ML20137D955

Transcript of ACNW 90th Meeting in Rockville,Md on 970320.Pp 1-106

ML20137D955
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/20/1997
From:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:
References
NACNUCLE-T-0112, NACNUCLE-T-112, NUDOCS 9703270030
Download: ML20137D955 (148)

Text

AcNW7~ w2.

Official Tranacript ef Proceedings O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 90th Meeting TROB (ACNW)

RETURN ORIGINAL TO BJWHITE M/S T-2E26 Docket Number: (not applicable) $ y3 Location: Rockville, Maryland CJ Date: Thursday, March 20,1997 detiT o ACBMAC59?'Cdrttte "iyMie;&ae '

Work Order No.: NRC-1054 Pages 1-106 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO. , INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers

^'"

[] 270013

' '3 *"?,ingI>I,'D as (202) 234-4433 C.

gj g; TH 270o'"'"OQ[dl A

D N N E [ll))[jl]lEl}ll(llEl.EII..ll

O ,

I DISCLAIMER l l

PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE MARCH 20, 1997 l

l l

)

The contents of this transcript of the proceedings- of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste on MARCH 20, 1997, as reported herein, is a record of the discussions )

recorded at the meeting held on the above date.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.

l O

COURT R T R kh )T AN CRIBERS I323 R!!ODEISLAND AVENUE NW (202)234-443L WA$lilNGTON, D C. 20005 (202)234-4433

i 1

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(~~x, 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N) 3 + + + + +

4 90th MEETING 5 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) 6 + ++++

7 THURSDAY 8 MARCH 20, 1997 9 + ++++

10 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 11 + ++ ++

12 The Advisory Committee met at the Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room T2B3,

( 'I 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:30 a.m., Paul W. Pomeroy, 14 15 Chairman, presiding. j 1

16 17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

1 18 PAUL W. POMEROY CHAIRMAN l 19 B. JOHN GARRICK VICE CHAIRMAN 20 WILLIAM J. HINZE MEMBER 21 GEORGE M. HORNBERGER MEMBER 1

J l

22 l 23 l

24

/

y/ 25 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

2 1 ACNW STAFF PRESENT:

2 MICHELE KELTON Tech. Secretary 7--

N)' 3 RICHARD K. MAJOR 4 HOWARD J. LARSON 5 LYNN DEERING 6 ANDREW C. CAMPBELL 7 RICHARD P. SAVIO 8 CAROL A. HARRIS 9 THERON BROWN 10 11 ALSO PRESENT:

12 MARGARET FEDERLINE 13 CHARLIE HAUGHNEY (O

'u

)

14 TIM McCARTIN 15 JOHN TOMA 16 MIKE BELL 17 JOHN AUSTIN 18 FRED ROSS 19 BOB NELSON 20 MICHAEL P. LEE 21 JANET KOTPA 22 23 24 (O

(_) 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

3 l 1 A-G-E-N-D-A l

2 Acenda Item Page

/,- T i LI 3 Opening Remarks 4 l

l 4

5 Meeting with the Directors of the 6 Division of Waste Management and the l

7 Spent Fuel Projects Office, NMSS J 8 Margaret Federline 7 9 Charlie Haughney 53 10 11 Options Paper for 10CFR 960, Siting 12 Guidelines 13 Michael Lee 77 l f

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 q} 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

4 I

I 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S l l ,y 2 (8:35 a.m.)

( ^'

/  ;

3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: The meeting will now come l

\

4 to order. This is the first day of the 90th meeting of l 5 the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.

l 6 During today's meeting the committee will 7 first, meet with the directors or the associate directors j i

8 of the Division of Waste Management and the Spent Fuels I

i 9 Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material, Safety, and I

10 Safeguards, to discuss priority issues and possibly, 11 current events.

12 Secondly, we'll discuss an NRC options paper l 13 for commenting on DOE's 10 CFR 960, documenting specific i )

14 siting guidelines.

15 Thirdly, we'll be preparing ACNW reports 16 during this afternoon.

17 Fourth, we'll discuss committee activities and 18 future agenda.

19 And finally, at the end of the day we'll hold 20 a discussion regarding potential new ACNW members, and 21 that portion of that seesion will be closed to discuss 22 matters, the least of which would constitute a clearly i 23 unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

l l 24 Mr. Richard Major is the designated federal (3

( ,) 25 official for today's initial session.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l

5 1 This meeting is being conducted in accordance i x 2 with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. l

\ ,) l 3 We have received no written statements from members of the  !

1 1

4 public regarding today's session. Should anyone wish to 5 address the committee, please make your wishes known to ,

l 6 one of the committee staff.

7 It is requested that each speaker use one of 1

8 the microphones, identify himself or herself, and speak 9 with sufficient clariti and volume so that he or she can 10 be readily heard.

11 Before proceeding with the first agenda item I 12 would like to cover some brief items of current interest. l 1

13 First, as many of you know, Secretary of Energy designee,

/,; i

'> 14 Pena, was confirmed by the full Senate on March 12th of 15 this year. Senate bill S0104 of the NWPA of 1997 has come l 16 out of committee, voted favorably out of the Senate I

17 committee, and I believe debate on that issue came before 18 the full Senate yesterday, if my news report is correct.

19 Secondly, on Thursday, February 27th in an 20 unexpected move, the Texas House voted to suspend further j l

21 payments for the continuing development of the proposed 22 low-level waste disposal site. The Texas Senate has voted 23 to continue funding the development of that proposed site 24 and resolution is not expected until sometime later, after l

[^T

(,,) 25 a joint Senate / House conference committee meets on that l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344 433 j

6 1 l

1 topic. j l

! , -~g 2 The status of the Texas compact with Maine and ,

i i i New Hampshire remains unchanged with no votes scheduled in

~

3 l

4 Congress on the proposed legislation, as far as I know.

5 Thirdly, the investigation into the charges 6 and counter-charges associated with the President of 7 Envirocare of Utah and a former Utah State official 8 continues, except that now the federal government is i 9 conducting the investigation -- what part of it, I don't 10 have a note here on.

11 Utah officials believe that having the federal 12 government in charge would facilitate cooperation and 1

13 resolution of potential interstate and inter-agency

(~%

\ J

\# 14 issues. The facility continues to operate. Initial 15 reviews conducted by the State and the NRC thus far of 16 past licensing actions have apparently revealed no related 17 health and safety impacts.

18 Fourth item, the Governor of California --

19 again, several of you know this -- has brought a lawsuit 20 against the Department of Interior because of the 21 continued delays in the transfer of the Ward Valley land 22 from the Bureau of Land Management to the State. The suit 23 questions the reasoning for the delays and indicates that l

l 24 Interior has neither the authority nor the expertise to s

( \

(_)

t j 25 review the proposed low-level waste disposal facility.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

7 1 And finally, I think we were all sorry to hear 2 that Carl Johnson, the administrator of Technical Programs

[vw) 3 for the Agency of Nuclear Projects for the State of 4 Nevada, retired from State service on February 28th, 1997.

5 We've all enjoyed dealing with Carl over the years and 6 he's brought us many valuable insights. I think he will 7 be sorely missed in the discussions in the future.

8 I have no other items of current interest. Do 9 any of my colleagues have any comments that they wish to 10 make?

11 (No audible response. )

12 If not, let's proceed to the first item on our 13 agenda, namely, a meeting with the directors of the O

'-- 14 Division of Waste Management and the Spent Fuels Project 15 Office, discussing priorities for their respective 16 divisions. And I believe that Margaret Federline will 17 lead off discussing the Division of Waste Management 18 Priorities.

19 Margaret, it's always a pleasure to have you 20 here, as you know.

21 MS. FEDERLINE: Thank you very much. I wanted 22 to thank you for inviting here to discuss our priorities.

23 John Greeves is sorry that he can't be here to discuss 24 this, and I'm going to be reflecting John's views this

(~h

( ,) 25 morning. Carl Paperiello is out of town and so John is i

NEAL R. GROSS  !

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR;BERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

1 acting for Carl and had another commitment in that. So I l

l ,

,s 2 appreciate the opportunity to meet with you this morning.

l ( )

3 The purpose of our meeting today is to discuss i

4 with you -- I'd like this to be an informal discussion if 1 l t

5 at all possible. Please stop me at any time and we can I 6 discuss any particular item in depth. But what we would 7 like to do is set in place a process each year where John )

8 or I have an opportunity to talk to you about what we see .

l 9 our priorities are for that year.

10 We always read with interest your priorities 11 that you send to the Commission, and of course we l 12 responded to you with a letter indicating our desire to 13 meet with you and talk about it. But we just feel it will

'l

'- 14 establish a firmer basis for planning if we come and talk l

l 15 about our priorities. You'll have an opportunity to ask 16 us questions and we can discuss them in this sort of 17 setting.

1 18 What I wanted to touch on today -- I know you 19 realize that our program is rather broad: high-level 20 waste, low-level waste, decommissioning uranium recovery, l 21 and we're actually embarking on some activities providing 22 technical assistance to DOE. And so I wanted to just give 23 you just some very quick highlights of what we see our 24 priorities are in each of these areas, and then Charlie n

( ,) 25 Haughney will be with you just after I speak, to discuss

( 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

9 1 the important priority activities in their program area.

,g, 2 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Margaret, you are going to

('~') 3 speak more about those other activities?

4 MS. FEDERLINE: Yes. Yes, I will be 5 highlighting each area and --

6 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Oh, fine.

I 7 MS. FEDERLINE: -- just touching it. Some i 8 areas I think you've been more involved in and may want 9 less detail on, but we can certainly work that out as we 10 go along. l l

11 As I prepared for this briefing there were 12 some sort of guiding thoughts that I wanted to share with ,

l 13 you first, and~I'm sure you have reactions to these j r%

i i

\/ 14 thoughts.

15 John and I really feel that the interactions 16 with ACNW have been very valuable and we appreciate the 17 time that you spent. Your letters are very detailed and 18 elearly you do focus on what we are doing in our program, 19 and it's very useful to us -- the feedback that we get 20 from you.

21 One suggestion that I'd like to consider is 22 the possibility of the Branch Chiefs having an opportunity 23 to meet with you after 3etters have been dispatched and we 24 have an opportunity to look at them, or after we send you

(%

( ,) 25 a letter if there are some questions that you have.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234M33 WASHINGTON. Dr. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

10 1 We believe that more informal dialogue once fs 2 the letters get put in place so that we clearly understand

( ~')

, 3 when you raise an issue in a letter -- we want to 4 understand the background behind that, and you know, how 5 we could approach it in a better way. So I'm just 6 throwing that out on the table as an idea.

7 I know you have a very busy schedule. You 8 have fewer meetings than you've had in the past and we're 9 not looking to take a great deal of time. But 10 occasionally with letters, it might be valuable to have a 11 15 or 20 minute discussion just to make sure we clearly 12 understand what you've been telling us.

13 The timing of interactions is also very C\

14 important to our product development, and I'm sure it's a l 15 great sense of frustration to you and your staff. We 16 frequently get items in that have very short turnaround l

17 time or something is published in the Federal Register and l

18 we have to get comments back within 60 days which means 19 going up through the commission and whatnot.

l l 20 So we're hoping that if we can sort of look l

l

! 21 ahead to what we see coming in the year, there are still I

l 22 going to be those times when we have to move quickly in 23 order to get things out, and we'd like to work out a way 24 that we can involve you at the right time in the process,

(%

( ,/ 25 even though our timeframe is very quick and we might want 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 11 1 to do as I suggest -- discussions with the Branch Chiefs -

(~g 2 - maybe just a 15 or 20 minute discussion, not a real

() 3 formal presentation or something. But you know, that's j i

4 another thing I'd like to discuss with you.

5 Certainly our emphasis -- we feel this year i 6 the emphasis on advanced planning and coordination has 7 been very good. The working through a single point of 8 contact on both sides is very effective, for us at least, i

9 and we'd like to continue that.

10 That's not to say that of course, you're free l

11 to talk to anybody on our staff that you would like to 12 talk to, but it's best for us from a management standpoint 13 if we at least have a point of contact that things get  ;

e,,>

f )

\# 14 passed through so that we can coordinate among the 15 branches and with other activities in the Division.

16 So we think that's working pretty well and 17 would like to continue that.

18 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right. I'd think we'd 19 certainly still like to have that flexibility, but I'd 20 just like to say that having Bob as a single point source 21 has worked out very, very well. I think he's a very 22 effective person to have in that particular position, and 23 it's worked extremely well from our viewpoint.

l 24 MS. FEDERLINE: Good. Well, we appreciate

()

(_/ 25 that. And again, it's not to, you know, frustrate any 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 12 l 1 conversation with the rest of the staff, but frequently l fs 2 another person on the staff may be off on another project. i l i ) I l

l \' j/

l 3 It's something that Robert can handle and we don't have to l l 4 bring in the other technical staff.

l l

5 Of course we all recognize the resource -

6 limitations. You have resource limitations; we have l

l l 7 resource limitations. And we continue on a daily basis to l

! 8 prioritize and reprioritize, you know, shifting staff from l

9 one thing to another. j 10 So you know, I'm sure there's frustration on 11 your side when you would like to look at something in a 1

12 particular meeting and we say, well, because of some other '

l 13 deliverable that that staff member has to work on, they l

G 5 4

~/ 14 won't be available for that meeting.

l 15 But we just want to assure you that we're l

16 trying to do our best and you know, anything that we can 17 do to work that out more smoothly, you know, of course l

18 we're willing to try it.

19 I think this has been particular effective on ,

l 20 the volcanism exchange, at least in my mind. We feel that l 21 we ought to agree on a clear purpose and objective for our l

l

22 interactions with you before we go into the interaction- -

1 l

i 23 that this is a part as we negotiate the times for the 24 meetings, that we also ought to negotiate a clear

{~h

(_,) 25 objective for the meetings.

l NEAL R. GIUDSS '

i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RH J.DE ISLAND AVE., N W. I l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l

l 13 l 1 I think we did that in the volcanism area. We 2 had a number of calls back and forth where we discussed --

) '

3 we tried to explain to you what we were trying to 4 accomplish with DOE and whc.t role we saw that ACNW could-5 play in this,.and to me that was very effective.

6 It brings all the parcies to bear on moving )

I 7 these problems ahead, and I think that's a very effective  ;

8 way. So if that's agreeable with you we'd like to focus 9 on establishing objectives for the meeting. Both your 10 objectives and our objectives which, you know, may be I 11 slightly different based on what the Commission's asked 12 you to do at any particular time.

13 So anyway, before we get st arted those were 14 just a few ideas I wanted to throw out. I'm sure you have 15 your own ideas and we can discuss those as we walk through 16 the program.

17 I think the program area that you're certainly 18 most familiar with is the high-level waste program. Our  !

19 major activities in that area of course are: developing 20 reasonable and implementable regulations by working with 21 EPA, as well as implementing EPA's regulation in our 22 requirements.  !

23 Our Total System Performance Assessment which 24 is our independent methodology for reviewing DOE's

() 25 performance assessment, as well as the technical 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

14 1 integration -- we've tried to put a lot of emphasis this

l 14 and a number of requests have come in.

15 Now, the two I'm going to talk about here 16 relate to our current authority. You were aware of the 17 incidental -- the development of criteria for incidental 18 wastes at Hanford back in the early '90s, and we've had a 19 request from Hanford.

20 When the original criteria were put in place 21 they were put in place for the single-shell tanks, and so 22 Hanford has come back and asked us to review DOE's 23 methodology for classification of the processed tank 24 wastes under the circumstances they're using them now. We

,9

'( ) ,

25 have prepared a Commission Paper on that.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

52 1 They did a performance assessment. The Center

,y 2 was involved in reviewing the performance assessment, and

( )

x_/

3 we're going up to the Commission right now with a 4 recommendation about, you know, what we feel about the  ;

i 5 classification of the material as incidental waste.

6 We've also had a request from Savannah River.

I 7 We're developing a reimbursable agreement right now to i

8 work on this activity. They want to dispose of residual 9 waste in the tanks, and so this would be a different 10 application of the incidental waste criteria. j l

11 They were developed for the processed tank i 12 waste, but this could actually be the application of the 1

13 criteria to the residual waste in the tanks themselves.  !

cm l

(' l

-)

14 So we're going to have to look carefully as to whether the 15 criteria as they were developed, apply in this case.

16 Our plan is to prepare a Commission Paper for 1

17 any changes to the criteria that might be necessary and to l 18 conduct a review, and of course, issue a letter to DOE 19 after the Commission has had chance to review this topic.

20 We're proposing that we would be willing to come and give 21 you a status on these projects in May, if that would be of 22 interest to you.

1

23 CHAIRMAN POMEROY

We might need to slip that 24 a little.

,/ y

( ,) 25 MS. FEDERLINE: Okay, that's fine. I mean, we 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

(

53 1 will work with you based on our time commitments to

,x 2 present it when you need it. l l \

'~';

\

t 3 That was all I had prepared to say. I think l

4 I've probably taken a little more than my time. I 5 apologize to Charlie.

6 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you, Margaret. It's j l

7 extremely interesting, as always. I'd like to ask my l

8 colleagues if anybody has any further questions of 9 Margaret?  ;

10 If not, than you very much, Margaret. i 11 MS. FEDERI INE : Thank you for having us.

12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I believe our next speaker 13 is Charles Haughney from the Spent Fuels Project Office of

,7 I 3 V 14 NMSS. I'd like to thank you for coming down and giving us 15 this briefing.

1 16 MR. HAUGHNEY: Well, I'd like to thank you, 17 Mr. Chairman, for taking the interest. I tend to get a 18 dry throat, so if you'll indulge me for a moment.

19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Certainly.  !

l 20 MR. HAUGHNEY: My name is Charlie Haughney.

1 21 I'm Deputy Director of the Spent Fuel Project Office and l

22 have been since its inception a little less than two years i i

23 ago. I might mention that we've got a new Director, Bill j 24 Kane, who had been the Deputy Regional Administrator at 7s C 25 Region 1 for a number of years -- is now on board and down 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

54 i i here.

- 2 He regrets he can't be with us today but he's  !

3 on a. mission of some importance. He's gone out to an l I

4 inspection exit meeting that we have'at one of the cask ,

l 5 designers -- Sierra Nuclear Corporation, which is out in ,

l 6 California -- and we've also taken time to inspect some of

-7 the metal fabricators that are working on the steel l

8 components for the cask. At any rate, he's out west.

9 If you look at us in the organization, the

10. Spent Fuel Project Office is kind of at a Division-sized 11 group. We're up to about 54 people now and we report j i

l 12 directly to the office director, Carl Paperiello.  !

s 13 The intent was that we would be around for a wherein 14 few years -- you know, say three to five years --

15 we would license the former multipurpose canister and then i i

16 clean up some backlog of other activities in storage and l l

17 transportation regulation, and then blend back into the j i

18 staff, much like some project offices that have been l 19 created in the past.

20 What of course has happened is that the MPC 21 went away for budgetary reasons on the part of Energy 22 Department decisions, and the vacuum's been more than 23 filled by commercial casework and certain other i

24 activities; 25 And today what I had hoped to do was to talk NEAL R. GROSS COURT FtEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

l 55 l 1 to you about several topics and issues that are a little

) <, w\

2 more generic rather than the particular licensing matters 1

\

V 3 that we're dealing with. And perhaps mention a couple of l

4 them that may be eligible for a more detailed interaction l

)

5 with the committee in the future. And I think -- we'd be 6 flexible on the timing but I think they're the kinds of I

7 topics you may want to look at.

8 And so if Drew Persinko would put up the )

9 second slide, the very first topic is just one of those. l l

10 This is burnup credit. .

i 11 Presently, in storage and transport cask l

12 applications the criticality analysis uses the so-called j 13 fresh fuel assumption. That is, that the fissile I

[ ) \

l 14 materi:' U-235 concentrations are the same as they were j l

15 when it was built at the fuel fabrication plant. And i 16 that's very conservative, but in criticality safety, 17 ,particularly for devices that are going to be in the l 1

l 18 public domain, it's I think, an appropriate conservatism. j l

l 19 But as criticality analysis has progressed, 1 20 there's been this notion that, why don't we try to take 21 credit for the fuel burnup, for the decrease in the 22 actinide concentrations, perhaps even eventually --

j 23 although that's not at this stage -- for the buildup and I

24 fission product poisons -- the long lived ones?

i /'N I (_,) 25 So at any rate, we have a topical report that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

56 1 DOE submitted nearly two years ago, May '95, that we've

,e3 2 been reviewing, that would grant credit for the depletion

\'~)

3 of actinides, and it also takes into account the PU-239 4 and 241 baildup that does occur in the fuel. And we've 5 been in, really a licensing review of that document.

6 I might eay that our first round of queutions 7 went out -- oh, I can't even remember the exact date now -

8 - but DOE has had them back in their court for over a 9 year, and we're about to get the response. And the 10 response is going to be a complete rewrite of the topical 11 and a substantial rewrite of most of the reference 12 documents that were used to back it up.

13 So we're sort of in a waiting mode at this N,

Kl 14 stage. And the notion I had that you might consider, is ,

1 15 that at some stage in this review when the review gets a 16 little more settled, it might be something you would want 17 to take a look at.

18 And certainly you could wait until we've 19 written an SER and we could come ard talk to you, but what 20 I had in mind -- and this is just something I've suggested 21 here and I haven't talked to DOE about -- is perhaps it 22 might be getting to the time when you might want to hear a 23 presentation from the Energy Department if that would be 24 appropriate and within, you know, the normal activities

,e 3

( ,) 25 that you would conduct.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(2K) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

57 1 And then perhaps we could tell you what our 1 l

l l

l gg 2 concerns were and then later on as we get closer to the i ! i

~

3 review, we would come in and talk to you about why we 4 think it's acceptable. l l

5 I might mention that I expect this burnup i

6 credit issue may take additional phases. For instance, I l

7 the notion of the fission product poison credit is  !

8 something we expect DOE to look at later, and ultimately 9 there is some talk about taking credit for burnup in the 10 repository in terms of criticality analysis. But those 11 are, you know, over the horizon at this stage.

12 So that's burnup credit. The next thing we 13 haven't started yet, but we're pretty much in agreement .

{'h l Y- 14 that we're going to do it. And that would be to develop 15 in the first stage, a pilot assessment -- one cast 16 design, one site -- and see if we can do some sort of a 17 risk assessment for storage.

18 Part 72 is a deterministic regulation. It's a 19 little bit performance-based in some areas, but it's 20 certainly not risk-based. You know, it was written in the 21 early '80s and it's a deterministic regulation. But we 22 get a lot of questions about just how risky are the l 23 handling activities or even just leaving the materials 24 sitting on the storage pad for years, these kinds of n

( ,) 25 things. And right now our answers are fraraed in 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

58 1 classic, deterministic sort of framework.

l g- 2 MEMBER GARRICK: Excuse me, Charlie.

l i

L l V 3 MR. HAUGHNEY: Yes sir.

i 1

4 MEMBER GARRICK: You have a kind of a horse i

5 and cart problem here, it appears. The material that 6 you're now generating for guidance and upgrades and 7 regulations and so forth, it would appear that that would 8 be a great opportunity for the risk assessment to be the 9 basis for what you do in the future, especially given the 10 Chair's often-spoken interest in some real movement taking 11 place within the Agency in regard to risk-informed, 12 performance-based regulation.

13 This looks to me like an idea example, and I

,m l

!\ >) 14 guess I was struck by the fact that the risk assessment i

15 hasn't even been done yet and is sort of -- doesn't appear 16 to be on the critical path as far as generation of i' guidance and regulations.

18 MR. HAUGHNEY: Well, the regulations of 19 course, started when Jimmy Carter decided to ban 20 reprocessing, basically, you know, in December of '77 when 21 he issued that Presidential Order. At that time in the 22 old Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch, there was one i 23 person working on spent fuel storage, and there was a lot 24 of pressure to get the rule done.

I (D,) 25 Then over the years, in the '80s there were 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

59 1 mostly the DOE demonstration projects, but even when I got g-w 2 involved in dry storage in 1991, we had four people

'%,l 3 working in the Branch, with all the attendant pressures of 4 trying to get some of these casks licensed so plants 5 wouldn't shut down.

6 I think I agree with you, but as a practical 7 matter we had to kind of live with what we had. And we're 8 catching up in a variety of areas. I would say that this 9 is one of them. And it is -- the cart is out in front of 10 the horse in terms of modern thinking; there's no question i

11 about it. i l

12 But now we've got the staff -- and that's just

,_. 13 happened in the last few months -- to start to work on

' ') 14 some of these. In fact, I have a PRA practitioner in my l

l l

1 15 group. We didn't have one till a few months ago. So it's j 16 awkward but it's a fact.

17 At any rate, we've been working with the ,

1 18 Office of Regulatory Research. I think this effort, at i 19 least at the pilot stage, will have a substantial amount 20 of effort put into it by PRA experts from within the staff 21 -- not just mine, but certainly Research and perhaps NRR -

22 - and we can keep you posted on this as we make progress 23 on it. And I'm anxious to see what the results are. I 24 think it will help me in many situations.

,em

(_,) 25 DOE has given us a topical report for a 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 60 l

1 central interim storage site that right now -- a facility, 2 not a site -- that's fictional. It doesn't have a home.

r~ }

\_)

3 And we are in the, you know, just in the pre-application I

4 phases of getting ready to receive this document; it's due I in, in June of this year. l 5

6 And their hope is that through legislation 7 they'll get a site, and that they'll be off to a head 8 start in terms of handling issues that this facility 9 topical report would give them, you know, a leg up on the 10 actual licensing proceeding.

i 11 And we'll do the best we can to try to review 12 this thing and give them accurate comments. But keeping 23 in mind that it's not a real site yet and we've got a lot

/,'N t i

'l 14 of pressures from power plants that need things handled by 15 us.

16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Is this where, what I would 17 call contingency planning, comes into the foreground in 18 regard to -- if S 104 and so forth come into being, all of 19 that activity would flow through your office, essentially, 20 in this area? Is that correct?

21 MR. HAUGHNEY: Yes sir. Yes, we would have 22 the lead for the licensing, and so this is a kind of a 23 preamble to that. That's the way I look at it.

24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right.

f's

(.,) 25 MR. HAUGHNEY: If this thing just continues by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

61 ;

1 itself, presumably we'll end up writing a safety  ;

2 evaluation report and that will be on the books, and then. i 3 an applicant somewhere could simply reference it at some f l

4 future time.  ;

5 But I think ideally, if the S 104 would l i

6 proceed quickly, you'd see a shift into actual licensing 7 fairly quickly. And the advantage to DOE is, this keeps i

8 the people that they've got sort of captured, working on 9 this dry storage issue while they, hopefully, wait for 10 their legislation. They seem pretty serious about it. l 11 The next thing of interest - and we're just 12 beginning this so I don't have any real comments on it; 13 just the fact that we have a topical report application l 14 that we recently received from the Department -- and it's 15 for a dry transfer system. This is a system that could 16 shift fuel from one cask to another without having to go j l

17 back through a spent fuel pool.  !

18 And you know, it would have the attendant 19 shielding and handling equipment and air handling 20 equipment. And so thic is a topical report design review, j 21 and presumably it could be installed at reactor sites or l

22 an interim atorage site or at Yucca Mountain or, you know, i

23 virtually anyplace where this sort of handling would be 24 necessary.

25 Again, I don't have any particular comments on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSC9%RS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

62 1 it now because we're in the early stages of it. It's been fx 2 long-promised and it is here.

(V) 3 Now, there is some guidance that we have 4 worked on and reade some progress on. This is of keen 5 interest to all senior managers in the NRC, including the i

6 Commission. The first is a set of new inspection 7 procedures for inspections of activities at fabrication 8 shops, design agents, and then the reactor sites or 9 central storage.

10 And it's kind of the typical, birth-to-death 11 inspection program, starting with the design, QA 12 activities, working through fabrication, construction --

13 either at a vendor shop or on-site -- pre-operational

/ \

\

' ] 14 testing, dry runs, then actual fuel loading, storage and l

l 15 surveillance, and on towards decommissioning. We still i 16 have to write the decommissioning procedures.  ;

i 17 And then we've also issued an inspection 18 manual chapter that tells about how to do the various 19 procedures and with what frequency -- the typical things 20 you'll find in an inspection manual chapter. So those 21 have been issued. They've been field tested in the 22 Regional offices, comments received and issued. NRR's had 23 their shot at them, and I think they are a pretty good set 24 of documents.

(p,/ 25 We had some procedures in the past that were 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 l 63 i

I 1 written in the '80s, but it was kind of like Swiss cheese.

7s 2 They covered certain topics very well and others there 3 were, you know, there were gaps, so we've plugged those.

4 The standard review plans -- we've got a set l

5 of four and maybe five that we're working on. The first l

6 one just got issued and that's a standard review plan for 7 reviewing a cask; not with a site but just a cask by 8 itself. And that's a storage cask.

9 The second one, which is out for public l I

10 comment and we're in the resolution phase of that, is one l

11 that would be particularly useful if S 104 gets done, 12 because it's a facility, a dry storage facility standard i p

13 review plan. And we're getting quite a bit of activity on

/ i

-' 14 the comments on that.

15 We're also working on two standard review 16 plans in the transportation area. One would be for spent 17 fuel transport casks, and the second one is for all other 4

18 Type B packagings that we would regulate: radiography 19 cameras, those kinds of things. Large gauges. Anything 20 with a big source in it.

21 Those are in draft -- they are the sort of 22 thing the staff and some contractor activity from i 23 Livermore -- we're still writing the first round drafts.

i 24 But they'll go out for public comment as NUREGs and then

?m

() ,

25 we'll resolve those and issue them in final -- when I say 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

1 final I' anticipate every couple of years we'll be i

2 updating. They'll never really, you know, stay cast in O 3 concrete.

i 4 And finally, we're considering writing a 5 standard review plan for the-so-called, dual-purpose cask:

6 combination of storage and transport. Really, we'll have i

7 that covered in the earlier documents but there may be j t

8 some advantage to putting them into one and then  :

l l t

9 contrasting and comparing the differences in the two rules  ;

i i

10 and how you might handle that from a licensing standpoint.  !

11 And that would be the last one; we haven't started that j 12 one yet. )

l 13 All right. I want to talk to you about l- 14 something that troubles me the most, and that's the middle 15 bullet. If you were to thumb through the dockets for the l l

l 16 cask designers and some places, the reactors, ana look at i

17 the inspection activity over the last couple of years, I l 18 think you'd be all of a sudden saying, haven't I read this 19 before? This sounds like Zimmer; it sounds like Marble 20 Hill.

21 You know, it's the old design OA problems we 22 used to see in the late '70s and through the mid '80s.

23 It's on a much smaller scale. These things don't have, i

24 you know, Class I E circuits and redundant. piping systems,

() 25 but we're getting problems with radiography, with i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l i '

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

4 (202) 234-4433 WAS".tNGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

65 1 dimensional tolerances, steps being missed, using improper gy 2 materials, using materials you can't trace -- just all

( ) '

\m /

? kinds of things.

4 And in some cases we've taken escalated 5 enforcement actions. In fact, we've got one vendor that's 6 -- design work has stopped due to a confirmatory action 7 letter. There's another one that's under a demand for 8 information. I'd rather not name names here; I don't 9 think it's appropriate. This is more to give you a flavor 10 of something I epent a great deal of time on.

11 I think the issue is troubling because these 12 devices are passive and they tend to -- once they're

,_s 13 loaded they sit on the pad and you rely on the -- not only (i 'a

'- '/ 14 the design which is approved through the licensing 15 process, but the construction.

16 If you're going to make the shield a certain 1

17 thickness it better be that thickness. If you're going to 18 construct the seals on it or do the seal welds if it's a 19 welding closure, you're counting on a certain welding l I

20 technique and weld rod material.

21 That all reflects up into the structural 22 design so the device can withstand a tipover accident or 23 whatever else is in the licensing basis. So if it isn't i

l l 24 built right in some respects, if you don't have redundant

[h

'xs ,/ 25 trains and pumps and class I instruments and all the other 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 things, it seems to me you're really out there in terms of ,

l 3 2 whether the device can continue to perfonn its safety I

(

) l sl l 3 function. .

l l

4 Now, I'm trying to get this message clear to l l

5 all the industrial participants that are involved in this, 1

6 but I must tell you that I don't think I've succeeded as I 7 of today. But things like demands for information that 8 stopped design work for months on end, they're getting 9 people's attention. l 10 Frankly, it's a very disappointing thing. You j 11 know, this spent fuel storage is crucial to keeping these 1

12 plants running and it seems to me it's the sort of thing 13 that ought to get more focused attention if that's going

'- 14 to succeed. So far, too many problems as far as I'm i 15 concerned.

16 The last item, I think I may have mentioned in i

17 a meeting a year or so ago --

18 MEMBER HINZE: Excuse me a moment. I 19 MR. HAUGHNEY: Yes sir. I l

l 20 MEMBER HINZE: Do you have all the tools for l

l 21 enforcement and review and concern? )l l

l l 22 MR. HAUGHNEY: I'd say there's one tool l

l 23 missing from the toolbox. We're in pretty good shape but 24 we're looking for additional enforcement options,

'( ) 25 particularly in terms of civil penalties against vendors. ,

1 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

67 l i

1 And we're in the early stages of preparing a rulemaking 1

l 2- that would go out and address that issue in a formal lO 3- rulemaking proceeding. I think --

4 MEMBER HINZE: How long is that going to'take?-

5- MR. HAUGHNEY: Well, in my experience, the I 6 most effective, major rulemaking proceedings take about 7 two years, and typically a bit longer.

8 MEMBER HINZE: Yes.

9 MR. HAUGHNEY: Actually, we have several other 10 rulemaking activities that we're embarking upon as well.

1 11 A lot of them are -- I call them cleanup items -- you l' 12 know, as we get experienced with this rule we find that 13 certain sections perhaps are not as clear, maybe certain l\

14 topics aren't addressed very well But this one is one 1

1 l 15 that's occurred to us really, primarily within the last 16 year that we feel we need to do somathing.

17 MEMBER HINZE: How do you interact with DOE on 18 this in terms of possibly moving towards an interim 19 storage facility.

20 MR. HAUGHNEY: In terms of whether we should 21 find vendors or you mean -- i 22 MEMBER HINZE: Find vendors and reviewing the l

l 23 designs and the construction, the fabrication, et cetera.

j 24 MR. HAUGHNEY: Well, if DOE gets a central I 25 storage site, they are going to be an applicant and NFAL R. GROSS COURT RFPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER' 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i

i

. _ _ _ a

68 1 eventually a licensee if they succeed. So you know, in 1

f3 2 terms of the every day dealings with licensing, we'll

( ) l x_/ I 3 treat them like any other applicant. '

4 Now what I don't know, and this is a little 5 bit of a legal trivia question I think, is whether we have 6 the authority to literally fine another Federal agency. I 7 must tell you that I just don't know that, but I can get 8 you the answer.

9 We can do all kinds of things with 10 confirmatory orders and demands for information that in 11 effect can become more powerful than the kind of fines 12 that grab headlines. So I think we'll be in pretty good 13 shape.

I\ ') 14 The other thing is I sometimes tell people, of 15 course this will be Bill Kane's pen, but here's the thing 16 that signs the license, right, that stays in the pocket 17 until we're all ready.

18 So I was going to mention the last item. You 19 may know that there's two ways you can get regulatory 20 approval to use dry storage. One is a site-specific 21 license, which has been in part 72 since it was written.

22 In fact, that would be used for the DOE central interim l 23 storage.

24 The second way applies to reactor licensees.

,o

(,) 25 All reactor licensees have a general license in part 72 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..__ . _ . _ . _ _ .

69 i t

1 that tells-clem you can do dry storage on your site  !

i 2 provided you use a certified cast, that is, one that's O 3 been certified through rule making, and it's listed at the l

4 back of this appendix.  !

E 5 Then they have got a bunch of other stuf f tt,y l, 6 have got to do. They have got to do check calculations l 1

7 that_they are within the dose limits of the rule, and make l 8 sure they are in the natural phenomena envelopes and 9 things like that. In fact, to implement the general 10 license, Palisades showed me the engineering files that 11 would fill a large corner of this room just to do all the I 12 50.59, the valves and everything else they have to do. )

13 The reason I am mentioning this, this 14 incidently, this regulatory procedure is pretty unusual, l l

15 but it was spawned by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of l 16 1982, which basically told the NRC develop methods of 17 generically approving cast designs for use nationwide so l 18 that you don't need to hold site specific hearings. You 19 know, the classic licensing proceedings that would be 20 held.

l 21 So we have gone off and done that, but it's a 22 controversial matter at some reactor sites. There are l

23 numbers of the members of the public that are very very j 24 upset that they don't have the classic hearing 25 opportunity. In fact, in Michigan, we were taken all the l

! NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTFf'$ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHJ.)E 1SLAND AVE., N.W.

l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433

70

1 way to the Supreme Court on this, and we prevailed. The 2 Michigan attorney general's suit was overturned.

f f

?

3 ~But cards and letters come in several times a-l

[ 4 week where people still-object to this arrangement. I i 5 mentioned it to you because this and the other

6 controversies involving dry storage take staff time away 7 from doing some of these other activities. Letters go i

j 8 into the chairman and they get a lot of attention. It's 9 part of life in the NRC, but it's very very intense in i

10 this shop. I haven't seen it change. That's the topics I j 11 wanted to address this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

d i 12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you, Charlie. Does a

1 i 13 anybody have any comments?

O 14 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I just want to lead l

15 with a concern. I am really concerned that you have a 16 situation here where you are writing inspection I 17 procedures, and standard review plans and regulations, and 18 asking for enforcement latitude, and you don't know what ,

19 the risk is. I really think that a program such as this ,

20 at the time we're in, given the Commission's search for t

21 pilot applications of risk-informed performance-based  ;

22 regulation, that I am very surprised. This looks to me 23 like an ideal opportunity that's being blown.

24 MR. HAUGHNEY: I do not accept the fact that 25 it's being blown. I can't remake the past.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

71 l l

1 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I am not talking about

,y 2 the past. I am talking about what you are doing now. You

\% j) 3 are generating a tremendous amount of material that i

l 4 licensees have to comply with today, right now. It seems 5 to me you are not -- and I get the sanse from your 6 presentation that the PRA is kind of a backburner second 7 order activity.

8 MR. HAUGHNEY: I didn't say that. It is not a 9 back-burner activity, because the regulations that have 10 been written, part 72, you are right, this is ancient 11 times as far as the way we think about these issues now.

12 It's disturbing to see such a rule based process when the 13 rules were generated at a time when the thinking was

( )

k/ 14 substantially different. The real opportunity here is for 15 a risk-based addressing of these issues. That's really 16 all I want to say.

17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Charlie, can I --

18 MR. HAUGHNEY: Yes, please, sir.

19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: -- Interject there. It's 20 my understanding, as you say, that if there is something 21 that arises out of S104, that it will be licensed under 22 part 72. Is that correct?

23 MR. HAUGHNEY: Yes, sir..

24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY. And part 72 has many f\ It's a deterministic rule of course, as

() 25 aspects to it.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

72 1 you have said. For example, one part of it says that we

,s 2 from consideration of the geologic and seismic I\~'e) 3 characteristics of a given site, that we have to use 4 appendix A.

5 MR. HAUGHNEY: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Appendix A of course has 7 been revised, or at least has been changed for new plans 8 or considerations. Is there any plan in your office to 9 make any rulemaking changes in part 72 that would reflect 10 those changes that have taken place in other?

11 MR. HAUGHNEY: Yes, and perhaps look at some 12 even intermediate sort of seismic criteria that are 13 between the old appendix A to part 100 and the new one.

,o

' ws]

14 But it's on our list. It's one of the rule making 15 activities we hope to embark on.

16 It may take a certain amount of confirmatory 17 research before we actually get to the proposed rule 18 stage.

19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Does that fit time-wise 20 with what might happen in terms of an interim storage 21 facility?

22 MR. HAUGHNEY: Well, it may because of the 23 unpredictability of both. But I think that this, to 24 answer your question more specifically, the rulemaking rm

() 25 activity for seismic is about our longest term rule making 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 project. I would say that to be honest, that's at least a l 73 2 five-year effort. So if DOE gets the go-ahead soon, they  !

i i Q,,.l 3 are going to be stuck with the existing regulatory 4 framework.

5 CHAIEMAN POMEROY: Okay. Bill?

6 MEMBER HINZE: Well, my question was a little 7 more specific than John's generic question. That is, we - l 8 -

9 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: But not more emphatic.

10 MEMBER HINZE: Probably not. I ara wondering 11 what kind of a timeline your division has on the PRA. We 12 see the PRA such an integral part of the site assessment 13 at Yucca Mountain. Yet we are moving into the possibility

/ s

(' -) 14 of having an interim storage at Yucca Mountain without 15 having similar kinds of regulations and guidance in 16 effect. What kind of timeline does your organization have 17 to bring this to fruition?

18 MR. HAUGHNEY: The first PRA I discussed a few 19 minutes ago, we hope to have done within the year. At 20 that point, we have got to decide do we need a specific 21 PRA for each site, for each cast, just how big of a 22 problem it is. I am not ready to answer that question 23 today. Maybe we'll be better able to answer it when we're 24 70 percent through the pilot. I don't know yet. But gS

() 25 that's a very important question.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBEF.d 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

74 1 As to whether or not we would ever rewrite 2 part 72 and make it a risk-based rule, I am just not ready 3 to answer'that question.

j' 4 MEMBER HINZE: Is that under consideration at 5 this point?

6 MR. HAUGHNEY: To be perfectly honest, only

7 intellectually.

l 8 MEMBER HINZE: Okay. That's honest. l 9 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: George?

l l

10 MR. HAUGHNEY: Yes, sir.

I 11 MEMBER HORNRBERGER: Again, a follow-up 12 question perhaps even more specific, and maybe less I 13 emphatic, I'm not sure. Just trying to understand, you 14 mentioned for example that you had real concerns on your j 15 bullet on desigrier/f abricator problems.

16 MR. HAUGHNEY: Yes.

17 MEMBER HORNRBERGER: Even just as a simple 1

j 18 example, you said tolerance is on machining shields. How i

19 does one go about deciding exactly what the tolerances i l

20 have to be?  !

21 MR. HAUGHNEY: Well, the licensee will propose l l 22 a dimension. The dimension may or may not be critical to 23 a safety function, but in these casts it often is. They

) 24 will put a tolerance on it. We'll consider che tolerances 25 as to whether they are appropriate. Then all that, will be 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

75 1 reflected in the SAR that the applicant writes, and the 2 SER that we write, j 3 Now at that stage, is where my problems start.

1 4 Because at that stage, the designer needs to write'a l 5 fabrication spec. and a bunch of fabrication drawings that i 6 will contain these critical attributes that are needed to 7 build the thing properly. We're finding that at times, 8 there's breakdowns at that level, either something isn't 9 written, or it's written so vaguely that the fabricator in 10 the field would have an understandable amount of leeway.

11 But then that gets him in trouble with the licensing 12 basis.

13 MEMBER HORNRBERGER: But that's my question.

O 14 I follow all that and I follow the problem. I am just 15 curious as to how you decide whether the tolerance is 16 appropriate, if you don't know what the risk is in terms 17 of the performance.

18 MR. HAUGHNEY: Well, an example say on the 19 thickness of the containment shell, it has to have a 20 certain amount of performance. It's usually limited by 21 the drop. It may have some effect on the shield as well.

22 The designer will specify a minimum thickness. Now that 23 has to be in sync with their ability to literally buy 24 steel, you know, of that dimension that perhaps has the 25 ASME pedigree if it's necessary for that safety function.

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

76 1

1 So I don't know if that example helps, but l 1

l 2 that's where we get into that issue.

7-) +

l t

x_) i 3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Are there other questions? I 4 If not, I would like to thank you very much for coming

]

5 down.

6 MR. HAUGHNEY: Thank you, sir.

7 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: We would like to stay in 8 touch if you don't mind, over the next year or so. We 9 would like to see more of what happens, and when the S104 10 comes into being life is going to be very different for 11 you. We would like to follow some of that.

12 MR. HAUGHNEY: All right, yes, sir. We will 13 be glad to do that.

,r \

\ }

Ks' 14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Fine. We're only 20 15 minutes behind schedule. That's not bad. After a break, 16 we're going to look at the options paper for 10 CFR 960, 17 the DOE siting guidelines. I would like to take a 15 18 minute break now and return at 10:35.

19 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the 20 record at 10:23 a.m. and went back on the 21 record at 10:41 a.m.)

22 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Could we take our seats and l 23 reconvene here in just a moment?

24 The next item on our agenda is a discussion (3

( ,) 25 within NMSS on an options paper for 10 CFR 960, siting 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

-. - .-- ...-.. ~ - -.. - _.

.- - -.~.-- .~.- ..~ .--.-.

77 i l

1 guidelines. I would like to say the presenter this

.i i

2 morning will be Mike Lee. This paper has not been O 3 released. As a result of that, there is not room for 4 specific questions here since we can't generate a response l l  !

5 in public. Therefore, the discussion, as I understand it, j l

l 6 will be somewhat more general than we might otherwise 7 have. But we do appreciate your coming down, Mike, and 8 the floor is yours. Thank you.

1 9 MR. LEE: Thank you, and good morning. I 10 would like to point out that Bill Reamer, who is also in 11 the audience, co-authored the paper. He's from the Office 12 of the General Counsel.  !

13 What I would like to do today is provide you l

14 with not only an overview of what's in the options paper {

15 for the Commission's consideration, but also a status of 16 where we are with respect to the comment process right l

17 now, including the staff's comments that are in 18 concurrence as well as what I understand DOE's current 19 schedule is. l 20 so with that in mind, I will provide you with l 21 some background. I'll briefly summarize what the proposed l 22 changes to part 960 are, as we understand them. I would  !

l

!' 23 like to just briefly get into what the policy 1

24 considerations were that the staff used to develop its l 2 l 25 options paper for the Commission review in 1997. I would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REF ORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 j

A

78 1 like to get into how we think the Commission might care to

,y 2 conduct its review process in 1997, as opposed to the

( I v

3 process used in 1984. As I noted earlier, we have some 4 statf level comments that are currently in concurrence.

5 I'll talk to those briefly. Then give you a what's next 6 kind of a slide.

7 So if I could have the next slide. Please, as 8 a matter of background, you all may recall that I guess at 9 the September, 1996, Commission briefing on the status of 10 the DOE program, Dr. Dreyfuss indicated that the DOE plan 11 to release for public comment revisions to 960 last 12 calendar year, and as was the case in 1984, DOE indicated 13 that it would again seek Commission concurrence on the

\- 14 proposed revisions.

15 I might point out that as a condition of its 16 1984 concurrence, the Commission obliged DOE to seek its 17 reconcurrence. So we're happy that they are coming back 18 to us for comment.

19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Mike, it's my understanding 20 that there is no legal requirement for this concurrence.

21 MR. LEE: No. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 22 imposed on DOE the requirement that when it first issue 23 its guidelines, it seek NRC concurrence. However, as a 24 condition of our 1984 concurrence, among other things, we i

(~N l

!, ,/ 25 requested that DOE come back to us should there be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

- - . . - - - - . . - - . _ - - - - ~ . . . . . - - - -- .

1 79 i  !

1 additional revisions to the guidelines in the future. So  ;

2 it's a self-imposed type of deal. j 3 VICP CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Mike, are you going to f 4 say anything about the nature of the' dialogue that went on.  !

1 l 5 to get that concurrence, and whether that's-going to'also ,

'6 occur this time around? f i i l

7 MR. LEE: In the 1984 process? I'11 try to. 'l 8 If I don't scratch your itch, I'm sure I'll hear from you.  :

l '

I 9 (Laughter. ) l l l l 10 MR. LEE: Okay. That being said, in December j l'

11 of last year, DOE announced in the Federal Reaister the 12 availability of the siting guidelines for public comment.

13 At the time, it indicated that it would observe a 60-day 14 comment period, during which there would be one public 15 meeting, which was held in February of 1997 in Las Vegas.

16 At the meeting though, DOE indicated that it 17 planned on extending the comment period an additional'30 l 18 days, which pushed us back to March 17. However, more 19 recently, DOE announced yet a second extension to the 20 public comment period, which will now end on December 16 -

l 21 - I'm sorry, April 16, 19974 I'm tongue-tied, what can I  !

1

22 say.

23 As regards to what are the proposed changes to l

, i

! 24 part 960, overall the revisions being proposed by DOE are l 25 limited to adding a new sub-part to its regulation. This

! NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i

80 1 new sub-part is designated sub-part E. In making this

~

2 amendment, the remaining portion of part 960 would remain

/

>j 3 in tact.

4 For its part, sub-part E would contain a l

5 single qualifying condition for both the post-closure and 6 pre-closure periods performance that Yucca Mountain must 7 meet in order for this site to be found suitable. The 8 qualifying condition in both cases would provide that DOE 9 demonstrate compliance with the site-specific EPA 10 standards promulgated pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 11 1992, as well as NRC's geologic disposal requirements 12 found at part 60.

13 Moreover, in demonstrating compliance, DOE is

,.I

~# 14 expected to conduct a total system performance assessment 15 of the proposed repository system, including consideration 16 of the design as they understand it now, as well as the 17 results of site characterization to date. It would 18 compare the TSPA with the existing standards to determine 19 whether or not the site is suitable.

20 DOE stated that it would not reach a 21 determination on the suitability of the site in the 22 absence of the final promulgation of the EPA standards.

l 23 We'll get into that in another slide in a minute.

24 Moreover, provisions clearly state that DOE recognizes

(_) 25 NRC's jurisdiction over the resolution of differences 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

, . _ _ . . ~ _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ._ . _ _ - . _ . _ . ..._ ._ _ _ _

81

]

1 between the revised siting guidelines and NRC's disposal p - 2 regulations in part'60.

3 DOE has proposed some minor but specific 41 amendments to the body of the existing 960 regulation to 5 discuss how the subpart E requirements would'be 6 implemented. They do a pretty extensive job in the 7 Federal Recister notice talking _about those.

8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Mike, excuse me. But does 9 that mean that if Yucca Mountain were later to be found I 10 unsuitable, that other sites would be judged as far as DOE l

11 was concerned, in terms of the 960 as it exists now? I I

12 MR. LEE: That's correct, and as it would i 1

13 exist if DOE proceeds with completion of the rule making  !

l 14 effort.

15 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right. Still subpart E l

16 would not apply to any other?

l 17 MR. LEE: That's correct. Still rely on the 18 use of the siting criteria to determine the comparative I

19 nature of other sites. The wrinkle in all this is that 20 Congress through the amendments act in 1987 directed DOE 21 just to characterize the Yucca Mountain site and to 22 consider no other sites. So that to a certain extent l

l 23 calls into question the need for the siting guidelines to j

. 1

! 24 begin with.

1

( ~25 As soon as we heard that DOE was going to make 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

_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . - - ___ _ __ . . . . m. , m .

82 1 revisions to their siting guidelines, we'and'our good l fs 2 friends in OGC began to huddle and try to brainstorm  :

3 regarding'the types of things we think we should inform 4 the Commission on.  !

5 As a matter of record, the consistency between  ;

i  ;

! 6 DOE's guidelines and the Commission's repository  ;

i 7 regulations was an important consideration.when the i 8 Commission first concurred on the guidelines in 1984. I I 1

9 mean in case you are not aware of it, part 60 was  !

10 promulgated I think about six months before DOE issued its i

_1 own siting guidelines for public comment. So we had  !

12 already had part 60 in hand, and we used that as a i

13 standard against which we compared our regulation with _

l

\~- -

14 what they were proposing for 960.

, 15 One of the principle criteria for the I 16 Commission's concurrence in 1984 was that the guidelines 17 in 1984 were not in conflict with part 60. In our I

l 18 Commission paper that was recently issued or approved I i

19 guess by the EDO, we went into a little bit of the 20 history, talking about the process that the staff went 21 through in 1984 to review what DOE was doing and the like.

22 There's a table in there as well as some narrative that l

23 sites all the previous SECY papers. We tried to

i. i

! 24 encapsulate that the best we could.

)

25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: In that 1984 concurrence, 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 83 l

l l 1 Mike, there's a statement I believe something like that if l r3 2 the NRC's regulations will prevail, if there is some )

Y.] 3 discrepancy between -- ,

1 l 4 MR. LEE: That's correct. ,

l l 5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: And that's in 960 as it 6 exists today, is that what exists here?

7 MR. LEE: Does it currently exist in 960?

l

! 8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I'm not sure.

9 MR. LEE: Okay. I would have to check. I  !

l i

10 can't recall off the top of my head. However, I know  !

l '

11 stated in the considerations in the current version or in 12 the proposed version, the 1997 version of part 960, DOE 13 more clearly states that this is the case. 1

(~) i

's 14 MR. TOMA: This is John Toma. If I could add, 15 in 1984, there was a lot of things in that, words similar  !

16 but not quite, like qualifying condition, disqualifying 17 condition, potentially adverse condition, favorable 18 condition. We argued back and forth. In this revision l l

19 that they are proposing, they don't get down to that l

20 level.

21 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: That's right. l l

l 22 MR. TOMA: It's one of the reasons why we have i

l

23 less of a debate now than we had back then.

24 MR. LEE: My recollection is in 1984, I think

,m

(_) 25 after our review of the proposed final siting guidelines, 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 l

84 ,

l 1 there was about five general comments we had which l 1

,fe~s 2 decomposed into 13 specific comments that we in DOE worked )

5 N~ l 3 out over a series of months. That led to our Commission I

4 granting concurrence in 1984. I believe one of them was l l

5 the recognition that our requirements would always j l

6 prevail.

7 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you.

8 MR. LEE: Sure. After meeting with OGC, we 9 determined that in 1997, there would be probably about 10 three policy considerations that we think the staff should l

l 11 conEider in determining whether or not it will reconcur at 12 this time. The wrinkle in all this is the EPA standard 13 isn't out.

'/ 14 With that in mind, and also recognizing that 15 part 60 may or may not undergo some revision, we tried to 16 give the Commission some considerations it thought it 17 needed to keep in mind when it sited how it would pursue 18 its review in this year. One of which was that the 19 Commission's consideration of possible revisions to part 20 60 should not be perceived as being placed on the critical 21 path.

22 The second point is the Commission should feel 23 free to revise or modify part 60 as it deems necessary or l

24 appropriate to be consistent with the EPA standards for

(,, 25 Yucca Mountain.

HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433

85 1 The third policy consideration is that the l

l rx 2 Commission should be free to make whatever technical I ix_-)

i l 3 comments are appropriate on DOE's revised siting i

4 guidelines.

l 5 So in advancing the review options for the l i 6 Commission's consideration, we feel that each one of these 1

\

7 policy options is preserved in the four options we  ;

1

! 8 proposed in the paper. Again, the wrinkle is we don't  ;

l l

9 have an EPA standard.

10 With that background in mind, and recognizing I l

11 at least the instruction we had informally, was that the 1

12 Commission liked options with a recommendation. We I l

13 proposed four options for the Commission's consideration.

(' ') 14 These are discussed in detail in the commission paper. I ,

1 15 understand I am not to tell you what our preferred option l l

16 is. I'll just review what the options are briefly. j i

l 17 The first option was to take no action option.

18 Under this option, the Commission would advise DOE that no 19 additional actions are necessary to fulfill any obligation 20 or commitment to obtain Commission concurrence because of 21 developments subsequent to the issuance of the 1984 siting 22 guidelines. Simply stated, is that the guidelines now 23 have been superseded by events. If DOE thinks it needs 24 the options for siting guidelines rather than make a

/"'N

() 25 siting determination, fine, but we feel in many respects NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1

86 1 that's already been established by Congress.

-~ 2 The Commission would note the DOE's amendments

'tJ 3 leave the guidelines to be used to select sites for future 4 characterization of sites other than Yucca Mountain 5 unchanged. Moreover, the Commission's high level waste 6 disposal regulations would provide the basis for any 7 future NRC technical comments on the sufficiency of the I

8 site characterization and adequacy of the waste form in 9 any DOE assessment, evaluation, or recommendation on site 10 suitability. Again, the standard that DOE would be using l l

l 11 ultimately is going to have to be part 60, because that's l

12 what they will be judged against in terms of licensing.

13 The second option for the Commission to l

\ )

N/ 14 consider would be the defer concurrence. Under this 15 option, the Commission would notify DOE that it would 16 defer concurrence on the revised siting guidelines until 17 after the EPA site specific standards for Yucca Mountain 18 and NRC's conforming regulations have been promulgated.

19 Again, we don't have anything against it. There aren't 20 any revised standards against which to judge the siting 21 guidelines against.

22 The third option would be to provide 23 conditional concurrence. Under this option, the 24 Commission would concur on tiie revised siting guidelines

,m

(_) 25 now, absent a revised NRC disposal regulation, but on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2444433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

87 1 condition that the revised guidelines would be conformed r3 2 if necessary to NRC regulations and any future revisions i 4 V

3 to those.

4 So under this option, DOE could advance, but  ;

5 they would have to come back to us after part 60 had been I

6 revised, should it be revised. i 7 Then the final option is an issue "no 8 objection" letter to DOE. This option would have the l

9 Commission state its concerns, if any, that it had no 10 objection to the DOE's use of revised siting guidelines in  !

11 the site suitability determination. It would &lso request 12 that DOE commit to base its site suitability determination i

i 13 on NRC's disposal regulations in future revisions. j s 14 These were the four options that we laid out, 15 recognizing that you could probably mix and match them or 16 come up with your own options.

17 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Clearly, some of those 18 are not mutually exclusive. You could have an option 19 four, could you not, on the basis that you really don't 20 have any conditions. In other words, these are a little 21 bit connected and dependent, especially three and four.

22 MR. LEE: Yes. Next slide, please.

i l 23 In addition to the approach the Commission 24 might take with regard to its reconcurrence commitment, we

/~N

() 25 also thought it important to lay out for the Commission a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N W.

j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l

88 1 process for which it might conduct its reviews in 1997.

- 2 To develop this information, we went back to what was done

( ~s)

\.') in 1984, which again is summarized in the Commission paper 3

4 and presented in tabular form.

5 As you know, we have already indicated that 6 the staff intends to provide DOE with comments at the 7 staff level by the April 16, 1997, deadline for public 8 comments. Staff's comments are currently in concurrence, 9 as I noted. It should be caveated I guess that the review 10 comments that we're providing right now are the staff's I 11 initial comments. They don't reflect anything the 12 Commission may have to say in the future. It's possible 13 that more detailed comments might develop as a result of

/~T 14 the Commission review. l l

15 Similar to the 1984 process, the staff intends 16 to provide the Commission with a summary of the public l

17 comments received by DOE. We would hope that this 18 background might help the Commission as it did in 1984 in l

19 its deliberations on whether or not to concur or reconcur 20 on the 1997 revisions.

21 As part of this process, the Commission may 22 wish to seek assistance from the public with comments at 23 this point in the process, as was done in 1984. I may 24 have mentioned earlier that DOE has been providing us with

()

O 25 comments as they come in. I have been placing these in 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 the public document room, as well as providing copies to e ,g 2 your staff and OGC.. At the end of this process, we 3 understand that DOE is going to 67 an analysis of the 4 comments. I'll get into that in a .'ittle bit.

5 However, in 1984, we were asked by the 6 Commission to develop our own independen*. analysis which 7 we intend on doing at some point in the future after the 8 public comment period ends.

9 Finally, I guess we're recommending that the i 10 Commission would publish a notice in the Eederal Recister.

11 Let me back up. Should DOE decide to proceed with 12 finalization of the siting guidelines, we would expect p_

13 that they would submit them to the Commissicin. At that

/ 't

\

\ 'J 14 point, the Commission could notice in the Egderal Recister 15 what its review process will be, which would lay out these l l

16 points that a discussed above.

l 17 of course the Commission would request i 18 comments from the public on anything it should consider as l 19 part of its deliberations. I 20 At the end of this process, the staff proposes 21 that it prepare a recommendation to the Commission on how 22 it should treat the revisions to the siting guidelines.

23 This again parallels what was done in 1984. So more or 24 less, we're talking probably about two Commission papers,

/%

)

( ,f 25 one of which summarizes the public comments that were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433

90 1 received by DOE during the public comment pe.iod.

A second Commission paper would be prepared r-') 2 LJ 3 which would summarize any comments that the Commission 4 received during its deliberations as well as a 5 recommendation to the Commission on whether or not it 6 shoold reconcur or whatever option the Commission chooses 7 to follow.

8 Next slide, please. As I have mentioned a 9 couple times, the staff has some comments in the system 10 right now undergoing review and concurrence. In our 11 initial review of the siting guidelines, we came up with 12 two comments, at least at this time.

,_ 13 The first comment notes that the regulations l f )

\ ~ 14 themselves, as proposed, suggest that NRC's function is 15 only to implement the EPA standard. Of course everyone in 1

16 this room knows that NRC's regulations do more than 17 implement the EPA standard. So we would send a comment to 18 DOE to that effect, reminding them what the purpose of our l

19 regulations are.

20 The second comment concerns an inconsistency 21 that we have identified in the regulations themselves and i

22 in the statement of considerations. Basically, the 23 inconsistency is it's not clear DOE would wait until NRC's l 24 regulations are repromulgated to make a siting i l

,f-( ,/ 25 determination. So we have asked DOE to clarify that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433

91 1 point. They 1: ave stated in the statement of

,S 2 considerations that they wouldn't make a site suitability L] 3 determination until the EPA standard is promulgated, but 4 it is silent on NRC's regulation. So we would ask for 5 some clarification there.

6 On the last slide, this is just providing an 7 overview of where we are now and where we think we're 1 8 going to be going in the future. As Dr. Pomeroy mentioned 9 earlier, SECY-97-058, which is this options paper, is 10 supposed to be publicly available tomorrow. I presume 11 SECY would make that available and put it in the PDR. I 1

12 am not quite clear how they do it, but they do these 1

p.

13 things. I presume that unless the Commission instructs

? )

\> 14 them to do otherwise, that document will be available.

15 Moreover, the staff's proposed comments which 16 I just reviewed for you briefly are now in concurrence.

17 We expect to issue those before the end of the public 18 comment period, which as I have noted, ends April 16th.

19 Thus far, DOE has received about 50 sets of 20 public comments. I haven't studied them in any great 21 detail, but I have seen comments from the State of Nevada, 22 several comments as a matter of fact from the State of 23 Nevada, the Department of Interior, several interest 24 groups, and individual citizens. Most of the comments by f~

(,h) 25 and large are from individual citizens. I understand this

}

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

92 1 morning from DOE that I guess NEI sent DOE a letter with 2 respect to the 960 siting guidelines.

3 As I noted earlier, we will be probably 4 getting back to you with an analysis of those. guidelines 5 at the end of the public comment period.

6 Based on conversations I have had with April 7 Gill at DOE, who is the point contact on the 960 8 rulemaking, we understand that DOE intends to prepare an

! 9 analysis of the public comments, and have that analysis i

j 10 available internally for DOE consumption sometime in late 11 May, early June. That analysis will form the basis for a 12 DOE decision on whether or not to proceed with the 13 completion of the rule making.

14 I know that many, as you probably scanned the 15 comments that have come in yourselves and you have seen 16 that many of them are emotional and encourage DOE not to 17 proceed with the rule making. However, I understand the 18 DOE game face right now is to_say nothing and let the 19 public comment period run its natural course. Then 20 subject to the analysis and the DOE management review of 21 the public comments, then they will make a decision on 22 whether or not they will proceed.

23 Expecting, I can't speak for DOE management, 24 but if the analysis doesn't come in until late May, early 25 June, it's likely that that determination wouldn't be made NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

93 1 until the early June time frame, depending on how quickly 2 they want to make that decision.

3 In the Commission paper, we included a generic 4 timetable that DOE provided at a management meeting last 5 fall of their rule making schedule, including how long 6 they thought the Commission should have to do its 7 reconcurrence. That time table is provided in the 8 Commission paper. It indicates that the Commission has 9 been given or will be given six months to review the 10 siting guidelines. I am sure if DOE decides to proceed 11 with the rule making, they would confirm that or give us 12 an alternate schedule in providing the Commicsion with the 13 rule making package.

O 14 I think if you begin to back all these dates 15 up and durations and the like, my estimate is that it 16 looks like it will be towards the end of the calendar  !

17 year, maybe the early part of 1998 before this rule making 18 is actually completed. But again, I would expect that in 19 either management meetings subsequent to the close of the 20 public comment period or in a communication formally to 21 the staff or the Commission, you'll hear from DOE on what 22 kind of schedule they envision for the rest of this 23 process. That's all I had.

24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you, Mike. You leave

) 25 us lots of room for questions of course. I am sure 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

94 1 are some. So would any of the members like to begin?

gm. 2 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Your Q.) i 3 presentation, and you warned us that it would be, was i

l 4 essentially a process presentation. It's pretty clear, 5 isn't it, what DOE is trying to do with their revision.

6 The overarching issue seems t- be to go from a technical l

7 factors by technical factor evaluation and review process, j 8 to a more systematic and integrated process.

9 Is there anything that the NRC can say at this 10 point about their attitude towards that philosophical l 11 transition?

12 MR. LEE: Before I answer that, I would like 13 to point out that in the statement considerations for the i' ')

~

14 proposed revisions, DOE indicates that the basis for this 15 change in philosophy reflects what they have learned about 16 site characterization to date, and more importantly, I 17 guess, the strengths and weaknesses of the total system 18 performance assessment. But I don't think we can take a 19 position on whether or not we agree or disagree with that 20 at this time. It's basically DOE's call to make. They 21 are their own guidelines to implement, so we're not going 22 to comment. Sorry.

23 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: That's all right.

24 We'll get you some other time.

im f

) 25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Bill?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

95 1 MEMBER HINZE: Mike, the underlying purpose of r" 2 this is to try to get some kind of guidelines for j

\,,)/ l 3 viability assessment decisions. Is that correct?

4 MR. LEE: I don't believe the 960 guidelines i 1

5 are to be used for site viability. I believe they are 6 just using total system performance assessment for that. l 7 John, you can correct me.

l 8 MR. TOMA: That's right. They are made for 9 site suitability, which is a separate determination from 10 viability.

l 11 MR. LEE: Right. The viability determination 12 I believe is their way of costing out what it's going to l 13 take to do the work, build the repository and operate it. l 7-

\'-') 14 MEMBER HINZE: But it's also to conduct the l 15 TSPA VA, which will determine whether it meets whatever ,

l 16 existing standard we have at the time. Right?

4 17 MR. LEE: I believe, yes. They will use --

18 MEMBER HINZE: That's the first item in that.

19 MR. LEE: Yes.

20 MEMBER HINZE: So that's very close to what we 21 see here in sub-part E.

22 MR. LEE: That's correct.

23 MEMBER HINZE: Is it the NRC's reading of 24 960.6-1, the post-closure system guideline of that, that

("~~N

(._,) 25 this will incorporate without any change of 60, the sub-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C, 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

96 1 ' system requirements that are currently in 60?

g3 2 MR. LEE: I think what changes are going to be

~

3 made to part 60 -- 1 4 MEMBER HINZE: No, no. I'm not asking about 5 that. But in what we have is part 60 now, and that 6 contains the sub-system requirements. Is it NRC's 7 understanding of 6-1 that this would include the sub-1 8 system requ'rements or not the sub-system requirements?

9 MR. LEE: Yes.

I 10 (Laughter.)

11 MR. LEE: Just for everyone's benefit, the 960 l l

4 12 --

)

1 13 MEMBER HINZE: We could use you in Indiana,

(~~'\ l

-- 14 believe me.

I 15 MR. LEE: 960.6-1 is the post-closure system 16 guideline which stipulates that in post-closure period, 17 the repository shall meet the EPA standard, as well as 18 NRC's regulations for implementing those standards. So 19 yes, if the current and future NRC regulations include 20 sub-system performance objectives, that means yes. It 21 will demonstrate compliance with those sub-system 22 performance objectives. But that's a 64 dollar question.

23 MEMBER HINZE: What do you see is the main 24 thrust of DOE in promulgating this revision to 960?

f3

( ,) 25 MR. LEE: That would be just my opinion. I'll NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 433

97 1 let John speak first.

f3 2 MR. TOMA: This is strictly an opinion at this

( \

%') 3 point. They had a lot of groups that came up and said 4 your 960 regulations are for multiple sites. You are only 5 looking at one site. They really don't apply. So they I

6 had that for more than one group, of telling them the 960 i l

7 doesn't really look like it's applicable to what you are 8 doing right now.

9 Then part c_ - at is 960 was written a long 10 time ago and they do know more about the site. It's not l 11 necessarily as the outside groups claim, just to make the 12 eite acceptable. So you are reducing your standards to 13 make it acceptable. But if I'm only dealing with one w 14 site, what criteria should I look at reasonably for that 15 site.

16 MR. LEE: Yes. As I noted earlier in the 17 presentation, the need for inter-comparison among multiple 18 sites no longer exists. Congress has directed DOE just to 19 characterize the Yucca Mountain site. So it could be 20 argued that what DOE needs now is a new criterion against 21 which to judge the suitability of this site, because that 22 requirement to make a suitability determination still 23 exists within the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, I believe.

24 MEMBER HINZE: Were you surprised that there A

() 25 wasn't more about the status of the study of Yucca 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

l

i 1 98 l

1 Mountain in sub-part E? You say we know all of this, but 1

l l 7-~ 2 that's transparent to someone reading this code of Federal V

3 regulation. l l j 4 MR. LEE: Well, in the statement  !

l l

l 5 considerations, they summarize some background and what 6 led them to, I believe the determination that they could 1

7 proceed with the TSPA. They painted initially a rosy l

l l 8 picture, and I believe through the OMB review process as l 9 well as some comments we provided during that process, l

l 10 they tempered their understanding of what the site was.

11 But the short answer to your question is no. l l

1 i 12 MEMBER HINZE: Mike, some place in this l l 13 handout, these viewgraphs, you say that the NRC will

/T -

l - 14 comment on the technical concerns regarding 960. I think j 1

15 those were technical concerns?

16 MR. LEE: Yes.

l 17 MEMBER HINZE: There were only these two 18 concerns then?

l 19 MR. LEE: At this time.

20 MEMBER HINZE: What does at this time mean?

l 21 Help me with this schedule again, okay?

l l 22 MR. LEE: Well, as we indicated on an earlier l

! 23 slide, we expect at some point in the future to receive 4

24 the -- if DOE decides to proceed with the rule making that rm

() 25 they will be coming back -- let me back up.

l NEAL R. GROSS I

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 23A4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

1 99 1 If the package comes in again, it's

~g 2 conceivable that through a more thorough review or a 3

.\~J 3 different review that we may identify additional comments.

4 But our initial reaction to what we have seen right now, 5 these are the two issues that jump out at us.

6 MEMBER HINZE: So you are leaving yourself 7 some elbow room, especially in terms of comments that 8 might be coming in?

9 MR. LEE: I mean we don't have any comments in 10 our back pocket right now that we haven't disclosed to 11 DOE. It's just on our first read of the regulation, this 12 is what we see. I mean it's possible that through --

13 MEMBER HINZE: I guess I was a little

\

' 14 concerned because these look like almost regulatory 15 concerns rather than technical concerns.

16 MR. LEE: Okay. I think I understand the 17 distinction you are making. The 960 is DOE's regulation 18 to implement and apply as it sees fit to the site. To the 19 extent that we agree or disagree with how they have l

20 conducted site characterization or the standard against 21 which they would determine the site to be suitable is 22 their call to make.

23 In the final analysis, DOE is going to have to 24 demonstrate compliance with part 60. So any comments that f~

(_3) 25 we make in a technical vein would be to the extent that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433  ;

100 1 our analysis of what they are doing either conforms or g}

~

2 doesn't conform to what the requirements call for in 60.

'\s' 3 MEMBER HINZE: i guess this is a matter of 4 nomenclature, but when I saw technical, I perked up my 5 ears.

6 MR. LEE: That may have just been a 7 manifestation of how we crafted the words. Perhaps it 8 suggests that our only interest is in the technical 9 aspects of how part 960 is implemented with respect to 60.

10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Other questions?

11 MEMBER HORNRBERGER: This is really more a 12 question I guess of clarification. To what extent is

,~s 13 there a written record, or is it just a corporate memory 14 that to the extent that the original intent of 960 was to 15 provide inter-comparison among several sites?

16 MR. LEE: I think if you go back to the 17 language in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it speaks to 1

18 that precisely, that there is a need. Correct me if I am 19 mistaken, but I believe initially when the act was 20 promulgated, DOE had nine sites it was evaluating. From 21 that nine sites, it was to make a determination as to 22 proceed to three sites. Again, it would apply to criteria 23 both to the screening of the nine sites, as well as the 24 evaluation of the three sites to make a site suitability

_, 25 determination. So I believe that language is in 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

101 1 regulation.

2 Janet, I see you in the background. Is that a 3 fair characterization? )

l 4 MS. KOTRA: This is Janet Kotra, Division of 5 Waste Management. You are absolutely correct. The 6 original intent was spelled out in the: original act before 7 DOE's scope was narrowed to one site.

8 If I'm not mistaken, the intent was after 9 those guidelines were developed and NRC concurred.in them, 10 that they would be used to make a suitability 11 determination amongst the three. I don't recall that they 12 were going to be used other than in a general sense in 13 winnowing from the nine to the three. I don't think they 14 were used in a formal sense the way they were going to.be 15 used for taking three down to one.

16 Of course Congress preempted that so that we 17 now are left with a characterization of Yucca Mountain.

18 But still in the Act, DOE is required to make a 19 suitability determination. But that takes on a very 20 different meaning when there is one site as opposed to 21 when there is three.

22 MR. LEE: But with respect to corporate 23 knowledge, I think if you go back to the earlier 24 , Commission papers, there is some discussion, at least of 25 what the staff's views are with respect to the siting i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. j (202) 234-4433 WAbHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

l 102 l

1 criteria in the context of multiple sites. I believe I l 1

s. 2 found that through my travels. I 3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Other questions? l l

4 Mike, I have a couple I guess. l 5 MR. LEE: Sure.

6 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: One is I would like to kind 7 of have you help me a little bit in terms of a 8 hypothetical. l 9 MR. LEE: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: If and when the EPA 11 standard is promulgated, it will almost certainly go into 12 litigation in one form or another. If and when we 13 promulgate a revised part 60, it will presumably go into I i

\ /' 14 1.1.tigation in one form or another. Comments from one of 15 the Nevada senators that I have public comments from one 16 of the Nevada senators that I have seen, say that if DOE's 17 part 960, if they go forth with part 960 revisions, that 18 will be in litigation.

19 It seems to me it is perfectly possibly that 20 all of these proposed regulations and/or requirements will 21 in fact, might be in a state of flux even as late as four 22 years from now, given what you can do with litigation as

! 23 we're all aware.

24 In that situation then, am I correct in my

,c\

! ) 25 understanding that DOE would have to conform to the l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 J "1701 (202) 234-4433 i

103 ,

t 1 existing part 60 pending our capability of getting a 2 revised'part 60 in place, and be using their part 960 as 3 it exists now in trying to meet our existing part 60 under ,

4 that hypothetical situation?

5 MR. LEE: Well, under that hypothetical, to 6 the extent that there was a difference between current 7 part 60 and future part 60, then yes. They would have to 8 come back.and reconform. I mean the-way the revisions are 9 currently stated, NRC regulations, I don't believe they 10 qualify them by saying existing NRC regulations.-It's 11 whatever regulations are in place.

12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right. But if our 960 13 revised were not in place, then it would be the existing 14 part 60, is that --

15 MR. LEE: At the time of the suitability I l

16 determination, I believe you are correct, but I am not an ]

17 attorney.

18 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I understand.

19 The other question is, as far as you are 20 concerned, I believe this is just for briefing purposes.

l l 21 You are not asking for anything from the committee at this  !

I l

22 time. l 23 MR. LEE: Just bringing you all up to speed on

24 where the process is at this point in time. I understand 25 I will get an SRM hopefully shortly that will provide us NEAL R. GROSS  ;

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

104 1 with a little further clarification on what the Commission ex 2 would like us to do, how they would like to conduct their 3 affairs now that there is a full commission.

4 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Just let me ask a dumb 5 question. Does the law require that there be a 960?

6 MR. LEE: Yes. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 7 directs DOE to promulgate regulations to determine the 8 suitability of sites for geologic repositories. j 9 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I am thinking in the 10 context of a specific site evaluation. Given that the DOE 11 is asking for NRC concurrence, there seems to be kind of a 12 strange situation here. The only way NRC could concur in 13 it is if it complied with the NRC regulation. If that's t )

'# 14 the case, why do they want two regulations? Is that a 15 dumb question?

16 MR. LEE: No. I think that's a question that 17 we periodically ask ourselves. But I believe that the --

18 I mean certainly you could argue that an oversight in the 19 amendments to the policy act was the lack of discussion of 20 what to do with the site suitability determination that 21 DOE had to make, seeing the site had already been selected 22 by Congress. But absent any direction from Congress, I 23 believe DOE has interpreted this meaning that they have to 24 still make a site suitability determination based on some

,a is_,/ 25 standard. I think that leads to why we have a revision to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

105 1 960 right now.

,N 2 Janet, I think Kotra would like to add a

( )

V 3 further clarification.

4 MR. KOTRA: Janet Kotra, again, at the risk of 5 stepping again into the realm of the attorneys. Just a 6 clarification. The Congress specified the site for I 7 characterization. It did not select the site for 1

8 deve spment as a repository.

9 So technically, without revoking the  !

l i

10 requirement for DOE to have suitability guidelines, a  !

1 1

11 recommendation still has to go forward for the president 12 that the site is suitable for development as a repository.

13 That's a technical matter.

I, / l 14 MR. LEE: Thank you.  !

I 15 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I guess there are no other 17 questions, Mike. I would like to express my -- l 18 MEMBER HINZE: If I could, what do you expect 19 of us?

20 MR. LEE: Thank you very much.

21 MEMBER HINZE: I didn't say what you would 22 like.

23 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: His answer is yes.

24 MR. LEE: I like the winning numbers for power

((~x,) 25 ball. Frankly, we don't expect anything from you other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

106 1 than your continued interest in what we are doing. We 73 2 intend to provide you with copies of the comment response U 3 package when it comes in. Presumably, you will receive 4 the SRM when we do. I think at that point, once the SRM i

5 comes in, if you determine there's something you want to 6 do or a letter you would like to write or additional  ;

7 consultation with the staff, then you are certainly free 1

8 to do that. But I think at this point in time, we were 9 not looking for anything other than just bringing you up  ;

10 to speed and answering your questions at this point in l

i 11 time. j 12 MEMBER HINZE: Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Okay, Mike, thank you

-] 14 again, very much. We appreciate your coming down. We are 15 sorry a little bit about the non-synchronization in time 16 of some of this. I understand the work involved and doing 17 this presentation twice. Thanks.

18 At this point, we're running ahead of 19 schedule, and I am very thankful for that as a matter of 20 fact. In view of the time, what I would like to do is now 21 break for lunch, come back here at approximately 12:30 and 22 begin our letter writing activities at 12:30. So we're 23 going to recess until 12:30.

24 (Whereupon, at 11:26 p.m., the proceedings

(_) 25 were recessed for lunch.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

( )

'~'

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

Name of Proceeding: 90" ACNW Docket Number: N/A Place of Proceeding: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND ,

I l

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to

\ typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and l accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

97 fb?

NORBETT 1(INER Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

v NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RJIODE ISLAND AVENUE, NV' (202)234-4433 WAS!!INGTON, D C. 2000$ (202)234-4433

o o o ;-

SUMMARY

OF DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT 1997 PRIORITY ACTIVITIES AND PROPOSED INTERACTIONS WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE gga REgg 4 4>

v k I h O c4 1 4 4w@U Presented to-Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste March 20,1997

, By Margaret V. Federline, Deputy Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety' and Safeguards

O O O .t PURPOSE

• Followup to the staff's December 19,1996, response to the ACNW letter on its priority activities.

• Summarize DWM and SFPO priority activities for 1997.

Discuss DWM and SFPO interactions with ACNW for the remainder of 1997.

Our discussions and ACNW priorities should provide a foundation for coordinating interactions during the remainder of the year.

I i

t I

i

O O O -

i OUTLINE .

i DWM program areas for which priority activities and proposed interactions will be discussed

-- High-level waste repository program

-- Low-level waste and decommissioning program

-- Uranium recovery program

-- Other DWM activities i

i SFPO program areas for which priority activities and proposed interactions will be discussed

-- Technical issues

-- Guidance and inspection documents  ;

-- DOE applications  ;

i

~

i

[

i t

i

o o o ;l i

DWM INTERACTIONS WITH ACNW ACNW interactions and feedback on DWM programs in meetings and letters have been beneficial.

Timing of interactions important to product develop.

• Continue ongoing advanced planning and coordination.

• Recognize limited resources.

- Must continue to focus and prioritize topics.

- Agree on clear purpose and scope.

• Continue to work through the NMSS/ACNW point of contact.

i t

O O O ~;

HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY PROGRAM i

i

• Major activity areas

- EPA Standard and NRC Rulemaking Key Technical issue  !

I

- Total System Performance Assessment and Technical Integration Key Technical issue

- Other Key Technical issues

?

-S- ,

O O O EPA STANDARD AND NRC RULEMAKING KTl I

l

• Priority Activities for CY 1997

- Comment on EPA's proposed standard.

- Prepare Commission paper on Options for Conforming Part 60. .

- Prepare Commission paper on Options for Commission Concurrence on DOE's Siting Guidelines in Part 960 (Completed).

- Support Commission review of Part 960 I

= Proposed ACNW Interactions

- Defense-in-depth historical perspective (requested by ACNW) (March)  !

- BIOMOVS Status Report (requested by ACNW) (March)

- Options for Commission Concurrence on Part 960 (March)

- Proposed comments on EPA standard (month to be determined after EPA issues proposed standard)

- Options for conforming Part 60 (late summer) i

i O O O  !

i TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND TECHNICAL INTEGRATION KTl ,

• Priority Activities for CY 1997

- Complete upgrade of total system code into TPA 3.0

-- Abstract / integrate modules from other KTis

-- Incorporate input parameters and conceptual models from KTis

-- Improve efficiency of code  !

-- Document and test code t

- Begin additional upgrade of total system code into TPA 4.0 i

- Conduct total system sensitivity analyses using TPA 3.0 code t

- Reevaluate importance and priority of KTis and subissues based on i results of sensitivity analyses

_ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--_ _ _ _ _ ~ - . - - _ _ .

i i

TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND  !

TECHNICAL INTEGRATION KTl (Continued) .

I Review DOE's program  !

-- Complete detailed review of TSPA 95  !

-- Begin review of Waste Containment and isolation Strategy I

Interact with DOE to resolve issues

-- Technical exchange on PA  !

-- Observe DOE's expert elicitations, TSPA peer reviews and TSPA abstraction workshops i

Complete issue Resolution Status Reports and Acceptance Criteria j

-- Model Abstraction Process 1

l l

i t

....._.___..__.______.___.y o o o .l TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND TECHNICAL INTEGRATION KTl (Continued)

• Proposed ACNW Interactions

- Status of NRC's PA activities (July) t

-- Total system code capability

-- Sensitivity analyses

-- Comments on DOE's TSPA and abstraction workshops

- Results of total system sensitivity analyses of KTis (November-December) 9-t

O O O OTHER KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES

• Priority Activities for CY 1997 i

- Complete issue Resolution Status Reports and Acceptance Criteria I

-- Probability of future igneous activity

-- Tectonic models '

-- Type i faults

-- Effects of near-field chemistry resulting from coupled processes

-- Mineralogy, petrology, and rock chemistry and their control on {

near field environment

-- Effect of gravity driven refluxing

-- Seismic design

-- Future climate change, precipitation, and water tab!e rise

-- Present-day shallow infiltration

-- Dry oxidation -

- Improve process models and codes

O O O .

I OTHER KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES (Continued) ,

- Prepare inputs to the total system level code TPA 3.0

- Conduct total system level sensitivity analyses for each KTl using TPA 3.0 code

- Review DOE's Program

-- Completed review of thermalhydrology testing program  ;

-- Observe and comment on DOE's TSPA abstraction workshops expert elicitations

-- Review data synthesis and process models released by DOE

- Interact with DOE to resolve issues

-- Igneous activity (February)

- Input new data into Geographical Information System (GIS)

- Annual Progress Report for FY 1997 l

t O O O I

f OTHER KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES (Continued)  ;

r i

• Proposed ACNW Interactions

- Igneous activity i

-- Support ACNW workshop (ACNW request) (April or when requested)

-- Summary of igneous technical exchange and ACNW observations  ;

(April)

- Issue Resolution Progress Reports and acceptance criteria

-- Approach and schedule (July)

-- Example for Climate Change Subissue (July) i l

LOW-LEVEL WASTE AND DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM

• Major activity areas - Low-Level Waste Low-level waste performance assessment SNM licensing 1

BTP for assessment of burials authorized under former 10 CFR 20.302 and 20.304 BTP on disposition of Cs-137 contaminated emission control dust I

i i

4

--_.._.u _._ _ mm_____.. _-_ _orwi_-.o_.iu._m_a ---- -- -.___-- .

O O O LOW-LEVEL WASTE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ,

• Priority Activities for CY 97 Publish draft Branch Technical Position (BTP) for public comment.

Analyze public comments Commence revision to BTP to address public comments

• Proposed ACNW Interactions l Preliminary analysis of public comments (July)  !

i t

I i

O O O .

SNM LICENSING '

• Priority Activities for CY 97 Renew Hanford license Amend and transfer Barnwell license to South Carolina Complete assessment of potential reconcentration at Envirocare Assess reconcentration at Barnwell

• Proposed ACNW Interactions  ;

None i 9

6

o o o ASSESSMENT OF FORMER 20.302/304 BURIALS

• Priority Activities for CY 97 Publish draft BTP on Screening Methodology for Assessing Prior Land Burials (complete)

Analyze comments Publish final BTP

• Proposed ACNW Interactions Draft Final BTP and summary of public comments (April)

• Request.for Reviews Draft Final BTP

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___--____-_-____---_-______________-_--________a

t O O O DISPOSITION OF CS-137 CONTAMINATED EMISSION CONTROL DUST i

• Priority Activities for CY 97 Publish Final BTP

• Proposed ACNW Interactions None i

i i

O O O LOW-LEVEL WASTE AND DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM

• Major activity areas - Decommissioning

- Final SRP for reactor license termination plan

- SDMP site removal and decommissioning plan approval

- Performance assessments at SDMP Sites

- Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS)

- MOU with DOE to implement NWPA 151 b for SDMP Sites I

i l

i l

~

O O O SRP FOR REACTOR LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN

• Priority Activities for CY 97 Publish draft SRP (April 97)

Publish final SRP (summer 97)

• Proposed ACNW Interactions None

[

i

_ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _. m.--_-_____._____-____. _____- _- ___-___-_-_______-_m__ _ _ _ ._.__-__-_ _ _ _____m__-__ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _

__ _ _ __._ _ ..__.=_ _ _ _ .___ _ .. _ _ ___ _ ........ _ _. _ ___...___ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -

O O O .

SDMP SITES

• Priority Activities for CY 97 Remove following sites from SDMP - RTI, Texas Instruments, Aberchen, Curtis Bay, and B&W Apollo Approve decommissioning plans for - RMI, Whittaker, Chemetron-Bert Ave, Molycorp-York, Cabot-Revere, and B&W Parks Township

• Proposed ACNW Interactions None I

t l

t I

- _ . . . - . - - ~ - - - . - - . . . - - . . - . - - - . . . . . . _ . - . . . - - _ . - . . - - . - . . . - - . - - . . . . - - . . _ - .

O O O .

1 DECOMMISSIONING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

• Priority Activities for CY 97  !

Publish Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Cambridge, OH  !

Publish Draft EIS for Babcock & Wilcox Shallow Land Disposal Area, Parks Township, PA  !

Publish Draft EIS for Sequoyah Fuels Corporation, Gore, OK  :

Publish Draft EIS for Jefferson Proving Ground, Madison, IN l Conduct Generic EIS feasibility study for uranium / thorium contaminated sites Develop generic performance assessment methodology I

i i

i i

i 4

i i

O O O DECOMMISSIONING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (Continued) i

• Proposed ACNW Interactions ,

- Generic methodology for decommissioning performance assessment (May 1997)

+ .

t O O O t

ISCORS i i

• Priority Activities for CY 97  !

Issue joint NRC/ EPA survey guidance i

Complete sewer test survey and prepare report i

Support ISCORS committee and subcommittee meetings

= Proposed ACNW Interactions i

None .

t I

O t

r 1

____ _.m________._. _ . . _ . . . . _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - . _ - _ _ . .

o o o ;1 URANIUM RECOVERY PROGRAM i

i

• Priority Activities for CY 1997

- Operation of new facilities and facilities in standby

- Licensing of sites undergoing reclamation by DOE

- Commercial sites undergoing reclamation l

- Groundwater cleanup t

• Proposed ACNW Interactions

- None proposed due to higher priority given to ACNW interactions for other DWM programs. '

k r

i I

- _ _ - - - --__-----------__-------___-----_--_----_--_-_--___--_----___---_---_J

O O O .t r

OTIIER DWM ACTIVITIES i

• Waste classification at Hanford and Savannah River I

i k

l i.

f i

f t

L i

I I

i i

I

o o o :

WASTE CLASSIFICATION AT IIANFORD AND SAVANNAII RIVER

• PRIORITY ACTIVITIES FOR CY 1997 HANFORD

- Review DOE's methodology for classification of processed tank wastes as incidental

-- Prepare Commission paper on results of staff evaluation of DOE methodology for waste classification

- Issue letter to DOE with results of staff evaluation SAVANNAII RIVER

- Develop reimbursable agreement with DOE in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding and Interagency Agreement

- Review DOE methodology for classification of residual tank wastes as incidental

o o o :l1 SAVANNAII RIVER (continued)

- Evaluate appropriateness of existing criteria for incidental waste classification and develop alternative criteria as appropriate

- Prepare Commission paper for proposed alternative waste classification criteria, if necessary

- Prepare Commission paper on results of staff evaluation of DOE methodology for waste classification

- Issue letter to DOE with results of staff evaluation i

• PROPOSED ACNW INTERACTIONS i

Status of waste classification reYiews at IIanford and Savannah River (May) i 4

o o o H ACXW Briefing

~

i SFPO Activities

.=

,,P# s$

-;j,g(Ig

4 fjW Charles J. Haughney, Deputy Director Spent Fuel Project Office

March 20,1997 I

! ! L  :::  : i i! i,;

ll  : !:: , !

o s_ .

_ c_

i_

t t _

i_ r -

_ v_ o p

_ i_

t c Rmee

_o

_ A __ l e cy giS as t

_ ap

_ O t i

d r or e

I

__ CetoTf rS S s

_ F_ rI n a

S __ po ufCr n T rAE uROr y B P )I )

-o _

I

o o o

+

b SFPO Activities t

t

• Inspection Procedures / Standard Review Plans  !

• Designer / Fabricator Problems

• General License Issues

-l O O O?

NRC STAFF REVIEW OF 10 CFR PART 960: '

Background and Status i

f- s,,

( *n***

f) i l

PRESENTATION TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE  !

MARCH 20,1997 i i

Michael P. Lee

• Systems Performance Analyst '

Division of Waste Management I Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301/415-6677  !

[

i i

O O O .! t OUTLINE i

• BACKGROUND j i

• PROPOSED CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 960 I

-t

• PROPOSED POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONS 1997 REVIEW l j

• PROPOSED REVIEW OPTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION I

• PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING THE RESPECTIVE REVIEWS l i

• STAFF LEVEL COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 960 .

i

• ST.sTUS AND SCHEDULE i

}

1 i

ACNW, March 20,1997 1 unc stari new.a or e ,u 9eo  :

~

O O O- .

BACKGROUND

• AT SEPTEMBER 24,1996, COMMISSION BRIEFING, DOE ANNOUNCED ITS PLANS TO REVISE AND UPDATE ITS SITING GUIDELINES FOR GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES FOUND AT 10 CFR PART 960

• AS WAS THE CASE IN 1984, DOE INDICATED THAT IT WOULD AGAIN SEEK COMMISSION CONCURRENCE ON THE REVISIONS AS A CONDITION OF ITS 1984 CONCURRENCE, DOE AGREED TO SEEK COMMISSION RE-CONCURRENCE ON ANY FUTURE REVISIONS DOE ANNOUNCED AVAILABILITY OF REVISED SITING GUIDELINES IN THE FEDERAL REG / STER ON DECEMBER 16,1996 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO BE 60 DAYS, ENDING ON FEBRUARY 14,1997

- PUBLIC MEETING ON FEBRUARY 14,1997

• AT THE FEBRUARY 1997 PUBLIC MEETING, DOE ANNOUNCED THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WOULD BE EXTENDED AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS (TO MARCH 17, 1997)

• MOST RECENTLY, DOE ANNOUNCED A SECOND EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO APRIL 16,1997 ACNW: March 20,1997 7 NRC Statt Review of Part 960

. _ _ .. . . . - . . _ . - - - - - - _ - . . _ _ _ - . .. _. ~. . _ . _ . _ _-. .

o o o PROPOSED CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 960

• OVERALL, THE REVISIONS BEING PROPOSED BY DOE ARE LIMITED TO ADDING A NEW SUBPART TO ITS REGULATIONS - DESIGNATED SUBPART E DOE IS PROPOSING THAT THE EXISTING 1984 SITING GUIDELINES WOULD REMAIN INTACT SHOULD THEY BE NEEDED IF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE WERE FOUND UNSUITABLE SUBPART E WOULD CONTAIN A SINGLE QUALIFYING CONDITION FOR BOTH THE POST CLOSURE AND PRECLOSURE PERIODS OF PERFORMANCE THAT YUCCA MOUNTAIN MUST MEET FOR THE SITE TO BE FOUND SUITABLE THE QUALIFYING CONDITION IN BOTH CASES WOULD PROVIDE THAT DOE DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SITE-SPECIFIC EPA STANDARDS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 AS WELL AS NRC'S GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

• IN DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE, DOE IS EXPECTED TO CONDUCT A TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (TSPA) OF THE PROPOSED REPOSITORY SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGN AND THE GEOLOGIC SETTING, AND WOULD COMPARE THE TSPA RESULTS WITH THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS TO DETERMINE SITE SUITABILITY DOE WOULD NOT REACH A DETERMINATION ON THE SUITABILITY OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE IN THE ABSENCE OF FINAL PROMULGATION OF THE EPA STANDARDS

• THE REVISIONS MORE CLEARLY STATE THAT DOE RECOGNIZES NRC'S JURISDICTION OVER THE RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE REVISED SITING GUIDELINES AND NRC'S GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY REGULATIONS MINOR BUT SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING SITING GUIDELINES ARE ALSO BEING PROPOSED THAT DESCRIBE HOW THE NEW SUBPART WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED A CNW.Marctu20.1997 3 unc starr aa-e- or eaar 9eo

..__.___.-.____________.__m.______._.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

~

o o o .l' PROPOSED POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONS 1997 REVIEW

[

i

• THE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN DOE'S GUIDELINES AND THE COMMISSION'S GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY REGULATIONS WAS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHEN THE COMMISSION CONCURRED IN THE 1984 GUIDELINES i ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL CRITEHlA FOR ITS 1984 CONCURRENCE WAS THAT THE 1984 GUIDELINES WERE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH PART 60

• IN ITS 1997 REVIEW OF DOE'S REVISED GUIDELINES, THE STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE FOLLOWING i POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE (SECY-97-058):

l The Commission's consideration of possii)le revisions to Part 60 should not be perceived as being placed  ;

on the critical path concerning DOE's revised guidelines or any DOE assessment of the viability of the '

Yucca Mountain site. i i

The Commission should be free to revise or modify Part 60, as it deems necessary or appropriate, to be consistent with the EPA standards for Yucca Mountain. l t

The Commission should be free to make whatever technical comments are appropriate, on DOE's .i revised guidelines.

f

?

l i i

l-A CNW' March 20,1997  ;

4 NRC Staff Rewew of Part 960 I

?

O O O PROPOSED REVIEW OPTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION (SECY-97-058)  !

BASED ON THE AFOREMENTIONED POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, THE STAFF IDENTIFIED 4 POSSIBLE REVIEW OPTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION:

1. Take no action .

2. Defer concurrence i

3. Provide conditional concurrence i

4. Issue a 'no objection" \

n f

f I

b

+

[

i b

b I

ACNW' March 20.1997 5 nac start naview or e,,,9eo ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . - ____.. _ _ _ . . . _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ .__ _. . _ _ _

o o o .

PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING THE RESPECTIVE REVIEWS (SECY-97-058)

THE STAFF INTENDS TO PROVIDE DOE WITH COMMENTS BEFORE THE APRIL 16,1997, DEADLINE FOR '

PUBLIC COMMENTS In its comments, which are currently in concurrence, the staff notes that (a) its review reflects the staff's initial views on the revised siting guidelines, and a more detailed review is likely to follow as part of the Commission's deliberations; and (b) its comments reflect only a general review of DOE's  ;

proposal.

• SIMILAR TO THE 1984 PROCESS, THE STAFF INTENDS TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH A i

SUMMARY

OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BY DOE. I This paper would be intended to assist the Commission in its deliberations on whether to grant or withhold its re-concurrence on the revised siting guidelines. '

I At the discretion of the Commission, it may wish to obtain the assistance of written public comments at this point in the process. i THE COMMISSION COULD PUBLISH A NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTING RECEIPT OF DOE'S REVISED FINAL SITING GUIDELINES, IF AND WHEN THEY ARE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION, DESCRIBING THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSED APPROACH FOR REVIEW OF THE GUIDELINES, AND REQUESTING WRITTEN COMMENT ON THE MATTERS THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER IN ITS REVIEW AND DECISION

- The Commission could also direct the staff to prepare a written summary and analysis of the comments received that would ultimately become a public document.

AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS, THE STAFF PROPOSES THAT IT PREPARE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION ON THE REVISED SITING GUIDELINES ACNWsMarch20,1997 6 nac start nev,. or esce 9eo

O O

~

O .

STAFF LEVEL COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 960 THE STAFF HAS PROPOSED TWO COMMENTS (NOW IN CONCURRENCE)

Comment 1 Section 960.6-1 of the proposed revisions suggests that the only function of NRC's regulations is to implement those standards. NRC's regulations have a broader role.

Comment 2 Both the draft postclosure and preclosure system guidelines (Section 960.6) state that the geologic repository shall be evaluated against the site-specific EPA standards and the NRC regulations. However, in the supplementary information, it is stated that "... DOE would not reach a determination on the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site under these Guidelines in the absence of the final promulgation of Ithe EPA]

standards...." Because of this inconsistency in statements, it is not clear whether DOE would also defer a site suitability determination on the Yucca Mountain site under its revised Guidelines in the absence of revised NRC regulations consistent with the Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act of 1992.

ACNWMarch20,1997 7 unc stare newan or part 9eo

O O O  :

• STATUS AND SCHEDULE

• SECY-97-058 TO BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MARCH 21,1997

• STAFF'S PROPOSED COMMENTS TO DOE ARE IN CONCURRENCE

• PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS APRIL 16,1997 Thusfar, DOE has received about 50 sets of public comments Comments from the State of Nevada, be Department of the Interior, severalinterest groups, and  ;

individual citizens (the most) i

• WHAT IS EXPECTED AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ?  !

DOE intends to prepare analysis of public comments Based on an analysis of public comments, DOE will decide whether to proceed with completion of the rulemaking CURRENT DOE TIMELINE (INCLUDED IN SECY-97-058) PROVIDES FOR A SIX MONTH REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION .

i

~

l t-

[

I ACNW/ March 20.1997 8 unc sr re nev, a or eart 9eo ,

________m.__ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ . __ . _ _ ___ . --r -