ML20205E256
| ML20205E256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/10/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 8510170248 | |
| Download: ML20205E256 (48) | |
Text
f ORIGINAL
~
(-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Periodic Meeting with Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
((
e Location: Washington, D.
C.
Date Thursday, October 10, 1985 Pages:
1 - 41
$lY 052010 I
7 l'DR lb ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES
~
Court Reporters
\\
1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
f
~
l E
\\
1 D I SCLA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Thursday, 8
October 10, 1985in the Corweission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N.W.,
Wr.shington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracles.
g 13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 Informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of epinion in this transcript g
17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
22 23 24 25
)
[
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 5
ON REACTOR SAFEOUARDS 6
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C.
12 Thursday, October 10, 1985 13 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 15 1S: M a.m.
16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
17 NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 14 FREDERICK M.
BERNTHAL, Commissioner 19 THOMAS M.
ROBERTS, Commissioner 20 LANDO W.
- ZECH, JR.,
Commissioner 21 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
22 D.
Ward D.
Moeller 23 D.
Okrent H.
Lewis 24 C.
Mark F.
Romick 25 W.
Xerr R.
Axtmann
I e
e 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS CContinued3; 2
J.
Ebersole C.
Siess t
3 O.
Reed C.
Wylie 4
C.
Michelson P.
Showmon 5
M.
Carbon H.
Etherington 4
J.
Wolfe H.
Miller 7
8 9
10 11 12 t
13 14 i
f 15 16 17 1e 19 20 21 i
22 23 r
24 I
25 l
r i
(
3 1
PROC EED I NO S 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good morning, ladies and 3
gentlemen.
This is a periodic meeting between the Commission 4
and the members of the Advisory Committee on Reactor 5
Safeguards and we are pleased to welcome the members to the 6
meeting.
7 Today we will obtain the views of the ACRS on the 8
Environmental Protection Agency's standards for high level 9
waste disposal The Commission is currently considering a 10 proposed letter to EPA on these standards and future 11 rulemaking involving EPA's assurance requirements for 12 incorporation of them into NRC's 10 CFR Part 60, 13 We are very interested in the views of the ACRS in 14 this matter, and in a July 17, 1985 letter to me, the ACRS 15 expressed some concerns regarding demonstration of compliance 16 with current EPA standards.
17 Unless any of the other Commissioners have opening 18 remarks, I will turn the meeting over to the Chairman of the 19 ACRS, Mr. David Ward.
20 MR. WARD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 21 Commissioners.
On the topic of today's meeting, there is, I
22 believe, a quite strongly held consensus by the committee, and 23 Dr. Dade Moeller will lead the discussion, and other members 1 24 think will have some additional comments.
Dr. Moeller?
25 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
I believe in discussing
f 4
1 this subject, all of us should keep in mind that it is 2
collectively the EPA and its standards for high level waste 3
respository that is the subject that we are addressing.
Our 4
other comment is that the standards have already been 5
published, and my understanding from having discussed it 6
earlier this morning is that after a 30-day comment period, 7
which began sometime ago, I gather that the standards will 8
become official.
9 Because, however, the standards will apply to the 10 facilities being proposed by DOE for a high level repository, 11 and such facilities will ultimately be licensed by the NRC, we 12 thought it very important that we come and discuss this matter 13 with you because we think that the subject is very 14 significant.
15 As part of its efforts in developing the standards, 16 we understand from EPA and our subcommittee has met 17 periodically over the past several years with representatives but we understand from them that they did 18 from that agency, 19 consult with a variety of outside groups; most particularly, 20 the various states.
And so they have a lot of input.
21 They also, though, called for advice or requested 22 advice on the standards from their own Science Advisory Board, 23 and the EPA's Science Advisory Board then established a l
24 High Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Subcommittee which l
25 reviewed the standards in detail and offered advice and
o 5
1 suggestions to EPA on how they should be modified.
2 In several stages wi. thin within this process, as 3
l've already said, our subcommittee met with representatives 4
from EPA and in addition, because one member of the ACRS as well as two of our consultants were involved in the 6
deliberations of this subcommittee to the Science Advisory 7
Board, we had good input and we were able to kcap up with 8
- things, 9
Now, the Science Advisory Board made a number of 10 recommendations and it depends upon how you view it as to i
11 which are the most critical or the most important.
But I have 12 selected out two statements of the Science Advisory Board that I
13 we thought were particularly important.
14 The first conclusion of the Science Advisory Board 15 was that the standards were overly restrictive, or in other 16 words, they were too stringent In fact, the Board 17 recommended that the release limits incorporated within the 18 standards be increased by a factor of 10.
And this, then, of 19 course would have caused or resulted in a tenfold relaxation i
20 of the proposed societal objective.
Their objective being 21 and I'm sure you are familiar with it to not have the waste 22 respository for a given unit or quantity of waste deposited 23 therein to result in more than 1000 health effects over the 4
24 next 10,000 years.
25 The second recommendation of the Science Advisory
-. _. - -, _ =..
j e
i 6
4 4
1 Board was that the quantitative probabilistic conditions on 2
the release limits be made dependent on EPA's ability and I 3
am quoting from them "to provide convincing evidence that 4
such a condition is practical to meet and will not lead to 5
serious impediments, legal or otherwise, to the licensing of a j
6 high level geologic repository."
i 1
7 In other words, the Board said we are not convinced I
8 that anyone could ever take proper environmental measurements
[
9 or do whatever is necessary to assure that the standards you that' EPA is proposing -- will be met.
10 are proposing 4
11 And the Board went on to say that if such evidence 12 cannot be provided, the EPA should adopt qualitative ortteria i
13 such as those that had previously been suggested by the NRC.
I to help you and to 14 Now, the proposed standards l
15 refresh all of us a little more about them -- they stated that 16 the containment requirements should be such that the 17 oumulative radionuotide releases to the accessible environment t
18 over the next 10,000 years (a) have a likelihood of less than i
19 one chance in to of exceeding the quantities that they gave in 20 an aooompanying table 3 a given quantity for each of the number i
21 of radionuotides, and in (b) they said that they must have I.
22 a likelihood of less than one chance in 1000 of exceeding to i
23 times the numbers given in this table.
And this, again, is 24 one of the key points that the Science Advisory Board of EPA i
25 was challenging.
e r
7 i
1 Further, the Board recommended that these ortterta 2
he reworded to state that, " Analysis of repository performance 3
be required to demonstrate that there is less than a 50 4
percent chance of exceeding the given limits."
And that, 5
" Events whose median frequency is less than one in 10,000 6
within the 10,000 years need not be considered."
1 7
Now, we join and share with the Science Advisory 8
Board in these particular crittotsms 9
Furthermore, in the subcommittee meeting of our 1
i 10 Waste Management Subocumittee on June 18th and 19th of 1985, j
11 we noted additional problems.
And of course, the Solence 12 Advisory Board had a whole list of additional problems.
Just 13 to give you one example, they said instead of using the term j
14
" health effects," why don't you say what you mean -- latent 15 cancers or latent cancer fata11ttes and so forth, and we would i
l 16 agree with that, 17 But we also found, for example, number one, that the j
i 18 standards were not consistent in terms of using a risk-based 19
- approach, For example, they stated that they were going to 20 apply the very latest data on the biological effects of 21 radioactive materials in order to set the dose limits for the 22 public that might result from releases from this repository.
}
23 And yet, even so doing, they immediately applied the EPA's 40 i
24 CFR 1,90 in which the dose limit for the whole body is OS 25 milltrem a year, and for the thyroid it's 75 milltrem a year.
8 1
Well, the ratto there for thyroid to whole body is 3 2
to 1.
Well, if you had calculated these dose Ilmits on a 3
risk-based approach, whtoh they said they were going to do and 4
which is in the pubitshed literature, the ratto of the thyroid 5
dose limit to the whole body dose limit would have been about 6
30 to 1 instead of this 3 to 1 7
Secondly, we wondered as a subcommittee if the 6
overly restrictive standards could lead to the rejection of 9
some sites that might otherwiss have been acceptable.
10 Now, there a'r e several ways you can look at this.
11 Several of us asked well, let's say you accepted the Solence 12 Advisory Board's -- your own Sotence Advisory Board's 13 suggestion and you relaxed the limits by a factor of 10.
We 14 asked, well how many more sites might have been available, 15 proven acooptable for a repository whtoh otherwise might have 16 been rejected.
We also asked, what would have been the 17 difference in the cost of butiding and operating this 18 repository.
19 We later learned that the cost is not too much of a and you will hear from me in a few 20 factor but really.
the key bottom Inne is will these overly 21 minutes 22 restrictive dose limits or release limits, and will these 23 conditions or will these standards result in delays later and 24 lead to a variety of impediments in 1toonsing a repository.
25 And we are very fearful that they will
i 9
1 A third example that we wanted to cite as problems i
2 that the subcommittee noted was that the release limits were 3
based upon a generic environmental model which the EPA applied t
4 and calculated what release would have to result in what S
dose.
Well, there are only going to be, you know, one or two 6
or three such repositories, and we questioned whether this 7
generic environmental model which they have and they are using 8
will actually work for these specific sites that are chosen.
9 We don't know.
10 Although we' realise, of course, that promulgation of 11 the standards is not the responsibility of the NRC, we are 12 fearful and I am going to repeat a little bit here that 13 the standards now established could lead to serious l
14 impediments to the licensing of a high level waste 15 repository.
And it could well be and we think the l
16 Commission has to seriously consider this -- whether it would 17
.be more advantageous to challenge the standards now and get 18 the problems straightened out at this point than to wait untti 19 the big problems, major, colossal problems in fact is the word 20 we were using this morning, wait until those are faced later 21 downstream.
22 At the same time that we say all of this, we realise I
23 that to some degree or we acknowledge or understand to some 1
24 degree, EPA's desire to pubitsh the standards.
They have 25 spent years in trying to develop them.
We also can appreciate
10 1
to some degree but not fully the desire of DOE and the NRC 2
Staff to finally say okay, we accept the standards, because by 3
doing so they can get on to other things that they consider 4
important 5
But we are seriously troubled.
And also, we do not 6
understand the stringency of the EPA High Level W&ste 7
Repository standards compared to other risks considered 8
acceptable in our everyday lives.
When Dr. Ruckelshaus was 9
the Administrator of the EPA, he made a speech which, you 10 know, is quite well known, before some group as I recall at 11 the National Academy of Sciences in which he laid out his 12 thoughts on risk and firmly told the world that EPA was going 13 to use a consistent approach in applying risk to all types of 14 enviromantal problems.
15 Well, if you look at the standard for the high level 16 waste repository and compare it to the risks associated with a 17 toxic chemical disposal facility, or let's take another one 18 if you compare it tr he health offects from uranium mill 19 tailings, which all of us have been involved in, you will see 20 just how wide apart these are.
21 The high level waste repository standards are not 22 just orders of magnitude; we are talking factors of 1000 to 23 one million more stringent than the risks associated with 24 related standards being applied to other problems in EPA's 25 jurisdiction.
11 1
I mentioned uranium mill tailings.
The number we 2
were given, or that our subcommittee was given just recently 3
at the existing uranium mill tailings sites in the western 4
U.S.,
if left uncontrolled, would result in about six health 5
effects per year.
So in the next 10,000 years they will 6
result, let's say, in 60,000 health effects compared to the 7
1000 we're talking about here.
and you don't justify, or I am 8
Another example l
9 not one to justify relaxing one standard because other things 10 are worse.
I mean, that's no excuse.
But if you look at 11 radon in the home, the current estimates in the NCRP are that 12 these are causing 10,000 lung cancer deaths annually in the 13 United States.
Well, in the next 10,000 years if left 14 uncorrected, we're talking 10,000 times 10,000 I guess 10 15 to the 8th.
And assuming no increase in the population and 16 all these other things, we're talking 10 to the 8th versus to 17 to the 3rd for their proposed standard, 18 So in summary, we believe that as a policy decision, 19 if that's what it is correctly called, we would caution or, i
20 we're not to caution the Commission, but we would certainly i
21 urge that you really look once again at these EPA standards.
22 I do not believe, if my memory is correct, that you have i
l 23 signed off as a Commission en them; however, your staff, as I i
24 understand, has approved them.
And particularly look ahead 25 toward the impediments that may occur as a result of these
. __-.__,,\\
12 1
being used.
2 And you really stood your ground a year or so ago 3
maybe it's a couple of years ago -- when EPA was 4
jurisdictional 1y going beyond their legal rights, or what the 5
law says they should do, and you stood your ground and they well, you got them to back off so 6
backed off in terms of 7
that they only issue standards.
They didn't go into your 8
areas of jurisdiction in terms of setting environmental 9
release limits.
10 And particul'arly, you held your ground that you are 11 the agency that establishes the criteria through which you 12 assure that the standards are being met.
13 As I close, let me emphasize again that although 14 some of the criticism and comments we are making are directed 15 to the NRC Staff, I want to say that the most of our 16 criticism, the vast majority of it, is directed to the EPA and 17 the EPA standards.
18 We have been meeting with the staff, with the 19 Division of Waste Management staff in the NRC.
Our meetings 20 with them are very profitable, very open.
They welcome our 21 criticism.
I spent a day with several ACRS staff members with 22 them last week and we not only have been able to continue to 23 communicate quite well, but we have identified the key issues 24 that they want us to look at in terms of future commentary on 25 the high level waste repository problem.
i I
13 1
So let me close then simply by saying our relations 2
there are continuing to be good.
This is directed to some 3
degree to the staff, but primarily to the standards 4
themselves.
5 MR. WARD:
Maybe some other members would like to 6
add a comment at this time.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Can I ask a question?
Have all 8
these thoughts been set forth in any memo or letter, either to 9
the staff or to us?
10 MR. MOELLER:
No, sir.
Other than -- well, let's 11 see.
I think we have them in our letter.
Yes.
I'm sorry.
12 In our letter here of July 17th we did.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Well, I didn't get all of that 14 out of this letter.
The letter is rather short.
15 MR. MOELLER:
Right, and I'll admit I guess it's a 16 typical ACRS letter.
At the bottom of the fourth paragraph on 17 the first page, if you count the quotation as a paragraph, the 18 last sentence in the fourth paragraph states our problem.
"We 19 believe that demonstration of such compliance.
meaning 20 with the EPA standards
"..,will be extremely difficult and 21 that the proposed standards are unduly restrictive."
22 So we have said that much and in our subcommittee 23 meetings with EPA we have clearly said it But they have not 24 heard us up to this point.
25 But the message I just gave you, and the background,
14 1
indeed we could put into writing, which we have not, as a 2
systematic discussion of the subject.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Would you bear with me just for 4
another minute while I re-read something.
5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Everybody pokes fun at ACRS 6
letters.
There are 15 of you; there are five of us.
We don't 7
do much better.
8
[ Laughter.]
9 MR. LEWIS:
It goes as the square, you know.
10 CLaughter.]
the 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Basically, I gather what 12 staff did send comments to EPA on the advisory committee 13 report.
14 MR. MOELLER:
Yes.
Very lengthy comments.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And some of ther they take and I hate to say most.
1 16 exception with, and many of them 17 but many of them they agreed.
18 MR. MOELLER:
And on this particular issue of the 19 stringency of the standards, the staff did get EPA to put into 20 their proposed standards the statement that you need require 21 only reasonable assurance that these standards were being met.
i 22 Now, we have trouble with that in that you're and I was trying to write down some words to get 23 comparing i
you're comparing a very 24 it straight in my own mind l
25 restrictive standard loosely applied versus a more realistic
15 1
or less restrictive standard that could be properly verified 2
and enforced.
And we prefer the latter.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
!s it clear what one can do to 4
get that?
5 MR. MOELLER:
To get a relaxation of the limits?
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Well, to get a realistic I
7 hate to use the word relaxation; that implies like we're 8
giving something.
But a more realistic set of standards that 9
we could then enforce.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
There I think we'd have to turn 11 to probably your legal counsel to offer some comments.
As I 12 said earlier, EPA has published the standards and they have 13 been endorsed by DOE staff and NRC staff, and within 30 days 14 they become law.
15 MR. WARD:
No.
I think do you think it's 16 technically feasible to write some standards that could be 17 enforceable in a practical way.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That's what I mean.
19 MR. MOELLER:
We think so, yes.
We think so.
20 Certainly far better than what we have.
a 21 MR. KERR:
You will remember that the Science
-l 22 Advisory Board recommended that if EPA couldn't demonstrate 23 that these were applicable, they be asked to look at 24 qualitative standards.
I'm not sure we have explored the 25 alternative in detail yet.
. _ ~
i 16
.i i
1 MR. MOELLER:
Correct.
4 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I guess what I'm struggling 3
with is what do we tell EPA?
We were going on what the staff 4
has said.
We did have your letter, and one of the questions I i
5 wanted to ask you is, my impression is, and maybe it's 6
wrong, the staff said well, yeah, I think these are i
1 j
7 implementable.
And you're saying you don't think so.
l I
8 MR. MOELLER:
Correct And they think so because of 9
the words " reasonable assurance."
10 MR. WARD:
Well, I think we've raised the question i
11 with you, and it might be appropriate for you to ask us to 12 develop what we think would be a more practical approach to i
j 13 standards.
That's a task we could 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO, Let's see, ask you to develop 15
)
16 MR. WARD:
A proposal for what we think we've i
i' 17 objected to these standards but we haven't really proposed any l
l 18 very clear alternative.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is it our job to do that?
I'm l
l 20 not objecting, As a matter of fact, I think that would be l
I 21 very helpful, but I'm just looking at our role.
l 22 MR. MOELLER:
I would question, too, until we find l
l 23 out, having done that, of what use is it.
l l
l 24 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Let me just say, first of all, 25 this is a very important discussion because it was my
i I
l 17 1
impression, reading your letter of July 17th and then reading 2
the staff's submission to us, that it looked to me like, at 3
least my impression was, that your concerns and 4
recommendations had perhaps been accomodated by the staff 5
MR. MOELLER:
Right, and we do not agree.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
And now you're telling us that 7
that's not the case.
8 MR. MOELLER:
Right.
G COMMISSIONER ZECH:
That's important.
10 It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would be 11 very useful for us, for them, the ACRS, to give us what they 12 think.
You know, give us a recommendation.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO'.
I was thinking first of all we 14 ought to get their comments in 15 MR. WARD:
In more complete form.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Yes, in more complete form so 17 that we understand them and we know what we're 18 COMMISSIONER ZECH.
Yes, in writing.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
In writing, yes.
That's the 20 first thing.
But I wanted to hear others before going beyond.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Sure, and then we need the staff 22 to comment on that, too.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Dave had his hand up for 24 sometime.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Can ! Just ask for some
4 16 1
information?
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not 2
afraid to admit that I'm having a great deal of difficulty in 3
looking at all these numbers in units with which I am not 4
familiar.
1000 metric ton of heavy metal Things like that.
l 5
Release limits in curies per 1000 metric ton of heavy metal 6
I don't have a good connection, and I suspect the reason this 7
thing has slipped through the cracks here is because I see no 8
comprehensible analysis from our staff or from anything the 9
ACRS has written us that gives me numbers that I can 10 understand that relate these things.
can we talk a little bit about i
11 Why is it so bad 12 numbers, and why did the EPA pick these numbers?
How did they 13 arrive at them?
What was the rationale?
I'm sure you've 14 talked about this ad nauseum, but while I accept immediately 15 the principle that maybe something is completely out of line 16 here, I guess I'd like to hear a little bit more about numbers 17 and substance.
i 18 MR. MOELLER:
Right.
Giving you a personal opinion t
19 because the committee has not discussed this, but I would 20 think that an analogy that you might use here is somewhat like 21 the $1000 per person rem in 10 CFR Appendix 1,
Part 50.
At 22 the time you had your hearings, rulemaking, on that, you chose I'm not using the right word, 23 a number which accomodated 24 but a word that was acceptable to environmental groups 25 everywhere.
(
19 1
MR.
KERR:
In fact, Dade, there really was a 2
published comment on that and it was the Atomic Energy 3
Commission that had proposed the rule.
They said this was the 4
largest number that anybody suggested.
5 MR. MOELLER:
Right.
6 Chaughter.]
7 MR. MOELLER:
So it was a number which resolved the you know, it has worked since 8
issue, and everything is 9
then.
In a similar sense, EPA talked to the states, they 10 talked to environmental groups, and they found they had a 11 standard so stringent that all of these people were happy with l
12 it.
And so they went with it You know, EPA could show how many organizations 13 and indeed, they tabulated for us 14 had written in and said they were happy or that this standard 15 was acceptable.
16 Well, they went along with what I guess was 17 expedient or what proved to be acceptable without l
18 scientifically really, in my opinion, thoroughly evaluating 1
19 what it was that they were doing.
i 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me ask you don't have if you can't then you won't have to answer 21 to answer this 22 it, especially I guess.
But my understanding, without getting j
23 into detail on personalities here, is that the president of 24 the Society for Risk Analysis right now is an officer of the 25 EPA; in fact, a very capable officer in my judgment, and I
20 1
.think she may even be either t.emporarily or permanently in I
2 charge of their research program now.
3 was she involved in these negotiations at all?
4 MR. MOELLER:
If this is the same lady that we're 1
5 talking about, I spoke to her about a month or so ago.
I was 6
at a meeting where she was present, and I said, you know, 7
you're a risk expert and you understand these things.
To what 8
degree was the risk evaluation group within EPA involved in 9
setting the standards for high level respository.
And she to said, we didn't know anything about them, we were not involved 11 in any way, shape or form.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL; Figures.
13-COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I find that startling.
1 4
don't dispute it.
15 MR. MOELLER:
That was what I was told.
16 MR. LEWIS:
It's a disgrace.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL; Well, I'm not so startled.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO-Well, it seems to me this is a 19 subtect with more ramtitcation than maybe we appreciated up 20 untti now, and we may really want to have a briefing on this 12 1 by our staff so that we can get into some of these questions 22 such as you have suggested.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
How did our staff agree to l
l 24 this?
That's another question.
l l
25 COMMISSIONER RODEHTS:
How did DOE agree to it l
1 l
21 l
1 MR. MOELLER:
Well, the staff again, they're here 2
and I'm sure can speak.
The answer which we were given was 3
that they thought that on a trial basis they could pursue it 4
and see how it would work out, and that if it needed change 5
later that could be done.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Is there a possibility that 7
this thing blew by everybody for the same reason it blew by at 8
least, I have to admit, one member of the Commission the first 9
time around because of the obscurity of the numerology that 10 they provided?
11
[ Laughter.3 12 MR. MOELLER:
Well, let me also acknowledge that it 13 blew by certainly the Waste Management Subcommittee of the 14 ACRS.
If we were aware that the NRC staff was approving these 15 standards it didn't register with us.
So it blew by us.
And 16 I acknowledge that as an error on our part.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I still don't know what this 18 stuff means.
Can somebody relate to me what the implications 19 are?
We've got a nuclear waste repository that's working and 20 functional.
How much are they proposing that we permit to get 21 out,. relative to some other things that we have?
I just wish 22 I had a better feeling.
23 MR. OKRENT:
Let me make a few comments.
- First, 24 although EPA, to my knowledge, doesn't come right out and say 25 so, certainly not in the latest forum and even in earlier
22 1
forums with the best statement, there had been a proposal from 2
the NRDC that the radioactive waste when put it in the ground 3
should produce no more effects than would have been produced 4
had the natural uranium been left in the ground.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
From whom was this proposal?
6 MR. CXRENT:
From the National Resource Defense 7
Council.
And in fact, I believe this standard is roughly 8
equivalent to that.
And in fact, if it has to be met with 90 9
percent confidence, which is, in the way I read it, not more 10 than one chance in 10, it is perhaps more stringent than what 11 I have just said because there's only one chance in 10 of 12 exceeding this.
13 Now you have to realize this is all a nebulous 14 thing.
You're trying to envisage what might happen over the 15 next 10,000 years and who is living where and how might things 16 be disseminated and so forth and so on.
But nevertheless, 17 within some recipe for calculating these things and trying to 18 estimate what the releases are from natural uranium, which 19 varies widely from one body of ore to another, that in effect, 20 I think, is what this standard is equivalent to.
21 And I think EPA says that, in effect, now.
That although they don't write _it into it -- this is 22 this is 23 what we are accomplishing.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me interrupt just a 25 minute.
I' thought -- expressed that way it was my impression
23 1
that after 1000 years more or less that if we are assuming 2
reprocessed waste, that already you were down to the level of 3
the original ore that you mined.
And I should think that 4
because of the physical character, the classification of 5
the containment, you should far exceed what the ore would be 6
already.
It sounds to me like while that standard may not be 7
it doesn't sound like that standard would be terribly 8
stringent, and yet we're being told that this is an 9
extraordinarily stringent standard.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But,you assumed reprocessing.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
They did not assume 12 reprocessing?
Is that the points 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I said did you.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes, I am assuming 15 reprocessed fuel.
16 MR. OKRENT:
I think this is a tent that should 17 apply to either unreprocessed fuel or reprocessed fuel 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I see.
19 MR. OXRENT:
And again, the release limits that are 20 posed -- and you use them in an additive way; if you have so 21 much of A you're only allowed a lesser amount of B,
so that 22 the net effect is one cancer per 10 years, or 1000 in 10,000 23 years.
But then you have a confidence of meeting this.
24 And then they put in some risk aversion, I guess, 25 when they say that the chance of exceeding it by a factor of
24 1
10 should be only one in 1000.
2 In fact, when the subcommittee of the Science 3
Advisory Board on geological disposal of high level 4
radioactive waste was meeting with the EPA people, at that 5
- a. i m e they had proposed this probabilistic approach, and one of 6
the things they asked the subcommattee was, you know, is this 7
okay.
Because there are people, including the NRC staf'f, who 8
were suggesting that that should be qualitative.
9 And I think as you can see in what was quoted 10 briefly from the report of that subcommittee, that the 11 subcommittee gave it only a qualified approval with a range of 12 specific relaxations on what they are proposing.
And then the 13 very strong caveat that EPA itself show that it was workable, 14 and from a legal and technical point of view.
Which 15 documentation I have not had the privilege of seeing, if EPA 16 has put out something to that effect.
17 And when the question came up recently of what 18 might be, let's say, the most significant advice that we might 19 point out to the Commission at a rather late stage in all of 20 this, we became aware of the fact that the NRC staff seemed to 21 think that the EPA standard was workable.
We are doubtful 22 Maybe we are wrong, maybe they are right, but at least we l
l 23 haven't seen that.
In fact, the ccabination of rather 24 stringent probabilistic requirements coupled with some kind of 25 a statement -- and I now need a lawyer to tell me what takes l
25 1
precedence and when -- that the staff will be allowed to use 2
judgment where they don't have reasonable quantitative 3
estimates, or whatever the wording is.
4 The staff seemed to think that that gave them the 5
necessary leeway.
I myself and the members are doubtful that 6
this is the case, and we recommended that the Commission 7
itself look at that specific feature.
8 Now in passing, we noted that the subcommittee, 9
which is a statutory subcommittee I should note of the Science 10 Advisory Board -- the Science Advisory Board, by the way, is 11 sort of an oversight group that never meets as a unit; the 12 work is always done by subcommittees.
13 The subcommittee itself recommended that at least a 14 factor of 10 relaxation be given, and they cited numbers.
15 They have the same problem just mentioned about 16 Mrs. Anderson.
They tried originally to find out where in EPA 17 there were criteria for what was acceptable risk, what 18 documents existed and so on, and there were very few documents 19 that could be obtained.
There were clearly no -- it's true 20 EPA operates under a variety of laws but nevertheless, even 21 given that at that time, which was not very long ago, you 22 could find no policy guidance from above.
That sounds like 23 the things we complain about at the NRC, 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But I think tn fairness --
that EPA has 25 maybe this isn't fair; I think it's a fact
26 1
trailed the NRC considerably in that broad area.
2 MR. OXRENT:
I think that is a fair comment.
In 3
fact, we cited just within the radiation area, because this 4
fell in the Office of Radiation Programs, big differences in 5
what they were allowing or ignoring.
And of course, the 6
indoor radon problem, which they were not touching, is the one 7
where theza is this factor of certainly more than 10 to the 8
4th, maybe much more in real health -- well, I will say 9
current health effects as distinct from things that you might 10 discount 1000 or 10,000 years into the future.
11 In any event, the relaxation of the standards is 12 really EPA's business according to law.
In a sense, it's the 13 NRC's job to administer I guess, or whatever at 2s,
- regulate, 14 according to the standards.
But I think NRC should be 15 satisfied that they are workable.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That they are what5 17 MR. OKRENT:
That they are workable.
I think if you 18 are unhappy and that means in a legal sense, you know, as 19 well as other.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Well, based on the staff we 21 would think they're workable.
I think Carson had his hand up.
22 MR. MARK:
Part of what I w a ri t e d to point out 1 23 think has been implied.
There does exist the report of the 24 subcommittee of the SAR to the EPA.
I think Dade said that 25 the ACRS subcommittee felt that what was said there was at
27 1
least in general, and in some cases in particular, very 2
- relevant, And some of it was quoted by Dade when he described 3
the situation; namely, that this subcommittee suggested at 4
least a factor of 10 on the absolute numbers, and then after 5
that that if the EPA couldn't show that it was workable they 6
should give it further consideration.
7 Now, I believe that those items and perhaps some 8
others would serve the purpose that was raised earlier.
Could 9
we give you a suggested basis for thinking of something 10 different from the standards as proposed?
11 A lot of time was put into that by a 12 specially-selected group of people.
It would be possible but 13 it would be considerable effort for the ACRS to reproduce 14 that, although it could look at it and forward it with its 15 suggested modificaticns.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You say a selected group 17 of people?
From whom?
18 MR. MARK:
The subcommittee of the Science Advisory 19 Board of the EPA had two of our consultants on these problems 20 as members, and had Dave as a member.
And I'm not sure how 21 many together but maybe a dozen or so.
22 MR. OKRENT:
I can recall some of the members.
l 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
No, I was just trying to find 24 out whether you were talking about the SAR, the Science 25 Advisory Committee group or some other group.
28 i
MR. MARK:
I was.
I was talking about the group 2
that was assembled to look at these standards gave it a lot of 3
thought, a lot of attention and were chosen because of the 4
chance that they would be in a good position, And Dade 5
referred to that, and that would probably be as good a basis 6
for considered comment on what should you think of these 7
standards or do about them as one could quickly assemble.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Chet, did you want to make a 9
comment?
10 MR. SIESS:
Yes.
I am not sure what people mean by 11 the word " workable," but I think there has to be a distinction 12 made between the ability to meet the standard and the ability 13 to prove on the record up through the Supreme Court that you 14 have met the standard.
And we haven't been saying that, but 15 that's what workable means to me.
16 MR. OKRENT:
Me, too.
17 MR. SIESS:
I think the staff feels it's possible to 18 build a repository that will meet the standard.
I 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Say that again?
4 20 MR. SIESS:
The staff thinks that it's possible to 21 build a high level waste repository that will meet the 22 standard, and they recognize, I believe, that it's going to be 23 difficult to establish it before the hearing board and all the 24 other steps.
And that's a question of time.
There are two 25 separate things here.
29 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Well, the staff does say in its 2
letter to EPA on the comments regarding the advisory 3
committee, they say, "The NRC Staff believes it is important 4
to recognize the distinction between a standard of performance 5
and the quality of evidence that the standard has been met."
6 And they conclude that, "The revised wording of the 7
containment requirements set out on page 3 could achieve this 8
goal 9
MR. SIESS:
I think the staff is naive to think that 10 putting the words " reasonable assurance" in the EPA regulation 11 is going to do anymore good than having it in the NRC 12 regulation.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
I think one of the staff 14 members wanted to make a comment-Maybe it would be 15 pertinent.
16 MR. MILLER:
My name is Hubert Miller, I'm the 17 Branch Chief of the Repository Projects Branch, and 18 responsible for the paper that was sent down to the Commission 19 on this standard.
20 And I think it is important, given the questions 21 that have been raised here by the ACRS, for us to come down to 22 you at length about the questions that have been raised.
1 23 think it's fair to say that we considered all these things in 24 our negotiations with the EPA, and we can respond to these 25 points.
30 1
I think there are several here today, though, that I 2
would like to mention.
First of all, we were very much 3
concerned with the ability to implement these regulations, 4
these standards.
That is, can you, in the hearing process, 5
come to closure on the finding that we have to make that the 6
standard is met.
And we have been at this for some three, 7
four, five ' years, and in the process of this we have done 8
studies which have been published, which illustrate, we 9
believe, that the standard is achievable 10 Now furthermore, there's a lot of judgment involved 11 in speculating as to whether or not there is going to be a 12 problem down the line in terms of implementing these things, 13 and this is where I think it's important to point out that the 14 process that we're going through right now in the staff of 15 issuing staff technical positions and negotiating with DOE and 16 other parties on what constitutes an acceptable implementation 17 of these standards is a lot of what we are counting on when we 18 say we think we can implement these things, 19 We are at the specific sites right now identifying 20 what are potentially disruptive events, what are acceptable 21 models to represent those disruptive events, what are the 22 right kinds of data to put into those models to exercise those 23 models, we are laying out in a very detailed fashion what is 24 an acceptable convention, if you will, for implementing and 25 making findings on the standard.
~ __ _. _..
s 31 1
And it is in that context that we judge that the 2
standard can be implemented.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Can be implemented isn't, it 4
seems to me, the objective here.
There's a lot of things we 5
can do at some cost and effort.
The question is, how does it 6
comport with other demands that we make for other standards in 7
this society, and generally the risk that we accept, broadly 8
speaking, in other areas.
How does it stack up there?
9 MR. MILLER:
There are two aspects of the ACRS's 10 concern.
One is the fact that it's a probability based on 11 speculation and can at be implemented on that account.
And 12 secondly, we have the question about the cost-benefit, if you 13 will; the stringency of the standard.
And on that, the staff 14 and I think the Commission in its comments back to the ACRS 15 several years ago concluded that we have found no major 16 problem with what they were doing.
17 I think it's fair to say that we have given a fair 18 amount of deference to EPA, given that they, by statute, are 19 charter:d with setting these standards, And so, we did not 20 attempt to redo their cost-benefit analysis.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me ask one slightly 22 unrelated question.
Remind me again.
I think we were just 23 told that we have a drop dead date to do anything if the 24 Commission feels something needs to be done.
What is the 25 timetable?
What is going on right now)
32 1
MR. MILLER:
I believe the standard was issued in 2
the Feceral Register on September 15th, and there was a 60-day 3
waiting period before they become legally effective.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Say that again?
I was going to 5
ask you the question, where do we stand, because I do want to 6
come back --
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It sounds like November 15th 8
is the deadline for us to do anything.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
The deadline for us to comment 10 on this?
Could you refresh our memory?
11 MR. MILLER:
Yes, I believe that the standards were 12 issued in the Federal Register on or about September 15th.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO; And how many days are there?
14 MR. MILLER:
I believe there's a 60-day waiting 15 period before they become legally effective.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And is that a 60-day period for 17 comment?
18 MR. MILLER:
I don't believe it's a period for 19 formal comment, but I believe the purpose of waiting 60 days 20 is for people to have their last chance to complain.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, do we have to mount a 22 formal legal challenge then in that 60-day period, or what?
23 MR. MILLER:
Well, that's a legal question.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO-Well, but unless we do a legal 25 challenge, at sounds like they become effective.
33 1
MR. MILLER:
Jim Wolfe from the Executive Legal 2
Director is here, and I think he could probably address that.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Sixty days is normally I 4
think just a chance for everybody to read them and figure out 5
what they're going to do.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Could you come up so we can 7
hear you, and identify yourself?
8 MR. WOLFE:
The way these appear in the Federal 9
Register, they'll be effective 60 days after publication, at 10 which time any parties who wish to seek judicial review, of 11 course, would be able to do so.
There is no comment period, 12 as such.
These are final rules.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
In other words, we're too 14 late already in one sense because it would be rather difficult 15 from the standpoint of a court. I suspect -- and I'm not a 16 lawyer to go in.
The first question they would ask is why 17 didn't you say something when you had your chance.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Some of us don't get smart 19 enough soon enough, but you're right.
20 Well, let me try a suggestion.
I think two things 21 seem clear to me at the moment.
One, we ought to get your 22 expanded comments in writing just as soon as we can.
Two.
I 23 think we ought to have a briefing by the staff soon to see 24 what options we have and what we want to do with regard to 25 those options.
34 l
1 It would be well if we could get the ACRS comments 2
before such a briefing.
I don't know what your timetable 3
would be for getting your comments to us.
Recognasing that we 4
are working under time constraints.
5 MR. WARD:
We will make an attempt to give you 6
written comments this week, I mean at the end of our meeting 7
this week.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Okay.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I see a covy of lawyers 10 lurking in the back there 11 CLaughter.3 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Well, I don't want to get into i
13 trying to make decisions now on legal matters.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I don't like a 15 decision either, Joe, but I'd Itke to hear whether we have any 16 recourse at this point.
17 MR. LEWIS:
Did you say covin of lawyers?
18 CLaughter.3 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, maybe that's a better 20 word.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But we're not going to settle 22 that now.
We have an agenda planning session coming up 23 shortly.
We can schedule a meeting.
We'll make the 24 assumption that we're going to get something from the ACRS 25 this week, and to ask our legal people to be prepared to
~.
l 35 1
discuss with us what our options are.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
- Yes, I'd like to if 3
they're listening back there, I'd Itke to see that happen.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Well, we'll make sure that they 5
know that we expect that.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL.
Before we let our technical 7
advisors here go, though, let me ask a naive, first glance 8
question here.
If I look at some of these standards and read paraphrase to any 9
things like " combined beta gamma.
10 internal organ shouldn't exceed 4 milltrem per year if an 1
I 11 individual consumes two liters a day of drinking water from a i
a special source, which is a 12 source what do they call it 13 prime, unreplaceable source of groundwater.
14 On the face of it, that doesn't sound terribly 15 unreasonable, and going through this just very broadly 16 speaking, first glance, without thinking about comparative i
17 standards, they don't sound terribly unreasonable.
How is it 18 that they come out to be so unreasonable?
19 MR. MOELLER.
The standard you're quoting of the 4 20 millirem per year as I recall is part of EPA's drinking water 21 standards and for the radiation sources that come to people i
I
{
22 through *. hat particular avenue of intake.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Right.
already 24 MR. MOELLER:
Those standards are in the 25 exist They were set sometime ago, and I think they are
. ~.
36 1
being quoted here simply by reference.
I don't think, 2
personally, that they are -- well, I know they weren't 3
developed as part of the high level waste standards.
So 4
they're simply saying that our existing drinking water 5
standard should apply to any water that might be contaminated 6
by the high level waste r e p o s i t o r,y.
show me, 7
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But then where 8
or remind me of where the irrationality creeps in here.
This where 9
1000 year after disposal undisturbed performance 10 exactly is the offending requirement here' 11 MR. MOELLER:
The requirements are primarily in 12 terms of the release limits, which in turn are supposed to 13 reflect the 1000 health effects per 10,000 years.
Supposed to 14 he tied into that.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And that's this table of 16 Appendix A?
Is that where the big problem ist 17 MR. MOELLER:
Yes.
The table is where the problem 18 is.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I see.
10,000 years 20 cumulative release.
a 21 MR. MOELLER:
Yes.
22 MR. OKRENT:
I think historically, at the time of 23 this EPA subcommittee review, EPA did not have in its standard 24 any rather tight requirement on what might be released in the 25 first several hundred years.
And the subcommittee suggested
37 1
that that, in fact, would really be what is probably most 2
important for people; what might happen to their children, 3
their children's children and a new generation of children, 4
along that way.
Perhaps more so than 10,000 years later.
And 5
so they made a recommendation in the subcommittee report that 6
there be something reasonably stringent about what could occur 7
in the first few hundred years.
EPA did pick that up.
8 So in effect, in that area, the subcommittee was 9
recommending for something more stringent than the prior 10 standard.
But with regard to over the 10,000 year period and 11 the probabilistic -- both the release amount and the 12 probabilistic requirements, which the subcommittee was 13 concerned there would be difficulties in demonstrating to the 14 degree of confidence expected.
In fact, we asked NRC people 15 present, what does it mean to you, " reasonable assurance" 16 And they said, well, 90 percent confidence.
That's pretty 17 hard to show 10,000 years from now about things that have a 18 chance of one in 10 to the 8th of occurring and so forth.
19 But nevertheless, we see this "not more than one 20 chance in 10" appearing in the EPA document, 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I t h 1.' k in our briefing we 22 should definitely go into the technical matters associated 23 with this.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
yes.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO As a matter of fact, I'd like
38 1
to pick a date where some of the key ACRS members might be 2
available at least to be in the audience and participate.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But, Joe, I think it is 4
important that even though certain legal options may already 5
have passed us by, one thing is usually clear and that's that 6
the longer we wait the harder it will get.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I agree.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
We really -- we're already 9
mid-October; it seems to me we need to act within 10 days to 10 two weeks if there's going to be a reasonable chance of 11 avoiding a major battle over this thing.
If indeed we've got 12 a serious problem.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I think we should alert 14 our legal people, and we will alert our legal people, that we 15 want to know what our options are.
But I'd also like to make 16 sure I have a better understanding of the technical issues 17 that the ACRS has brought up today.
18 We can, in our agenda planning, see how quickly wo 19 can have such a meeting, and we may have to have it in two 20 parts.
I'm not clear yet.
21 But we would appreciate getting the ACRS comments in 22 writing if at all possible this week.
23 MR. WARD:
We will do that.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I guess the implication is, 25 at least if I'm hearing what the sense of alarm here is, is
39 1
that we could find ourselves with a rule that simply makes it 2
impossible for us to license anything.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think one of the reasons we 4
have to get into it is that the staff believes otherwise.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
Well, okay.
Fair 6
enough.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So we ought to make sure'we 8
understand the issues and what the differences are between the 9
ACRS thinking and the staff position, and determine where we 10 want to go from there.
11 MR. WARD:
There is one point perhaps that hasn't 12 come out, although maybe everybcdy understands it.
We have 13 been told that whether the present standards are used or 14 whether a more reactional set of standards are used, there 15 would be little difference in the actual site selection and I
16 design of the respository.
17 Now, that may or may not be so.
I think the ACRS 18 position is that from an engineering and scientific 19 standpoint, that's not a very good reason to use improper 20 standards, and that sooner or later there may be a massive 21 problem.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Do any other members of 23 the committee have any comments?
24
[No response.]
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, let's plan on proceeding,
I i
40 1
if you can get us your c omme n ts, we will assume you're. going 2
to get your comments to us by the end of this week or early 3
next week, and we will schedule a meeting.
4 And again, let me thank you very much.
I think you 5
have brought to the Commission's attention a very important 6
problem that perhaps we weren't quite astute enough to 7
recognize.
8 MR. WARD:
I'm surprised you haven't asked us why we 9
didn't bring this up a year ago.
Don't ask.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Why didn't you bring this up a 11 year ago?
12
[ Laughter.]
13 MR. OXRENT:
The final standard wasn't available a 14 year ago.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How about six months ago?
16 Three months ago?
17 MR. OXRENT:
I only myself saw it a few months ago.
18 MR. WARD:
We could have done better.
19 MR. OXRENT:
There's an old Chinese proverb that 20 says nobody's perfect.
21
[ Laughter.]
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'll buy that.
f 23 MR. LEWIS:
Can you prove that?
l 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
We prove it every day, don't 25 we?
Well, thank you very much for your astute observations, t
. - -.. _ _. ~.
.. _.... =..
. = _ _ -.. _..
i I
41 1
and we will follow up as I indicated.
J 2'
Thank you.
We'll stand adjourned.
3
[Whereupon, at 1$:36 p.m.,
the meeting was adjourned.]
4 5
6 7
4 1
8 9
t I
10 11 4
1 12 23 14 i
l 15 16 t
17 i
i l
I 18 i
is 5
l 20 t
?.
21 22 t
23 24 25
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFIClAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6
before the United States Nuclear Regu l a t ory Cemn i s s i on in the 7
matter of-COMMISSION MEETING e
9 Name of proceeding: Periodic Meeting with Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (Public Meeting) 10 11 Docket No.
12 place: Washington, D.
C.
13 Date: Thursday, October 10, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
19 (Signature)
(TypedNameofRe[rter) gu'zage B. G ng 20 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.
24 25
, ~.
I
~
9/17/85 SCHEDULING NOTES l
TITLE:
PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADv!SORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS (ACRS)
SCHEDULED:
10:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 (OPEN) i DURATION:
APPROX 1 HR s
1 PROPOSED ACRS COMMENTS ON EPA STANDARDS FOR HIGHLEVEL RADIOACTIVE
~
TOPIC:
WASTE DISPOSAL DOCUMENTS:
JULY 17, 1985 LETTER FROM D. WARD TO CHAIRMAN PALLADINO SECY-85-272 SEC.Y-84-320 ll t
I i
l t
I l
t l
[
e j
i I
i
.e i
I l
t 1
[
. ~
i t
- [9,a sig\\
UNITED STATES j
- i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2-i ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR sAFEGtJAR0s
[
WASHINGTON. D C. 20555 gv y July 17, 1985 s-Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chainnan U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Dr. Palladino:
SUBJECT:
ACRS COMMENTS ON EPA STANDARDS FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL Curing its 303rd meeting, July 11-13, 1985, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor i
Safeguards discussed the proposed " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards i
for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-level and Transuranic Radicactive Wastes" (40 CFR 191), being developed by the U. S. Environmer.tal Protection Agency (EPA).
This was also the subject of a meeting. of our Waste Management Subcommittee on June 18, 1985, during which discussions were held _
with staff members from both the EPA and the NRC.
The Comittee also had the benefit of the documents referenced.
Althcugh we noted a number of questions relating to the proposed standards, a key issue pertains to the application of probabilistic conditions on the proposed radionuclide release limits.
In this regard, we wish to call atten-tion to a particular recommendation made by the High-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Subcomittee of the EPA Science Advisory Board, namely:
I "We recomend that use of a quantitative probabilistic condition on the modified Table 2 release limits be made dependent on EPA's ability to provide convincing evidence that such a condition is practical to meet and will not lead to serious impediments, legal or otherwise, to the licensing of high-level-waste geologic repositories.
If such evidenge cannot be provided, we recomend that EPA adopt qualitative criteria, such as those i
suggested by the NRC." (Reference 2)
It is our understanding that the NRC Staff has concurred with the proposed EPA 3
standards, including the use of a probabilistic approach on radionuclide release limits.
In view of the importance of the ability of the NRC to deter-mine compliance'with the EPA standards in licensing a high-level waste reposi-i tory, -we recomend that the Comission assure itself that the NRC Staff is correct in endorsing this approach.
We believe that demonstration of such compliance will be extremely difficult and that the proposed standards are
}
unduly restrictive.
Dr. David Okrent, ACRS member, and Drs. Konrad Krauskopf and Frank Parker, ACRS consultants, who participated in the ACRS discussions on this matter, were ene 4
/
h
,.,_,-r,
. _ ~ -, - - _ ~.. -
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 17, 1985 also involved Ih' the review conducted by the EPA Science Advisory Board of an earlier version of the proposed standards.
Sincerely.
0 f V, l g
4 David A. Ward Chairman
References:
1.
EPA Working Oraft No. 6 -- Final 40 CFR 191, " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes," dated June 15, 1985 2.
Letter from H. E. Collier, Subcommittee Chairman, to W. D. Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator, dated February 17, 1984 forwarding, " Report on the Review of Proposed Environtrental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (4& -
CFR 191)" by the High-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Subcomittee, Science Advisory Board, EPA, dated January 1984 3.
SECY-84-320 for the Comissioners from W. J. Dircks, EDO,
Subject:
NRC Staff Coments to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the Science Advisory Board Report on Proposed EPA Standard for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-level and Transuranic Waste (40.CFR Part 191),
dated August 9, 1984 7
4.
Letter from J. G. Davis, NRC Staff, to EPA,
Subject:
Response to EPA's reques t for comments on their proposed environmental standards for managerent and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transuranic radicactive wastes, dated May 10, 1983 5.
Letter from N. J. Palladino, Chairman, NRC, to L. Verstandig, Acting Administrator, EPA,
Subject:
Comission's concerns about sections of the proposed standards that deal with means of impletantation,, dated May 11, 1983 1
kkkkkkkhhhhhhkkh)hhhhhhhhgfh Y
Y xe 9/35 l-g;;;
TRANSMITIAL TO:
Wmmt (bntrol Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY 'IO: /
/
'Ihe Public Document Ibczn k4 DATE:
/0 cc: C&R
%""a-r==
s = oes na^"c" papers)
Attached are copies of a Otxtmission meeting transc:-ipt(s) and related meeting doctrnent(s). 'Ihey are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and plmt in the Public Doctret Ibczn. No other distribution is requested or required. Existing DCS identification nirnbers are listed on the individual documents wherever knc e.
Meeting
Title:
k[to ckEG ke.
o> tb bd a t%ncta bcrvv. vw e e-On keAC) tre e cAcch 5 Meeting Date:
DfI& !$6 Closed i
i DCS Copies (1 of each checked)
It.an
Description:
Copies Advanced Original thy Duplicate To PDR Document be Dup
- Copy
- 1.
TRANSClurr 1
1 When checked, DCS should send a copy of this transcript to the LPDR for:
W ! Schecluba (Toke s i
J 2.
rt hAwd ou.Ts 3.
69_,, o R e4 - %o Q
l s
4.
-s (PDR is advanced one copy of each doctrnent,
- Verify if in DCS, and two of each SirY paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
mwnsensensuse -weenmanens