ML20148K785
| ML20148K785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/07/1978 |
| From: | Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811170288 | |
| Download: ML20148K785 (72) | |
Text
-
/0 CF&
OR1NA r
NUCLE AR REGULATO RY COMMISSION-IN THE MATTER OF:
COMMISSION MEETING (OPEN)
~
Place - Washington, D. C.
Date -
Tuesday, 7 November 1978 Pages 1 - 70 w nen.:
(00*:) 047 37C0
(,
ACE - FEDERAL RE?ORTERS. DiC.
Off.dalReponurs 78111703%g W North Cecitel Streer
'\\,
_g{
Wcshingen, CLC. 2CCO T NAT:CNWIDE COVERAGE CAlLY
r-c 1
J
)
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the Unf ted States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 7 November 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informa'tfonal purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion.in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Cormt.ission may authorize.
e
?
-~
-~
2 i
a CR 1216 I UNITED STATES ~ OF AMERICA MM:ma sk
.~herm 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 5
6 7
COMMISSION MEETING 8
9 Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
Tuesday, 7 November 1978 13 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.
I4 BEFORE:
l 15 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman VICTOR GILINSKY, Ccmmissioner 16 RICHARD KENNEDY, Commissioner PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner 17 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 18 ALSO PRESENT:
I9 J. BUNTING R.
CUNNINGHAM 20 SANDY FUCIGNA L. V. GOSSICK 2I M. MALSCH H..SHAPAR 22 C.
STOIBER CLIFF SMITH 23 P
24 Ace Fedtrst Reporters, Inc, 25 i
_ ~.. -.
l CR 1216 3
MFLTZER t-1 mtel PROCEEDINGS i
i 2
(10:35 a.m.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we go ahead.
Commissioner 3l 4
Kennedy will be along in a morent.
5 At this meeting we will hear from the staff on the 6
report of the Inter-Agency Review Group on Waste Management.
7 The particular decision matter before the Commission lies in 8
our need to approve whatever comments the Commission wants to 9
make on the report, so that these can be back to the review j
10 I group in a relatively few days.
I think the 18th -- the 18th of 11 this month is the point in time for all of these comments to be '
12 in.
So we are on a fairly short leash here, and it's a fairly 13 complex and weighty matter, 14 You want to introduce down the line, Cliff?
15 MR. SMITH:
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
{
l 16 I would like to introduce to you some people at the I
17 table that you probably haven't seen before.
This is Ms. Sandrai 18 Fucigna, who participated in subgroup 1, and also, Sandy has been 19 I the key merber in our staff who has followed through this whole l
20 l IRG process right from its beginning.
She has also had the i
21 responsibility for coordinating NRC's responses from all of the i
22 various offices, and she has attended many of the meetings.
So '
23 ! I thought it important that she be here to give you her insight.!
I I
24 Dick Cunningham, as you know, is our acting division
, m-Fm:t al Repce rers, inc.
25 director in fuel cycle.
l 1
l I
I I
i i
,-l 9
(mte 3 4
i 1
'And to the far left there is' Joe Bunting.
Joe has l
2 been Mr. Waste Management for us in NMFS since Mr. Myer (?)
3 left, and as such' has been trying to keep this thing together 4
and running it until such time as personnel matters are j
5 resolved.
.i 6
And Jim Malaro and Mike Bell are here as i
I 7
two key branch' chiefs in the area.
l l
8, As you indicated, it is a complex document.
There 1
9
'has been so many players involved in this.
We ha/e had shifts l
l 10 I and people leaving the agency and so forth.
So I thought it I
11 important that we have them here this morning.
12 What we would like to do is review the IRG report 13 findings and recommendations with you, to try to summarize the 14 response that was prepared by the staf f, and, if you will, to i
i t
15 obtain approval to the response draft or guidance for some
[
i 1
16 preferred response that you like.
j i
17 Our approach is basically a letter that would go from 18 you, Mr. Chairman, to Secretarv of Energy Schlesinger, with 19 i the Commission comments attached.
And in addition, we would i
20 ! propose more detailed technical and editorial corments which l
21 would be forwarded directly to Dr. Deutch.
At least that's t
i 22 the way we look at approaching this problem at the present 23 l time.
l 24 Now, I apologize for not having had an opportunity to i
f m Fxi si n.oemn. mc.g 25 j have nice viewgraphs prepared.
We simply did not have the time. l 1
I j
i 1
l
mte 3 f 5
1 So we have given you a copy in this briefing package here, and 2
I hope the people here in the-audience -- that there are enough l
copies for them.
We intend to sort of follow that.
3 I
l 4
Overall, the draft response that we proposed is, l
basically, we are saying that our general impression is favorablle 5
6 and that we are very supportive of the report's usefulness as a y
basis for policy.
We do identify certain key issues which we r
8 think need to be discussed more or that we have problems with, 9
and we'll get into that in a minute.
l i
10 I Although 30 days is a rather short period, and I think l
11 most people in general wanted something like 45 days, we think 12 that it is a worthwhile thing to do, and public comment being 13 actively sought is an important part of this process.
14 Now, I think you will see, if you read the paper we 15 sent down last week, that essentially we come out rather neutral 16 on the recommendations, and the reason for this is that most 17 ofthem are very broadly stated.
And while we in a sense could 18 agree in principle on those, we felt that it might imply i
19 support of specific steps that would have to be taken for i
20, implementation, and we are not aware or sure what those specific!
21 steps would be.
But in general, we are supportive of it.
22 I think you have also read other places that this 23 document has been -- I think it's fair to say generally praised
]
24 by environmental groups as a good start.
They have concerns on
, <n Fw t al Reoct*ers, Inc.
25 the issue of a lack of a good discussion or a satisfactory I
l 1
, _ _,,,,,_,_._.._._____..,__,__,___._,__.____j
i -
i
/mte Q 6
1 discussion, if you will, on the relationship between licensing 2
nuclear power plants and resolving the waste management issue.
I 3
And what comments I have seen from industry groups have been I
4 favorable.
5 So what we would like to do today is simply to high-6 light for you some of the key contents of the report and 7
discuss in detail those areas thatare covered in the draft 8
response.
And we will comment on the impacts where possible.
9 Now, I raight add that the turnaround time was so short that we i
10 I were not able to get very lengthy comments from the other 11 program offices in the agency.
They simply didn't have the time 12 in two or three days to go through this.
And so, what you see 13 before you, I think, is primarily an NMSS viewpoint.
- However, 14 it is not -- and ELD -- however, it is not in conflict with i
15 those. comments which we've received from the other offices.
l 16 Would you say that's true?
17 MS. FUCIGNA:
That's true, i
18 MR. SMITE:
Let me go to the third page of the
(
19 briefing package, in which we mention the President's mandate.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Cliff, I'm sorry.
One thing 21 just struck my mind.
When did we actually get this?
22 MS. FUCIGNA:
October 19th.
l 23 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm not sure where the two or l
24 three days comes from.
7,$m Fm t al Rexiters. lrc.
25 MR. SMITH:
Oh, we got the first one on October 19th. f l
. _. ~.... _. -,.. -...
--. -,,,,,..., _., _. - _ ~ _,, _, -., __,
- mte,5 7
1 We didn't cet sufficient copies to send around until a couple of' 2
days later, and then we felt that we had to have the input of 3l all of the offices in to us by the 26th of October in order to try to put something together to have it down to the Commission l 4
5 5 days before this meeting.
So if you start backing up on 6
the date s --
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think this paper is dated 8
November 3rd.
Well, okay, go ahead.
9 MR. SMITH:
Initially, Commissioner, we were asked 10 !
to discuss this thing on Monday, and that meant that Mr. Gossick 's 11 office wanted it, I think, on the 1st of November.
If you back 12 up from the 1st of November to give us time as an individual 13 office to coordinate the views of the whole agency and get 14 something in final forr to him, it meant that we wanted it from 15 the other offices by the 26th.
If you back up and give them 16 2 or 3 days, then you're back to the time it arrived in this l
17 agency.
18 Okay.
The President's mandate, as you know, was to 1
19 l formulate recommendations for establishment of Administration i
l 20 policy with r espect to long-term management of nuclear waste.
21 That was the first thing, long-term policy.
And secondly, to i
I 22 come up with a supporting program which would implement this 23 policy.
24 On the next sheet we have just put together a very l
l i
( cm Fer ral Fbocmts, inc. '
l 25 schematic organization chart to show you how the IRG was l
,...s
.m..
..... _.., _. _ - -, -,, _,,. _ - - _. -. -.. _, _..,,,. _ ~. _. -.. - -... _,.. _ _ _ _.. - - -. _
.mte,6' 8
1 organized.
And you will notice one block up there, which is 2
called the executive subgroup.
And I think it's fair.to say 3
that the executive subgroups were'in a sense the decisionmakers.
4 on the product that flowed out of the IRG.
In other words, you 5
had all of these various working groups submitting their 6
proposals, and there had to be some body of people who would 7
sit down and make the hard decisions as to what would finally 8
be in the draft, and that's the way the executive subgroup 9
functions.
10 In terms of the participants, I will just run through 11 them very cuickly:
Of course, CEO, National Security, Domestic 12 Affairs on policy out of the White House, OMB, Science and 13 Technology, Dr. Press's office, DOE, Department of Commerce, 14 Interior, State Department, Transportation and EPA, ACTA, NASA 15 and NRC.
16 We have indicated there that NRC was a nonvoting 17 member.
It's probably a little misleading.
We didn't really l
l 18 get into voting in the sense of that sort of thing.
But it 19 ) sort of meant that we had said right at the beginning that we 1
20 l would obviously not be a candidate to be a member of the i
21 executive subgroup that made the final decisions, and that we 22 would participate in the sense of putting out what information
{
23 we had and making recommendations as it seemed appropriate.
l 24 There were six subgroups, as you know, on the next veFc::: al Repes'ers, Inc.
25 page, in this Inter-Agency Review Group:
the alternative I
ste 7,.
9 i
1 technologies strategies, that was for the Office of Science 2
and Technology.
We had federal involvement; that dealt with 3
. standards and criteria for low-level wastes, mill tailings.
4 And D&D, which is' decontamination and decommissioning.
That was' 5
EPA.
Defense wastes, interim storage and processing, Department 6
of Energy.
Spent fuel was Department of Energy.
Transportation 7
subgroup was Transportation, DOT.
And the international 8
aspects were State Department.
9 And you will notice that we have put an asterisk j
10 ! beside those subgroups that NRC participated in.
In essence, 11 we participated in 4 of the 6 subgroups.
I supposed, put 12 another way, we did not participate in the spent fuel subgroup, 13 nor did we participate in the international, but we were 14 actively involved --
i i
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why would we have been i
i 1
16 concerned with defense wastes on the one hand and not with i
l 17 spent fuel on the other?
l
\\
\\
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I was wondering about that, i
l l
i 19 too, why we weren't concerned about spent fuel.
j 20 I MR. SMITH:
I wouldn't say we weren't concerned; just 21 when we looked at the missions -- and I don't have the exact i
22 description here of what those various subgroups were going to I
23 do.
I know one of the prime missions of the spent fuel sub-l
?
\\
24 group, of course, was to further explore DOE':s original
,mi Fec ret Repct eers, Inc.
25 proposals with respect to away-from-reactor spent fuel storage.
I i
i I...-.
,. _ ~,.
-., -. - -,, ~ -
mte 8 10
- s e
.1 And the other thing was that we only had so many people that 2
we' felt that we could spare to interject into these various 3,
subgroups.. So our lack of participation is not because w e felt.
1 l
l P
4 that it was not important.
It was just --
S COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
When I said " concern," I meant 6
involvement.
Why were we not involved in spent fuel, whereas 7
we were with defense waste?
If one had to somehow quantify the 8
relative importance of these matters to us for our mission, I 9
would have thought it would have been the other way around.
10 !
MR. SMITH:
There isn't any specific reason, Commis-11 sioner.
As I said, we only had so many people.
Obviously, 12 I
know we know what went on in the spent fuel subgroup.
We 13-got all the papers that came out of there.
We participated in 14 it in terms of our comments.
We just had so many people and 15 that was primarily it.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay.
17 MP. CUNNINGHAM:
I think that 's essentially it.
Also,[
18 the spent fuel situation is better defined.
We have published 19 our draft GEIS on spent fuel.
We knew what that nroblem was.
l 20 i It was a defined problem.
DOEhadgatheredalotofinformationl t
i 21 on it.
Defense waste is a much more complicated area.
Anddependingonwhichwaythenewlegis-l 22 MR. SMITH:
23 lation goes, it could have significant impacts on this c gency, 24 perhaps even moreso than the spent fuel.
.-m.For e al Repor mes, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Except spent fuel is at this i
l n,
w-.,,,-.w.,-er,
-,n, ewe,.,,,
_nw.,r-.,-,e---,,n---,n...,
,,n.,,,,,-.,.,,m,-
mte 9,-
11-point, I would say, the most critical problem.
j MR. SMITH:
For this agency.
2 COW 4ISSIONER GILINSKY:
For nuclear power programs in m
3.
I this country and elsewhere, too.
4 MR. SMITH:
True.
But as I said, it was not that I
5 we didn ' t feel it was important, but when you look at the scope 6
of work that that subgroup was in in our draft GEIS, et cetera.
[
7 All right.
On the next page i.s simply the schedule, 8
which you are probably familiar with.
You will notice that in 9
t 10 ! August we received the first draf t of the IRG report.
There ij have been, frankly, so many drafts that have come through that we ourselves have had difficulty keeping track.
But we did 12 coment on the one that came in in August, and we sent you 13 f
j4 copies of the comments that we made and we made it very clear that those were staff comments.
15 I
And then there was another version of that draft j
16 l
l that came out, I believe, in September, and which we acain j7 i
i comented on.
18 L
j9 And now, of course, you have copies of the one that was issued this October for public review for 30 days.
And the i
20 l
\\
j 21 game plan is basically that by the end of this year the IRG i
22 wouldtakeinallofthesecomments,andpresumablyputtogetherl I
~
l a final report that would be submitted to the President.
The 23 1
i 24 re'ason I say " presumably" is that I have no official word as to {
l I
ebFac rat Repos ers, Inc.
25 exactly how the IRG is going to handle it from this point on, j
l i
1
.'+,
- rtV
'r' + - *
- p--t*-'
H1'-
r P
Y-49**<*
v T #-
w w e W V '- -
T't"*
e-*N-+-5ev-*rw'-v=w*'ewa-*-e*"*'***-
~'-*=*-e^-'ve'--****=W'*-*w""* * * ' * " - -
9te lp 12 1
l I
that is, now that it 's out for public comment.
But unofficially, l
2 that's what we have been told is going to happen.
l i
3 Okay, now, that would lead us to the discussion of the:
4 report.
If you could turn to that page that says introduction.
5 What we have tried to do there is, in bullet fashion, highlight l 6
what we felt were the significant points that were made in the 7
introduction, and we put an asterisk beside that specific bullet a
that NRC made some comments on that are in the draf t letter 9
and attachments that we are proposing to send back to Secretary !
10 !
Schlesinger.
l 11 The introduction of the report basically gets into f
i 12 background.
It discusses '
.e events that led to the formation 13 of the IRG and the organization of the IRG.
It also gives a 14 historical perspective from their standpoint, a brief discussion l 15 of what they refer to as the government 's inability to develop 16 a high-level waste disposal facility.
And it also discusses 17 nuclear waste disposal and the future use of nuclear energy, 18 and it gets into the relationship between the use of nuclear 19 1 energy and waste management, and this is a cuestion that the 20 ! IRG is asking the public to comment on, in effect, is asking I
21 l for public comment on how they feel about the relationship l
22 between nuclear power and the waste management program.
i 23 l Now, in our comments --
l 24 '
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Wouldn't it be well to make
(
, swFr e at Repct'ers. Inc.,
25 l some, in that connection, make some reference to the fact that t
I lI l'
l
ate 14
-g 13 I
the Court of Appeals did say that we were right in denying I
2 NRDC's petition?
MR. SMITH:
Well, in our comments, Mr. Commissioner, 3
4 we agreed with the IRG approach.
We referred to the NRDC I
~
5 petition and what happened, and we also referred to our 6
Table S-3 rulemaking question, which was under surveillance in 7
light of new data and progress.
We also suggest in the letter 8
that it might be appropriate for ' the IRG to recommend that some 9
other group be forned to recommend or study a comparative 10 analysis of the alternatives in terms of energy.
Il I suppose that the staff felt that we didn't really 12 see how one could discuss this issue of nuclear power waste in 13 total isolation of the total energy problem of the country, 14 and putting it in comparison to the use of coal or to the uses 15 of other sources of energy.
16 MR. SHAPAR:
Beyond that, the Commission, in denying I
17 the petition, said this matter would be subject to continuing l
l c
18 assessment on the part of the Commission, and now, in effect, i
l 19 we have a new. data base upon which to comment.
j i
l I
20,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would like if you could 1
I expand a little bit.
Frankly, I was very uneasy about those l
21 22 comments.
i l
23 MR. SMITH:
Which ones?
i 2d COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
About our getting into the
'. obFe t al Repet eers, inc.
25 issue of what is the relationship between nuclear waste l
I
,I I
i mte 12,.
14 i
1 disposal and the future use of nuclear power.
i 2
MR. SMITH:
We weren't suggesting NRC get into it.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNF:
I'm asking you to comment on
'i 4
' it, and that made me kind of uneasy.
l 5
COMMISSIONER GILIESKY:
Well, the Commission is tied 6
into --
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If I read what the report --
8 and what we're responding to says, it says the cuestion of the 9
-impact of nuclear _ waste concerns on the future of nuclear power is 10 ! quite catplex. Public ccoment is particularly welcomed on the relationship 11 between waste managenent concerns and the future of nuclear power.
12 And preceding that, it's pointing out that the 13 President should be informed of the nature and intensity of r
14 public views on this issue.
Then when we particularly.get into
~;
i, 15 an issue of what are the implications of doing without nuclear j
i i
16 energy for power generation, is what we point out is one of the }
[
17 unresolved cuestions.
18 I am having difficulty really seeina why that is a fit, 19 issue for us to be addressing.
4 20,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That I aaree with you, but it 21 strikes me that is separate from the relationship of waste to 22 licensing reactors.
23 COMMISSIONER AHFARNE:
That's not --
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where Cliff seemed to be
..a t.FCI t al Repce ters, Inc.
s 25, heading is somehow a national -- sort of a review of all of our l i
i r
mte 13 15 i
\\
I energy options.
i i
2 PR. SMITH:
This was the staff view, this was my l
3 view, and as I said, this was the suggested response.
And I
vs 4
that's why we're here to get your comrent, i
i S
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
i i
6 M9.. SMITH:
But I don't see how one can really i
7 discuss -- make a decision on nuclear power vis a vis the waste B
issue and get'cing into risks to the public and so forth, of I
9 going ahead or not going ahead, and do that in a vacuum, because :
10 1 there are other risks in other energy scenarios, and I don't l
1 11 see how you can make that decision just purely down that line.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In some sense, everything is I
13 connected to everything else.
But on the other hand, if you la take the view that you can't look at any problem without solving.
I i
15 all other problers at the same time, you never get to do 16 anything.
S l!
I 17]
MR. SMITH:
I'm not saying you can't look.
I'm not 18 trying to talk about solving other problens.
I'm just saying, 19 lt you know, you can go two ways :
you can look at the waste 20 : disposal problem with respect to nuclear power, and you can look 21 ' at that purely alone and you can make the decision or could i
22 make the decision that it doesn't make sense to proceed because i
23 jof the potential risk, and not look at what the other problems
~
24 Llare.
i And if you co that wav, what other directions might be
....r.c, as neoc ers. inc.
25, involved?
l
i ymte [4 16
.)
And all we were suggesting is that the IRG might wish 2
to -consider recommending that some other ' committee might wish 3
to look at this issue.
l x
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Cliff, that's a fine recommenda-5 tion for Bob Thorne to be making.
6 MR. SMITH:
Okay.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm just having difficulty with 8
the NRC making it.
9 MR. SMITH:
Does it come across as pro?
i 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
11 (Laughter.)~
s t
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It hadn't occurred to me that i
13 that was the case at all.
14 MR. SMITH:
Well, really, it had nothing to do with 15 being -- well --
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It did strike me a little bit 17 as being, why us.
TheIRGl 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I didn't read why us.
3 i
l 19 has raised the question, it is suggested that public comment be ;
i 20 sought.
And you know, I think we can say amen to every sentencel 21 in the report if we want to.
I suggest it may be a funny l
,1 22 looking letter.
Maybe we would just say -- maybe we could just l l
Y-23 say, all paragraphs beginning with the word "The" we agree with,j l
24 or something.
But I suggest we don 't want to -do that.
And.I
,.oe Fw t'al Repot ters, Inc.
j 25 wasn't sure why we were pursuing the matter and at the same l
.-,_m
...-,.-,.__._m..__.
~.m,_._.._.-,..._..,,.
,.,m.,.
_.-....r....,,.,_,,.,
.. ~..
rate 15 17 I
time leaving out one important consideration, I think -- I 2
think it's correct that the Court of Appeals did note that if l
3 the matter was to be pursued, it was, in its view, a matter for b
4 pursuit by the Congress.
That's an important -- and we want j
i I
5 to make that point.
That's in addition to the base of knowledge 6
which the IRG nor your draf t made note of.
7 But beyond that, I'm not sure why the heck we want g
to get into it.
I agree -- not for the same reasons, because l
9 it didn't strike me that way.
It just struck me as, in e-1 10 ! Commissioner Gilinsky's view, why us?
11 12 13 14 1
15 l
16 l
17 l
l 18 1
19 1
20 i
i 21 22 i
l 23 i
24
.r at-For t al Repos ters, Inc.
4 I
25 I
i I
1 l
)
e
[
i
~,, -.. _ _. - - - -.., _....... -..
. ~.
18 9
f
)'
t CR1216 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think there is an answer 2
.pe 2 to why we might recommend to the group that in dealing 4
i 3 I david 1 i
with the question -- what are the implications of doing
~/
4l without nuclear energy -- that it's approppriate to look 5
at the -- to make comparative analysis of alternative 6
I ways of society surviving.
}
I 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That question isn't what 8
the report asked us b answer. The report asked that public 9
comment is welcomed on the relationship between waste 10 '
management concerns and the future of nuclear power.
l MR. SMITH:
It all depends on how you wish.to 12 answer that question now.
i 13 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
who is being quoted?
We i
I 14 have a quote here, Cliff.
One of the unresolved questions which remains is:
"What are the implications of doing j
16 without nuclear energy for power generation."
17 L l
MS. FUCIGNA:
No one is being quoted.
18 {I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It's quotes.
i 19 i
[
MS. FUCINGA:
It's an editorial mistake.
20 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's not a question we were.
21 asked.
We have said this is one of the questions that we 22 think ought to be addressed, and when I was in DOE I would 23 l j
have really agreed that's an appropriate question, but not i
24 l here.
w.r.oni neoonm, inc. l 25 {
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Isn' t it a question that i
I l
19 9
i I
david 2 woul'd be addressed anyway in the course of the NEPA 2
analysis?
3l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
NEPA analysis?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And that would be held 5
in addressing the question?
6 MR. SMITH:
I am not sure.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I must say I don't object to 8
striking the paragraph.
Okay?
As a general proposition 9
I would say that in an area where as an institution we are 10 likely to be as knowledgeable as anybody and perhaps more-11 knowledgeable than anybody, it seems to me that our 12 responsibility includes pointing out to other people facets 13 of problems which it may be appropriate for them to consider Id and that pointing out the appropriateness of that 15 consideration is something that flows naturally from our 16 knowledge and expertise in the field..And if the way -- if I7 the facet is one which -- I don't know whether problems I8 like that have clearly pro-nuclear power or anti-nuclear power 19
- aspects, They may.
I don't think they always do, necessarily.
20 But whether they do.or not,-and whether it's 21 pro or anti, it seems to me that doesn't relieve the 22 responsibility of one of the government'stmst,if not the 23 most, knowledgeable institution in the area to point out things 24
' AoFC3eral Reporters, Inc.
25
- Now, I. don't regard that as promotional.
And I l
L lo 20 1
i t
tvid3 I
suppose if. this were phrased in a way in which it seemed 2
that we were encouraging the examination of a proposition which 3
was intrinsically against nuclear power, I wouldn't have 4
any difficulty with that either.
It would seem to me that 5
we think a thing ought to be looked at and are 6
comenting to people, and the fact that we are that that's not --
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Except in a way, Joe, 8
we are now in the final stage.
There's a fairly formal 9
document so that at this stage I think we are in the point of --
10 we are beyond the negotiations that Cliff and his people
[
II have worked on over the last several months trying to 12 t
comment on periodic drafts.
13 This is sort of a final, official position we are Id taking.
And I think we ought to focus on those things we 15 think are really signally important.
And that 's certainly the approach I take to it at this stage of this response.
I7 MR. SMITH:
I would like to just comment that i
18 we did too, and we happen to think that that was important, j
i 19 but you know the Commission has the final say on it.
1 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
As I say, I don't object to l
1 1
21 taking this paragraph out, but you know, it seems to me in 1
22 fact that you are hard put to judge where you want to go on 23 some of these difficult public policy questions without a 24 rational examination across the range of the options AeFMyd Reorwrs im.
25 available to society for its survival methods.
And you know, I
i n.
.,,n
- - -,. - - -,, - - - -, - - -,, ~. - - - - -, - - - - - - - - -. - ~. -, -
21 1
I david 4 to say this might be promotional, therefore we shouldn't 2
make the suggestion, wait.
Well, who else ought to inake it?
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Energy.
That's their 4
business, Joe; the Energy Department's business is exactly 5
that, to raise the questions of what energy uses are.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm sorry.
We deal with 7
the alternatives question on every license we issue on a 8
plant in great detail, and you ask members of this' staff 9
to get up and present sworn testimony and take cross 10 examination on, by God, that point.
Now to say that this is, you know, just not our 12 business, that we ought not to mention it, you know, I I3 just don't understand the basis for that.
Id COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I think this is 5
going way beyond just mentioning it.
What are the implications 16 of doing without it?
I7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You don' t think that that's a 18 question that is an inevitable and proper part of the 19 1
examination of the risks and benefits, and so on, in the j
20 waste management question?
2I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Of doing without nuclear
[
22 energy?
I think it's a very appropriate question.
I'have
/
23 great condifence that Jack O' Leary and his friends will 24 write something.
Arm Federst Reporters, Inc.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I'm going to ask you from
^
l lE
~.
. _, _ ~ - _ _.
22 l
4 i
I david 5 time to time down the line in connection with other matters 2
in which the Commission is expert, which we may be called upon to comment, to offer an opinion, or to take some action.
Whether your speculation that my good friend Jack O' Leary 5
will think of it and speak on behalf of the government is 6
asufficient basis for this Commission to turn aside from 7
its knowledge and responsibilities.
I don't think it is.
8 I assume, I hope that indeed the Energy 9
Department would make some such comment.
But I don't think 10 that in any way, shape, or form relieves the responsibility 11
- here, We think it's a point that ought to be considered.
12 MR. SMITH:
Mr. Chairman, could I make just --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I think pro or anti aspects 14 have got nothing to do with it.
15 MR. SMITH:
Could I make just one last point?
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
17 MR. SMITH:
If you read the actual words we used --
18 and this letter now is going to Schlesinger --
we say, "One 19 of the unresolved questions which still remains is:
what 20 are the implications of doing without nuclear power, nuclear 21 energy for power generation?
To answer this question by 22 providing both the public and the decision makers with an 23 informed basis of choice, it would be appropriate for the IRG 24 i
to recommend that a comparative analysis of the impacts
' wooerei n. porters. Inc.
25 of alternative energy supply technologies and options for
23 david 6 I
energy conservation be performed."
2 That's what we're saying.
That's what it said in 3
the letter.
And we didn't see that as an inappropriate i
4 statement for us to recommend to the IRG.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I did.
6 MR. SMITH:
Okay.
So in the introduction, as 7
we have mentioned, it discusses the background the 8
historical perspective --
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Before we leave that point, 10 as I understand the purpose of this meeting as it was I
stated at the outset, at least from your perspective, the i
12 purpose is to seek guidance.
13 MR. SMITH: Yes.
Id COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would assume that you're c
15 assuming at the moment that you haven't had any up to now.
16 Okay?
17 MR. SMITH:
I'm assuming at the present time I 18 don't have any collegial view on how this letter ought to I9 be changed.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay, I want to be sure 21 that you don't go away from the table and then ask yourself, now, what did I get told to do.
Because, as I understand it, f
22 23 you haven't been told to do anything.
Okay?
?
2#
i MR. SMITH:
Right.
AoFedercj Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Thank you.
I wanted to be
}
i
,r_,.,__
me--r
...7,,
--,,.m
,,,,,,,,c,,....,
...,,,,,,wy-,,,..%,,,-.m
24 i
1 i
david 7 sure of that.
2 MR. SMITH:
and you have a draft letter in front 3
of you.
4 COMMISSINER KENNEDY:
That's right.
5 MR. SMITH:
All right.
If we can move on.
That's 6
the introduction, and there is some information in there 7
on the scope an'd magnitude of waste management requirements, 8
that is, the types and quantities existing in the future of 9
nuclear waste.
10 1 Now, chapter one, which deals with objectives 11 and procedures, if you will note, we have highlighted 12 several bullets.
It goes into great detail on planning 13 objectives, that is, what the possible objectives to be 14 fulfilled by any system would be for managing and disposing l
of waste.
16 They use the term in there in that second bullet, 17 "an interim strategic planning basis -- interim strategic l
l 18 i
planning basis."
l 19 And the ' origin of that terminology, I think it 's 20 fair to say, is not to compromise the NEPA process, so that 21 it would be one thing for us to come up with a definitive 22 program and yet really you haven't allowed NEPA to work 23 its course to make a final decision.
1 24 s
be..rcserci neoorters, inc.
M so de tem Medm seategic planning 1
l 25 I
process -- interim strategic planning basis is used.
And I
25 i
1 1
david 8 I
we mention that it would be used to guide programs, 2
assign priorities, and develop budgets.
So that's how 3
that got into that.
i 4
Then on the third bullet, it calls for the 5
development of an implementation plan for NEPA requirements
[
6 and an integration of agency efforts in order to systematize 7
NEPA documentation.
Now, we did comment on that because the 8
recommendation was for each agency to prepare a comprehensive 9
plan for meeting the NEPA requirements to CEO and public 10 l for comment.
II And we felt that the approach that was 12 recommended failed to develop a coordinated approach.
It
[
13 was difficult for us to see at least at this point in time Id how all of these agencies following their own particular 15 procedures with respect to NEPA this would would all be 16 brought together in terms of a comprehensive approach to 17 the problem.
18 And we felt also that there was a lack of an I
l9 analysis of NEPA requirements that might need modification r
20 or clarification.
For instance, ELD has raised in quite 21 a lengthy and detailed discussion of what constitutes l
e 22 alternatives.
Can you make the decision that the first 23 repository is going to be in salt, and then one only would 24 look at what the other potential salt sites would be around i
Ace Federti Reporters, Inc, 25 the country?
or would really you have to look at it in a l
I i
26 david 9 1
much broader perspective and just say sites in general 2
with respect to whether it's salt or for salt or shale and 3
so forth.
And maybe Howard or Marty would want to elaborate 4
on that.
5 But we felt it was very unclear on that issue.
6 MR. SHAPAR:
Marty, do you want to develop that a L
little bit?
7 8
MR. MALSCH:
Okay.
At one time we had planned to 9
make some kinds of generic decisions based upon DOE GEIS 10 review of them.
And the hope had been that somehow we could 11 narrow down the scope of review of alternatives in 12 individual repository licensee proceedings to one geologic 13 medium.
14 For example if WIPP were licensed-we could say we are 15 just going to confine our examanation of alternatives to 16 salt.
Now one thing that this report does is, I think, say 17 that that's not a scientifically valid way of approaching I
18 alternatives.
You got to look at entire systems, geology, 19 hydrology and everything.
l t
20 And you can't just rule out in isolation one 21 Particular kind of geology.
Now the result is when you are 22 faced with trying to examine alternatives to NEPA and specific licensing action, you've got a much wider 23 24 range of alternatives.
You got look at salt, shale, basalt, i
Am Faw3 Rworms, inc.
25 granite, and what else.
,,-v-r-w y--
.,+w--
v
--eq--
.m-e,.
.,.--,p.,e,w y-r-
,-----,.m.--y--,-
,-e.e,er,w - rw *,...
wv4,.ra..-+-..-,,,,rm,
-=*r==.--.-,..-.s
9 4
27 david 10 1
The question is:
what is the scope of a r
2 reasonable examination of alternatives?
The report examines 3
this in some detail, and in general you could dimiss v
4 some alternatives because you haven't got sufficient 5
information on them, and the time it would take to get the 6
information would not be worth the effort.
7 But.the report doesn't provide a basis for 8
making those kinds of choices.
There was no indication in 9
the report of what the costs are, for example, of waiting 10 for five more years to get the information on basalt or 11 shale as compared to going ahead now and treating uncertainty 12 as a kind of cost.
13 The report sort of raises the issue and then 14 implicitly asked for comments and then gives little 15 information for a decision maker to make a decision on it.
l 16 So, for example, if we had an application filed tomorrow 17 for a repository in salt, DOE would come back and say to 18 get comparable information on shale would take us another I
i 19 five years.
l 20 We would have to weigh the cost benefits of 21 waiting for five years.
Yet the report refers again to what 22 those costs and benefits are.
It makes the NEPA alternative 23 examination very difficult.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In particular, it probably
. Ace Fedysl Reporters, Inc.
25 leaves it in shape where the courts will eventually determine l
we
.m. +, - -..
r---w.~,,:rw-
,=w,, -., -
+,e.-.--w-w+---g-,r,-,e-r
-rsww-,-=t+-re rr re r-w +w-s e = c y e
--,ep--er-i--*++s-raw--w++r=
=w'-+-tvy-
,w a m -ew w = w v-1-vr~ t t r' w -'
a
1 28
's david 41 1
the scope of the examination.
2 MR. MALSCH:
That will happen no matter what.
3 It's going to be difficult.
It will just make for a 4
difficult licensing proceedings, I think, depending upon 5
what happens by way of some effort here to coordinate agency 6
NEPA activities.
If each agency develops a NEPA implementation 7
plan, they're all coordinated and CEQ sort of blesses them 8
there's some hope at least that this thing can be solved 9
somehow in a coordinated fashion, but that's not so clear.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Has there been any discussion 11 about the alternative site question?
12 MR. MALSCH:
There was an informal discussion 13 with the various members of the subgroups.
I think the 14 Interagency Strategy Planning Group had a big discussion of this.
15 It is ndt reflected in the main report.
In fact, even 16 WIPP was discussed in some detail, as an example of the kinds 17 of problems that might be faced.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is the relation 19 between the backup document such as the subgroup report on 20 alternative technology strategies and the main report?
It 21 does say in its backup report that there are no serious 22 health and safety consequences associated with waiting until 23 the year 2000 and no great costs associated with storing 24 high level defense wastes until the year 2000 on a continuing i
Aofederet Reporters, Inc.
25 interim basis.
y
-.y.-
,,,.x
-*,,rm e.-.
v-y, ww.,-4 r--,
,m,
..e ev-
29
.s t
'davidl2 I
Can those be treated as 'being parts of the 2
conclusion of thef IRG as a whole?
s 3
MR. MALSCH:
I'm not sure myself.
4 MS. FUCIGNA:
I guess I wouldn't be sure of that 5
either.
I think the final report represents what elements 6
in the subgroup-reports the executive subgroup through 7
should be in the final report.
8 But by excluding some of the conclusions doesn't 9
mean they didn' t support them.
'10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: h: By not including them they 11 can't be used as saying it is either a report to the President,or 1
12 the executive group did support them.
That is, they can't i
13 be used as saying, well, here imbedded in this task Id group report -- it was a posi. tion, and therefore it is now 15 the position of the final report.
16 MS. FUCIGNA:
I think that would be reasonable.
l I7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yet if the points seem I
18 to coordinate enough, I think it would be a legitimate 19 public~ comment to say this point ought to elevated from l
l_
1 20 the subgroup report into the main report.
t 21 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
22 MS. FUCIGNA:
Those two reports were issued i
23 together, that subgroup one report.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But there is no as surance
' 39Federd Reporters, Inc.
t 25 that they traveled together af ter that?
i 30 davidl3 1
MS. FUCIGNA:
They were mailed together on the 2
mailing list.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But there's nothing in t
4 the report to the president that specifically says they 5
should be read in conjunction --
6 MR. SMITH:
No, that's correct.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can I ask some more points 8
on that?
9 In this interim strategic planning process that 10 1 they addressed, do they have anywhere in there -- could that be 11 viewed as a mechanism for doing this coordination?
Is there 12 any procedure set up in there?
13 MR. SMITH:
For coordination of NEPA?
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, you pointed out in 15 one of the comments that you are proposing is the 16 requirement to have some mechanism to coordinate with NEPA 17 requirements of the individual agencies.
18 Does this interim strategic planning basis which l
1 19 they recommend have any ingredient in it that would provide l
20 for that' type of coordination?
21 MR. SMITH:
I don't remember, do you?
22 MS. FUCIGNA:
It was specifically addressed in 23 the recommendation that said that each agency should do a 24 comprehensive plan and then submit these plans to CEO t
AO FederCl Reporters, Inc.
25 for comment.
Now I guess our concern was that didn't give any I
31 david 14 overall role to CEQ or to anyone as far as coordinating
)
the agencies.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So as far as you can tell, 3
the interim planning approach is a step in that direction, but 4
it's not a sufficient step.
Is that it?
5 MR. SMITH:
I think that's a fair statement.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :.
And the second question 7
would be:
we are suggesting in your draft that the IRG 8
should suggest an appropriate mechanism for coordinating 9
i the NEPA requirements.
10 11 Sandy, from what you just mentioned there do I conclude that what you people are really proposing is that 12 CEO do that coordination?
.13 MS. FUCIGNA:
No.
ja MR. SMITH:
We're not specifically proposing 15 CEO.
It's one alternative.
We're just saying it's an 16 issue that we feel really needs to be addressed and that 77 IRG needs to come out and make a specific recommendation 18 as to how to do it.
- 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE
Do you see an alternative?
I 20 MR. SMITH:
Right offhand, no.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
So that it could 22 be -- would it be reasonable to assume that some people 23 conclude this is a recommendation for CEQ to do that 24
.. Ace-Feded Agorms, inc.
coordination?
25 I
i I
4 32 I
davidl5 MR. SMITH:
I suppose some people might read 2
that into it.
COMMISSIONER KrNNEDY:
I am not -- now you trouble me.
5 (Laughter.)
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Depending on whether the 7
review group proposes that it self destruct or continue.
t 8
on, I have heard some suggestion that this group in some 9
form might stay in place.
And it might itself be the entity that tries to make a plan.
11 MR. SMITH:
There are other White House offices 12 that might be considered for such a role, but we certainly 13 weren't trying.to narrow it down to one.
Clearly that's Id an option.
But we didn't get beyond the fact -- we didn't s
15 think about it too much beyond the fact of saying that 6
something needs to be done to tie this down.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The connection that I 18 was drawing that if in the interim plan they have already 19 I
recommended that all the agencies develop their plans and l
20 then send them to CEQ for comment, and then we recommend that 21 there should be a corrdinating mechanism, there's this e
22 agency that already has them.
It's a simple step then.
I t
23 end 2 was just curious.
24 s
Ace Fccerti Reporters, Inc.
25 I
l
CR 1216 -
MELTZER:
33 jl t#3
-1 MR. SMITH:
All right.
We read it a little differ-
- 2 ent.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Does that lead you to want to say i
I 4
something more on the comment, like this does not necessarily 5
mean CEQ?
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I've got to think about it, 7
because in general there are some groups who function very 8
publicly in advisory capacity.
Other groups function very 9
appropriately in a management capacity.
10 At all times, the character of the groups and their 11 roles, et cetera, are really affected strongly by those two;
- 12 and I am a little leary usually of trying to mix them together.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
That's a good thought.
14 MR. SMITH:
All right.
In Chapter 1 there were 15 several other bullets that we have proposed comments on.
16 T1.e IRG report, in the area of development criteria i
and standards -- there is a brief discussion in the report of i
17 i
18 EPA's role, its interface with NRC.
It points out the need for 19 acceleration of EPA's schedule and EPA's position paper on the l
20 final approach to be used in setting specific standards, and f
it also calls for DOE to take the lead in determining remedial.'
l 21 i
l 22 actions.
!i 23 In our comments -- oh, I should also point out, the 24 public-was asked to comment on the timing, also the priorities Acs. Fed:r:1 Reporters, Inc.
25 in this section; and EPA is also required to prepare a position
.<,-p
-,e-e-
,,r-,
,,n+ws,
--m-----,--~
-,..e
.,-m,,
,--.-re
,-r--,
.r-,--.,-->.,,-e-
--,,,~,-w-r-~e--,-~e.
s,-w--.a-,w,-
-,. -,- - ~ _-r-w
,,--e w
j1 2 34 1
paper by mid '79, setting this all out.
2 Now, in our comment, as a suggested comment for you, 3
is the fact that we felt IRG really did not discuss the issue
-4 of dual responsibilities -- that is, EPA and NRC, and the fact 5
that there is duplication and overlapping, and this can be 6
costly and expensive, and that this would have been, we thought, 7
a perfect forum.to try to better defir.e what each agency's 8
goal ought to be, and that was not done.
9 There was a lot of discussion, but it didn't come 10 to some conclusions.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You offered in the comments 12 two possible approaches.
13 MR. SMITH:
I was just going to mention we suggested 14 for consideration that one was, of course -- probably the most 15 controversial one, perhaps -- deferral of standard setting in 16 this area to NRC with EPA, in effect, having a concurrence or 17 nonconcurrence role on it.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you think that's a realis-19 tic possibility?
20 MR. SMITH:
I'm not really sure.
I have seen, in 21 testimony on the Hill last year and the year before, there i
22 certainly is awareness there of the problems that this over-23 lapping responsibility causes in delays.
If you move ahead 24 with a program and then all of a sudden, at some point, you AcD Feder01 Reporters, Inc.
25 have to stop and backfit with another agency's criteria,
. -.. _ ~.
_., _... ~,
... -.... ~
35 I
regulations, I am not sure that that's unrealistic.
2 MR. SHAPAR:
There have been examples where there 3
has been overlapping jurisdicticyn-in'the past and NBC worked out memorandum of i
understanding with that agency as to how we perceive overlappincj 4
'l.
5 be taken care of, with the caveat that there must be true overlap. We i 6
couldn't make a suggestion that they defer to us on something 7
that is not clearly within our jurisdiction.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Howard, are you suggesting i
9 that this is not --
10 MR. SHAPAR:
No, I am not.
I am just raising the 11 point.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.
Where does 40 CFR 190 come in?
13 It doesn't speak to waste matters at all?
14 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
No, it doesn't include waste burial 15 It doesn't include radium mill tailings.
16 MR. SMITH:
The other thing that we raised in the 17 letter was to take another look at the way EPA approaches set-
.6 18 ting standards.
As you know, in the air area or in the water 19 area, they use an approach called "best available control tech-1 20 nology."
21 And where they have responsibility for what the l
22 ambient air concentrations ought to be, or what the water
]
23 quality considerations are, you back up into the facility and 24 look at what is the best technology thnt could be put into Acs. Federal Reporters, Inc, 25 that plant to reduce the emissions.
And then you go from there i
...e
.-.--,...m.
. -,, -,.. -,.. -. ~,, - -, -,..
c,
.-m e.
m
.,..-,.m,,,.
jl 4 36 1
to set the ambient, and we are just raising that question, as 2
to whether or not that is an appropriate approach in dealing 3
3 with radiation, given NRC's responsibilities and so forth, i
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I was having diffi-i 5
culty really understanding what you are saying there.
6 MR. SMITH:
I don't know if I explai..ad it any 7
clearer.
8 COMMISSIONER ' AHEARNE:
Are you saying that you think 9
that EPA should use that approach, or should not use that 10 approach?
11 MR. SMITH:
Well, we didn't come-down that hard.
12 It has never been -- we think EPA can set ambient standards to 13 protect the health, without backing into the detailed technology 14 of each individual facility and the particular type =of waste 15 they produce.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are you saying that our 17 position would be that EPA should not examine facilities in 18 this case, in what is the best technology that could be put 19 on, and then get the ambient standard, but rather establish an 20 ambient standard?
21 MR. SMITH:
Right.
Correct.
That has been a posi-22 tion that we discussed with them many, many times.
But, as I i
l k
23 luive said, as we've tried to say here, the whole thrust in 24 their direction and how they set standards with respect to
- AbFWest Rororters, inc.
25 other media -- air, water and other pollutants -- has been that l
jl.5 o
4 37:
l I
way.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I would have preferred 3
.-.with a person like myself, not conversant with that -- per-4 haps might be a little clearer.
5 Now it is not a collegial request.
6 MR. SMITH:
All right.
Well, you see, one of the 7
things in these-other areas, there isn't in NRC, and when one 8
looks at it, we have got two agencies that are responsible for 9
public health.
We are concerned about public health and safety l
1 10 vis-a-vis radiation.
j i
II
.COMMISIONER AHEARNE:
I think it'is a very important 12 point.
13 MR. SMITH:
All right.
14 Let's see -- I had another comment here -- they go 15 on to discuss NRC's role in waste management and the manner in 16 which NRC fulfills it objectives in this report.
And, after 17 a great deal of rewriting on our part, with Mr. Minogue sitting 18 on several meetings, we feel that it came out pretty good.
19 The other bullet that we had some comments was 20 licensing determinations.
There the discussion really got into 21 the extension of NRC's licensing authority to new DOE facili-
]
22 ties for transuranics and nondefense low-level wastes; and, in J
23 effect, the only thing that was called for in the report, in 24 terms of an extension of NRC's licensing authority, was basical,
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 ly-that we would license transuranic facilities, taking care of I
ji 7 38l
. ~.
I transuranics, and, too, nondefense, low-level waste.
2 Now, there was not unanimity among the IRG on this.
3 There were several that felt that NRC's licensing responsibili-4 ties ought to go beyond that.
5 In our suggested comments back, we really didn't 6
comment on that, because of the fact that we said that the '79 7
authorization bill required us to study this issue.
And the 8
other point we make is that the alternatives that they mention 9
in this part of the report -- really, they don't consider the 10 !
nonlicensing option.
Il COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
They didn't mention that at 12 all?
13 MR. SMITH:
No.
There is not really a good dis-14 cussion on that at all.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is it mentioned?
16 MR. SMITH:
I don't renember, in that report.
17 MS. FUCIGNA:
Not at the moment.
18 MR. SMITH:
In other words, there are ways we can 19 participate without licensing, and I think some of you I
20 Commissioners have so said in your testimony on the Hill.
l 21 The only other comment we made in that particular i
22 area was that they mentioned that the benefits of licensing 23 were limited only to public safety, or it seemed to imply that 24 to us; and we felt that licensing, also, was very important Ace-Federcl Reoorters, Inc.
25 from the standpoint of public particpation and the public I
l
['
$1 G 39 6
l 1
having an opportunity to understand and fully participate 2
in it.
3 There is some problem with the logic in this thing, 4
too, in this report.
5 Sandy, you might go into that, on why it makes sense 6
to license transuranics and nondefense low-level waste, but 7
then, if you follow that logic, it begins to fall down when you 8
get to high-level waste.
9 MS. FUCIGNA:
I think you just said it.
Their 10 rationale for extending licensing to TRU wastes was it presented II comparable hazards for defense TRU with nondefense TRU.,
12 and the same with high-level.
13 And, if you follow the logic through, it would apply 14 to nondefense low-level as well as defense low-level.
4 15 MR. SMITH:
It was a little grey to us, and we made 16 some comments on that area.
17 All right.
In Chapter 2, it deals with' technical 18 strategies for high-level and transuranic wastes, and we did 19 comment upon -- and it goes into the status of knowledge of 20 mine repositories, the findings of the IRG with respect to'its 21 review of the scientific and technical knowledge pertinent to 22 mine repositories, and it makes a lot of comments, such as the 23 system support should be used and that our scientific and tech-24 nical knowledge is adequate to proceed with region selection
' Ace Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 and site characterization and so on.
jl 9:
40 1
One bullet there that we did comment on -- we.didn't, 2
but we had some concerns about it,-- regionality.
The IRG-3 recommends the construction of several repositories, sited on 4
a regional basis, insofar as technical considerations permit.
5 Now, they have.sked for public comment on that particular 6
recommendation.
7 As you know, that recommendation has received 8
enthusiastic endorsement from the Governor's Council.
We did 9
not comment on that particular issue.
I think -- I feel that 10
-- well, we just really didn't have any objections to the con-11 cept of regional siting on these things.
We are not sure that 12 there may not be some further justification -- further analysis 13 needed in terms of justification, because they mentioned it 14 from the standpoint of transportation and what the potential 15 risk would be if you have them regionally sited, in terms of 16 shipping to a regional one rather than having one.
l t
l'7 And we feel that perhaps we need to take a further i
18 look --analysis -- at that justification, but on the surface 19 we had no objections to that.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Regionality, in that sense, 21 means more than one?
22 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
23 All right.
Then we come to intermediate scale facil-24' ities, and the IRG recommends, or believes, that intermediate
' Ace Federzl Reporters, Inc.
25 scale facilities can play what they call a " distinct and
jl 10 f
41 1
desirable role" in the transition from R&D to a full-scale i
2 operational repository; and they asked for public comment on 3
this concept.
4 We did not comment upon it in the letter.
- Frankly, t
5 we are not too sure how it fits into the overall picture.
Is 6
it a research facility?
Is it the first step in a larger fac-7 ility?
Would you do it -- and they talk about licensing it.
8 If we get into the licensing mode, it would receive 9
a full-blown treatment.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There would be no difference.
11 MR. SMITH:
There would be no difference.
It was 12 just a difficult for us, and there was very little backup on it 13 from any of the subgroups; correct?
14 MS. FUCIGNA:
Not exactly.
Subgroup 1 did.
15 In fact --
1-6 MR. SMITH:
Subgroup 1; yes.
17 MS. FUCIGNA:
They are the source of this discussion.
18 Our problem was that it wasn't related to an overall strategy 19 for the high-level waste repository itself, and we didn't know 20 whether they were talking about one ISF or more than one.
l 21 If you had a later repositor 7, would have an earlier 22 ISF?
If you had true repository -- it wasn't incorporated into k
23
'an overall strategy, so we could see what the impact would be 24 from our resource requirements.
Ace Fed:tel Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. SMITH:
Maybe if I just move on to the next item, 1
jl 11 42 1
in which the interim strategic planning basis for high-level 2
waste -- because they are kind of coupled together here.
The 3
report indicates that the first disposal facilities would 4
probably be mine repositories, and that potential sites in 5
several geologic environments, possessing a wide variety of 6
geologic media, would be examined.
)
7 And it goes on to mention about R&E and site char-8 acterization of a broad range of media, and environments should 9
be promptly increase, and we should have increased R&E on near-10 term alternatives, such as deep ocean sediments, of very deep 11 holes, and other technological options should be limited to I
12 feasibility.
13 Then, there are two key options in the report for 14 what is called the "near-term interim strategic planning basis,"
15 and one, basically, is the early choice of first repository 16 site, and that would be from potential sites, covering a limit-17 ed range of geological environments; but, primarily, that would 18 be probably salt, because that is the one that you know the 19 most about at the current time.
20 And if you were to choose that particular option, 21 then that means initially you could be in operation in -- some-22 time, '88 to92.
23 On the other hand, if your planning basis was that 24 you would assume that the choice of the first repository will Ace-Feaeral Reporters, Inc.
25 wait the availability of a set of potential sites covering a l
.,.o
-e..
jl 12 A3 I
real broad range of geologic envirnoments, including salt, 2
- granite, basalt, then you are talking about that first 3
commercial repository in the time frame '92 to '95.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
For the catch-up work on the 5
other material?
6 MR. SMITH:
Yes, for the catch-up work on the other J
7 material.
I 8
Public comment is asked for in this particular area, 9
and our own comment is that the approach, to us, seems reason-10 able.
However, it was difficult for us to evaluate the overall' 11 approach without more detail.
In other words, we needed more 12 detail in terms of whether it made sense to go either way -- in 13 an early repository, a later repository, a transuranic route 14 repository only, or an interim storage facility?
15 And we just think that it is not very clear in that 16 particular area.
17, Now, in terms of our own program, I might add that 18 it has implications for us.
We have no priced it out -- and, 19 obviously, we are working on doing that -- but if you take that 20 near-term program approach that you will weigh the broader set 21 of geologic media, then that means you could have media A, B,
22 C,
D, E, and then here is all the information that you would N
23
'need to license a facility in this media -- site suitability, 24 waste performance criteria, et cetera.
! Ace Feders Reporters, Inc.
25 So you have got a matrix, but you know, up until I
jl 13 44 I
now, we have been proceeding on the salt, filling all of the 2
squares there, with a little over into basalt.
3 MR. BUNTING:
Shale.
4 MR. SMITH:
Shale.
5 If you take that second option, then it comes to our 6
program, and we are going to be filling all of those squares 7
and not knowing where they may ultimately land -- into what 8
particular medium.
So that means a lot more --
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We would have more time to do 10 it.
11 MR. SMITH:
We would have more time to do it, but I 12 think it is fair to say we need more money and more people; 13 because, as Mr. Bunting might wish to elaborate, we are already 14 behind the power curve in terms of money and people in this 15 program.
16 MR. BUNTING:
(Nodding affirmatively.)
We are.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would we be any more behind 18 on those other -- put to two separable questions, enough money 2 19 and resources for the current program, another day's discussion. Given 20 the approach we are taking on the one, if they go to the mix-21 ture approach, which is the second alternative, and, therefore, 22 they will be taking three more years, sort of, to get this.
23 MR. SMITH:
True; so we can go sequentially.
24 MR. BUNTING:
I think -- yes, but I think the problem-
)
. Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 turns out to be the IDFs.
If we bring those on line early,
jl 14 45 1
10 years earlier, that compounds the problem for us.
They are 2
talking about 1980 -- mid-1980s for that, and that could be in 3
a variety of media.
4 MR. SMITH:
The other problem that you run into is 5
that when DOE comes to NRC and says, "What would you be requir-6 ing in this particular area, in this particular media," that 7
could be sometime early in the game.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That-clarifies it.
9 One of the problems I was having with a few elements 10 in the response -- it was characterizing our position as very 11 reactive.
We were saying, in a number of places, that basical-12 ly we are concerned about the impact on our program, rather 13 than our having concluded what we ought to be doing and then 14 doing it, and then having some flexibility.
15 I think what you are saying is to retain that flex-16 ibility takes a lot more resources than we currently have.
17 MR. SMITH:
That's right.
18 MR. BUNTING:
That's true.
19 MR. SMITH:
And I think it is fair to say that up 20 until now, you know, DOE had th3 lead and were s out ahead.We tried!
21 to develop a waste management program within NRC as quickly as 22 we could.
You always had two options:
one, to pour in a mas-23 sive amount of resources, people and dollars; two, if you will 24 get all of the information that you need, in turn, to provide Ace Fed:rci Reporters. Inc.
25 DOE with advice, no matter what media.
jl 15' 46 l
.4 1
But all of the indications were salt, at that point 2
in time.
And, so, we chose to try and focus in on that, and 3
now it is a little more open.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I see.
i 5
MR. SMITH:
All right.
Just two other issues on 6
Chapter 2, and then we have just a little bit more to go.
7 There is another bullet in which they talk about i
8 technical strategies for transuranic wastes, and the IRG 9
recommends, as an interim strategic planning basis, proceeding 10 with what they call an early transuranic waste repository, 11 if an opportunity exists to do so.
12 Now, we don't feel that the transuranic recommenda-13 tion is substantiated.
We don't understand -- the need did 14 not seem to be justified to us.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You mean early?
16 MR. SMITH:
Yes, or if there is a justification, it 17 doesn't appear in the report.
It may be there.
i 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What does the phrase "if an i
19 opportunity exists to do so" mean?
Is that IRG's delicate 20 dealing with the Mexico political situation?-
21 MS. FUCIGNA:
The Carlsbad site.
3 4
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And what is it we say?
t 23 MR. SMITH:
We don't.
l i
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We refrain.
Now, there --
Acefedr,;i Reportets, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You would agree?
_ _ _ -. ~. -. _ _ _.. _ _ _.. _ _.. -. _..._ _. _ _ _ _,_.__. _. -._ _... _._.. _....____ _ _. -.._
jl 16 47 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That even may be a case where my 2
inclination is to run counter to my previous advice.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I won't hold you to that.
4 (Laughter.)
5 MR. SMITH:
We think it is WIPP.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Reading there, in the summary 7
at least, they seem to be trying to skirt very delicately 8
around that issue that we addressed earlier, a month or so ago 9
-- namely, how can you both, on the one hand, assume that you 10 haven't made a commitment; on the other hand, be marching down 11 12 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
That is why I think, if an oppor-13 tunity exists to do so, it is probably appropriate.
14 All right.
The other one was one was on defense 15 wastes; and, of course, we have no comment there or objection.
16 It was basically that DOE accelerated its R&E activities to 17 improving immobilization in waste forms, and that it review its 18 current immobilization programs, and that remedial action, 19 including immobilization of the wastes, should begin as soon as 20 practical.
21 While we did not comment in the letter, we are not 22 sure that there is solid justification for some of those 1
23 recommendations, because one of our concerns was that if you 24 began to go ahead and solidify this waste quickly, you have got i Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 to do it in some form.
Then the question comes up as to the
. =
jl 17 48 1
compatibility of that form that you have encapsulated that 2
waste into whatever particular geologic media you are going to 3
Put it in; and you might then find yourself having to go around 4
and find a site that was best for that particular waste, rather 5
than finding a site that looked best from the system standpoint 6
-- knowing how the waste ought to be packaged, if you will, 7
before it is put into the ground, and saying, "Let's go that 8
way."
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why isn't that an appropriate 10 comment to make?
11 MR. SMITH:
I can't give you the rationale.
12 MS. FUCIGNA:
I guess we feel it isn't an inappropri-13 ate comment; we just didn't.
14 MR. SMITH:
We didn't comment.
We would be glad to J
end t3 15 put it in.
16 17 18 19 1
20 21 22 23 24 Am Feud Reorms, lm, 25 l
... ~ - - _,... - - ~.
.~~-
CR 1216 49 MULTZEh t-4 mte 1 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ist's see, there is a drying out prograrr 2
going on at both the major defense waste facilities, it seems to me, i
3 letting the water boil out of the mix.
To the extent that 4
creates salt cake removal problems some time in the future, j
l 5
it may be unfortunate.
On the other hand, if the heat generation 6
level was low enough so you can stand it, it does put the stuff 7
in a form where it won't dribble out of a corrosion crack.
8 You know, it's a tossup.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought Cliff was making the 10 ! point that if they actually go to the point of encapsulation II at that stage, they are --
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Prematurely.
13 MR. SMITH:
Yes, that was our point.
We weren't 14 addressing the issue of trying to condense the wastes in volume, 15 for whatever reason.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, I read the current immobiliza-17 tion progran would be just the drying out in situ programs.
I 18 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's what is included.
That'swhyl 19 we raise the question.
They're talking -- we linow they have i
20 R&D going to solidify wastes, vitrefy it or whatever, for l
21 eventual transfer to repository, j
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sure, but I think we've always 23 regarded that as part of sort of the long-range thing which we l
24 get involved in.
r ewFec e si Reoct ers, Inc.
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's Inng-range.
On the other l
l
,,.,.,..,,.,,,,.. -,. -.,. -.. ~,,., - - -.,,,,,.,.. _.., _.,.,,,
t
",gg 2 50 f,
'I hand, they are in fact -- DOE is under some pressure to immobi-2 lize the wastes to the extent they can.
It isn't clear what 3
they intend here.
I i
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What does the report itself l
r 5
say?
6 MS. FUCIGNA:
It says what we pulled out, that thev i
7 begin immobilization as soon as practicable.
+
i 8
MR. C UNNINGHAM:
Now, you see, with those words, it l
9 would indicate that they are going to do something beyond what
[
l 10 ! they are already doing, dalciding wastes at Idaho Falls and-Il reducing volume. I think it --
12 CHAIF09di HENDRIE:
I wonder if the point just -- if 13 this means getting onto, say, glass forms or something like 14 that, or just if we're not premature -- -I wonder if that is 15 a comment that could go along with this sort of technical and j
i e
16 detailed comments that the staff is forwarding separately.
I 17 MR. SMITH:
Okay.
Chapter 3 deals with technical l
18 strategies for other type wastes, and it discusses the manage-19 ment and disposal of low-level wastes, mill tailings and waste 20 from decontamination and decommissioning activities.
It essen-21 tially comes out saying that existing practices -- we do have r
.22 the technology to handle those at the present time, but that j
23 existing practices need to be improved considerably to further 24 reduce the potential for public hazards associated with these l
h-Fen & et Repce ters, Inc.
25 materials; and also calls for increased R&D.
i l,
4
.--...-,,,,,.-._.m..--
m.t e 3.,
51 1
1 Our only comment on it, I suppose, is one like a little
.i 2
patting on the back, sort of.
But we felt that it didn't 3
discuss or reflect, if you will, the programs that are already l
-]
4 under way.
We feel that if one were to read the report without having any background of what was going on, you get the feeling l 5
i 6
that perhaps not much was being done in this area.
And as you 7
know, there are a lot of programs going under way:
hydrologic 8
evaluations, low-level alternative studies going on, what's 9
being done in uranium mining.
10 !
So it was only in that sense that we had a conment, 11 simply not only our agency but any other efforts that are 12 currently out there.
So I reflect that.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Cliff, I would have been much 14 more comfortable if in that comment you just had attached a 15 list of the specific programs that you think that they ought to 16 refer to.
And we say that they are beginning to yield signifi-17 cant results:
a list of significant results.
l 18 MR. SMITH:
The staff had that and I changed it I
19 around.
l i
20 (Laughter.)
f^
21 MR. SMITH:
So we'll go back to your position, f
22 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That wasn't a planted cuestion.
.I t
23
(,
MR. SMITH:
All right.
Just two other short chapters.!
l 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, recoanize that some of l
,wo Fec e si Reper ters, Inc.
25 us may take exception that those are significant results er
mte;4 52
-1
- significant programs.
l
'2 MR. SMITH:
I realize that.
3, Chapter 4 dealt with institutional issues.
It dealt 1
4 with the cooperation with' state and local governments, and got I
5 into several recommendations to encourage interaction and I
l 6
interface with the various affected parties.
And I think the f
7 most specific recommendation is the formation of what's called 8
an executive planning council.
9 Now, we did comment.
We mentioned that it was a little i
t 10 ' unclear to us as to what the relationship would be, for instance',
11 between NRC and the executive planning council.
They use the 12 terms " consultation" and " concurrence authority" for final i
13 action.
It's not clear how that would interface with us.
And' 14 really, the p rovisions for state participation 'are unclear.
t t
15 The issue of funding is unclear.
So we felt that that area in i
16 general, executive planning council, needed to be elaborated.
I 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Cliff, isn't the executive planning 18 council the son of IRG that some people have had in mind?
19 {
MR. SMITH:
I don't think so.
l 20 MS. FUCIGNA:
I think we would perceive that the l
21 recommendation it have overall coordination for the federal 22 program would be the son of IRG.
i 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see.
But then where would --
l 24 in their view, where would the executive planning council fiti l
am.-Fe nl Reme ?m. lm..
25 or were you able to perceive that?
i l
_ _ - -,,. -,.. _ -.,,.. -.,. _... _,,. ~...,,,., _,
...-.~,..,_-.,._...,..m..
m t. e 5, 53 I
MS. FUCIGNA:
That's one of the concerns.
We don't 2
know who it would report to, who would fund it, whether it would 3
be a separate advisory committee established by the President.
I l
4 We weren't able to ascertain what its role.
l 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think you have to focus on 6
that it has not just the federal agencies; it goes in to 7
governors, state, local government organizations, Indian nations.
8 It's a much -- it's sort of that national consensus.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see, j
i 10 i MR. SMITH:
Essentially, it was just unclear to us 11 exactly how that would operate and how we would interface with 12 it.
13 Then there is auite a discussion on public participa-14 tion.
He didn't have any comments on it.
We thought that it 15 mac-a lot of sense.
Basically, they 're saying that the l
16 President should encourage, direct and coordinate a program 17 to routinely update the status of scientific and technical 18 knowledge in nuclear waste management.
19 j On the issue of spent fuel, the report mentions that 20 liability coverage for nuclear incidents involving the transport l l
i
)
j 21 for storage and disposal of spent fuel is provided by the Price-'
l 22 Anderson Act.
We felt that on this issue of liability, two i
23 points; One, that it discussed only spent fuel; two, it isn't j
i 24 clear, nor did they discuss, whether or not Price-Anderson
, *r i.e num m. ine, 25 would be applicable to waste management to the actual storage
54'
,mte 5 I
i i
I 1
and placement of high-level waste in a deep geologic repository.i i
2 And we kind of felt that this issue of liability perhaps should {
l 3
have been covered for things other than just spent fuel.
4 "R.
SHAPAR:
Is there a clear answer to that?
i 5
MR. SMITH:
I would have to defer to Marty and Howard 6
on that (ssue.
j 7
MR. SHAPAR:
It raises some cuestion.
One of the 8
predicate of the limitation of liability on Price-Anderson 9
as originally envisaged was to remove a deterrent for industry. ;
I 10 It would seem at least at first blush that that sort of 11 rationale doesn't apply here at all.
12 Beyond that,.the waiver as defendesonly apply to 13 mandatory Price-Anderson on production and utilization facilities. This 14 gets you the strict liability, in effect.
And that wouldn 't i
15 apply here, because it only applies to, as I said, mandatory i
16 Price-Anderson.
1 17 What we're saying is that these are major policy l
18 auestions that seem to have gotten fairly short shrift in the t
I 19 discussion.
l 20 MR. SMITH:
There's a discussion on low-level waste t
21 and the report mentions that DOE --
t 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, before you get away 23 1from that.
With regard to away from reactor spent fuel storage 5
24 l facilities, Price-Anderson under present statute could be
.mw ey neocim inc. j 25 l extended to cover fuel in those facilities.
4 N'
u
mtP. 7,*
55 f
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
j e
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would assume.
Does it require 2
Commission action?
3 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
4 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And with regard to the further l
5 eventual permanent storage facilities, by Commission l-facilities, 6
action could the coverage be extended to those?
7
.R.
SRAPAR:
Yes, but I want to point out that insofar M
8 as they are DOE facilities, in either category Price-Anderson 9
i 10 could be extended by DOE as part ou the contractual relationship.
I 11 So there may be an option here as to which agency should be 12 extending Price-Anderson.
There is a contractual Price-y Anderson as well as a licensee Price-Anderson, 170D in the 13 14 Atomic Energy Act.
MR. SMITH:
Okay.
In the area of low-level wastes, 15 the report says that DOE should assume the responsibility for 16 developing and coordinating a national plan for low-level l
17 I
i waste.
The IRG actually recommends that states be provided the !
18
-l Option to retain management control of existing commercial 19 I
i low-level sites or that they have the option to transfer that 20 I
responsibility or control to the Federal Government 21 22 Now, it wasn't clear to us why DOE should perhaps be the one responsible for developing a national plan.
23 24 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
At one point we have suggested
, wFee ul Repee fets, Inc. I 25 that they leap in and start providing --
['
l
,--x
. ~ -.....
..,.c.,,--,
.~.,r
-r,,_
...._.ww,.
ww.-..e-..-
-.---s--.
56 mte,8, f,
1 MR.' SMITH:
A contingency.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- low-level sites.
MR. SMITH:
I think we said have a contingency plan 3l J
4 in case the commercial business just collapsed.
They already l
5 have existing sites.
6 But it's a little unclear to us with respect to the 7
role of industry here.
There doesn't seem to be a discussion 8
of that, that you're almost coming to the point that the 9
commercial enterprise in this area would be eliminated.
We 10 thought there ought to be some discussion on that.
11 And then there's a question for us about agreement 12 states and their role in licensing, and how that all begins to 13 shake out.
So we have agreement states, non-agreement states, 14 and then you have commercial operations.
So it isn't clear, 15 when you' begin to talk about DOE coming up with a national plan l
16 for low-level wastes, how we're going to tie all of that in.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You're saying you're not sure 18 they recognize there are those complexities or that --
l 19 MR. SMITH:
I'm sure they recognize that they're there'.
l 20 I think they should have been discussed more adecuately in the 21 report.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You refer to a March 13, '78 23 memo, President's March 13, 1978, memo.
What was that?
i 24 MS. FUCIGNA:
That's a presidential memorandum that r mfer a ul Repct ters, Inc.
~.
25 established the IRG.
Pe asked that the IRG pay specific 5
I l
e.y..
y
,gi r,..mc.
,c
........---.,....n
,w
t mte 9 57 '
I attention to the commercial role of waste management.
2 MR. SMITH:
And pu know, we have received a few I
letters --
i 3l 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
- Yes, j
5 MR. SMI"H:
-- in that area.
i 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
I was wondering why you 7
were leaping into the controversy again.
8 MR. SMITH:
Not really.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
He's trying to leap out.
i 10 MR. SMITH:
I'm trying to get out.
As the Chairman 11 reminded me, I was trying to get out gracefully.
12 (Laughter.)
13 MR. S MITH :
The last part of the report deals with 14 management considerations, and one of the key things.there is 15 the organizational issue, the top bullet on that page.
Here l
i 16 the IRG recommends that DOE be given the primary responsibility !
l I
17 for developing and integrating the overall planning for the
[
18 nonregulatory waste management procram and for interfacing with' I
(
19 the regulatory programs.
20 The discussion -- well, if you look at the options, 21 one option is to continue the status ano.
The second option 22 is an authority, a nuclear waste management authority of some i
l 23 sort.
And the third option is DOE being given the lead.
I 24 If you come back to that second option, an authority, l
n-For i un Repce rers, Inc.
l l
25 one of the reasons given for not going that way is the fact that!
I t
i l
l t
i
...mtp 10 58' I
we would be changing horses again with respect to agencies and 2
new people, and it would cost us time.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, that was about the only --
4 that was the rationale I made, in probably not too gorgeous 5
-language, to Senator Mathias and also Senator Percy.
But I 6
don't know that there's much beside that --
7 MR. SMITH:
That's our point.
My own personal opinion 8
is that, when you really begin to look at this thing in the 9
long-term, and AEC yesterday and ERDA today_and DOE tomorrow, i
10 ! that the concept of a nuclear waste management authority, a 11 permanent cadre of people charged with responsibility for 12 managing the nuclear wastes of this nation in the future and 13 NRC regulating it, I think it has a lot of merit.
And we just 14 felt that really, to shoot it down only on the basis that it 15 would take time --
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That there would be an inevitable 17 starting transient.
i 18 MR. SMITH:
Especially since you're talking '90 to j
i 19
'95 anyhow.
I 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why would there even be a 21 delay?
Suppose you went forward with DOE management and took i
22 steps to put in place a more permanent or a dedicated organiza-23 1 tion.
At some point one could transfer --
l 24 I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess my feeling would be 1
uw, si neocners, ine. !
that it's really premature to decide what kind of organizational!,<
'25 I
i 1
i n
l mt,el{
59 !
l structures are appropriate in the interim period.
Right now, I think the problem really has been that there has not been l
2 i
3 any sort of uniform plan, that there has not been addressed --
i putting aside apparently the concerns that some people have 4
I that there 's already a a lot under way, my impression is that 5
there may be a lot under way, but there's an awful lot that 6
wasn't under way.
And I think that the Post critical part of 7
this is to try -- finally try to get this large organization, l
8 set of organizations, moving in some sort of uniform direction 9
10 I to address the important issues and see whether they can be solved or not.
I 11 I'm very concerned about trying to implant on top of 12 that a new federal organization which has, then, all of the 13 ja problems that are associated with starting up a new organization,.
i 15 So at least from my point of view, I think it would be a bad I
16 idea to right now say we're going to form a new waste management 37 authority.
I MR. CUNNINGHAM:
B'It there's an interin option there, 18 19 isn't there?
If it appears that an authority might be useful in the long run, certainly in the interim there's a need for 20 1 national planning.
And DOE could proceed with that, even 21 though the Congress and the agencias were working on the 22 authority.
So that a lot could be put into place in the interim, 23 but it has to be started now.
24,
, wm e ai amcimes. ine. l 25 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I don't think it has 'to be i
.7 I
,mte,1,2 60 '
1 started now.
And B, I think if you do start it now, you are i
.2 more likely to get a set of arguments and sort of a lot of 3, effort being put into how do you structure this new organization!
I i
4 and those related problems.
j i
l 5
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I'm sorry.
When I said start now, t
6 I meant the planning, not planning for new authority, the G
7 national planning of waste management.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, that's what'I think has 9
to get started.
j 10 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So I'm reluctant --
l 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
When we went up to discuss those 13 bills during the last session, that came on rather suddenly.
14 And in fact, we didn't even have much more than early d raf t 15 copies of one of the bills.
Things moved awfully fast and i
16 there wasn't time for a great deal of discussion.
And although i l
17 I for myself said I was very concerned about the time.that l
I i
18 would, I thought, be lost in the personnel and organizational j
19 and policy transient in going from a DOE waste enterprise to l
i 20 an authority of one kind or another, there was also, it seemed 21 to me -- and I don' t recall that I made the point that I might 1
22 have -- there was, it seemed' to me, considerable merit that i
23 some of the other provisions of the draf ts that Senator 24 Mathias and Senator Percy had.
And those provisions dealt with
. t bFei t al Reoce reta, Inc.
25 laying out how we were going to go down the line with.this wastei q
i i
I I
mt,e ~ 13, 61 l l
i I
thing.
And it said, you look around and you find some sites,
{
l 2
and if, af ter a period.of time, you still haven't found any 3
state that was willing to have it, that you went ahead and did
-l 1
1 4
this, decided where the site was, and then there was a chance i
5 for appeals,tand complaints, and then, if that -- that is, if it 5
wasn't going to go all voluntarily in sweetness and light, it r
nevertheless laid out the law.
That is to say, we're going to 8
get on and do this thing.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There you're talking about 10 the procedures to follow.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But those things would seem to me 12 useful, and I'm inclined to think will be 'necessary ultimately 13 if we're going to get on to a solution, are almost apart from 14 the organizational auestion.
~
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, they are.
l 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So those good pieces of those t
17 bills, I think, would stand'even without the organization, i
l 18 MR. SMITH:
Well, Mr. Chairman, those in general are i
l 19 the comments that we had, which are reflected in the letter.
20 And I suppose -- I'm not sure how you would like us to work it l
l 21 now, just the way it's come back --
l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
One minor cuestion, because'I 22 l l
23 finally found the March 13th memorandum, and I am trying to 24 l search through.
You see, there it connects it to budgetary
. wf oc : at Repce ters_ inc.
25 l -impact.
It doesn't address the elimination of the commercial i
l-1 l-h i
g n
1' P.te 14 62 1
role in site operation in complying with the President's j
2 memorandum.
The President's memorandum talks about the 3
potential -- the budgetary impact of the potential involvement 4
in waste management programs by private industry.
It's a dif-l 5
ferent issue than the one being addressed here.
i 6
MS. FUCIGNA:
I don't think it's so separate, only 7
in the sense that, from what I have heard, the intent that the 8
President would like to see is a stronger role for the commer-
)
9 cial sector, as opposed to having the Federal Government do 10 everything.
Now, if you think that's separate --
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm very leary of attributing
(
12 something to a presidential, memo that isn't in the memo.
What 13 the memo says is addressing the budgetary' impacts, including 14 potential involvement in waste management programs by private 15 industry, focused upon the budgetary impacts.
And I don't --
1 16 so I'm concerned, then, with trying to say that we think -- I 17 have no problem with Cliff's point about making sure in address-18 ing this management of low-level waste sites all these complex 19 ities.
But I don't think it's correct to say that, in addition, 20 it is inconsistent with this memo's point, because he wasn't I
21 addressing that.
i 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
With regard to where we go 1
23 from here, we need to go about it fairly vigorously.
It's a f airly weighty paper.
I think Commissioners will need to make i
24 e ~ti f 9f 9 ell NepCt tef t, lnC.
25 comments on the draf t -- draf ts proposed, and that these will I
m,te 15 63 l
1
.need to be circulated fairly vigorously.
I think what we might i-l 2
all do is ask our assistants to help us get comments for l
1 3
ourselves, and then to get them circulated to one another.
4 And I would recommend to Commission offices that they not Sandy,youturnedouttobethel 5
hesitate to call on -- I guess, 6
chief --
1 I
7 MR. SMITH:
She is the chief coordinator.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- coordinator, and I think what 9
we need to be alert to is allowing time to run on with several i
10 1 different Commissioners' versions circulating around, and we 11 lose track of them, and then it will get to be the 18th of 12 November and we will have trouble getting together.
I think the 13 secretariat can help considerably in the coordination function, 14 keeping track of it.
i -;
15 Let's see.
The 18th.
This is the 7th.
Are we l
16 likely to need another meeting or shall we attempt to do the l
17 comments by iteration?
l l
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think by iteration.
l 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Iteration, 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm all for trying to do it 21 by iteration.
- 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's primarily because either thei 23 secretariat or I iterate, i
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I'm pessimistic that we 1
, mFcm. I si Repce +ers. Inc.
25 l will suc'ceed.
b
'i i
.mts'15
~64!
J.. i..
?
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You think we may need a meeting?
l 2
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have enough other notions j
I j
3 and. ideas.
I don't Pnow if'we.need a meeting, but I can at 4
least imagine different Commissioners appending: dif ferent l
7 5
comments, in part because there won't be opportunity, really, 6
even if we schedule more or more additional meetings, there won't be time to sit down and work through the whole report and l-7 i
8 the whole range of possible comments.
l l
9 It may well be that we can agree on a base document.
e-4 10 ! But'I don't see it as being all-inclusive.
.11 l
12 i
13 14 l
q 15 16 '
l 17 18 I
19 :
I 1
20 1
21 22 1
i 23 d 24 !!
i
.,,.e...n.x......m.h 25 D.
a O
!l r
l{
. ~.
65 1216.05.1 gsh 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But it is po ssible', Peter, 2
that we have a base ' document which.is the Commission's 3
response?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Sure.
Just what will
~
5 f all out is the possibility that the base document might be 6
a great ' deal broader if we had the time to work through all 7
the possibilities.
But I.just don't' think in the time we 8
have left much can be done about that.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So that wouldn't it be 10 possible at least to make an attempt in the next week to do
.Il it by iteration than by base document?
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Oh, yes, I wasn't disputing 13 that.
I was just saying that I didn't expect that that 14 base document would turn out to be a full reflection of what 15 we a11'might say jointly if we took all the time needed to 16 work thro gh it.
u 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think as pointed out in 18 the beginning, it's a compressed time schedule.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Clif f, you all made f airly 20 extensive comments as this went along.
Is there anywhere 21 a compilation of the comments that you made that were not 22 addressed in the final report and would, doubtless, be
. 23 different f rom the comments you are suggesting now that the 24 Commission make?
25 MR. SMITH:
We do have some other reports and there
~
e r,
r e--
m
.nw-><
-,-e-e--
.e--
-n-..
rv.
-e w
...w r
~
v
66 1216.05.2 gsh I
are some letters.
I don't think we have,a compilation right 2
now of those things that were addressed and those things that 3
weren't that we commented on in the past.
But we can 4
certainly go back --
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me ask another way:
6
' Are there significant issues that you addressed that were not 7
picked up in the report that was finally issued and that are 8
'also not reflected in the comments that you've prepared for 9
the Commission?
10 MR. SMITH:
I can't think of any.
Can you?
11 MS. FUCIGNA:
No.
This report is a significant 12 difference, represents a significant dif ference over the 13 earlier reports.
And I - think in the comments that we've 14 prepared for you, we brought out those areas that we felt
{
t 15 were the key ones.
16 MR. SMITH:
I know when the first one came out, 17 Bob Minogue and I and some others went down and had lengthy 18 discussions with Roger Legasie and some of his people on 19 some of the issues that we felt were significant.
And then 20 after that, it began to change.
21 I think, in general, we have been pleased with 22 this particular report.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would it be -- I was, I 24 guess, probably distressed at the paper that came up.
But 25 most of my concerns, I think, have been put to rest by this
67 1216.05.3 gsh I
briefing this morning.
2 Would it be fair to look at what you have done here 3
in this briefing package as here is a list of the' major 4
points, conclusions and recommendations made in the report?
5 MR. SMITH:
Not' all of them.
There were some 25 --
6 there were some 25 major recommendations.
7 MS. FUCIGNA:
We listed all the recommendations.
8 MR. SMITH:
And we picked out those --
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would you mind -- see, my 10 concern is what I had expected'would be, here are the major-11 points made in the report.
Here are the ones that we believe 12 the NRC ought to comment on, and her e are the comments we 13 propose.
14 MR. SMITH:
We have done that, only we didn't l
15 draft or structure it that way.
16 COMMI SSIONER AHE ARNE s - That's what I was asking, but j
17 I know that you ended up with here are the comments that you 18 believe we ought to make.
It was ' that f irst step, here are 19 the major points made in the report.
20 MR. SMITH:.
If you go through these 25 -- well, 21 there are actually 26.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can I get a copy of that?
23 MR. SMITH:
We can get a copy of that, at least from 24 my own. perspective.
There may be some disagreement among -
i 25 the staf f that we have commented on the 26 that we felt were-
~.
4 3
c 68 i
1216.05.4 gsh I
very. important and have. highlighted them here.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE ' I recognize you have done 3-that.
My interest was to make sure that I at least had it, 4
rather.than trying to go through this.
5 (Mr. Smith hands document to Commissioner Ahearne.)
6 MR. SMITH:
In fact, that was the quickest way to 7
go through to pull all the. recommendations and then start 8
looking at those and going back.
9 MR. GOSSICKs Do you have copies of that for the 10 other commissioners?
11 MS. FUCIONA I don't-have enough to give everyone, 12 but we can leave a copy here.
13 MR. SMITH:
We'll get them down right away.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD8 Did the othe subgroups 4
15 prepare reports and simply werenf t distributed as a ma,tter
~
16 of alternative technology strategies?
17 MR. SMITH:
.All of the other subgroups had draft 18 reports.
I think it's f air to say they were not distributed 19 or handled the same way.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What accounts'for the 21 difference?
22 MR. SMIT.H I don't know.
Do you?
t 23 MS. FUCIONA:
Probably two things:
Timing -- the i
24 other reports came in much earlier; and.the perception that 25 the Subgroup 1 report had the most emphasis and received the L
l
-}
l l
L
~
'l216 05 5
'gsh 1
most attention, both internally and also in the review 2
process that went on when that was issued in draft in July.
3 They thought that was the area that was of most 4
concern.
Also, the high level waste technology strategy.
5 I didn't double-check into that.
At one point, 6
the subgroup reports were going to be mailed out to this 7
8000-people mailing list as they were " finalized."
- But, 8
then, Mr. Legasie decided to hold them all until the final 9
report was sent out.
10 I don't really know what happened.
i 11 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
Whether all of them were 12 ultimately mailed back?
13 MS. FUCIONA: Yes.
14 MR. SMITHS In fact, I can remember one discussion 15 we were in.
It wasn't clear as to whether or not the IRG 16 wanted a final report, if you will, from each subgroupt but.
17 rather, we would build this report upon the draft reports 18 from the subgroups.
19 We can check into that for you.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As far as you know, there is 21 only one final subgroup report in a published --
22 MS. FUCIGNA:
None of them are final.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right, final draft.
24 MR. SMITH: Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
~.
f n~
. ' *9 k s 70 1216.05.6 gsh 1
MR. SMITH:
Thank you very much.
2 (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m.,
the hearing adjourned, 3
to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.)
4 5
g 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 IS s
Cd 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
.