ML20236D271
| ML20236D271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/23/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8707300389 | |
| Download: ML20236D271 (72) | |
Text
_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..
g ' f'b -[5 @ l-31 h hf ;% "'
] m UNRTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
Title:
Briefing 'on Status of High Level j Waste Management Program ;
J Location: Washington, D. C.
l Date: Thursday, July 23, 1987 Pages: 1 - 53 l
l I
l l
Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 16251 Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 73 870723 PT9.7 PDR
i I
i l
1 O l SC LAl M ER 2
3 4
5 6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commissi~on held on a 7/23/87 .. In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9 'h4.W., Washington, 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
/ . 1 12 inaccuracies, i
i 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 l
16 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript' 17 do not necer'sarily 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 authorire.
23 24 25
- 1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***
1 4
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF HIGH LEVEL 5 WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1
i l
6 *** 1 i
i l 7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 ***
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
10 Room 1130 11 1717 H Street, Northwest 12 Washington, D.C.
13 14 Thursday, July 23, 1987 15 16 The Commission net in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 10:05 o' clock a.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, 18 Chairmsn of the Commission, presiding.
19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 21 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 23 24 25
_ _ . _ _ _ . . ______.__________._-__________.____d
. 2 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 S. Chilk 3 W. Parler 4 V. Stello 5 H. Thenpson 6 R. Browning 7
8 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
9 M. Malsch 10 W. Olmstead 11 1
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 !
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 s
, 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
3 This morning the Commission will be briefed by the Office of 4 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards on the status of the 5 NRC's high level waste management program.
6 This meeting is timely in that last month the 7
Commission was briefed by the Department.of Energy on recent 8 developments in the Department's high level nuclear waste 9 repository program and subsequently, the Commission met with 10 the states and affected Indian tribes to hear their position on {
11 {
the development of a national high level waste repository. {
12 Additionally, since the last briefing between the 13 Commission and the staff, a number of significant events have 14 I tecurred which impact directly on the development of a national !
15 high level waste repository.
16 These events include legislative actions by the 17 Congress, the amended draft mission plan issued by DOE and 18 exchango meetings between NRC and other interested parties.
19 The Commission is particularly intereuted in hearing about the 20 progress being made on rulemaking activities associated with 21 this program, the development and operation of the licensing 22 support system, the staff's strategy of resolution of relevant 23 issues and contingency planning for the review of DOE's site 24 characterization plans.
25 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have opening
.e
f
(
4 1 remarks to make?
2 l (No response.]
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If not, Mr. Stello, will you proceed, 4 please?
5 MR. STELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very 6 brief. You have captured the essence of what I wanted to say 7
and that is that there is an awful lot of activity in Congress 8
which very well could have a significant impact on the program.
9 Notwithstanding whatever impact it may have, there is 10 an awful lot of work to do. We are adapting to the program and 11 anticipating change where it may occur to the extent we can, 12 but still, I think, making rather significant progress in l 13 dealing with the issues that we have to deal with in the 14 programs that have to get in place to eventually get to where 15 we hopefully some day will be able to have an operating 16 repository.
l 17 What we intend to do today is to give you a very 18 quick overview and summary of all of those activities 19 highlighting the rulemakings that we have underway, identifying 20 where the uncertainties are and the schedules that we are 21 working through at the noment which obviously may change.
22 With that, let me ask Hugh to begin and hopefully we 23 can give you a very brief summary and we will comment wherever 24 you wish to in further detail.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you.
i i
5
]
1 l MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. As you know che Nuclear '
2 Waste Policy Act gives us some certain responsibilities in a ,
3 number of areas. In addition to today's briefing which 4 includes the high level waste repository aspects, we have )
5 responsibilities for the transportation cask certification by 6
DOE which is also in NMSS as well as the monitored retrievable )
7 storage facility which is an issue that is currently again one 8 of the ones before Congress.
9 Today's presentation will focus primarily just on the l 10 repository siting, the site characterization plans and the 11 activities in the division of high level waste. Bob Browning, 12 who is the division director there, will do today's briefing 13 and, I thin' , Bob, why don't you just start from that overview 14 there.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much. You 16 may proceed.
l 17 l
[ SLIDE.]
18 MR. BROWNING: Perhaps we could go directly to page l 1
19 three because the overview page on page two essentially tells 20 you that we are going to do.
21 [ SLIDE.]
22 MR. BROWNING: On page three, we have tried to 23 identify the fact that under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it 24 prescribes certain things that NRC is required to do directly.
25 In all our planning and implementation of our actions, we have e
, 6 1 taken a literal interpretation of what the Act says as opposed 2
to a broad interpretation which in some cases, for example, 3 people would like us to be the policeman for the UWPA; is DOE 4 doing all the things it is supposed to be doing under the 5 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, including areas which do not have a 6 direct regulatory impact. I refer to these as operational 7 concerns.
8 We have stuck to the literal interpretation of what 9 the Act requires and becauce we often get questions about what 10 our role is and what we are doing and what the status is, as 11 you may be aware we put out a periodic report that tracks 12 directly from the specific provisions of the Nuclear Waste 13 Policy Act directly to what we are doing and gives the status 14 of that.
15 So if anybody wants to know what we are doing and why 16 we are doing it, we have been periodically putting that report 17 out. The last such report was issued in June of 1987. We have 18 frequent calls for that kind of information. This makes it 19 easy to respond quickly rather than responding to every 20 specific request.
21 Inherent in the requirements under the Act and in our 22 regulations is an active consultation period with DOE, the 23 potential host states and the affected Indian tribes prior to 24 actual receipt of a license application. 'That provision is 25 built into the Nuclear Waste Policy Act itself, our regulation,
1
. 7 1
10 CFR Part 60, it is in the Mission Plan document that DOE 2
produces and it is factored into the project decision schedule 3 which DOE issues.
4 Again, we do not have under the Act and we have not 5
taken a broad oversight role for how DOE is implementing all 6 aspects of the NWPA. The kinds of things we have not gotten 7
into is the site ranking and the ranking methodology for 8
arriving at the slate of sites that DOE has recommended ~and the i 9
President has approved for characterization for the first J l
10 repository.
I 11 1 We have not been involved in directly commenting on 12 the area recommendation reports which DOE has issued for the 13 second repository program and we have not gotten into cost and I' 14 schedule considerations other than the schedule considerations 15 where we may be on the limiting path production schedule. As 16 you are aware, your guidance to us is absent any health and 17 safety restrictions, we should be planning and acting on the 18 basis that will not impede the DOE program.
19 MR. THOMPSON:
I should note that the cost issue is a 20 fairly extensive program, between $30 and $40 billion dollars, l 21 and Congress frequently in the testimony, it attempts to get 22-the Commission involved in, "Are you doing toc much," "Are'you 23 running the cost up?" "Are you not running the cost up?" "Is !
24 DOE going a good job in management" and it is certainly one.
25 that they have a large interest in, but I do not.think that it
l i
8 1
is appropriate for us to be in the cost estimating oversight. 4 1
2 We will probably have some general view of cost 1
(
i 3
aspects with the NEPA consideration but that is being addressed i
4 in the rulemaking activities.
5 MR. BROWNING: The last bullet, for your information 6
in case you are not aware of it, the General Accounting Office l
7 is currently conducting a review of our role under the Nuclear 1 j
8 l Waste Policy Act. There are General Accounting Office people l l
9 in my office spaces, reviewing our documents, interviewing the I 10 staff and this is being done at the request of, I believe, 11 Congressman Sharp to get a better handle on exactly what NRC's 12 role is under this program.
13 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Do you have any idea when GAO 14 will finish that?
15 MR. BROWNING: I believe around the end of this year.
l 16 They will finish the review and then there will be some 17 decision as to whether they focus in on any particular areas.
18 I have made arrangements with them if they detect anything that 19 they think warrants my personal attention, something that might 20 indicate a problem, they will bring that to my attention so I 21 can start dealing with it in parallel with any reviews or 22 reports that they make.
23 (SLIDE.)
24 MR. BROWNING: If I could now go to a brief overview 25 of where the program stands with regard to selection of
. 9 1 potential repository sites on page four of your handout. I 2 might mention that this discussion will be predicated on the 3
schedules that DOE submitted in the Mission Plan amendment 4
which they submitted to Congress in June of this year.
5 In that document they have projected a revised date 6 for acceptance of waste at the first repository from the 1998 7
date which appears in the Act itself, five years, to the year 8 2003. ;
9 This five year slip allows for the greater st:s te and 10 tribal involvement in the technical program, implementation of 11 a QA program that would fully satisfy Commission requirements 12 and more intensive interactions with NRC and the other affected 13 parties prior to the license application.
14 It also includes their proposal to postpone the site l 15 specific work for the second repository and includes the 16 recommendation for authorization of a monitored retrievable '
l 17 storage facility which would be prepared to accept waste by the 18 year 1998.
19 As we have indicated before, one of the things they 1
20 are trying to take advantage of with this five year slip is to 21 improve and increase the c.1-going pre-licensing program with 22 NRC, the affected states and the tribes.
23 (SLIDE.)
l 24 MR. BROWNING: The next two pages, page five and page 25 six, are primarily just for reference purposes. It shows some 1
i 1
, 10 1 of the key milestone dates leading to the completion of the 2 first repository by the new date of 2003 and the beginning as 3
proposed by DOE of the second repository program by the year 4 1995.
5 (SLIDE.]
6 MR. BROWNING: I might mention that in the event that 7 Congress does not act in some way on the proposed Mission Plan 8 Amendment, DOE has indicated they would re-start the second 9 repository program and work towards the schedule that is 10 currently in the Act.
11 [ SLIDE.]
f 12 MR. BROWNING: Page seven is a tabular representation 13 to try to give people a feel for why specifically what sites 14 and what states are under consideration for the first 15 repository and how those states and sites can possibly carry 16 through into the second repository program.
17 I think that is of interest because it would explain 18 why in your meeting with the states and tribes recently the 19 State of Utah was interested in trying to make a definite 20 position about whether that is an acceptable repository site or 21 not even though they are not included in the three sites 22 recommended by DOE and approved by the President which are 23 shown on the third column on the chart.
24 Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in the process of 25 narrowing down from all the sites considered for a repository,
m I
, 11 l 1 there is a provision written in that certain sites fall out and
)
2 are not under double jeopardy whereas, other sites are 3 potentially under double jeopardy.
4 Basically it goes, in narrowing down to the five 5 sites that are nominated by DOE and the three sites recommended I 6
by DOE, if you are nominated but not recommended, you fall out 7
of the process and are not subject to double jeopardy.
8 However, if you were considered but not nominated, you are 9
vulnerable to being considered for the second repository sites.
! 10 It is a provision in the Act. I would rather not discuss the 11 technical merits of it.
12 l
l COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Or how about the lack of it?
13 l (Laughter.)
{
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
l Why wouldn't you want the five l
15 best sites to be nominated? '
l 16 MR. BROWNING: I can't explain that.
17 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: All right.
18 MR. BROWNING: This is just to explain to you why 19 some of the sites are still being interested in being involved 20 in the process. I 21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I am not being critical of you 1 22 in any way.
23 MR. BROWNING: In the last column, the second 24 repository site, we have one generic heading called 25 " crystalline" sites which does potentially raise questions
. 12 1 about other states and other potential sites which accounted 2
for all the'furcr when DOE issued the area recommendation 3 reports, the area s'tudy reports.
4 (SLIDE.]
5 MR. BROWNING: Page eight is to just try to give you 6
an idea of where physically the first round of repository sites 7 are located _and basically they are in the West and southwest.
B
[ SLIDE.]
I 9 MR. BROWNING: I think the more interesting chart is 10 on page nine which explains why there is great interest in the 11 second repository site because the crystalline rock formations 12 that were considered by DOE'for potential host locations for 13 the second repository are located ir the midwest, upper midwest 14 and the east and it would involve bringing in a considerably 15 larger number of states, po entially other affacted Indian 16 tribes and a lot of localities'.
17 i
One question you might. raise when you look at this 18 chart is, aren't there any crystalline rock sites in the 19 western part.of the country? Yes, there are, but because.of 20 the provisions in the Act to tryLto get a geographical 21 equilibrium or. representation 2in.theaprocess, I think they 22 honed in on the crystalline rock sites in the eastern part of-23 the country.
24 So.the draft area recommendation report which I 25 referred to earlier which we have not actively reviewed and n
- 13 j
1 gotten involved in was issued back in January of 1986. It j i
2 includes a study of 235 crystalline rock bodies in three 3 regions. It identified 12 proposed potentially acceptable 4 sites in the states of Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, New 5 Hampshire, Ucrth Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin.
6 This is the work which DOE indefinitely postponed in
- 7. May of 1986 in which they are proposing la the Mission Plan 8
Amendment be deferred until some time in the future unless 9 Congress does not act on that recommendation in some form.
10 The DOE's program in the crystalline rock area right 11 now is focussed primarily on the foreign crystalline rock 12 programs, primarily in the countrics of Canada, Sweden and i 13 Switzerland.
14
[ SLIDE.]
15 MR. BROWNING: If I could now go to the NRC program 16 efforts, page ten, for reference purposes I try to lump my 17 program into tuo pots, one, the reactive pot and the other, the 18 proactive pot.
19 By reactive, I mean those things where the Nuclear 20 i Waste Policy Act either requires us to do something or requires '
21 us to do something in reaction to a DOE programmatic document, 22 one of the key ones being the site characterization plans which 23 describe their plans for all the technical work leading to 24 deciding whether a particular potential repository site will be 25 acceptable or not.
A
. 14 1 The proactive piece are those things where although 2 it is not directly required by the Act or in reaction to 3 something DOE is doing, they are things that wa have identified
)
4 as being appropriate primarily in two areas; one, to help I 5 provide the technical guidance that we think is necessary for !
6 this first-of-a-kind program, it is first-of-a-kind for NRC and
]
7 it is first-of-a-kind for DOE, also, to have this active, on-8 going pre-licensing interface to provide guidance in technical 9
areas where either we or DOE identify wou]d be highly desirable 10 to clarify and provide guidance and hopefully close out prior l '
11 to the time we have to deal with a license application.
12 It also falls into a category of those actions which 13 we have identified and think have high potential for 14 streamlining the licanse process so we have a chance of meeting 15 the three-year time frame that is in the Nuclear Waste Policy 16 Act before making our licensing decision.
l 17 I should mention that we don't necessarily do both at 18 the same time. In order to make sure we are not in an up-and-19 down mode, we have the capability of diverting resources from 20 the proactive piece to the reactive piece when the reactive
{
21 piece happens. If the reactive piece does not happen, then we !
i 22 are working on the proactive piece.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me just say along that line that l
24 it seems to me that since there has been this proposal on DOE 25 to extend the program, the finish point from 1998 to 2003, and l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ____-__________a
15 1
as I understand it, that requires Congressional approval which 2
has not been acted upon yet, it gives us from a licensing 3 standpoint a certain amount of uncertainty.
4 In other words, if we plan on 1998, that means as far 5 as I can understand it, we have to be gearing up with resources 6 and planning activities and programs to accommodate that date.
7 If it is 2003, it is different.
8 So it seems to me that we are in a position of having 9 it extremely difficult to plan for the 1998 date or the 2003 10 date since licensing, as I understand it, we have expected to 11 take over a period of about three years and in such a 12 complicated and unique project as this, even that date in my 13 judgment is somewhat uncertain.
14 So it seems like we are in the middle. We need a 15 decision as to which is the date. Is that a concern that you 16 have?
17 MR. BROWNING: Yes, it is. We have a slide and I la will be getting into the areas of uncertainty affecting our 19 program. However, I think our planning has always been on the 20 basis of making sure that we can handle what I referred to 21 earlier as the proactive piece..
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes.
23 MR. BROWNING: There is a great deal of work that is 24 embedded in that procctive piece some of which we are 25 identifying now as we go.
m
i
, 16 1 CHAIRIUdf ZECH: I appreciate that. I understand that 2 and I think up until now, we are probably all right because 1
3 there is plenty to do. But I am looking not very far ahead and !
{
4 if that date is made firm, as I understand it if Congress does 5 not act to approve it, the date becomes 1998. If Cengress does 6 I approve DOE's proposal, then it goes to 2003. '
7 My only point is this, up until now I think we are 8 probably all right. There is plenty for us to do but it won't 9 be very far along, I think, where we will either need to devote 10 more resources to make 1998 or at least in a responsible way 11 plan for less resources to make 2003.
12 So it seems to me that that decision has rather 13 significant bearing on our planning for our licensing 14 responsibilities.
15 MR. THOMPSON: I think that is right, Mr. Chairman.
16 The one thing that I would see as the near term activities with 17 the site characterization plan and its submittal and review by 18 NRC is a key element and that will have to be done in any 19 event.
I don't think the level of resources that we have would 20 be less than what we have today. It would be a matter of l 21 having to put more resources if they come in.
22 1 I believe DOE would have extreme difficulty in 23 meeting a 1998 date. In fact, I think that date earlier was !
i 24 predicated on reducing the licensing time from the 36 months i 25 slant to something like 27 months which I think is just an
_ _ _ _ _ _ _________.__________________a________
4 17 1 unreasonable expectation given the complexity and the level of 2 issues that likely will be litigated.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I agree with all that but it also 4
seems to me that Congress has to agree with that DOE projected 5
date of 2003 and if they do, I think what you are telling me 6 here is probably feasible and works fine.
7 All I am saying is that if Congress does not agree 8 with DOE's proposal and says the date will be 1998, then I 9 think we have a real challenge, it would seem like. I 10 recognize what you are doing nou is necessary to be done anyhow 11 but all I am saying is it won't be very far into the future 12 that we really need to have a more definitive decision on what 1
1 l 13 is that date in order to plan our own resources and do a l i
14 responsible job.
15 That is somewhat of a concern of mine. All I am 16 really asking you is, is that a concern of yours? Is that 17 realistic? Should we be concerned about that or not?
18 MR. THOMPSON: 1 I think it is absolutely a concern on 19 our part. Even meeting the 2003 date is one that requires, I l 20 I think, sufficient planning on our part and we have to be I 21 vigilant and able to get a high quality submittal from DOE and 22 identify the licensing issues that we can get resolved early 1
23 on.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Then I think that view and our 25 concern should be expressed to those in the DOE and in the
\
1 I
R
- I 18 1 Congress that are responsible for this decision so that we can 2 carry out our responsibilities. All right.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me just pick up on that 4 just a minute because I have a similar concern that is more in-5 house, I guess. I know yours is in-house, too, but it is G
budget and the fact that we, as I gather it, are proposing to 7 cut something like 21 FTE's from this program, not cut them but 8 re-allocate them to other programs.
9 I also gather that one of the assumptions behind that I 10 re-allocation is that Congress has significantly cut the DOE 11 program and that, therefore, we can go slow on our program or i
12 at least that is the way it looks and sounds to me.
13 I just wonder if that is a good basis on which to be 14 proceeding on which to be significantly reducing our allocation i 15 of people to this program.
16 MR. THOMPSON: Not to get into a major budget I
17 discussion here, but what we are planning to do is not to cut )
18 our level of resources or our level of expertise. It is to 19 1 focus it on doing a combination of both the proactive and the 20 1 reactive portions in a balance which I think is consistent with 21 what I am projecting and our experience has occurred, that the 22 DOE program is-going to the year 2003. !
23 If it comes in and Congress says, "No, we are keeping 24 the year 1998," then there is no question but I will have to 25 put more resources in the program that I presently have. )
- l
19 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But you have +. hose resources. It 1
(
2 will be a matter of re-locating them.
3 MR. THOMPSON: I have re-allocation of resources 4 internally within NMSS and if I don't, then I come to Mr.
5 Stello and ask him for those resources as they are necessary. j 6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It seems to me it is a responsible 7 action but I, too, have the same concern that Fred Bernthal has 8
and knat you have to do, of course, is be very sensitive to the 9
planning process and to the decisions that may be forthcoming 10 and be ready to re-allocate those people if it looks like you 11 should. i 12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess the question is how 13 quickly can you re-gear these people. I Are these people that 14 can be brought back in overnight.
{
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: i I think they are going to be people 1 16 who stay in that organization as far as I understand it.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But a number of them are off i
18 doing other things and it takes some time.
19 MR. THOMPSON: Some will be in the low level waste 20 program and they will be in the NMSS program with the skills 21 that they had before. Some will likely leave the organization.
22 You have people in a transition area that may decide that if 23
. their positions are not covered as well as they would be 24 covered on staffing plans that they had seen in the past, they 25 may leave.
l
\
. 20 1
If it is a critical resource, a critical skill, I l l
2 will always maintain that, that is, I am not eliminating some f 1
3 of the skills needed to do my reviews. I am maintaining all f
i 4 the section leaders. In fact, I have taken steps to insure 5
that we have the capability to maintain through the grade i 6 levels that are appropriate for this type of skill an 1 7 attractive place to work.
8 Nevertheless, there is a transition period where we 1
9 have not got the FFRDC up and running and during that 10 transition period, I would expect the people that would be 11 there today are going to be there in October.
12 We are not eliminating any individual's jobs. In the f l
13 terminology of the personnel, we are not RIF'ing anybody as 14 part of this action. It is a gradual decrease in the resources 15 that are in there but the people typically will be either in 16 the low level waste or they will still be in the high level i 17 waste during this transition period.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It seems to me like it is a 19 responsible action on your part, I would think. But the whole 20 point is, I think, that we recognize as I am sure you do that 21 it may be necessary to re-locate these people. I hope they 4
22 have been told that and they know that we want to employ them 23 fully but we are trying to look at the priorities of our needs 24 and it is possible that we would have to re-locate them. I 25 hope they know that, do they?
l l
' 21 j 1 l MR. THOMPSON: They do. Obviously, the budget l 2
process is the one that makes those final decisions, other than 3
the fact that they are aware and we have talked to them about 4 our intent to maintain a viable program. I 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: <
Watch it closely and we will be 6 watching it closely, too.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The concern I have arid we j 8 I have is very straight forward. You will recall that DOE was 9 concerned because of our comments and representations that it 10 is going to be pretty tough to get this licensing done on the 11 schedule that you guys assume that we are going to be able to 12 do it and the last thing that we want is to be the bottleneck 13 in this process because we cut back on the resources allocated 14 to the program at this stage. That is really all that I am 15 driving at. l 16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That's right.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: We don't want to be the 18 bottleneck and lets make sure, let's watch it and make sure 19 that that doesn't happen. I see the General Counsel picked up 20 the law. That always makes me shutter a bit.
, 21 [ Laughter.]
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: He has put it back down.
23 MR. PARLER: I found that the book was obsolete when 24 I was reading it.
1 25 (Laughter.]
1
22 1 MR. PARLER: So I shoved it cack on the table.
2 MR. STELLO: I think the Commission is looking for 3
assurance that 17e are not going to be on the critical path if 4
the schedule for the first repository is 1998.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's right.
6 MR. STELLO: We will not be.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. 77e will log that one in 8 and recall that remark.
9 MR. STELLO: We are not going to take the blame.
10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: That is a very positive 11 statement.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let's proceed.
13 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Stello.
14 [ Laughter.)
1S CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
16
[ SLIDE.]
17 MR. BROWN 1NG: On page 11, I have specific examplos 18 of some of the activities we have had underway. For example, 19 under the proactive activities, we have issued Reg Guide 4.17 20 which is the standard format and content of the site 21 characterization plans which DOE is currently working on.
22 We have had pre-licensing consultations. These are 23 technical meetings with the DOE project offices and DOE 24 headquarters. l We have issued Generic Technical Positions in 25 the area of quality assurance.
i a
l
}
I
. 23 1
For example, we have issued guidance, one of the key 1
2 issues related to the site characterization plan is how do you 1
3 quality existing data that was collected, for example, by oil 4
companies not under NRC-approved quality assurance plan, how do 5
you continue to make use of that available data without having 6 to go back and re-do a lot of work.
7 In developing those Generic Technical Positions, the i
8 staff just doesn't issue something. We draft proposals. We 9 publish them in the Federal Register. We make a point of 10 sending them particularly to the potential host states and 11 affected Indian tribes and the Department of Energy and their 12 contractors.
13 We have comment on the drafts. We deal with the 14 comments. In some cases, for example, on the peer review of 15 data, we actually had a meeting with the states and tribes.
16 They requested to meet with us so they could make sure that 17 their comments were fairly understood. We met with them. We 18 resolved their comments and short of actually getting their 10 signatures on these documents, we think we have gone about as 20 far as anybody can go in making sure we have listened to and 21 addressed people's concerns on these documents before they are )
22 finalized.
i 23 [ SLIDE.] i 24 MR. BROWNING: On page 12, I have listed some of the 25 examples of the reactive actions we have taken We have, cf 1
I
24 1 course, reviewed DOE's draft and final environmental 2 assessments. I might mention the draft document was not i I
3 something that was required by the Act. It was something that 4 DOE did on their own initiative.
1 5
We have reacted to these documents because you can 6 really consider this to be part of our site characterization 7 plan review.
8 The environmental assessments listed all the data and 9
information that DOE was considering in coming up with how they l 1
10 would then go characterize some sites.
11 In effect, our effort to review a site 13 characterization plan, it has been partially done, even though 13 it is called by a different name. Our review of the draft and 14 final environmental assessments constituted a significant piece 15 of the effort we were planning to assert in reviewing the site 16 characterization plans.
17 We do have the site characterization plans 18 potentially coming up. The dates for those are a little 19 i
l uncertain at the present time but our plans are to be able to 20 deal with those within a 6 month timeframe. The events 21 included in those 6 months would be our acceptance review of 22 the document, make sure it includes sufficient information to 23 allow the review to proceed.
24 We have committed to provide them a 90 day comment 25 period on exploratory shaft.related issues, and the rationale s
i I
, 25 1
for that was the exploratory shaft is usually the critical path 2 item on their production schedule to do the site 3 characterization. It would be extremely useful ifTaa can 4
segment that piece from the overall site characterization plan, 5 try to provide our comments to them as early as possible on 6 that particular piece.
7 Our process includes a phase for state and tribal B
involvement in our comment period, where we discuss what we are 9
proposing to do and get any input from them, which may or may 10 not be applicable to our particular issues. This is a process 11 we did when we were doing the EA reviews. I think it was 12 fairly effective to try to make sure we understood what the 13 state and tribal concerns were.
14 Included in the 6 month timeframe is one month for l
15 Commission review prior to submittal of the site 16 characterization analysis to the Department of Energy.
17 MR. THOMPSON: I just might add that the acceptance 18 review, I think, is really a key element. We have always 19 talked early acout having a quality review, hetAng ,
l l
20 documentation. If we are going to be able to do our review in 21 the timeframe that is required, we need to make sure before we 22 start it, that it is capable of containing the information that 23 we have identified to DOE that they need to submit to us.
24 We intend to do that very promptly. I anticipate 25 that will be done in like the 3 to 4 week timeframe. It is
}
. 26 1
very similar to what we had done with the reactors,'when they
- 2. would submit license applications to us. If we don't at least 3
establish a standard of having quality submittals at this time, 4
when it.gets down to the licensing review process, we are going 5 to be faced with a very significant problem.
6- [ sling,3 7 MR. BROWNING: On page 13, we have listed the 8 rulemakings that we are currently involved in. Again,'I have-9 attempted 4;.o put them into the two categories, the. reactive 1 10- category.and the proactive category.
11 The reactive category is the definition of high' level 12 waste; the conformance of our rules to the EPA high level waste i 13 standard, and NEPA responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste 14 Policy Act.
15 Under the proactive piece, we have the development 16 and implementation of a licensing support system. This'is to 17 attempt to streamline the licensing process with primary 18 emphasis on getting the discovery period down to an absolute 19 minimum and to make sure that everyone in the process has l l
20 access to the documents and database as it is being generated, 21 so that this active, ongoing pre-licensing period is as i 22 effective as it possibly can be.
23 We have a catch-all which we call others being 24 considered as necessary to resolve selected technical issues i
25 i
prior to licensing. If there is a particular fundamental piece s
27 1 of either the technical piece, primarily the technical piece of 2
the work, we believe that it would be effective to try te 3 resolve some of those through rulemaking rather than have them i 4 become a point of contention during the licensing process.
1 5 One that we have identified is the methodology for 6 implementation of the EPA standard.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Before we go off that page, would you 8 mind discussing why you extended the comment period for the 9 definition of high leve.'. waste? l 10 MR. BROWNING: Yes. We got quite a few requests for l 11 extending the comment period which we did grant, on the basis 12 that it is an extremely complicated situation. For example, we !
l 13 still don't have comments from the Department of Energy on 14 that. They are one of the affected parties. They have not 15 commented even within the extended comment period. We will 16 probably have to deal with their comments when we do get them.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It seems to me that is a pretty 18 fundamental definition and we ought to get that resolved. I 19 recognize it is complicated.
20 CC?LIISSIONER BERNTHAL: Is that the reason for not 21 having a proposed rule?
22 MR. THOMPSON: That is part of the process that would 23 be required to complete that before coming to the Commission 24 with the proposed rule, the analysis of the comments. This 25 kind of goes back to one of the issues, and I hate to say deja s
28 1
vu, when you are dealing with a large Federal agency as a 2
licensee, and I can remember dealing with TVA in my day, there 3 are times when they just aren't as responsive to deadlines as 4 you would like for them to be.
5 We have had comments on some of these generic 6
technical positions that we have been waiting for comments for 7
a long period of time because they are a key player in,this 8 game. They are not a licensee yet. They haven't even got a 9 license application before us. We are in kind of an unique 10 circumstance where we need their input to make sure we develop 11 rules with the best information and technical position with the 12 best information available. Sometimes, their delay in 13 providing this ends up with us revising our schedules and our 14 dates with respect to the Commission.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You are telling me in part we 16 are being held up in getting out the proposed rule, as I 17 understand it, until next year, Spring of 1988, because DOE 18 hasn't submitted comments?
19 MR. THOMPSON: That's correct.
20 COMMISSIONER SERNTHAL: I thought they were among 21 those who were critical of us for not proceeding expeditiously 22 on this matter.
23 MR. THOMPSON: In fact, one of the things I first 24 noticed when I came to this Division, I was alerted to the fact 25 that DOE was pointing to NRC as not having published enough s
29 1 rules and regulations for them to complete their process. It 2 took me up until I guess last week to get them to even write
-3 down which rules they were waiting for. They didn't have but 4 two rules. One of them was the NEPA rule, which we already had 5 underway. The other one was the definition of a dose limit for 6 the design basis accident evaluation, wr~0h was kind of news to 7 us, but certainly something we can address.
8 There were not a substantial number. Our position 9 had been that we had enough rules in place for them to proceed 10 with their general design and site selection activities. I 11 think that has been a true statement.
12 To the extent that additional steps and additional 13 information is needed to proceed with rulemakings to define a 14 number of these areas, DOE has not provided their views on our 15 proposals.
16 CHAIPMAN ZECH: All I can say is it is pretty 17 fundamental, the definition of high level waste. I would hope 18 that you would get from DOE what you need soon. If you don't, 19 I think you should let the Commission know so we can assist in 20 this area.
21 MR. THOMPSON: We certainly will.
22 MR. BROWNING: I think the major impact on the 23 overall waste management program is probably more in the low 24 ' level waste area than the high level waste area. We are 25 scheduled to give you a briefing. Dr. Knapp will give you a I
b 30 1 briefing on the above class C and low level waste program in 2 the near future. We plan to discuss this some more.
3 I would like to say that although it looks like some 4
of the intermediate dates have slipped, we are actively working 5 to try to make up that gap so that the overall proposed rule 6 delay would not be as great as the intermediate step.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The DOE comment on this 8 matter, I assume it is supposed to come from the High Level 1
9 Waste Office. Does it come from some other office? l 10 MR. BROWNING: I'm not sure. It will be a 11 coordinated response of all the activities. As you are 12 probably aware, the defense activities, repository program and 13 maybe even other programs, they are all affected by whatever )
14 rulemaking we do in this area. It's a complicated thing for 15 them also.
j l
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I would suggest that we not 17 wait forever on that, we either send a letter to DOE, Mr.
18 Chairman, as I tnink you are suggesting, or we move ahead.
19 MR. THOMPSON: I will be meeting with Rusche later 20 this week and I also will probably have a meeting with him next 21 week. If we need to do that to get their attention and action, 22 I'll be quick to bring that up.
23 MR. PARLER: You talked about comments on the 24 definition of high level waste, the comment period has been 25 extended one more time?
- I 31 1 MR. BROWNING: It has only been extended one time.
2 DOE's comments haven't come in during that period.
3 MR. THOMFSON: In the extended periods, their 4 comments were not received.
5 [ SLIDE.]
6 MR. BROWNING: If I could go to page 14 --
7 MR. THOMPSON: I guess I would touch on one other 8 issue, Mr. Chairman. You asked about the status of rulemaking.
9 One of the other key ones was the NEPA responsibility. We do 10 anticipate getting a proposed rule down for the Commission this 11 year. OGC is in the final stages of preparing that.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Why did that take so long?
14 We were going to expedite that in November of 1985, the staff 15 tells me.
16 MR. THOMPSON: I think that goes back before my time.
17 I think Stu Treby who is our General Counsel here --
1 18 MR. PARLER: I can comment on that. I don't know why 1
19 it took such a long time. First of all, there was a differing l I
20 professional opinion on the paper that came down here a year or i
{
21 l so ago for the commission to make a decision on, to give 22 guidance. Reasonable minds may differ as to the speed with 23 which that paper was handled. l 24 [ Laughter.]
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I knew where this was going l
)
32 l I
1 to end up. l 2- [ Laughter.] 1 3 MR. PARLER:
That's why I thought I would answer it !
l 4 rather than the distinguished attorney, Mr. Treby.
5 The staff requirements memorandum was issued and a j I
6 paper is well on the way to being prepared to be sent up here.
7 I think since the Commission has phased the basic policy issue 8
already, what you are getting now is the implementing details, i
9 the nuts and bolts, and probably will not be overly 30 controversial.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It sounds like we better move 12 on. i 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: es, I think so.
14 MR. BROWNING: One of the other rulemakings which we 15 have listed on page 13 is conformance with EPA high level waste 16 standard.
I will talk about that a little under 14 because j r
17 there is an interrelationship between that rulemaking and some '
18 of tha uncertainties we have identified on page 14.
19 [ SLIDE.]
20 MR. BROWNING: As you ini;cated in your opening 21 remarks, we do have a lot of uncertainties affecting this 22 program. The bottom line is we as an Agency have to be 1
23 extremely flexible and be able to react to different changes in 1 l
24 direction because they happen very frequently and not~always on. j 25 a time scale or schedule that we can have anything to.do with.
. 33 1 I have lumped them into two categories. One, the i
2 legislation category and the other into litigCuion. I might {
k 3 mention all the litigation is against DOE and EPA at this i 4 stage. There is nothing directly related to NRC's efforts at 1
i 5 this stage. '
6 In the litigation against DOE and EPA, I was going to 7
use as an example the ongoing lawsuit against EPA's high level .
8 waste standard and the fact that we had been proceeding with 9 conforming our rule to the EPA high level waste standard on the j i
10 basis that the minute EPA issued it, it was effective.
11 I Therefore, we ought to proceed expeditiously to conform our j
.q 12 rule.
f 13 !
Unfortunately and maybe fortunately, events passed me
{
14 by.
I was trying to be alert to something that might happen I
{
15 (
that happened. In Tuesday's Washington Post, we read that the 16 court action had been taken on the high level waste standard 17 and the legal staff and the technical staff are currently l
)
18 reviewing the court decision to decide what impact that has on 19 our conforming rulemaking and any of the other actions we are 20 involved in.
21 Of course, DOE is in fact going through the same l 22 process right now.
23 I guess that is about all I can say now. The 24 1
uncertainty with regard to how the court was going to come out 25 has been removed, but the impact of that court decision on
34 i
1 everything else is highly uncertain right now. In my mind, one l l
2 of the key things is that the court indicated that a high level !
l 3
waste repository either may or is subject to EPA's regulation ]
i 4
for deep well injection requirements, which is a connection I 5 never would have made. In my mind, I think a deep well 5
injection is injecting liquids or slurries into the ground )
)
7 rather than canisters of high level waste into a repository. f 1
8 I just don't know at this stage what the implications 9 are of that. I'm personally not that familiar with EPA deep 10 well injection requirements.
11 I One thing it does do is brings in the state efforts, 12 I think, to a larger degree than what had been the case before, 13 because under the EPA regulations for deep well injection, as I 14 understand it, they delegate part of that authority to the 15 states if they have an equal or better program. i 16 For example, the State of Texas has that authority )
j 1
17 under the EPA regulations. That gets you into what are the 18 State of Texas' regulations for deep well injection and how -
19 !
would that impact the potential repository site in the State of 20 Texas.
21 There are a lot of questions that have to be 1 22 addressed by EPA, us and DOE. It is going to take some time to 23 sort that out. -
24 On the legislative front, there is something like 31 25 bills pending in Congr.ss. of course, there is always the e
35 1 appropriation bills and how that can impact on programs and 2 specifically, in the past, DOE's appropriations have been 3
restricted where they could not sink exploratory shafts. They 4 would deny them the funds for doing that particular action.
5 There is the proposed congressional action on DOE's 6
mission plan amendment which is before the Congress, plus the 7 various bills proposing significant changes to the Nuclear 8 Waste Policy Act itself, ranging from a moratorium on all site 9
specific work to getting on with the program and approving the 10 MRS.
11 Exactly how that is coming out, I guess is difficult 12 to assess at this particular point.
13 [ SLIDE.]
{
14 MR. BROWNING: The last sheet was to identify things 15 that might be coming up that would involve Commission '
16 involvement in this program, the first being NRC comments on 17 I DOE's site characterization plan, if they come in the latter j 18 part of this year and early next year, as DOE is currently ;
19 projecting.
20 We had thought conforming our rule to the EPA 21 standard would be before you shortly, but we have to reassess 22 whether it is even worth sending that.- We were ready to 23 actually propose a final bill or rule on that particular 24 action.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me just ask a question L______'______-_____-----
36 1 about this business of the EPA standard. I have to confess 2
that from the very beginning, I have had a feeling that the 3
standards that were set, and the ACRS warned us about this, the 4
standards that were set for the high level waste repositories 5 were simply a time bomb, that despite the assurances of DOE 6 that they could meet these extraordinarily stringent standards 7 that are far higher than required for almost anything else that 8
human kind does, they still are going to have to prove it at ,
9 some point. !
10 Now we find that underlying that is an EPA standard 11 on drinking water that is still more stringent, and I would 12 suspect again not in conformity with the level of protection i 13 required for probably many, many other things, except here we 14 are talking about radioactivity. l l
15 Where do we go from here? l We are now stymied in I 16 proceeding to try to conform our rules with the EPA standard.
17 EPA is sit. ting there with an extraordinary stringent standard 18 for the nuclear waste repository, which DOE assures us can be 19 met, and now underlying that, there is a still more 20 extraordinarily stringent standard.
21 What does all this mean? Easy question!
22 [ Laughter.)
23 MR. THOMPSON: I think the first thing it means is we 24 have to make sure we understand the court's ruling. As I 25 understand it, some of the court's ruling dealt more with
37 1 procedural matters and a better articulation and definition of 2 what the' basis for the 1,000 versus the 10,000 rate.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It was the substanco of the 4
issue, as I understand it, failure to demonstrate convincingly 5 that the standard that you have set for the high level waste 6 site and any leakage that might occur or be expected from the 7
high level waste site which would conform with the high level 8 waste standards, stringent as they are, would still not meet 9
the drinking water standards for ambient water that might be in 10 the proximity of the site.
11 MR. BROWNING: I think in answer to your question, 12 where this may be leading --
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I may be wrong.
14 MR. BROWNING: Where this may be leading is it may be 15 eliminating deep geologic repositories as a viable disposal 16 approach and push for perpetual storage and perpetual 17 monitoring. That's one extreme.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If that comes about, we have a pretty 19 basic, fundamental problem, it seems to me.
20 MR. PARLER: You are talking about i decision, if my 21 memory is correct, and I have not read the decision very 22 carefully, I have no particular expertise, but a decision that 23 was handed down on July 17th of this year, as I recall, or 24 thereabouts, it deals at least in a broader sense with the 25 interplay of two statutes, both of which are under DOE's
. 38 1- responsibility, the Drinking Water Act and the national high 2
level waste standards, it may well be as you pointed out there l 3 I are some difficulties. Perhaps what the ACRS said has now been j
i 4 endorseu perhaps by judicial principle. j 5 You reach the end of the line in something like that 4
i 6
after you have gone through the re-hearing and the appellant /
7 process, and you go to relief from Congress. Congress is the i 8 one who passed these various laws.
9 It hasn't been sorted out fet. The decision was just 10 handed down.
11 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: What court?
12 MR. PARLER: A Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
)
13 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: It is still appealable?
14 MR. PARLER: It is still appealable to the Supreme 15 Court. I assune the Department or the Agency is figuring out 16 what to do.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: They have a real conundrum, 18 if I understand the issues. I wish them well.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Proceed.
20 MR. BROWNING: The other items which you will '
21 continue to get, of course, are quarterly progress reports, l 22 which you asked for. l We could add other areas other than the 23 ones we have included in the first report, which were basically l 24 those key areas that we think are important to assess how well !
25 the mutual interface between NRC and DOE is working, leading
. 39 l
1 towards being able to meet the dates in the projected plans for 2 bringing the first repository on the line.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Don't limit yourself to what you have 4
said in the past or the issues you have covered in the past. I 5
expect that if you see additional information that you think is 6 important to come to the Commission, you will include that.
7 MR. BROWNING: We plan to use that as the forum for 8 keeping you informed.
l l
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Add to that any other issues that you 10 think we should be aware of. l 11 MR. BROWNING: Yes, sir.
i 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you.
13 MR. BROWNING: We have talked about the definition of 14 high leval waste already. In the forthcoming briefing on the 15 greater than Class C, low level waste issue, ties back into our 16 high level waste definition.
17 I think with that, unless there are any questions, 18 those are the points I wanted to make.
19 I might add as a kind of over summary of where this 20 thing stands, based on the testimony that we have given so far 21 in the three congressional hearings that we have been invited 22 to testify at, in the congressional Q and A's which we have 23 reacted to, this is the technical staff's opinion that site 24 characterization at the current nominated and approved three 25 sites, is a very valuable process to continue, particularly the
40 1 surface related inspections.
2 If you recall, one of the items in the progress 3
report we sent to you was a chart, which was our attempt to 4 identify the site kinds of issues for each of the sites with 5 regard to our technical judgment within our staff as to whether G those issues could or could not be resolved through surface 7
re:ated inspections versus sinking an exploratory shaft.
8 We still believe ultimately you have to sink an 9 exploratory shaft to answer all the questions, to be 10 sufficient. There may very well be a great deal to learn about 11 our ability to characterize sites through the surface related 12 inspections.
13 If in fact all these bills that are pending before l 14 Congress that relate, for example, to a complete moratorium on 15 site specific work, my personal opinion from a technical 16 standpoint is the program would lose an awful lot of ability to 17 be able to deal with those kinds of questions, irregardless -of 18 where you ultimately go for a deep geologic repository, if in 19 fact they decide to move elsewhere'.
1 20 MR. THOMPSON: I think there was one other thing, Mr.
21 Chairman, that you did ask about, the licensing support system 22 and kind of where that stands. As you know, we have our own 23 pilot program internally which is up and running. We have been 24 very pleased with that.
25 DOE has moved forward with the development of the e
1 1
. 41 1
request for proposal for the major licensing support system. ]
l 2
They have not issued that yet, but it is essentially one that )
1 3 they expect to issue fairly shortly.
4 We have worked with them in the development of that 5 RFP but we have not been particularly involved after the 6 initial developmental stages.
7 CHAIRMAN 2ECH: Fine. Is there anything else, Mr.
8 Stello?
l 9 MR. STELLO: That's it. We are through, i 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Questions from my fellow l
11 Commissioners? Commissioner Roberts?
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No, Mr. Chairman.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Bernthal?
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I have one or two other l
15 things that I wanted to ask about. On the question of the way 16 l
l we are distributing and allocating our personnel and resources, 17 I was curious about the possibility that I think you must 18 mentioned at the end, that we might proceed with some kind of 19 surface characterization or cartial characterization.
20 Suppose the DOE decided to do that on one or perhaps 21 all three sites, that they did not go ahead with the 22 exploratory shaft characterization program, but suddenly 23 decided to come forward with a surface characterization, 24 partial characterization.
25 Are we also flexible enough and equipped enough to
42 '
I 1
deal quickly with that sort of approach, should it happen?
2 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. Some of the more difficult 3
things are the site characterization activities, such that it 4 may in fact be easier to address the others, that is the level 5 of resources that we have would hopefully be able to do that. !
6 DOE is likely to -- you asked Rusche at the last 7
briefing to consider the surface characterization portions.
8 They are re-focusing their attention on that as part of the 9 site characterization plan. It would be an integral part of l
l 10 what they were doing in any event.
1 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL: One more question on the EPA 12 business. As you can tell, I am not convinced that problem is 13 going to be dealt with easily. I think there is a fundamental 14 underlying difficulty and disproportionality between the 15 standards that are being generally laid on radioactive hazard 16 when compared with many other hazards that come out of the 17 Potomac River, some of which we are all familiar with.
18 l
Suppose that EPA's underlying water quality standard 19 for radioactivity remains and that this standard that we would 20 incorporate into Part 60 remains, have you considered the 21 possibility that one or more of these sites might find itself 22 easily and quickly dismissed as a possibility by the NRC's 23 licensing process, simply because of an inability to conform 24 with those water quality standards? You are not that far yet?
25 MR. BROWNING: I don't think the database would
.e
i e
43 1 reall;r allow you to make very accurate predictions at this 2 stage. Basically, you need to do site characterization to be 3 able to answer those~ kinds of questions. i 4
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's my question. Do you 5 even need a complete site characterization? The court, after 6
all, has already made a judgment that you have not presented us 7 a convincing case that your standards for high level waste repositories can meet your standards for drinking water.
t 8 '
9 There may be a message in there for us as well.
10 MR. BROWNING:
1 I'm not sure that is really the 11 conclusion. As I understand it --
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: They have said "your 13 arguments are insufficient." "You haven't made the case." i 14 That is what they said.
15 MR. BROWNING: You haven't made the case that your 16 standard hangs together. I don't think they technically 17 challenge the adequacy of the standard.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, I agree.
19 MR. PARLER: One of the remarks made earlier, that j 20 it is largely a procedural thing at this point and that seems i j
21 to me to be the right description of it. t If a technical 22 !
judgment is reached by the expert body, and I think it would be 23 very unusual in the absence of a procedural problem, for a i 1
i 24 court to take issue with that. I don't think we are at that 25 point yet.
9
l
. 44 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Nor would the court, as I 2
understand, nor would the court reach a judgment on the 3
technical issue but they have said at least once now, you have 4 not made the case. Your answer, I take it, is we have not 5
looked very closely at that technical issue at this point.
6 MR. BROWNING: I believe that is right. )
7 MR. THOMPSON: I can tell you that is right. We have 8 only had this thing a fairly short time.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It is our problem, too.
10 MR. THOMPSON: That's right. You recognize that we 11 are looking at the groundwater methodology say at the Hanford 12 site. Even its ability to meet the current, the rules and 13 regulations that we have in place, has been in some question 14 and we have worked very carefully with DOE to identify a 15 program to look at that, which may or may not disqualify the >
16 site, before you have to do any major exploratory shaft 17 sinking, i 18 We are aware of that. If we see it, we are going to 19 he quick to identify that as an issue and would certainly make 20 sure the Commission is aware of that as well as DOE.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It seems like that is j i
22 something we ought to be sensitive to in consequences of the 23 court action.
24 MR. STELLO: Save for the court action, we were 25 prepared to incorporate in our regulations, as I remember, l
1 3 1
. 45 I
where the standard applies, they either meet background or 2 drinking water.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: General Counsel has a comment to 4 make.
5 MR. PARLER: Mr. Malsch tells me that my discussion 6
of the court decision at this point has not been very fair.
7 [ Laughter.]
1 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Malsch, you may tell us what the 9 General Counsel meant to say, please.
10 MR. PARLER: You will educate them as well as the l 11 General Counsel. I 12 MR. MALECH: I just wanted to describe it briefly.
13 What the court did is with regard to the individual protection 14 requirements, it reversed a procedural problem, inade quate l 15 opportunity -- two grounds. One is there was an inadequate l 16 explanation for selection of 1,000 years as opposed to 10,000 17 years.
1 There was an inadequate explanation as to why it 18 differed from comparable standards for radionuclides protection 1
) 19 under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
20 I should add that certain important parts of the EPA 21 scandards were actually upheld upon challenge. In particular, 22 they upheld the selection of 10,000 years and the society 23 protection standard. They upheld the use of reasonable 24 confidence as opposed to a higher degree of proof of compliance 25 with the EPA standard.
.e
46 1 While thare were some problems with the EPA 2
standards, several important aspects withstood challenge.
3 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 4 respectfully tell you all that maybe the Office of General i
5 Counsel should analyze this decision for the Commission and the 6 staff. We will do that and we will do it promptly and then 7 maybe everybody will have a better understanding as to what its 8 significance is.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think we would appreciate that.
10 MR. PARLER: Obviously, it has a potential 11 significance and also obviously the Environmental Protection 12 Agency is the one that directly has to respond to this 13 decision.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I appreciate that suggestion. We 15 will look forward to your analysis.
16 MR. STELLO: I can't believe we would issue a rule 17 where we didn't believe that if we issued a rule, the whole i
18 repository, the whole deep geologic site program is just 19 inconsistent, can't be met, we are dead in the water. I can't i 20 believe we would do that. :
i 21 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm not suggesting we do '
22 that. What I am asking is whether you might very early on find ,
i 23 those two standards are incompatible. I 24 MR. STELLO: If we do, then we clearly have to deal 25 with that problem. It basically will eliminate the geological
_ _ _ _ _ _-____________~
I
i 47 l 1 site program.
2 MR. PARLER: It will be a national policy thing at 3 that point. It will be Congress' concern.
4 MR. STELLO: You come to the Commission and you say, 5 you have to go to the Congress.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: We need to realize that very 7 early on.
3 Can you give us a quick update on where the federally 9 funded research and development center effort stands?
10 MR. BROWNING: Yes. We can't get into a lot of 11 specifics because of the contractual requirements. Basically, !
12 the bids have been reviewed. We are in the process of 13 negotiating best and finals with the people that ended up ,
I 14 surviving the review process. We are currently on target to I 15 try to complete this toward the end of this year.
16 MR. THOMPSON: This fiscal year. That is the target. l l
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: End of the fiscal year.
18 MR. THOMPSON: End of the fiscal year. We are in the 19 negotiating --
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: September, 1987. Which fiscal year 21 are we talking about?
22 MR. STELLO: September, two months from now.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: September, 1987.
24 MR. STELLO: Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. We have that straightened
48 1 out, two months from now.
I 2 MR. STELLO: Yes, sir.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Browning, do you have any problem 4 with that answer that just came forth from your superiors? j 5 [ Laughter.)
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Did I hear you say, no, sir, you j 7 don't have any problem with that; is that what you said?
l 8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I didn't hear him say that. l
}
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: No, I'm sure he didn't either.
10 [ Laughter.)
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, he not quite as optimistic, 12 but now you've got your direction, don't you?
13 [ Laughter.)
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: He looked a little panicked 16 there.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Any other questions, Mr. Bernthal?
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: One quick one, yes.
19 How are we doing on our data document handling 20 capability? We have a very capable new person in charge of 21 that, in that operation for the agency now, and I understand 22 that she is trying to integrate more rather innovative and 23 forward-looking efforts in the agency program.
24 Is that working? Are your efforts now moving forward 25 pretty much on track, or how are we doing?
_e
. 49 1 MR. BROWNING: I think the efforts are moving 2 forward. It's a process of moving that effort over under that 3
particular agency-wide program, and that's just being 4 implemented now.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Right. I understand.
6 MR. STELLO: It's in the process of being integrated. !
7 MR. THOMPSON: We've agreed wit the organization that 8
we need .a very clearly defined transition plan, so everybody 9
knows who's got what and what the responsibility is.
10 Our objective is to not have a decrease in our 11 capability while the agency gets -- may adopt this approach for 12 a wider utilization for all documents. And so I think that's 13 our key objective, and we've got a joint task force represented 14 by my office and Joyce's office and, I guess, Sam Chilk's 15 group.
So we're really trying to do it properly, but with the 16 objective that we don't eliminate our ongoing capability to 17 manage those documents and the data.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Is the -- I don't want to get 19 into details here, but is the broad plan and the grand design -
1 20 1 - I don't remember whose idea it was; it doesn't matter whether 21 it was DOE's or ours -- but that eventually we will be able to 22 supply in a very compact form, inter-disk or whatever, to any 23 interested party all of the documentation for their easy 24 access?
l 25 Is that working? Is that going to go forward? How
50 1 do things look?
2 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. That's the RFP that I mentioned 3 that DOE is moving forward with right now.
l 4
There is another aspect of that which is very !
l 5 important, which is the negotiated rulemaking that OGC is "
6 working with. I think you just, I think, approved, or, you 7
know, the Commission Paper up here recommended that it go 8 forward, which will identify those documents that should be 9 included in that system and readily available.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm not so worried about the 11 documents. I want to know whether the technology that we had 12 envisioned is apparently going to work out. ,
13 }
MR. THOMPSON: Well, I don't know how to answer that '
14 until you get the negotiated rulemaking in place, because it's 15 the negotiated rulemaking that will specify how that will work 16 1
out, and to the extent of what documents will be there, how the 17 searches will be done, you know, what will need to be there to 18 be adequate to meet the licensing requirements.
19 MR. STELLO: Mr. Olmstead is here, and I think he's 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: )'
Mr. Olmstead, why don't you give us a 21 brief response, please.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Can you do that in 25 words 23 or less?
24 [ Laughter.)
25 MR. OLMSTEAD: The latest status that -- the l
1
51 1-Negotiating Committee which you put together, which represents 2
the Office of the Secretary, the Office of State Programs, 3
ONMSS, OGC, and any -- the two Licensing Board matters, has 4
developed standards, and it looks like that's the way that the 5 standards will move the RFP.
6 DOE has.just hired a new person to head their 1 7
project, and we had a meeting last week at OMB to discuss this 8 issue. I think there is one issue that's outstanding, and l
9 that's which agency controls the system, and that will be l 10 1
subject to negotiation, because there is a lot of concern,- l 11 particularly on the part of the statec and the Indian tribes 12 about giving their information to DOE to control.
13 I COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. But the scanner and 14 the optical disk, that rapid, simple technology looks like it's 15 going to work out? l 16 MR. OLMSTEAD: Everybody looks very optimistic about 17 it.
Joyce Amenta wants to have a Technical Subcommittee during I 18 the negotiations, so that she can get input from the technical 19 people in the states and the tribes to find out what the 20 problems are. <
21 j COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. That's good. That's 22 enough. Thanks. That's all I have.
l 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Well, let me thank the 1
24 Staff for today's informative and timely briefing on the 25 relicensing activities for the national high-level nuclear
.f
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m
52 1 waste program. i 2
I think it's very useful to have these regular 3 meetings, so that the Commission can keep abreast of 4
developments and potential policy issu'es which may impact on 5
our agency's role in implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 5 itself. '
7 I think the Commission believes that it's important 8 for the Staff to continue to have relicensing consultation i
9 with the Department of Energy to assure that NRC receives the 10 adequate information on a timely basis, so that we can make 11 appropriate and responsible licensing decisions.
12 I think it's equally important that the meetings be 13 public meetings and that we continue our meetings with the 14 states and affected Indian tribes. I think we should strive 15 l
for early resolution of as many of these key technical issues 16 as is possible to facilitate our licensing process.
17 I think the Staff should continue to work with EPA as 18 well to assure that our rules and regulations are consistent
{
19 with their standards.
i 20 l
I look forward to receiving the Staff's responses to !
21 1 the questions raised during the commission's meeting with the !
I 22 states and affected Indian tribes that we had recently. I !
23 !
think it's important that the NRC remain in a proactive I 24 position in order to assess the very important nuclear waste I j
25 !
issues that we have before us and also in order to assist us in I l
~
1 l '
9 53 1 our obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or other 2
Congressionally mandated directions in this entire program.
3 I'm generally encouraged by the Staff's activities in 4
this area, but I would say that we have real challenges that 5
are very clear from not only this presentation, but from others 6
that we've heard, and our position, as far as I'm concerned, 7
is, although our responsibilities are for licensing, we have 8
tremendous responsibility to the American people, and I think 9
our involvement early on and our consultations with all 10 affected parties is extremely important. l 11 !
So I encourage you to keep up a close and open
) 12 relationship -- candid, frank consultations and association l 13 with all of those that are involved in this extremely important ;
14 national program.
15 Are there any final comments from my fellow 16 Commissioners?
l 17 [No response.]
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If not, we thank you very much. We 19 stand adjourned.
1 l
20
[Whereupon, at 11:20 o' clock, a.m., the Commission '
21 meeting was adjourned.]
22 23 '
4 l 24 l
25 1
l
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the attached events of'a 5
meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7 TITLE OF MEETING: Bri_efing on Status of High Level Waste Management Program 8 PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, July 23, 1987 10 -
11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original-i 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken 13 f stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and l 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the t
16 foregoing events.
17 18 '^ '" ' '" ~"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~=~
Mari~ ~' ~' ~' ~' Ty~nY T.~'T' a~t%'~ni 19 20 21 -
22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 ,
l 24 25
M A
R G
O R
P Y
R N O O T I I S S S O 1 P e
1 E
f R 7 0 8 C E 9 T 1 E S A
l .
Ti W 3 2
R L O E Y F V L E U G L J N l I i F G E I I
I I R
B S
'C R
H E
l l
I N
O u
4 !!l)Il 1cI 2
8 9
1 F
0
)
A P
W N -
T 2
( N -
E T
C M .
E A V -
L -
Y O _
C V -
I L
N I
O N P O N I
O _
E T I _
T C S _
S E S _
A L I W E S
M M _
R O A E C
- _
E T -
L I S F -
C S T O .
. U R .
N Y O S R F C _
R O F I E T E S P D I E 0 N S M 5 I 1 U O A G T P R N N M W
E E E G I I R L R O K A E I O R A T T V R S P M R R ' E E R E C E C L C A V R O R U N E N O N D N R U N O I
. I S
S
. I I V . I I I I I I V V M M
O C
E H
T R
O F
G N
I F
E I
R B
w
)
LA AR N N NE A O Y O( I I R I D T O RTT N A T EAC I T I DNA N S N D E O U ,N E M P
_ ) O T E E DAI C L R Y
_ EET E P R RAA
_ FY ) 4 f T O
_ I ( Z FB S I S T
_ U I A D R I QTN D P A I S
_ RAG NR W P R AI E N R E
_ SYO U L O R NGE SQ U E F ORR EE D R D I E TR E I Y N Y T NY A l l T G O A CEG TN C N O C W A R SO S E L E R CE I 0 S S E
_ CI N N
_ TT N E 0 N D
_ RME O SA O l i 0 R O N NO I 0C I T l
O I U
_ T D T 1 I S S Ti F T
_ FAN A 1 L NI F E A Y O ,A O L LP AC O 'E M T R L AP LE O R E T N)) S I A PD E D G O D N OAA I T T N P I E I PP T WE E NE ES NT OC I
S W
E I
K E
R S R N R
_ ANN T T N I E R I N O U
_ T(( S OE SJ E V A N C C
_ E -
A PC SO V E R O
- RTT PCC W I I R O R I E E
,L MP D T L L
_ RAA ,
E D T N A U O
_ E Y OS - - A O A D D R
_ T YY
_ T D' O N N E A NCC E E R G E l S
P I I I F HO B D l
W LL A N M C TD I I M S 'C
_ N LOO S I 0 E D K O R APP WO 6 D N C D N R R ,
T U C A E N E EEL l i S R L R R R A F D TTA T NR F C N O
_ I
_ U LAN Al
W0 I
T I
E R
S O
W E
_ E S M I I AP N1 T S S A C I
_ L ERN T O E V O DAO - LS - - N L - - - E R UER UE P R LLI SB S M C CCV NI E A 0
_ R NUN OR O X
_ N I NE A
_ CT D E G
_ I 0 0 0 0 a
1 l
0 0
NME OEU EIRS ES SE EB MI UR 2 TTI S Y ST AAUI R S o TTQ O AD t SNEL T N ERA I TA 7 8 RM C S N 8 9 EENI O ES -
9 9 TLON P ME 1 1 API H E DT -
EMSC R NA E M RI SE ET N O G I T D MS U R ,M N A J F RMMN O ,
OAOO C ) . NC S D FRC E S8 AR S E G C S R9 LN E G SOYR M9 P -
R N WRFN R (1 l i -
G A OPS O NT -
N H L I E F EN OI O
C C LLTH AAAT K GI A
I S
W 4 -
T R
O 3I 0NYT l
i O W
OT TS I A MR T 0HLI SA G 2CLW T C I
W EO N S EU I E HR E O oTFS F LT TP M P t N I BP -
D E NLO C AE NG N R 8I LI E VC IN E 9 I T P EC I M T 9TWC S I A DS A A 1N A R EN ETR E TD TE N E MMAE T EL NC N A T OEiT l I RU EI O L S RVTN S O SL I P A FL I DW E -
T C N W OM PVAE F E RE E
O RS PR O F I NRV OR P L I O LI GI T TM S _
E S S OS N I AG S S E LRN E N - N I C RAPE M O EI E M N AB T E MY LO T A EI AN N T UG I D T YRQI O FI DN S E P T P OL EO l E E AE l I i l
Y T C VD R S EC C ,
O M A FAOM P UF V _
T B EI I
S U
S
P E E E O HN R D N TA O I
S I S I
I O O M M _
O _
C E
f i
T R
O F
G N
I F
E _
I R _
a B _
, L1 I 1
O C 2
AJ I
L T
S
" N O C
7 '
T .
Y 8 SH 8 9 l
' L NT R 9 9 J OU 1
1 C A O T
E I
S N O U P J
E T R E .
N 5 SC NLI T E 9 9 LaEP S CP M 1 I L A R D I F
N E -
M Y A 9 R E 8 O L N G TS 1 A FT U A /
8
,AR A D L O 8 . L H E P 9 1
R A
PS H X
H N C E C O
8 8 E S I 9 T s E
I S 1
/ S, A C P S 7 8 S O D
I 9
M 1 6 8
9 ym 1
G N
I N
E E .
R C
S E
T D 3I S AE 8 g PN 9 a WIG t'
1 NS
B E R 9 P G 1 O
O E R N P
U S T ..
Y J 8 CES H R ,
1 gR U N T A O T 0 NS SOU N 2 I C A T I
E S M NC O D OR P N T EI N I
ST E E 5
1 L M NA E R M 0 A B EC H 2 UCI L T D A SILP N PO N
- AT O A C
E L P
N S
0 1
T R N D
O A
E T
NR Z EOI O I 7 A D MFRE F S 0
LN NM S 0 AI ST S I 2 MAOEC E M CT A O
N N EI SR N R O A I H T C
S E YE E O L L L D
_ 0 k TTTE B
_ 0 A NNPT Y EEEI S R D 2
_ DTC I
OC A E
_ PA N S
_ I M O L
I P
AY L O E
N NE
_ 5 I R R E GOV P
9 P
- 9 A EIT R 1 B A U S'
N
S A' E FN N
- l l C R O O I ^ . l C P DI L ^ T I R E E ET L D M M E R S I R RA A R S D E S R EN T O A N il E E D DI S F C F E S R il N I M Y N C A V I P C O SO R A U E A W Y A C NN C t I Y D L S C V E O S C Y
R O
T I
S O
P E
_ R
_ Y
_ DR Y N0 Ol
_ ? RE
_ EO F
_ ELD D
_ NE
_ OS DN
_ EO RC D EE E DSN D I O SRI N
ED NOT
_ ME OFA
_ MV C Z
_ ) EPE BRE
'T S S i I A N EDE T.
T I
'N S R
_ O T NR D M M ANA
_ C I AP R S col i
( S O A CC EY F C D
_ F EEE
_ N EOB N C A
_ I R l Y N I T
f D ENS
_ iY t
_ C TB MA MCG
_ E
_ L O N
- E CYI
_ S ERR
_ Y ROU
_ E R
- T D T 0 E TI I
N OSD l 0 O NOE S I 0 Y i
_ 5 .
l l
PI l l Y 0 SY I
L
_ R P T A I
- URI I
EB D M C M N B L O E T R S O
_ T R I D O A S TA
_ I SE F C I F T
l DSU S T T N C V l
ERQ O S A C T I S
_ EA A U A E I AFI P R VN I Y D D R E I I I I
N D
_ R I R
_ F FM MOT
_ O OFO N N N
_ I D I SEE
A W
E T
T U
N O
Y X
T S
M TE I LY SEE Sl i R K - T
_ E I N N A E T
_ O T S O A ,
X L S E AOD F I Y C l T M R i
PNE SDN S
r
. N A R T
I ,
E C W NSI D
_ EEO D M C E M R I N S EV l RI R D S E R S
_ iET O A S N l E
0 RTO i 1 E EI R
_ SDA F C I E F S l i
l i R PSP I N N C V V A I C C P ESI NNM A
l U
Y A
D A
L E
D W
S A
V I
R Y
l C
_ I OO
- NCN
Y R ,-
O E/I h
T I ,
( ,
S O 9 j p
'N.,\ a' J
P g ' -
hJ E
R
' u 7.Rs(-'N I N
O S
S
.\ , r YL.
~
- EK H R E T .
! [ -
C I
.PE
.CC YR S .
R '
r b.f, ~
f I
F y \
,\ -
(' J - g s.
E j - (' - .
.]
H .
-}- tT
- Hl I T I MR nR E M.h(L SE l l
( \ H C R '
m FS AI EW
~ A V
O N DS F ' ~
~
NH O
Y '
[t {l D l- N AR
,i E .
CE D
e G
R
~ - hm8 ,,
SN *
~ ,
I E VV E A A.
D1
- r D
I l
7~
.I S
rj,]'
N .,
O \) .
_/ i f1
.li7't .k c
C D R
A .
\./
O - C '
S F N
' CT UM E A l
l i
- . ( Y t
t l
a ,
s ,
T ~
ia a =
s B '
I S s /g
@OO
i i!1ll1 l1 ; l d
s e s
. t i t e
S i n z i r,
S r r r 2 1 e
e o e f
t n o so a t n s o ai a e9 ai n< e9 tu e ne r r t x
,o, s t u a o e h o s i a n t e s S e n i i s
e t
t S
a i
n a ~a v
r t
a t
i g
r g
r o
hl t o rr l
i S n ~n S i V
e oa a 3 '
G dC r f t . o .
no :. .
ei a Cg
- e ?
i m. . i-hd ai t
l r
o s e
t a
o a
- s s
.a- r.>. -
)..
f t
a s
e
- n. "
n::.-. r- .
n.
a.
t S
r s
- . f . ...o i '
i s " 6 g/.
L. W::.%
- a. n.n 3 r,:
.. ~
f
- .z.f,-
S E L
.t.
&s. .
._\.1 f. 3..5 C -
c
.t_ . c ..:
6 #..
T :.
.g l.l.
I S ,:..c, w y
. y : :- ..
- - .. .x -
, ..: \ t E .
- i. ci/
m .e -
N ..
. (:_ n. n -):y I
- ::?:
. l.t.\. 9 L - . .- :(-.::- i
.f
, L".
L {. \ $ L)3 _
A -
~
T -
~
S -
~
- ._ _. .t Y -
i! -
R C
I.
L.7I- .
. ,l :-
~. s r f. '
' i =-
- . #j
\.
j .I . I 1
I k -
d.3l..
bI .
E S
N E
C I
L
)
E S V '
l E f O A D E I M T F A I O R N S F I A W E E M C E N I I R O O V T N D 0 E S R Y N O R K G O T S T O R N A I T O I I E M U W Y N C S R T A E N E E A C L D A U P T I E N D S S F DS E I S D I N P U I LE T C TR E G UM E E VE D L OA E P 10C L A WR M S l N S A C F l O E C I l E i O E iC I I N CM T T W Y T N l i I I I C
l I i l
I C
E E
T W Y A
E NF T T NR O O EA C L AO S D MS A T A LI E ( N I PU S N RD E T T S O I N UA E I C
N WA E T E ET C T Ql A I T I S O N)
E i I F O V R EK RT R F P EE P DR L P U Rl i NO AA O S E T G EW PE R V L N P Wl l P D L AN I EE N P N O CI S DV T A A S I i l
N I EN E NT E YT S TE E Y R HI C LC T ES R L C W. I G LA R LB E E D E LN AO O PA l M NE TN I RR F M Wi I AL O ES EP F O ,
T B AI NN N E LM - YA T I E EF A E FC PA LC GO M - R
- D I I OC MI A G
R A 'E O F EO R EE N RD P li sT l
I l I
i T 0 TA
- I 0 * (
- I l l I l I
T SD I N P LA C
- S QS E F
,L O N0 1 Ol T I E N T R E PO T RB N O O S ,
C A
. T D GA N
. D A E
( G l N A
- I M T R 4
) S O sI F PX I E D G R .
S (F A E O D I S N S
) T NN A N D I OO T O V I I S I I I TT ( T N T I A A O C SC 7) T C A OI 1S L
( PF .E U E I 4I S S V LL R N T I AA EO O R T CU DT C O C l Q I I F A i tt US G
_ F O ,)
GO N E R i 4 C'.S P I P EtL YE S
_ M 1 I A RR N A
_ F : E O E
_ R G
O C E' S TW C
_ I R AL I O E R T Lll L
_ R L ERF U -
P P NEA GR E
_ M EEi l EO R
_ C A GPS RF P
_ R X
_ N E - - -
I
_ I I O
S E
T
_ I S
L S
_ A l i
_ I T
_ T N
_ S N O
_ T E M .
_ N T
_ E O 6
_ M P S N S E A S
- E S
S A
E R
l i
T P
N L E U
S S
_ L A
T N
)
6 O
F O
I T
A I
T F
8 Z A E ) 9 a I H M 5 1 l R S N 8 T E W
_ O 9 R A T Y E
_ R 1 E Z C R I I B I A O V V l i M R R T E
_ N C E E A A N R E R C T H R O
. A E C C O I N S L M D A L T O E A ( ( R E P C I I N A T X A S
_ ) T I - -
l l I E R S D I V
F T L C S W E F E I M
_ 'T I D F A R l i I O T
N M
_ N T N A N O C V I O O
C C
A A R O
I F
F A E
E R
W E L C
_ ( 1 S I A R .
E F N N N N E V B O S V A O O A O C E I F T I R L T N R R R T D S S P SP A T l i
_ O C I T TI T Y / T F A S N N S NE P A E N
_ F E E E EC E D T O E R 'E M M 'E ME C A M
_ O M M O MR C O T M f D O O D O A 'J S 1 A O C C CR
_ R F F E G S O C C O CT
_ O E R R RF
_ R P
L P
W E
N N W E
NA - - - -
M I I
_ C A V V
_ R X E E N E R - - R
- I I
I O 0 O
M E
T D S E Y T S C E
T L D
_ R E R
_ O S A P D
_ P
_ E N E U V A
_ L S L T
_ B O S
_ A G) S
_ C ND E A I I E R P T SS E
_ C NU O
_ A E T F R CG O
_ A T O l i EN T
A
_ A D A X NC CE T
_ P N P E OA EC N
_ W N
A W I O NI E T N E E TR L M S l i V AP S E
. Y R T I TP AO L B W E T NA T P L D O A E D M
_ D I I N T I MG ER I E U T EN RO
_ R A S I LI EI R I P Y I N PK DR O U E T E I MA I P F
_ Q I I M S E i l L S F E NS Y
. R l I F DL OE G
'E N I B A NU CU O
_ S O W I O T AR S L N
I S D S GS 0 5 O N
_ l E I D NI )
G c.
1
_ I I O T C NE I 0 N T N i f P P R ET EL H
_ I C I % S O N MA BA T K A F M E D PI C E A E R R A - OT SI M M - D O LO RN
_ E F A E EG El l L E W N P V VE HC U V L O E I EN TE R I H C N - T D( OT -
T C
_ C A A
O
_ V E R
_ I R 0 0 O P O 0 l
l l
)
C T
E E
T I
S E
N O
N
'M O T A N RG E GN M OI D RS N PU E C M AO A PF N
W N ,
A M L OA P TR G
N SO O ER I GP A' S N P S AN E I
HO /
M C E M O S GU D S NI N 'E I R T O O SO S I D OT N T PA I A N OR A S I O RO G E R PM A I
N P N T O O O S . N N I R I O I T P T L L G. I A A P C IE T T L A A B( A R S G E I I C G T N E I U L - - - L V 0 0
)
7 8
9 1
8 0 E 6 N R U F J C
0 D 1 E T
O A T D N )
I ,
8 7 8 D 3 9 R 1 1 A
D 7 L E N 8 I T A - R S T Y P A S C E
A
(
W T A S
_ L N P N E E E T O V M R I E E E O T L V T P I
_ O L A R
E R
N W I O V O F L N P T E I R S D C O R N C I E S O N F T S I
S I ( S A A L S
I P O
T S
T W C M C R L N M S E O E A O L P V l i
C S U E E T R R L F 'E - R O 0 L S H E 0 A S G T S N E I A C N R
_ I I I E I
O F G R P O E G 0 S D R L
_ 1 I R P U N
_ N A R O M E D Y R M N L D G E M A R
E N T O T E S I
. C S T O F R
R
_ P E
_ A C A A O I E R P U R R N N E Q P B J
V 0 0 0 O 0
1 hkN$NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNgyqQgyqQqQgQgyg{I g &QQQQQ TRANSMITTAL TO:
X Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips i 5 ADVANCED COPY T0:
- ThelPublicDocumentRoom l
5 DATE: _
DI@ AD --
- SECY Correspondence & Records Branch FROM:
3 E
2 Attached are copier of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting i; document (s). They are being forwarded No for entry other on the Daily Accession distribution Listorand is requested i placement in the Public Document Room.
? required.
Meeting
Title:
3rtkh<La oo b 45 oh bh beec_l
=
m' 5
5 (t w Me N)ee M P%eu )
\
l
~
Meeting Date: 9 k2-3 \3 7 Open V Closed Copies Item Description *: DCS Advanced '8 to PDR Cg g
1
$g 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
O *m aceh s 5
g >
ii:l ii::
h 2.
t
- 4. aj 3; R' 5.
f l
6.
$
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY papers.
A dlE6 Yh Y Y Y Y Y b 0 I $Y Y b kkkl khkkkkkb