ML20215E495
| ML20215E495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8706190389 | |
| Download: ML20215E495 (48) | |
Text
.
JF f9 (t puAA.A.[u UEEED STA'TES OF AI&EPdCA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Briefing by DOE on High Leve). Waste Progran. (Public Meeting)
Location:
Washington, D. c.
Date:
Thursday, June 11, 1987 I
Pages:
1 - 43 l
i l
1 i
i 1
Ann Riley & Associetes i
Court Reporters 1625 1 Street, N.W., Suite 921 j
Washington, D.C. 20006 j
(202) 293-3950 l
i 0389 B70611 B7061 POR OCFR pgg
)
PT9 7 l
1
s 9
1 D 1 S CLA I M ER 1
2 S
4 i
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a nieet i ng of the 1
7 United States Nuclear Regufatory Commission held on s
6/11/87 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
'N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcr_Lp't.has not-been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain r
1R inaccuracies, s
i IS The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.-105, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 metters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this t r a'n s c r i p t.
17 do not necessarily reflect f i nn 't determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in f
19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may I
21 authori=e.
22 1
25 1
24 q
25 l.
r I'
T t
- 1
.s 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
2 NUCLEA'A-REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 Briefing by DOE on High Level Waste
)
5 Program 6.
7-PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 1717 H Street, - N.W.
10 Room 1130 11 Washington, D.C.
12 Thursday, June 11, 1987 13 The Commission met in public session,fpursuant to 14 notice, at 3:03 o' clock p.m., the Honorable Lando W.-
Zech,.Jr.,
15 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
17 Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairman 18 James K. Asselstine, Commissioner 19 Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner 20 Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner i
i 21 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:-
I 22 B. Rusche, DOE 23 S.
Chilk, SECY 24 W.
Parler,LOGC 25 1
s a
+
c
Q f
2 1
l 1
AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
2 J.
Knight j
i 3
H. Thompson 4
J 5
7 8
f 1
9 10 11 a
12 i
13 1
14 15 16 1
1 17 18 I
19 20 i
1 1
21 22 23 4
24 l
25 l
4 j
9 4
3 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
CHAIFBUG ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
3 Commissioner Bernthal will not be with us this I
4 afternoon.
I i
5 This afternoon the Commission will be briefed by Mr.
i 6
Ben Rusche, a Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 7
Waste Management of the Departmont of Energy.
l 8
This briefing is the continuation of a series of 9
periodic briefings by the Department of Energy whichiare aimed 10 at keeping the Commissicn informed of recent developments in 11 the department's high lesel nuclear wasta repository program.
12 Since our last briefing with Mr. Rusch', a number of e
13 events have occurred, which impact on the development of a 14 national high level waste repository.
15 These events include legislative activities by the-16 Congress, the issuance of the draft mission plen amendment, and 17 the site-specific technical exchange meetings between the DOE 18 and NRC Staff, just to mention a few.
19 Next week the Commission will be meeting with the 20 states and affected Indian tribes on the setatus of the natibnal 21 high level waste repository program, and the Commission would 22 be interested in hearing today how'the development of 23 consultation and cooperative agreaments is' progressing.
24 The Commission recognizes that the'early resolution 25 of state and Indian tribe concerns is important to the.overall
e 4
l 1
success of the national nuclear waste program.
I 2
The Commission is also very interested in hearing l
3 about the progrecs on the development and operation of our I
4 licensing support system, the interactions with the NRC Staff t
5 on quality assurance progfams, chd the implementation of o j
l 6
strategy for resolvtion of relevant issues.
7 Before we proceed, let me apologize to all of you for 8
the delay in our meeting this afternoon.
I regret we have kept i
9 you waiting so long.
We had an appointment with Congress, and 1
10 it took a little longer this morning than anticipated.
11 Unless any of my fellow Commissioners have any j
12 opening comments they would like to make, if so, please i
13 acknowledge.
If you do not, then I will ask you, Mr. Rusche, l
14 to proceed with the briefing.
Welcome.
15 MR. RUSCHE:
Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, 16 I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this series, 17 which I think has been useful,.certainly to me, and I 18 appreciate your making the time available even under the press 19 of the schedule you have been under today.
20 I had the good fortune of spending the morning and 21 part of my lunchtime w3th that same group.
In fact, I juct 22 came from another meeting that was called while I was waiting 23 for you to get through with yours.
24 What I thought I might do, and do at the time, and to 25 provide maximum opportunity for us to have some dialogue, was t
1 8
5 1
make some very brief statements about -- a number of status 2
statements about a nurber of the activities, and then perhaps 3
provide an opportunity to extend the discussion however J ong j
l 4
and to whatever degree of detail seems to be suitable from your i
5 standpoint.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We would really appreciate that very 7
much.
We do have commitments, appointments scheduled this 8
afternoon, so we are going to' kind of run back to back, so your l
l 9
presentation is extremely important, but we appreciate your 10 forebearance in trying to make At crisp.
So procaed.
11 MR. RUSCHE:
I think that the meeting is timely in E 12 number of respects, some of which you mentioned, and just to be 13 sure, I brought a copy of a couple of the more recent 14 documents, one of which I'm not sure you mentioned, which is 15 the annual report to Congress of the program.
I have a copy 16 and have brought additional copies if any of you have not 17 received them.
I would be glad to see that you did.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We would all appreciate copies.
19 MR. RUSCHE:
You recognized, which I appreciate the 20 fact that we did on Tuesday send to Congress the mission plan 21 amendment, which has been the subject of a good bit of 22 discussion in the public, with the Congress, with the states 23 and affected tribes, and in various contexts over the last six 24 months or so.
The draft was made available, I believe, in 25 January, and the final -- the amendment itself was sent to-
1 I
6 1
Congress -- the amendment remains a fairly concise document, 2
and essentially provides our best estimate of the plan for the 3
program in light of today's circumstances, and contains two or 4
three notable changes.
5 In the first place, it recognizes that from -- based 6
on our experience and interaction with the public, interaction 7
with the states, our ability to carry out the technical work 8
that's involved.
We believe it appropriate to advance the 9
operating date for the first repository from 1998 to 2003.
We 10 concluded after an extensive schedule evaluation and program 11 evaluation which involved discussions with the Commission 12 folks, folks in the general public and elsewhere, that the 13 question was just -- the matter was just one that we could not 14 find a suitable basis for projecting operation earlier than 15 2003.
16 Your staff has been fully aware of this, and it 17 certainly does affect our relationship in terms of scheduling 18 of manpower and resources and so forth.
1 19 We have told the Congress that this is not a matter 20 that we could proceed much faster on, even with more funding.
21 It is a matter, however, whi,ch does require funding at the 22 levels that we have requested in order to be able to proceed at 23 that pace.
And, in fact, today's discussion is on that point, j
24 as appropriations activities are going on within the Congress, 25 even this moment.
i
's-i 7
1 In the second place, we proposed to the Congress that 2
the indefinite postponement of site-specific work on a second j
J 2
repository be the course for the future.
This is the course-
)
4 based on a determination that we made over the last year or so, 5
announced first as to our intent on May 28th.
It, too, has l
6-been the subject of much discussion and hearings and
)
1 7
conversation, documents and the public, with the states and so
]
1 8
forth, and we concluded in the draft amendment -- excuse me, in 9
the final amendment and in the transmittal note in particular l
10 that this is an approach which would require affirmative
)
11 legislative action by the Congress.
If the Congress chooses 12 not to agree with that approach, we have been advised by'our 13 counsel that we are obligated under the act'to; proceed on the 14 best basis we can, consistent with the funding available, to 15 attempt to meet the dates for a second repository siting o
16 effort.
17 The first such date is still'a prospective date in 18 1989.
We indicated in our transmittal that we did not think 19 that with essentially unlimited funding we could make'that
)
i 20 date, and that the earliest we would be in a position to 21 recommend a site would be the early '90s, probably 1992 or 3
22 1993.
23 But if the Congress does not choose to accept our i
24 proposal, as it were, then we will be obligated to return to 25 the activities of site-specific nature.and in that' case'we I
1 J
b
8 1
would. intend to return to the activity that was underway on May l
1 2
28th when we interrupted as a' result of our then existing
.)
1 3
- analysis, j
1 4
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Excuse me.
As you talk to those
]
5 dates, could you clarify for me under those proposals that you 6
just outlined when the waste repository -- what date the waste i
7 repository would be ready to receive high level waste?
8 MR. RUSCHE:
The first waste repository would be 9
ready to receive high level waste in the year 2003, as we 10
- proposed, a
1 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
12 MR. RUSCHE:
The second repository,we -- if our.
13 proposal were accepted, we would not identify the dats, but we
]
identified in the analysis that the earliest we. thought it 14 15 would be needed would be 2025, and that restarting site-
]
16 specific work in 1995 would provide adequate time for ut to' 17 have such a repository in operation.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I see.
So the first site, as you see 19 it now, could not possibly be ready to receive high level waste 20 until 2003; is that correct?
21 MR. RUSCHE:
That is our best estimate, sir.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
1 23 MR. RUSCHE:
The action of Congress on the mission 24 plan, of course, is a subject that will be considered by'the i
25.
appropriate committees and by the bodies, and we have indicated
j i
9 1
that if we have not received guidance, affirmative action, 2
legislatively by the end of this. fiscal year, we will interpret 3
that as a signal to return to site-specific work in the next 4
fiscal year.
5 Kow in order to do that, we have to have fonding, and 6
that's one of the issues that is being discussed, as I said, 7
even this day; the meeting I was in a moment ago related to 8
that point.
9 We have a budget request before the Congress of $725 10 million, which is consistent with the plan described in the 11 amendment that was sent up.
If it was necessary to return to 12 site-specific work for the second repository, we would need an 13 additional $60 million in FY 288 to crank that work up to the 14 same level that we had anticipated.
And so to some extent the 15 issue is yet to be determined, depending upon the appropriation 16 level and the language that Congress provides for us.
17 In addition, in the amendment we reiterate our view 18 that a monitored retrievable storage facility is an appropriate 19 and, we think, an essential element in an integrated waste 20 management system and urge the Congress to act affirmatively on 21 the formal proposal thhb we submitted to Congress on March 31st 22 of this year.
About a year later than we had anticipated, but 23 we were engaged in litigation from about January of '86 to 24 March of
'87, when the matter was finally resolved.
We had a 25 hearing this morning on that subject with the House, and we
10 l
1 have a major hearing next Thursday with the Senate on the i
2 subject of the MRS proposal.
3 I reiterate again, as I think we have talked about on 4
a number.of occasions, that we find the MRS a very valuable 5
facility, for many reasons which are articulated in the 6
proposal, and I will not go into here, but I want to reiterate 7
to you that we do not see it as an option or an alternative to 8
permanent disposal.
We tend to view it as an element in an 9
integrated system of which the end point is geologic disposal, 10 as the Act stated very clearly, and which we have tried to hold 11 to as rigorously as we know how.
j 12 A number of activities outside these main lines 13 perhaps deserve a couple comments each before we perhaps begin t
14 some dialogue.
I wanted to indicate to you that we have-15 continued our effort to improve our quality assurance work with 16 the participation of states and tribes to some extent, and your 17 Staff to some extent.
We have not arrived at a'etate of what 18 we would consider satisfactory circumstances in every respect, 19 but we have made a good deal of progress.
20 Ue believe that we have placed the emphasis at the j
21 right level; that is attempting to get our management 22 philosophies and procedures in place, and not just go out and 23 establich some groups called QA and hope that they work.
It is 24 very important that we understand the relationships of the 25 various elements in the program, and I think we have made i
i j
11 1
considerable progress in that area.
2 I would certainly not leave you with the impression, 3
though, that there is none left to do.
We end your Staff, 4
working together, I think, will find it very useful and very 5
essential that we continue to try to bring that matter to a 6
higher state of perfection than we have so far achieved.
7 With respect to the licensing support system, which 8
you mentioned, we have continued our effort and are now in a 9
procurement process for the purpose of identifying a design 10 contractor for that effort, and hope to be able to resolve the j
11 issue very shortly and make a decision.
The action has been 12 underway for some several months now.
That is clearly an g
13 effort that is correlated with and a companion to your 14 rulemaking on a negotiated rulemaking as to how to handle such 15 matters, using the licensing support system for all the 16 interested parties, states, affected tribes, and so forth.
17 And I understand that you are. making some progress in l
18 that area, and I couldn't encourage anything as being valuable 19 any more than that.
I really believe that it's important that 20 we try to move to some convergence with all of the affected 21 parties, so that we have a chance of dealing with this issue in 22 the litigational environment that we are no doubt going to be 23 in when we get into the '90s.
24 I thought it worthwhile also to note that from 25 management's standpoint, we have for a'long time been searching
a 12-1 for ways to-manage the program more effectively We announced 2
early in the spring, through a notice in the commerce Business 3
Daily, that we intended to seek a systems engineering design 4
management contractor.
That process is proceeding, and on next 5
Tuesday, the 16th, we will have a pre-solicitation conference 6
with parties who have indicated an interest to have them hear a 7
presentation on the draft scope of work, and I have brought a 8
copy if any_of you have not seen and would like to have one.
I 9
could again be sure that you have an opportunity to look at 10 that.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We'd like that, too.
Thank you.
l 12 MR. RUSCHE:
In my opinion, it has the potential for 13 putting in place a management system that would be of great 14 value in enhancing the technical adequacy in our relationships 15 with you *nd the Commission and with other affected parties, 16 such as the states and tribes.
17 It is a sizeable activity.
It has had the great 18 benefit of causing us to look very carefully at how we have 1
19 managed the program so far, and what we really want the 20 management to be like as we move ahead from producing a lot of 21 paper, which has been most of what we have done up until this 22 point, and actually get into const' uction of exploratory r
23 shafts, in situ testing underground, and so forth.
l 24 The integrating contractor, the systemn engineering 25 design, managemont contractor, will provide a great deal of j
4 13 l
-1 overall integration, even including some aspects of monitored 2
retrievable storage facility, which I have reemphasized 3
continues to be important in our view.
4 I would think it would be valuable, and we will 5
attempt to keep the Staff informed of how this matter is i
6 proceeding.
7 With respect to the budget, if you recall that the 8
Congress elected in its construction of the Nuclear Waste 9
Policy Act to require the program to be subject to annual 10 appropriations as a means of, among other things, providing an 11 opportunity for the Congress to review the state of the program 12 and its plans and affirm on an annual basis whether we are on 13 the right course.
i 14 I think I have now had, I believe, 20 hearings in J
l 15 this year and I think we must have some six or eight more that i
16 we now understand are yet to be scheduled, and it is fair to 17 say that there is not a unanimity of view.
i 1
18 The subject evokes responses of all sorts, varying 19 from "you must hurry up and get this thing done and quit I
20 piddling around" to "how could you possibly be so insensitive l
21 to try to proceed."
And in and through all of this, we f
i continue to have the Nuclear Wacte Policy Act as a statutory I
22 l
23 framework within which we must try to conduct the program.
24 So the budget process each year, I think, presents an j
l 25 occasion for Congress to render its judgment as to the l
I i
i i
i
14 1
appropriate level and course for us to follow, and I think this 2
year will be no exception.
In fact, this year may be a very 3
important year, because this is the year that is precedent to 4
starting literal shaft vork in the sites which is the first 5
real major construction effort that will get underway in the 6
program.
7 Where Congress will come down, I think we all must 8
wait and see.
We have intense discussions going on right now, 9
and as I indicated to the committee this morning, we are 10 prepared to follow the course that congress outlines.
We have 11 tried our best to indicate what we think is the appropriate 12 course, given the Act, and we will await for the direction from 13 Congress.
14 I might note as well that we have a number of 15 activities going on with respect to transportation.
In some of 16 our earlier discussions, we have recognized the likelihood that 17 transportation activities will perhaps command more attention j
18 as we get to the place of actually beginning to ship materials.
19 That time, of course, is yet almost 10 years down the road 20 before we begin any large scale shipments.
21 Nevertheless, we have attempted to put in place and 22 try to begin working with the affected parties through a number 23 of plans, one called a Transportation Institutional Plan, and 24 one called a Transportation Business plan, which eventually 25 will be merged when we have all of the interactions worked out
15 1
into a transportation plan-for the program, and I think we have
~
2 made some progress.
3 In fact, within the department we have made some 4
progress, and some of the activities you and Commissioner Carr 5
were formerly-involved with in the Navy program and other 6
Defense activities have been dealt with in somewhat -- in a 7
fashion different from that that's dealt with in the civilian 8
community, and we have made considerable progress within the 9
department as well.
And I think that is something that we can 10 be pleased with.
There is still much to be done.
11 In addition, in the transportation shipping arena is 12 the necessity, we believe, to develop appropriate casks and 1
13 shipping containers, and this is a matter that impinges 14 directly on Staff.
We did -- I believe we have announced today i
15 that a procurement action which we had underway to begin for
)
16 the purpose of developing a new generation of nuclear fuel 17 shipping casks was announced,-the awardees, those selected for j
18 contract negotiations were announced this morning.
The j
l 19 objective is to put in place eight cask design efforts of four 20 different categories generally.
I believe there were six 21 companies who were selected, and the objective will be to have 22 two of each type, each of these four types, and the four types 23.
are, if I may just note, legal weight truck casks, overweight-24 truck casks, rail and barge and dual purpose storage and 25 transport casks.
F l
16 1
l 1
And these will institute a development program of 2
some magnitude.
I expect we will be spending in the range of i
3 several million dollars for each of these development
)
4 contracts, and the hope would be that out of these would come i
5 adequate information for us to require -- for us to seek 6
certification of the casks from the Commission, and provide a 7
basis for private transportation contractors some time in the 8
future to use these with confidence.
9 In that sense, I think this may be an effort that 10 will impinge on Commission Staff resources.
I think it will be 11 something of an adventure in that we believe that we now have 12 perhaps sufficient technology and materials knowledge that it's 13 worth taking a look at ways to improve the efficiency and 1
14 effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, while retaining the safety.
15 provisions of such casks.
16 And I would hope that we could stay fairly close 17 together as we begin to crank up this work, so that the 18 Co.: mission's resources could be kept in sync to the extent that i
19 you can, and we don't find ourselves either one five or six 20 years down the road wishing we had looked more carefully.
I 21 think that it is wise that we look this early date.
i 22 In the context of Commission resources, I would note 23 what I think is an appropriate set of discussions that are l
l 24 still going on, but I think have the potential for coming to a 25 satisfactory conclusion, related to the waste program paying an l
I I
m l
17
]
l 1
appropriate fee to the' Commission.
I 2
In earlier discussions, I think we have all talked i
3 about this, and I would reiterate my view that I thought it 4
appropriate that there be some payment from the Waste Fund to 5
the Commission to cover the cost of carrying out the licensing 6
effort.
7 I believe we have made considerable progress, and I 8
hope that in the '89 budget we will be in a position to have 9
such provisions included, which will be consistent for both of 10 us, and I think that is a good sign.
11 I would mention one other item before I speak to the 12 question of state relations.
We have discussed in some of our 13 earlier meetings the progress we were trying to make with I
14 respect to both funding and carrying out the elements of the 15 program related to disposal of Defense wastes.
I am sure you 16 are aware that the Defense program in the department is or does 17 have underway an extensive effort to develop a waste 18 solidification facility, called the DWPF at Savannah River.
19 That program is proceeding and I expect they will begin to 20 vitrify waste before the end of the decade.
21 We are obligated to dispose of that waste under the 22 decision made by the President, and we have conducted an 23 inquiry to attempt to figure out how to allocate costs to that 24 program, and I hope that before this month is over, we will be 25 able to respond and publish in what we believe an appropriate
18 1
final form the procedure we will use, and then we will have the 2
same kind of discussion that we have been having.
It will be J
3 up to the Congress to appropriate funds.
We will at least have 4
gone through a process that we believe appropriate for 5
identifying a methodology for making that estimate.
Again, we j
6 will be subject to the final action of Congress and what they 7
decide to do, and how fast.
8 Let me then turn to relationships we have with the 9
states and our work with the Staff.
We continue to find that 10 we are having a large number of interactions with states and 11 affected tribes.
We have had, since we last met, we have in 12 effect invited the states and affected tribes to attend all of i
13 our coordinating group meetings -- I believe there are 12 14 coordinating groups.
These are topical groups, and they are 15 generally for the purpose of planning program activities in the 16 time ahead, and making choices and decisions and so forth along 17 the way.
18 We have had some participation, in some cases very 19 good participation, some quite constructive; in other cases the 20 interest has not been quite so high in some of the coordinating 21 groups.
22 We have attempted to continue our information 23 meetings.
We have called them quarterly meetings, but they 24 have generally occurred more like three times a year.
We have 25 had two this year, and in response to requests from the states,
19 y
1 we opened those meetings to the public.
They generally are-j 2
almost a round table kind of discussion, presentation of agenda 3
items, with the expectation of. developing a work plan and 4
action items from the meeting.
5 The first meeting of this sort was held in Spokane in 6
February.
The second meeting was held in Las Vegas, oh, in the 7
last three or four weeks.
And I think they are a useful 8
mechanism for attempting to communicate.
I think we still'need 9
to find other mechanisms that will perhaps serve some purposes 10 that cannot be served in that kind of environment, and we 11 continue to try to work.
12 If you recall, the Congress did restrain us from i
13 spending $79 million of last year's appropriation until we were
{
14 able to certify to the Congress that we had made a bonafide j
15 effort to establish C&C relationships and proceed.
16 That certification is just about ready to go to the 17 Congress, and we believe that we have made an earnest effort, 18 but I regret to say that we have not yet found any state'that 19 is interested in beginning C&C negotiations at this stage.
We 20 have made some progress with, I believe, two of the affected 21 Indian tribes and hope that those efforts may get underway'some 22 time in the near future.
23 There is no question but that the nuclear waste 24 program presents challenges of federal-state relationships 25 unlike anything the country has faced in a long time, and there i
t
20 1
is no doubt but that we have different views driven by perhaps 2
different values, by different objectives, and I think the most 3
evident characteristic is that we sensed an obligation to-4 attempt to put in place a sound and safe and cost-effective 5
waste disposal system, and I think most of the states would say 6
honestly they tend to agree with that objective, but we have 7
not yet found one who thought it was a good thing to do in 8
their state.
And we are going to have to continue to work to 9
that end.
10 on the other hand, I think we have made some very l
11 notable progress in our work with the Staff, and the Staff and 12 us and the states, and I can point to two or three meetings 13 that we have had that suggest some progress in that area.
14 I think that when you hear from the states next week, 15 they will probably say that is not enough, it is not' good i
16 enough, it is not the right kind, and in some cases I would 17 have to agree that we still need to do better, and I pledge to 18 you and them that we will continue to try.
19 But I note in particular the meeting that we had in 20 the last six or eight weeks at Hanford with respect to the 21 large scale hydraulic test, a sequence that we had concluded,.
22 along with the participation of the staff, was something that 23 needed to be looked s.t.
We did invite and have the 24 participation of tae states and the affected tribes and your 25 Staff, in a very intense technical review, and reached a
1 j
21 1
1 general consensus that the plans that we had outlined were t
1 2
appropriate, and we are now in the process of proceeding.
l 3
Similarly, a couple of weeks later, we had a review 4
in Las Vegas on exploratory shaft design, and I think made some 5
good progress in that mocting.
6 We have had a third such meeting of that sort having 7
to do with some early design reviews on exploratory shaft for 8
salt, and the evolution has not proceeded quite so far, and we 9
were not quite so successful at that meeting, and we will have 10 to continue.
11 I think the bottom line is that it remains a 12 difficult and challenging activity for us to try to find an 13 effective working relationship with the states.
We remain 14 committed to the charge of the Act to try, but we have that 15 corollary direction from the Act to try to proceed as well, and 16 we are going to try to balance that and do the very best that 17 we can.
18 I think with that, Mr. Chairman, I would stop and 19 perhaps entertain dialogue, if that suits you.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
21 Any questiens from my fellow Commissioners?
22 Commissioner Roberts?
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Asselstine?
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Just a few, Ben.
I 22 1
on these consultation cooperation agreements, what 2
reasons do the states give for not being in a position at this 3
point to enter into a more formal negotiation to try and nail 4
down an agreement?
5 MR. RUSCHE:
I think that I would refer you to the 6
six-month report that we sent to Congress, I think about a 7
month ago.
We were obligated to try for six months, and at the 8
end of six months, if not successful, report to the Congress.
9 We did send such a report, and although I have some 10 impressions, I hate to get in the business of paraphrasing what 11 they said.
That's the best reference to turn to.
12 I think, as a general statement, the lack of 13 confidence or trust in the program and the conviction that 14 their state is the right place to work together in a way to 15 make it untimely in their view, and I think I'd probably not 16 say any more than that.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
On quality 18 assurance, I would be interested in your projection of where 19 you think we stand now.
There's been a longstanding concern 20 that the NRC Staff has expressed to you all about the program, 21 and I would be interested in your assessment of what kind of 22 progress you think we have made over the past six months or so, 23 and particularly how well you think you're doing in 24 establishing uniformity throughout the program.
25 I get the sense sometimes in the past that you almost
23 1
had three different programs, the three different first round 2
sites, and there's been somewhat of a struggle to ensure a 3
uniform and consistent approach by each of the three projects, 4
and I would be interested in your perception of where QA stands 5
now, what the status is in terms of stop-work orders, have they 6
all been lifted, and the kinds of efforts that you have 7
underway to bring about some degree of uniformity through the 8
program, and also to give you a QA check on how well you think 9
the quality assurance activities are being conducted at the 10 three projects.
i 11 MR. RUSCHE:
I think there is no doubt that 12 uniformity is an element that we have all been trying to 13 achieve, and we have placed our attention toward that objective l
14 on trying to be sure that we have a well defined sat of 15 procedures, philosophies, approaches articulated in appropriate 16 systemwide documents.
17 We have made considerable progress in that regard, 18 and those documents now exist, and in my opinion, say in 19 comparison with what I have seen in the reactor industry and 20 other areas that I have been associated with, I'm right proud 21 of what we have gotten in terms of that sort of upper icvel 22 discussion and articulation through these documents.
I think 23 they are probably about the best that I have seen.
24 of course, having the documents is but the first 25 step.
We have an ongoing need and exercise related to quality
)
24 1
assurance in each of the progrr.ms, and each of the programs is 2
developing its own procedures under that consistent umbrella, l
3 and we are making iterations to try to bring them into j
4 consistency.
5 We are considering some changes in our organizational 6
structure which would give even greater visibility to quality 7
assurance and perhaps move in that direction.
Steve Kale, whom 8
I think some of you have met, who is the Associate Director for 9
Geological Repositories, succeeded Bill Purcell last year when 10 Bill retired.
Steve comes out of a commercial background.
He 11 came from Westinghouse, very active in project management, and 12 in areas of this sort as well, and I think that will add some 13 additional confidence to us.
14 With respect to the literal circumstances at the 15 moment, the stop-work orders at Hanford, Nevada, are under 16 review, and I believe at Richland we should be in a position to 17 lift the stop-work order by some time later this summer, and 18 perhaps at Nevada by the end of the year.
19 We have had some joint reviews with your Staff 20 involved, and I think we have made a good bit of progress.
21 There is just no doubt that many of the people who are working 22 in the program come out of different backgrounds, out of which 23 backgrounds the kinds of quality assurance requirements and 24 procedures that are required in this business were not 25 practiced, and so they are having to learn, and I think some
25 1
lessons are being learned, and I believe fortunately they are 2
being learned at a time when the learning process is not one 3
that has created in itself a big backlog of stuff that's got to 4
be cleaned up.
5 On the other hand, I think we and the Commission 6
Staff and the states and tribes, some of the states have begun 7
to bring into existence their own QA capability.
I think we 8
are having to look altogether to be sure that what we are 9
creating is not something that is not appropriate for the task, 10 and that in a system that does not have very much in terms of 11 dynamic characteristics, we end up with different kinds of QA 12 approaches than those that are required for a system that is 13 highly charged from an energetic standpoint and has potential 14 for very dynamic events.
15 In many cases, some of the construction aspects are 16 much the same, but the operational aspects are very different.
17 Coupled with the fact that we are at an early stage in 18 consideration, and we are applying QA to a kind of information 19 that even in reactors we do not apply QA to in the same sense.
20 My overall view, though, is that we have made a good 21 bit of progress, but I am not nearly convinced that we are at 22 the place we need to be, and that attention will continue high.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
As I recall, there's 24 something, some kind of a commitment, I think, that you all 25 made to us at the time the site characterization plans are
t" l
26 1
done, that you will have a fully functioning and effective QA 2
program.
3 MR. RUSCHE:
I believe that's the case.
Where's Jim?
4 Jim Knight? HIs that not a correct statement?
5 MR. KNIGHT:
Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Why don't you identify yourself, 7
please, Jim.
8 MR. KNIGHT:
Jim Knight, DOE.
9 MR. RUSCHE:
Formerly of'NRC.
10
[ Laughter.]
11 MR. KNIGHT:
I almost said NRC Staff.
12 Yes, sir.
Our intent is that prior to the issuance i
13 of the site characterization plan, we will have in place the j
14 quality assurance program with particular emphasis on those 15 aspects that are necessary for near term activities.
16 I think just -- it's unreasonable, I think, to say I
17 that we will have an absolutely perfect program in place.
We 18 will have the essential program in place, and we will put that 19 emphasis up front where it's needed, on the near term 20 activities, and then continue to be developing.
1 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are you having a sufficient 22 exchange of views between you all and our Staff, so that you 23 have a good understanding of where they think you are at this' 24 time, so when you get to the point where you're ready to issue 25 site characterization plans, you're not caught short with the
i 27 1
Staff saying, " Wait a minute, we've been telling you about 2
these QA problems for years, and you haven't done much to fix 3
them"?
4 MR. KNIGHT:
We have certainly had a number of 5
interchanges, information exchanges.
There is activity 6
underway this week, as a matter of week -- I think it might 7
have just culminated today -- but the Staff and we have agreed 8
to is, we're calling them mini-audits, rather than waiting 9
until we have a brand new program in place and then have an 10 extremely large and complex audit take place.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
12 MR. KNIGHT:
I think very prudently we agreed that we 13 would identify those areas in our program that are ready now, l
14 when we believe they are ready, and that was a prerequisite.
f 15 We would look at them, we would say we believe they're ready, 16 and then the Staff would come in and audit.
This, I think -- I 17 have gotten some feedback, and I think it is going to be an 18 invaluable process, 19 Clearly, at least from my own experience, the 20 expectations of the regulatory Staff are high, and sometimes it 21 is difficult to fully articulate those expectations any other 22 way other than to go out and actually do an audit.
So we are 23 actually involved in that process.
That is going to be the 24 most valuable means of communication we have.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
Okay.
28 1
Ben, I was also interected in your sense for how well 2
we are doing in terms of cooperation, exchange of information, 3
particularly you all supplying the information that the Staff 4
thinks it needs, particularly in a timely manner.
I talked 5
with the Staff about this not too long ago, and the sense I got 6
from them was, as one might expect in any kind of large 1
7 endeavor like this, at the top levels with you, there's pretty 8
clear agreement and everybody understands each other, and the 9
Staff was very well satisfied.
10 At the project level it seemed to be a little bit i
1 11 more mixed.
In some instances we were getting everything we 12 needed on a timely basis; in other instances the Staff felt 13 that there was still some room for improvement.
I guess I'd be 14 interested in your perception, too, and particularly of these 15 past several weeks, these major technical meetings that have 4
16 been going on the past six months or so.
17 MR. RUSCHE:
Well, I think that the last several i
18 meetings, to start there, certainly were an indication of an 19 improvement over anything we have done before.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes, I would agree with 21 that.
22 MR. RUSCHE:
I think they were an improvement in the 23 sense that we were able to understand the purpose of the 24 meeting, get the information together in a timely manner, and 25 give people an opportunity to review it, and then the
s 29 1
participation, and in the final analysis, the result it 2
produced.
I think that that is a clear-cut positive.
3 I appreciate the suggestion that at my level'or my-4 associate director's and so forth that I don't think there-is 5
any question at all.
With respect to say working level staff 6
to working level staff, I'm not surprised to find a variety of 7
views, and if I may be so -- I' hope it's not impertinent to 8
recognize that I think that all of us find that in this rather 9
strange regulatory environment that we are in, what some one 10 staff person may think is timely today for him, may not either 11 be possible or t3'mely for -- or in other contexts.
12 But I believe that even in that circumstances, we 13 have found hea3 thy interactions, and if impatience is evident, 14 or disappointment is evident, we try to address it where we 15 can, but I think that sometimes it's hard for some staff member 16 who is-looking at a little piece of the program not to be 17 looking for what amounts to licensing application information, 18 and we are now developing the plans for information what might 19 be needed for a licensing application, and we are not able to 20 be responsive.
21 And so there is an iterative process that we are i
22 going through.
I think the procedure that John Davis started 23 and that Hugh Thompson is following up with in a very vigorous 24 manner aimed toward trying to resolve early issues as we can 25 identify them, born out of the issues hierarchy, and we have
30 1
even an improved issues hierarchy approach that's embedded in 2
the site characterization plans that are now being produced --
3 all have the potential for helping us to address the issue in 4
the right context.
But it is something we haven't done before, 5
so I think you are going to continue to find a mixed picture.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
One of the comments that I 7
guess we made on the environmental assessments, both at the 8
draft and the final stage, was some concern on the part of the 9
Staff that DOE might not be taking as conservative an approach 10 as it could to investigating particularly uncertainty in the 11 geotechnical area.
I would be interested in your sense for 12 whether we are making some progress in that area as well in
)
13 terms of making sure that you look at the data in an unbiased 14 way as possible, so that you are taking a more conservative 15 approach to what the data may be telling you, and what needs to 16 be done then to determine whether or not you have an adequate 17 site.
18 MR. RUSCHE:
I well recall the comments you made, and 19 I think there is a distinction between drawing conservative 20 conclusions and being conservative in the way you approach the 21 subject.
I think that in some cases conclusions can't be drawn 22 at this stage.
The information base is either too limited or 23 we are not at a stage where you can do it.
I think it is 24 natural to find people who have different views as to what is 25 conservative.
31 1
There is no question but that in looking at the 2
performance assessments, the performance allocation process, 3
and the general procedure of' performance assessment, the 4
objective is to assure that we have concluded -- included a 5
wide range of uncertainties, including very conservative 6
estimates of parameters about which we have less than full 7
knowledge.
l 8
I believe we have made some progress in that area, 9
and in my own opinion, looking at the multi-attribute utility 10 analysis gives some evidence of the range that we thought 11 appropriate to look at.
That's way'beyond the considerations 12 that were made in the environmental assessments.
13 Environmental assessments were for the purpose of 14 displaying information to the best of our ability.
The MUA was 15 for the purpose of using that information to make judgments, 16 and I think if you compare those two, you will see a distinct 17 broadening, if you want to call it that, or expression of the 18 kind of conservatism that is appropriate when the uncertainty 19 is large.
20 I suspect we are still going to find cases in which 21 some extreme consideration of uncertainty we might not think is 22 as appropriate as some member of the Staff thinks it is 23 appropriate, and that is the value of our trying to work 24 together in these early days and get an understanding about it.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
One last question.
.m..
32 1
MR. THOMPSON:
I might like to respond in that 2
regard.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Identify yourself, please, for the 4
record.
5 MR. THOMPSON:
Hugh Thompson, the Director of the 6
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
7 An example of where I think that we have been making 8
some progress in addressing these levels of uncertainty is the 9
meeting that Ben talked about earlier at the Hanford site.
10 That is there the level of uncertainty, the program that we 11 agreed upon at this very good technical meeting tht we'had was 12 one which we thought appropriately addressed the degree of 13 uncertainty and was in a program that we believed would l
l 14 adequately address that.
So I think those are the types of 15 things that we see progress being made to address this issue of 16 how conservative assumptions have been reached in environmental 17 appraisals and assessments in our comments.
So I think that 18 progress is being made in that area.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
One last question.
20 The Staff in their -- I guess their first quarterly progress 21 report to us, which I think we were either supposed to send to 22 you or make available to you -- it looks like Jim's got it in
{
l 23 his hand --
24 MR. RUSCHE:
I think it did appear at about 11:30.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Well, thank you.
j l
i l
l
33 I
1 MR. RUSCHE:
I have not had a chance to review it.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
One interesting idea that 3
the Staff has in that is to try and identify for the three 4
first round sites what the major issues are and what kind of 5
approach would be necessary to try and resolve those issues, 6
particularly issues that could be show-stoppers for the 7
particular site and create such a problem that you might not 8
want to proceed with it.
And what the Staff has tried to.do is 9
differentiate between issues that you really have to do 10 underground testing or shaft-sinking to resolve, but also those 11 issues that you might be able to settle one way or the other 12 based upon surface-based or lab testing efforts.
13 I think part of the idea that the Staff seems to be 14-kicking around, our Staff, is this notion that given the broad 15 concerns about the cost of a full scale site characterization 16 effort, if there are very significant issues for these sites, 17 and if those issues could be, if not completely laid to rest, 18 at least very well defined, be very well defined by surface 19 kind of work, would it make sense to bifurcate the 20 characterization process, in essence, and do some initial work 21 that could be done on a surface basis or with laboratory skill 22 efforts before getting into a full scale characterization 23 effort involving shaft-sinking?
And I don't know whether the 24 Staff has talked to you all about this kind of an idea or not, 25 but it struck me as kind of an intriguing one and I'd be
34 1
interested if you have a reaction to it.
2 MR. RUSCHE:
I don't know that I have given it such 3
full consideration as I have just heard'you describe it.
I 4
don't mind reacting to it a moment, but I think it certainly 5
deserves fuller consideration than this statement will reflect.
6 I guess my first reaction would be that surely if we 7
can identify a matter which has the potential for disqualifying j
8 a site, and it can be resolved by some surface-based exercise, 9
that it deserves attention as early as we can get at it.
10 I think the large scale hydraulic test at Richland is 11 a good example of that.
The real question is whether some of 12 the upper strata is communicating wita the level in the basalt 13 flow that we have proposed and, if so, whether that might 14 essentially invalidate the estimates of travel time, and that 15 can be resolved by surface-based testing, is the very point 16 that brought us to this consideration.
So in that sense I 17 endorse it completely where it can be done.
l 1
18 I would find it very uncomfortable, though, if l
i 19 someone were to say let's bifurcate this and then let's wait.
l 20 Because I believe that we all will recognize that there are 21 some questions about the suitability of the site that cannot be 22 resolved other than by in situ investigation.
And if that is 1
23 the case, that clearly is the most time-limiting consideration 24 that we have got.
So I would, rather than bifurcating and 25 sequencing, I would be inclined to say we ought to perhaps-i
35' 1
shift our resources in some way so that any of those potential 2
disqualifying conditions or situations can be investigated in 3
parallel with the shaft work that starts.
I think it makes i
4 great sense from the standpoint cu investment and so forth.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSIINE:
The Staff's list is 6 of the paper.
I would be interested, after you 7
have a chance to look at it, if you have any further. reaction 8
on what that is.
A couple of them were kind of interesting 9
ideas, vulcanization, for example, at Nevada.
If that is going i
10 to be a big problem, you ought to be able to find that out 11 fairly easily with a surface-based kind of effort, and if it is 1
12 a big problem, then you will avoid the major expenditure of 13 shaft-sinking and underground testings.
14 MR. RUSCHE:
As an approach, that is clearly a valid 15 thing, that particular point.
I'm not sure we would agree that 16 is one of those, but I think it's worth taking a look at, and I 17 certainly will.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Thanks.
That's all I have.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
20 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Yes.
On the MRS proposal, as I 21 understand it, that proposal is on the Hill.
Now what happens?
22 Do you have to submit legislation or --
23 MR. RUSCHE:
We will submit legislation.
It should 24 be going up in the next week or 10 days, but we have already 25 begun hearings, had a hearing this morning with the Energy &
}
36 1
Commerce Subcommittee, Energy Subcommittee of Energy &
2 Commerce, I guess, Chairman Sharp's subcommittee.
We have a 3
hearing with the Environment -- I guess it's the Regulation 4
Subocmmittee of Environment and Public Works in the Senate on 5
next Thursday.
So hearings are underway, the legislation will 6
be available.
It's more a matter of formality than it is of 7
necessity, but we will submit for the Administration 8
legislation to adopt the proposal.
9 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Okay.
Your staff and our staff 10 cooperated on the proposal.
Are we also cooperating on the 11 legislation, do you know?
12 MR. RUSCHE:
To the best of my knowledge, we have not 13 had any interaction with your staff on the development of the 14 legislative proposal, but --
15 COMMISSIONER CARR:
You won't surprise us, though?
16 MR. RUSCHE:
Well, it says let's adopt the proposal.
17 MR. PARLER:
The Waste Policy Act, as I understand 18 that legislative proposal, is primarily, if not exclusively, 19 the department's business and not this independent regulatory 20 agency's business.
21 However, as is the case of any draft legislative 22 proposal, which this independent agency might have an interest 23 in, there is internal coordination that goes on under the 24 auspices of the Office of Management and Budget, and that's 25 going on for this particular piece, I believe.
l
.2 l
37 I
1 COMMISSIONER CARR:
- Okay, i
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I guess it appears to me to be rather
\\
3 significant that you have extended the date of the first 4
repository to 2003, from 1998, which had been planned.
I guess 5
Why I feel that way is that it is my understanding uhat a waste 6
confidence review took place in this agency some years ago, and 1
7 if I recall the dates correctly, it was concluded that a waste 8
repository would be required by the year 2007 to 2009.
And so 9
it seems to me that we have taken a big bite out of that, 10 whatever leeway we may have had, and gone from 1998 to 2003.
11 I just bring it up because it seems to me rather 12 important that if that waste confidence review was valid, which 13 it seems to me was perhaps valid, that -- do you have a comment 14 to make?
15 MR. PARLER:
No, I said I think it is safe to presume l
16 right at the moment that it was.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
Certainly that is what I 18 presume.
But, anyway, it means that we have gotten closer to 19 the end date than we'd perhaps like to get.
We do have four 20 years or so, I suppose, beyond that date, but could you comment 21 on the confidence you have on the year 2003?
22 MR. RUSCHE:
I believe the year 2003 forecase or 23 prediction is an optimistic forecast, and it depends as much on 24 the willingness of Congress to fund the program at an adequate 25 level and our ability to resolve the kind of differences that
38-f 1
we continue to experience, and I think that we could not find 1
2 any practical way to attempt with any confidence to project 3
that we could have the repository in operation earlier.
4' CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Do you agree with the waste 5
confidence review dates of 2007 and 2009 look like reasonable 6
dates to have a repository in commission?
Have you had a 7
chance to review that decision made by this agency?
8 MR. RUSCHE:
I'm somewhat familiar with the decision.
9 I think the date was picked more from the standpoint of being 10 able to provide confidence than it was out of technical -- an 11 assessment of technical necessity.
And I wouldn't be surprised 12 that as events unfold over the next decade or so, if that 13 subject will not be revisited again by the Commission.
You 14 will find it appropriate and timely to do so.
15 I believe that under the schedule we have now got, if 16 Congress accepts the proposal and provides the funding, that we f
17 have a high probability of not running into that date; that is 18 to have a repository in operation before that time.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, let's hope so.
20 MR. RUSCHE:
I don't know much else we can do except 21 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
No, it just seems to me that we have 23 used up some of that time that was in that confidence, and now 24 we are getting a little closer to the. time when we really 25 simply can't postpone estimates and actual work schedules much
.j
o
.o s a 39 1
longer.
2 MR. RUSCHE:
Well, if you recall, there is even 3
legislation before Congress now which would have the effect of 4
invalidating that date.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, I know that, but we are talking 6
about, you know, realism, and if that's realistic, why, then 7
there is some way we have got to handle the waste, is my only 8
point.
9 MR. RUSCHE:
It is that issue that I think is most 10 troubling of all.
We have got to handle the waste.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It is to me.
We have simply got to 12 solve this problem.
And our country, I'm talking about, all of 13 us; not just you.
14 MR.-RUSCHE:
Well, we certainly believe so.
We 15 certainly believe so.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, just another thought here.
It 17 is my understanding that you have revised some of your 18 milestones and schedules in the draft mission plar. amendment, 19 and have you coordinated all those with the NRC Staff people?
20 I'm not sure that I understood that from what I heard and what 21 I have heard before.
22 MR. RUSCHE:
I'm not sure what you heard, but I 23 thought we had had a fairly direct interaction on the 24 schedules.
There may have been a minor change or two that we 25 made as the last round of review was made on the shaft start
.,i.
i 40 1
dates, maybe by as much as a quarter.
I do not believe there 2
have been any extensive --
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, let me just encourage you to 4
make sure that we continue.
I know we have been trained to do 5
that, but that's -- the scheduling dates are important, and we 6
just simply must do our best to keep the coordination.
7 MR. RUSCHE:
I couldn't agree with you more.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It is, I know, disappointing to you
{
9 and to everyone to recognize that we haven't concluded any 10 formal consultation and cooperative agreements between the 11 states and affected tribes, because as I understand, that's a 12 requirement written in the National Waste Policy Act.
13 ER. RUSCHE:
No, it's not --
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It's not a requirement?
15 MR. RUSCHE:
It's a requirement that we attempt to; 16 it's not a requirement that we have it in existence.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, you atter.pt to; and I know 18 you have attempted that.
19 HR. RUSCHE:
Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But in many cases I recognize how 21 difficult that is, but I'd only encourage you to continue the 22 efforts, no matter how difficult it is.
23 MR. RUSCHL:
The efforts are unending.
I assure you 24 that we will continue to try.
We think that many of the 25 difficulties we have in working with the states could possibly
- s'*
5 a'
41 1
be resolved in the environment of a negotiated C&c agreement.
j 1
2 We have even offered to say let's negotiate partial agreements, i
3-if we can think of two or three items or some few items, let's 4
agree on those.
And we have not yet been able to find a 5
relationship on a working circumstance which would permit that 6
to happen.
7 We are going to try everything we can, and if you, 8
beyond the normal regulatory. interest that you have, were to 9
find some -- think of some suggestion, I would certainly
-l 10 appreciate it, formally or informally.
j 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, we recognize how difficult it 4
12 is, and.I only mention it to point out the difficulty, and also 13 to encourage you to strenuously do your very best because we.
14 simply must solve this waste problem, as far as I'm concerned, 15 and I know that progress comes difficult, but that doesn't mean 16 that we shouldn't perhaps redouble our efforts, if it's 17 necessary, to try to solve this. problem.
18 Let me just see if my fellow commissioners have any 19 additional comments they would like to make.
If not -- yes,-
g 20 please'go ahead.
i 21 MR. RUSCHE:
I have just one comment that I,noted I 3
22 put out and didn't note.
I just received in the last day or 23 two the formal proposal from the National Academies, the NRC, t
24 who conduct for us and have proposed to conduct for us three 1
25 independent panels to oversee the work that we are doing.
That
-t a
L m___E_,_________.______----
a., i,
)
42 1
proposal is about to be culminated.
We have had written 2
agreement between myself and Dr. Press,.and this in now the 3
completion of that proposal process.
I believe members of your 4
Staff have seen it, and we will be executing that proposal in 5
final form very shortly.
6 I think that is a significant step to put in place, 7
and I hope that it will provide resources for both of us to 1
{
8 use, and would encourage the Staff to take advantage of such 9
oversight activities from time to time.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
i 11 Well, let me thank you very much for your briefing 12 today, which is always informative.
I think the usefulness of 13 these briefings is extremely important.
You have an extremely 14 difficult job.
I commend you and respect you for the 15 challenges you face on behalf of all Americans.
16 As far as I know, the NRC working relationship with 17 the DOE is proceeding at a professional pace that I think we 18 can recognize as at least satisfactory, perhaps better --
19 MR. RUSCHE:
Better.
Better.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
And I would like to think that if 21 there is anything that you see that NRC could be doing within 22 our realm of responsibility to assist your heavy 23 responsibilities, I am sure you will let us know.
I think that 24 it is important to recognize we are working with the states and 25 Indian tribes, and we must solve this problem together from the
,,i.
43
'l federal government as well as the states and Indian tribes, for 2
the benefit of the citizens of our country.
3 So it is a tremendously important issue, tremendously 4
important project.
Again, I thank you for your briefing, and 5
we wish you continued success in the tremendous challenge that 6
you face.
J 7
MR. RUSCHE:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 8
Commission.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
10 We stand adjourned.
i 11 (Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m.,
the meeting was adjourned.)
12 l
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
i 4
This is to certify that the attached events of a
{
l 5
meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 i
7 TIT 1I OF MIETING: Briefing by DOE on High Level Waste Program 1
8
' PLACE OF MIETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING:
Thursday, June 11, 1987 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
{'
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 ne or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
4 17 i
s
{
18
-- JESht0- I-Jffh---------------
Joan Rose 19 l
20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24 25 l
l
.