWS Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's preliminary views are:
The NRC recognizes that fundamental economic decisions by license applicants will determine the level of necessary support. The NRC should continue to give priorityand approvals, for licensin reviewing standard and advanced reactor designs, early site elements of Option 1). g for new reactor license applicants (Option 2 with The staff should develop implementation guidance for the following:
- 1) Address maintenance of the Utility Requirements Document and the certified designs through first of a-kind engineering. Provide a plan for support of this process to the extent that, as a minimum significant issues are addressed and resolution paths are pro,vided in oMer to continue adequate support of the certified designs.
- 2) Address orderly closecut of all activities. Document to the greatest extent practicable the work performed such that its value for future technical and regulatory activities is not lost (e.g. SBWR, MHTGR, etc.).
- 3) Evaluate the design certification process following completion of current applications for lesson learned.
O
a
- i. I
- j. .
i 4
i DSI 11: OPERATING REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROGRAM l
1 Giventhechan$sintheexternal/internalenvironment,whatarethe implications f the current strategies for the operating reactor program? ;
f COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS i
Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending i l the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's '
. preliminary views are:
}~ The NRC should continue with its ongoing comprehensive review of the areas of licensing, inspection, and performance assessment to identify any areas of L needed improvement. This would include development of mechanisms to provide for systematic reexamination of the reactor oversight program to ensure its
! continued effectiveness and to maximize agency learning in response to i emerging issues (Option 1). The thoroughness of ongoins lessons learned reviews will be key to improvement. The lessons learnec. from these reviews
- must be applied across the industry, where appropriate, and must be verified i
i for effectiveness. The staff should be proactive in ensuring continuing j
effectiveness of the reactor oversight program by considering in a systematic way how the changes in the regulatory environment might affect future reactor
- oversight. Currently, the changes in the reaulatory environment. involve such l issues as industry deregulation and component and system aging.
} The NRC should pursue several aspects of Option 2, These include encouragina i the industry to develop generic guidelines that can be endorsed by the NRC and i
!\ carried out by the industry, providing increased opportunities for public f
involvement, expanding the use of technology to improve the efficiency of the licensing and inspection processes where feasible and appropriate, increasing flexibility in staffing multi)le unit sites to enable improved distribution of
.NRC inspection resources on t1e basis of licensee performance, and improving the effectiveness and understanding of the performance assessment process.
With regard to performance of a Business Process Redesign of the reactor oversight program (Option 3), the staff should consider lessons learned from the ongoing use of work process re engineering to establish more efficient and automation assisted processing of materials license and amendment requests.
If successful, the NRC should consider similar methods to improve various aspects of the reactor oversight As an initial step, after the consideration of lessons learned, program.thE staff should identify for Commission review and approval which areas if any, of the reactor oversight program could benefit from work process,re engineering. This could include a review of the consideration of best practices" from regulatory agencies (foreign and domestic, nuclear and non nuclear).
O
l 1
l l DSI 12: RISK INFORMED, PERFORMANCE BASED REGULATION What criteria should NRC use in expanding the scope in applying a '
risk informed, performance based approach to rulemaking, licensing, '
inspection, and enforcement?
l COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS l
l 1
- Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending '
the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's L preliminary views are: .
l The Commission recognizes that, in order to accomplish the principal mission j of the NRC in an efficient and cost effective manner, it will in the future i l have to focus on those regulatory activities that pose the greatest risk to '
the public. This can be accomplished b upon >robabilistic risk i
i twssment concepts, where applicable, yorbuilding other approacles that would allow a I risk-graded approach for determining high and low risk activities. In
' general, those activities that are of a higher risk should be the primary focus of the agency's efforts and resources. The level of staff activity associated with lower risk activities should be determined based on a t
consideration of the cumulative impacts on safety, stakeholder initiatives and burden reduction, and the effect on agency and licensee efficiency.
l The staff should continue with the current efforts, in cooperation with the industry (Option 1), including pilot programs. The objective of this initiative is to obtain addit 1onal information regarding the appropriateness of a risk-informed, performance based approach for the subject activities.
O These activities and their schedule, are presently captured in the agency's PRA Implementation Plan. As data from systems and components are accumulated, theperformance staff shouldmonitoring evaluate the of structures, t
performance data to determine the effectiveness of the approach on the subject i activity. '
The staff should proceed in the direction of enhancing the PRA I lesentation Plan (i.e. moving towards implementation of elements of Option building i
on the Regulatory Review Group's (RRG) results which were initia 1 focused
! on reducing the regulatory burden, with a more, focused assessment o those ;
i
! regulations which are amenable to a risk informed, performance based approach. I l
l In determining the priority and scope of regulatory activities to be included l in moving in the direction of partial implementation of option 3, the staff 1 l should consider the cumulative impacts on safety, stakeholder initiatives and l
burden reduction, and the effect on NRC and licensee efficiency. This .
l approach should result in a further focusing of resources, on the various !
areas that the Commission regulates, that is commensurate with its risk significance, potential burden reduction and effect on efficiency.
The staff should evaluate and clarify any technical and/or administrati re issues associated with performance based approaches to regulation (e.g.,
inspection activities, enforcement, etc.). The staff should also perform a i thorough review of the basis for nuclear materials regulations and '
and should identify and prioritize those areas that are either now, process,be or can made with minimal additional effort / resources, amenable to a risk-informed, I performence based approach. This assessment should eventually lead to the l
- development of a frmwork for applying PRA to nuclear material uses, similar
- 1. to the one developed for reactor regulation (SECY 95 280), where appropriate.
jO
.,._.n
, . _ . _ _ - - - ~.
1 In the public comments on this issue, the NRC particularly solicits how NRC should deal with dual regulation when ap O performance based regulatory philosophy. plying a risk informed, O
O
g . . .
DSI 13: THE ROLE OF INDUSTRY In performing its regulatory re; NRC give to industry activities?ponsibilities, what consideration should COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's preliminary views are:
The NRC should move as expeditiously as possible, within budget constraints, to evaluate on a case by case basis, initiatives proposing further NRC reliance on activities. industry activities as an alternative for NRC regulatory Staff guidance should be developed to describe the process and the general decision criteria NRC would use for evaluating proposals. (Option
- 1) In addition, the NRC should increase its focus and emphasis on interacting with both industry groups and professional societies and technical institutes to develop new codes, standards, and guides needed to su rt efficient, effective, and consistent performance of industry activi ies important to safety. These codes, standards and guides would then be endorsed by the NRC.
(Option 4) The NRC's initial activities in pursuing option 4 should focus on standards development in probabilistic risk assessment and the medical use area. Should the final Commission decision include Option 4. it is envisioned that the NRC staff would be requested to identify for the Commission where there are needs for new codes standards, and guides and provide recommentstf ens for addit: Anal areas of emphasis.
(G) Althoubhnotapreferredvktionatthistime,theCommissionbelievesthatuse of a " sigr;ted Ir astry epresentative" (Option 5) may have some potential use in regard to large broad scope materials licensees where NRC oversight through inspection is not frequent. This would, in essence, be a potential method of increasing oversight rather than relying on industry initiatives to reduce NRC oversight, l
DSI 14: PUBLIC COMMUNICATION INITIATIVES Faat publicafroach should NRC take to optimize its communication with the COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's preliminary views are:
The NRC should place a priority on early identification of public concerns and methods to generatefor public interaction substantial in making public interest regulatory (Option or concern 2). decisions that are lik This approach is consistent with NRC's Principles of Good Regulation. The NRC should interpret the term "public" in its broadest sense, understand who our various publics are, and focus on what they need in order to facilitate interaction and dissemination of information. For this purpose, the public includes private citizens, interest groups, licensees, states, media, congress, the executive branch and the international community. Recognition should be given to both bilateral formal and informal communication, and particular attention should be given to review and improvement of formal communication.
The appropriate role of technology as a facilitating / enabling device should be carefully examined within this context (e.g. particular care should be given to considering the formt of information dissemination such that the NRC does not eliminate paper in favor of electronic communication without full consideration of the public's ability to access information electronically).
Although there should be centralized planning and coordination of a O
V methodology for anticipating and involving the public in regulatory matters and decisionmaking, responsibilit reside with the program offices. y for implementing the methodology shouldThe roles of the Office of Public Affairs in facilitating public responsiveness should be clearly understood. .
In addition, the MRC should focus on maximizing effectiveness and economy in it's existing program for public communication (O anticipating and involving the )ublic (Option 2).ption la), and inAs initial steps, the NRC should develop a consistent metlodology, and coordinated planning for implementation of this approach, focus on examinin efficiency of activities that are of highest cost,g the andeffectiveness perform betterand assessments of proposed improvements to the existing approach. The NRC will consider the effectiveness and efficiency of certain formal forms of communication such as Freedom of Information Act requests in a manner consistent with the law. The Commission would envision establishment of a coordinating group and development of a plan to implement this philosophy.
y ..
DSI 20: INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES What is the appropriate role of NRC in the development and implementation of policies on international nuclear matters? l l
l COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS l Staff' actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending-the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's !
preliminary views are:
l The Commission agrees that option 4.- which fundamentally allows the Commission to conduct international activities of importance and bbnefit to NRC's domestic mission or U.S. national interests, is a' desirable goal. However,
! modifications are expected to be required because of expected continued reductions in NRC budgets. Therefore, we need to examine individual i international activities with respect to budget and priority to provide the basis for an orderly reduction and/or sunsetting of certain activities to meet expected future constraints on the program.
Option 4 reaffirms NRC's current policy basis for participation in international activities. Under option 4 NRC would cor,tinue to perform its
! current statutory role in matters related,to export-import licensing and its current and prospective role in treaty implementation and would, in addition. !
l actively participate in international activities that suocort and benefit NRC ,
domestic safety and security responsibilities or U.S. nat'ional' interests.
Also the NRC would participate in exchange activities of benefit to its ,
l domestic responsibilities or U.S. national interests and would provide a wide t
but carefully selected range of safety and safeguards assistance.
l The Commission believes that international activities performed in support of U.S. national interests actually undergird our domestic mission. For example, NRC's nuclear safety cooperative research aareements with other countries allow NRC to obtain valuable information, often at a comparativ61y small cost, to support our own pr ramatic needs. Furthermore, NRC s own research program allows it to p ay a leadership role in such international organizations as the N clear Eneray Agency and the International Atomic Energy agency, thus providing substantial benefit to the U.S. In addition, NRC's role in export licensing has direct impact on overall U.S. commercial interest.
Reco NRC'gnizing s international that weprogram must also staffaddress thedevelo) should issue ofafuture plan to constraints on the include criteria whichwouldaddressthebasisforprioritizingNRC'sinternationalactivities, including research. This will assist the Commission in determining where appropriate programmatic expansion or reductions may be made, depending on future budget constraints. In particular, since NRC is licensee fee based, careful consideration of international programs and their primacy to NRC's mission are important considerations. The plan should also identify areas where efficiencies can be considered and develop criteria for sunsetting certain activities.
l lO I
en os DSI 21: FEES O In making decisions about what activities the NRC should perform in support of its mission, to what extent should fees be considered?
COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The CommissJon's preliminary views are:
The Commission believes that the NRC's )ublic health and safety mission must be the foundation in making decisions a)out what activities the agenc perform. In Commission es and will continue to, consider the cost of its activities and will perform,y s do. making decisions on the work which thethe NRC consistently exa,mine ways to accomplish its mission within a responsible budget. Whether the NRC's budget is funded by the public through taxes ) aid to the treasury or by licensees through fees paid to the treasury, the MC's decisions about its programs should be the same. The Commission believes that fees should not be a primary factor in determining the work'to be performed in response to NRC health and safety mission. It is the Commission's position that programmatic decisions should not be fee driven and should be based on their contribution to public health and safety.
The Commission does not believe that it was Congress's intent to limit the NRC's activities to those which are directly attributable to a specific regulatory action for a specific licensee or class of licensees.
O In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (PL 101-508), Congress stated that any licensee of the Commission may be required to pay, in addition to the fees for services or thing of value, an annuaT charge. Congressional history and language in the Conference Report which accompanied PL 101-508 takes notice and allows that ' increasing the amount of recovery to 100 percent of the NRC's budget authority will result in the imposition of fees upon certain licensees for cost that cannot be attributed to those licensees or classes of licensees.'
After review of the policy options, it is the Commission's preliminary view to approve Option 2.
Programmatic decisions in response to NRC mandates will not be driven by fees. Specific activities conducted by the NRC will be evaluated for efficiency and effectiveness.
The NRC performs two primary types of activities. These types of activities are defined as mandated and non-mandated. Mandated activities include ,
Commission decision, etc. Non mandated '
statutes. include activities Executive Orders, those treaties,hich activities w are not required to respond to mandates, but are performed as a ' service' to another organization. This policy option (option 2) approved by the Commission provides for a responsible decision making process for mandated activities while allowing the NRC to !
assist other organizations on a reimbursable basis. l
\
In selecting option 2 the Commission will establish a process for making its programmatic decisions based on public health and safety considerations for mandated activities. When the Commission is requested to perform non mandated activities the requestor will reimburse the NRC for the cost of performing the l
- ,n requested activities.
O In order to im and approval, aplement set of criteria option for 2 the staff will defining develop, mandated fornon and Commission mandatedreview activities. These consistently criteria determine will allow funding of NRC foractivities.
a clear framework within which to Two issues raised in SECY 96 019 to the Commission, in addition to the Direction Setting Issue are also addressed. These two issues address funding mechanisms and personnel full time equivalent (FTE) ceilings.
FUNDING MECHANISM:
It is the Commission's preliminary view to support Funding Mechanism 2 which continues the agency's current approach.
Although the' Commission believes that its decisions on activities the NRC should perform in support of its mission and its total budget authority should be independent of fee considerations, the Commission does believe that NRC fees should be assessed in as fair and equiuble a manner as practicable.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (0 BRA 90) uires that NRC collect fees equal to approximately 100% of the NRC's bu t. The OBRA 90 further states that these fees should be collected from C's licensees and applicants. The Commission has sought to comply with OBRA 90 and to distribute fees as fairly and equitab'.y among its licensees and applicants.
The NRC has reexamined its fee policy each year, issued draft fee rules for public comment, and made changes to the process to respond to those comments whenever possible within the limits of existing statute. The Commission has also addressed those concerns raised by the public and licensees about the limitations of applying fees within OBRA 90 in its Reoort to Conoress on the 1J.S. Nuclear Reoulatory Commission's Licensee Fee Po' icy Review issu t in
- ebruary. 1994.
The Commission believes that carrying out the intent of Congress by implementing fee 1 i
efficient option. policy within existing law is the most effective andThe Commission wilI recommendations on specific proposals if they present new ap) roaches to improve the process or to accomplish a more equitable distr 1)ution of fees.
FTE CONSIDERATION:
It is the Commission's preliminary view to support the NRC's identification of 4 FTEs associated with reimbursable work as business like activities.
When the NRC receives a request to conduct an activity"which is not necessary for the NRC to meet its mandates, but will provide a service" to another ,
organization, the NRC must consider the cost of providing the service. This I cost consideration includes both dollars and FTE. The requesting organization can enter into a reimbursable agreement with the NRC and reimburse the age:1cy for the dollars expended on providing the assistance. The requesting organization does not, however, provide FTE to the NRC.
The current FTE ceiling constraints may make it difficult, if not impossible, for the NRC to provide assistance for non mandated activities in response to specific requests. The approach to remove those FTEs used for business-like activities from the NRC ceiling would allow the NRC to provide assistance to other government agencies and organizations which might otherwise be turned O
4 4 ' ML - -
- i 1} !
l DSI 22: RESEARCH What should be the future role and scope of NRC's research program?
j COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS i
Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending ;
the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's preliminary views are:
[
i The staff should continue with the research program which should include .
i elements of both confirmatory and exploratory research (o tion 4), balanced in i
- such a way that both current as well as potentially emerg issues are being addressed. This option permits response to programmatic s as well as anticipation of future needs.
In order to develop the scope of these technical capabilities the Office of '
Research should develop criteria for determining core research capabilities for Commission approval prior to going forward. Therefore, the Commission also approves option 5 in conjunction with option 4. It is recommended that i RES be tasked with developing a set of core research capabilities for the NRC ;
in consultation with the othEr program offices, i The staff should continue to support the Educational Grant Program (option 6). :
Universities have and continue to serve the Commission as a significant i component of its overall research program. However, this program should be :
re evaluated at least every two Commission's policies and goals. years to ensure that it continues to meet the' The staff should continue to support active articipation in International !
Safety Programs (option 7). The staff should ensure that these international '
activities and the related programs are prioritized and appropriately integrated with other NRC research efforts (option 4), and are also properly I considered in the establishment and maintenance of core research capabilities (option 5).
There are many key questions raised in the paper, note in particular pages 12 and 16, that require much thought to resolve, but whose answers will have a strong bearing on how the agency will operate in the future. Implementation of option 4 would include development of an integrated set of recommendations to be provided for Commission consideration.
O ;
- ,,y p DSI 23
- ENHANCING REGULATORY EXCELLENCE U How can NRC enhance regulatory excellence through maintenance of regulatory standards, rules, and requirements?
COMMISSION PRELIMINARY VIEWS Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's preliminary views are:
The Commission believes that striving for regulatory excellence in all NRC functions is both desirable and necessar efficient regulatory framework in today'ys to maintain changing an effectiveRecent environment. and events have shown that we could be more proactive in identifying potential problem areas and responding appropriately. Other DSIs have focused on critical areas that involve how the regulatory process can be improved. This DSI should emphasize how the NRC can implement strategies designed to improve its own internal performance, that is, for the NRC to be proactive in making our own people and processes function with a goal of excellence. Therefore, while the Commission supports taking a proactive approach as described under option 2, including the establishment of an agency wide senior management review group, it does not support the limited focus of the approach which emohasized making improvements in the regulatory framework such as the SRP and the license amendment process.
The Commission would support an approach under option 2 in which the focus of the effort would be broadened to include addressing how to improve the way the O
NRC does its job. The Commission envisions development of an implementation plan that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: 1 Identified goals with milestones and clear criteria for . judging success:)2)
Measures to engage the work force at the grassroots level and to stimulate management and employee communications in problem solving: 3) Im that address elements involving all NRC regulatory areas; and 4) provementsImprovements to the NRC's processes and management and support functions so as to enhance the efficiency and performance of the NRC staff.
l
- . 4 em DSI 24
- DECOMMISSIONING POWER REACTORS I i V What should be NRC's strategy for regulating decomissioning activities at power reactor sites?
COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS Staff actions regarding the various options should be held in abeyance pending the Commission's final decision on this issue paper. The Commission's preliminary views are:
From the o approach, isptions presented. Option the recommended option. 1: Implementation Continue the current direction guidance and this in pursuing option should be expanded to explore more innovative approaches in line with the current Commission strategy in this area.
The paper does provide a good discussion of rulemakings currently underway that outline the current Comission strategy in the power reactor decommissioning area: 1) that there should be assurance that decommissioning will be conducted in a safe and timely manner, 2) that adequate licensee funds will be available for this purpose, and 3) recognition that risks associated with decommissioning reactor facilities are not the same as for operating reactor facilities.
In pursuing the current pace of rulemaking, the staff, as stated above should consider new and innovative regulatory approaches. Examples of possible approaches that might be considered are:
(3 1. Transfer of nuclear power plants to Agreement State control after fuel
() has been put into dry storage or has been removed from the Part 50 site.
- 2. Placing a resident site inspector during all phases of decommissioning, only during specific phases of decommissioning, or not at _all.
- 3. Having NRC take an enhanced performance oriented approach by reducing oversight and performing a radiological assessment of the site when it is ready to be released.
l t
V l
{
1 O O O s!
Pl i ) United States i
.... . Nuclear Regulatory Commission BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION ON SCREENING METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING PRIOR LAND BURIALS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AUTHORIZED UNDER FORMER 10 CFR 20.304, l and 20.302 By:
Heather Astwood Division of Waste Management October 22,1996 i
i l
,.~ . ..s.
United States
{h-()-
Nuclear Regulatory Commission OVERVIEW e Background o Timeliness Rule o Information Notice 96-47 l'
- Screening Methodology e Example Sites e Next Steps l
2 October 22,1996 .
i
O O O . .
i.
,f. .. ..,,, y
{ f,) United States l
.....' Nuclear Regulatory Commission y
i o
BACKGROUND
- i i
e 10 CFR 20.304 and 20.302 authorized disposal of low-level radioactive waste on-site.
e 10 CFR 20.304 was rescinded on January 28, 1981.
e 10 CFR 20.302 expired on January 1,1994 (superseded by 20.2002).
l 3 OCl0bCT 21, $NNb
i& 1
..... ~
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission BACKGROUND (cont) ,
1 i
e On-site burials considered at the time of l-decommissioning. !
I e Fundamental policy established in 1988 decommissioning rule, e NRC will take a hard look, including remediation and removal, prior to release of site.
i October 22,1996 4
L
O O O .
,f. ....s,,
United States
{
) Nuclear Regulatory Commission s
TIMELINESS RULE i
o The Final Rule on Timeliness in Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Timeliness Rule? became effective August 15,1994.
o Outlines a schedule for performing decommissioning activities.
e Contains a schedule for decommissioning contaminated outdoor areas.
l 5 October 22,1996 L
o o o ll r
I
( ) United States
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission Timeliness Rule (cont) l 3
e " Outdoor areas" include former 10 CFR 20.304 and 10 CFR 20.302 burials.
- Licensees are required:
- to notify NRC about former burials by October 15,1996, or; request an alternate schedule by September 15,1996. ,
e Other schedular requirements ,
)
6 October 22, I996
O O O .
f- ~ ~,
{g')
United States i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P
I3 FORMATION NOTICE 96-47 e Published on August 19,1996. i e
Reminds licensees of their obligation to notify NRC of " unused areas" and to commit to a schedule for decommissioning. '
e Not all on-site burials will require remediation.
i f
7 October 22, I996
O O O -
ig, .. .) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NEED FOR SCREENING METHODOLOGY e Potentially hundreds of on-site burials that will require some type of evaluation.
i e Currently, each site evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
e Limited records for past burials.
e Characterization of all burials would be costly ,
and unnecessary.
8 October 22,1996
- --- b
O O O .
,f. s,,
i ) United States
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission SCREENING METHOD e
Simple but conservative method to evaluate the potential risk posed by the former burial.
1 e
Consists of three steps:
Step 1 Review burial records Step 2 Dose from ingestion of total inventory in groundwater Step 3 Dose to the resident farmer ss s ** **
- O O O. .
f ... ,,
(g')
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission METHODOLOGY (CONT) o If estimated dose from either step is less than 100 mrem /yr, the site passes the screening, e If a site passes, no additional site work required !
- site acceptable for unrestricted use.
e If a site does not pass the screening, the site would require more detailed evaluation.
10 October 22,1996 L
O O O .
, ~.s.
{' g- ), United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission STEP 1 RECORDS REVIEW e At the time the burials were made, licensees were required to keep burial records. l i
e The licensee should review burial records to ,
determine the total activity in the burial area.
e If the licensee has no records, license possession limits and throughput can be used to derive estimate.
11 October 22, I996 L
O O O .
,f. .. ..s,,
{&')
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
STEP 2 INGESTION e Estimated total activity is assumed to leach into :
the groundwater in one year. )
i e The volume of groundwater is assumed to be 91 m3.
e A screening dose is then estimated using 10 CFR 20 Appendix B. g l
H 12 October 22,1996 k
-)
O O O .
i (f) -
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ASSUMPTIONS '
- Entire inventory is available.
e !
Entire inventory leaches into the groundwater in one year. :
e A well captures all of the contaminated water in one year. '
e An individual drinks 2 liters / day of the contaminated water.
i i
13 October 22, I996
O O O .
f-- s
(}g').
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission STEP 3 EXHUMATION CONCENTRATION e Total trench volume is estimated. ,
e l Trench concentration is estimated based on the trench volume and total activity.
e Trench concentration is reduced by a factor of 4 to account for mixing during excavation.
e Methodology in NUREG-5512, and NUREG-1500 is used to derive a screening dose.
14 October 22,1996 L
O O O .
,f - s,, ,
Qfgi)'? United States
.* Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
ASSUMPTIONS e Total inventory is available. [
t e Total inventory is excavated and brought to the surface.
5 o Mixing reduces concentration by factor of 4.
e Residential scenario and default assumptions in bUREG-5512. L t .
. - . - . - - . . . . .. - . . ~ , -
f~'
15 October 22,1996
I f.....
(g-) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission EXAMPLE SITE e
3 A 10 m trench contains 270 Ci Cs-134, 233 gCi Fe-55, and 376 Ci Co-60. p Step 2 - Ingestion Appendix B Isotone pCi pCi/ml pCi/ml/50 mrem /yr mrem /yr Cs-134 270 2.9E-6 9E-7 161 Fe-55 233 2.5E-6 1E-4 1 1
Co-60 376 4.1E-6 3E-6 68 Screening dose is approximately 230 mrem /yr.
16 October 22,1996 q
~
O O O .
(g- ),, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission EXAMPLE (cont)
Step 3 l NUREG-1500 Isotone pCi pCi/ grain mrem /yr/pCi/g mrem /yr Cs-134 2.7E8 4.2 3.06 13 Fe-55 2.3E8 3.5 1.65E-3 0 Co-60 3.8E8 5.7 5.06 29 i
Screening dose is approximately 42 mrem /yr.
17 October 22, I996 L
O O O
.{ !!
.p" ~ m,,,
United States '
(f- )-
Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
l EXAMPLE CONCLUSIONS l
e Site passes the screening method.
l 1 e Over estimates doses because of assumptions totalinventory intruder brings waste to surface default scenarios in NUREG-5512 e Releasable for unrestricted use and can be removed from license.
18 october 22,1996
O O O .
f - ~.s,
{g!)
United States Nuclear RegulatorV Commission NEXT STEPS e Publish in Federal Register for interim use and comment.
e Agreement States to review and comment in parallel.
e Collect and evaluate comments until end of year.
e No decisions made until finalization of BTP.
19 October 22, I996 J