ML20236L900

Transcript of 871103 Briefing on Status of High Level Waste Issues in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-36.Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20236L900
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/03/1987
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8711110107
Download: ML20236L900 (54)

Text

j

.rv 7 t

g 3

J s

g.

09;,93; e

4

. O'

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-i.

/

i s,.,

,c,. f;.! ;... ;:j'd. ;.4. ? iW f.j,;,3.,.l.,,I:,y. 57./g.,1.$.e * :M:

W 9 ::>.'.(.i ;.]{ *;.> ::'? r;$ ' hJ.'il '.,. 6: /

f c

,s.

.e..>:. w. q,.,,

...c,,a.

..J.;,. c :.

.s

.$.,c,;i, -

]

• ;.,...,. ;.3 m..-

2,- -

-Title:

Briefing on the Status o'f i

1 High Level Waste. Issues

)

i l

Location:

Washington, D. C.

I l

' ' Date:

Tuesday, November 3, 1987' I

(-

Pages:

1 - 36 I

1 I

9 1

Ann Riley & Associates

~

. Court Reporters,

1 ;,'

y..

l 1825 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 -

(.,',

Washington,' D.C. 20006 I

v L.;

' '(202) 293-3960 s

t 8711110107 871103 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR

p 9

y

.k

i l

($

'W e

j

(

.w-

~

-z.

y

.t 7:p'h"*

,)

c 7

g 2, 5,

f;.

1 4

,j ( )

1" T7MITED, sTXTES / OF : AMERICA :

1

{[

[

i.

p.

. 2 NUCLE 4't 4 $93FATORY COMMISSION, y >;>;,

3 B

i

.4

. Briefing'on'the~ Status of HightLevel Waste' Issues 1

i.

i 5

n. -

6-Public'. Meeting' 7.

1 8

1717 H-Street, Northwest j

]

9

~ Room-1130 1

10 Washington,.D.C.

i 11 Tuesday, November 3, 1987-12 The Commission met in-open session, pursuant to 13 notice, at 10:02_o' clock a.m., the,HonorableLLando W.

Zech,.

14

. Jr., Chairman of the' Commission, presiding..

j F

15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

j 16 Lando W..Zech, Chairman

.]

i 17 Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner

.i 18 Kenneth M. Carr,' Commissioner I

19

.Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner 20 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT TABLE:

c 21 V. Stello, EDO 22 S. Chilk, SECY-23

.R. Browning,'NMSS

.24 H. Thompson, HTWM j.

. N.) - 25

.S. Treby, OGC.

t a

3

- - _ ~

r==

u. rw

,u my.g; m

< :.n 3:;.;

Tp s

2:

,if P R O'C:EiELD.I'N'G S-

) -

1-f?v l

' 3:

N 2

- CHAIRMAN ZECH:L. Good ~ morning,jladies and gentlemen.,

3 Commissioner.BernthalEis.on foreign' travel and,will-

. not b'e with-us today.

4 5.

This-morning;the Commission will'be briefed by. thel 6'

Office'of.N clear' Materials Safety & Safeguards *on the statusi I

=7i

of the' relicensing activities.-on the, Nuclear" Regulatory' 1

8 Commission 8s:high level:: radioactive waste management program'.-

9 This is a follow-up!tola' Commission briefing.. held +in:

10 Julycof this year,1during whichLthe Staff. outlined.progressJ 11 being made in our interactions with the; Department..of Energy to.

12

. identify. licensing-l issues ' early on, S and, to develop a: program 13 for,their resolution..

4 1

14 Additionally, the Staff!gave us'a status'of:their'

~

15 interactions with the states,and affected; Indian.~ tribe'.

' I s

16 During that July: Commission meeting,;the StaffLwas requested to:

rj

q 17 continue to develop the.proposeduru3e'which/ defines high'. level-18~

waste and today'we'd like the Staff to' provide the'staths.on 19 this: activity.

20 Additionally, I would be interested in having a 21 status report on all NRC.rulemaking activities' associated'with 22 the high level waste program..

23 This is an information briefing;this morning, andino:

24 4

3(.

Commission vote'is. expected.

-i 25, Do-any of my fell'ow commissioners?have opening; sj 4

.4 f

,.Y I

j t

s 3

A i1

3 j

i 3

.1-

' comments to:make?

2 If not, Mr. Stello, would'you proceed,.please.'

s

=t 3

MR..STELLO:

Thank.you, Mr.fchairman.

~!

~4 I have'with'me'Hugh Thompson, Director of'the Office-5 of NMSS, and Mr. Browning, who is director of the division

~

b 6

-responsible lfor that activity.

7 There'are two points;that I think I'want to make at 8

the outset.

The first one with respect.to the uncertainty of; 9

the high. level waste program.

As'theLCommission i's aware, i

10 there are a number of bills pending before Congress, which'

\\

11 obviously, if' enacted into law,'would have a significant impact j

'l 12 on this. program.

13 It' is difficult to judge the outcome of _ that :legisla-14 tion.

I don't know whether anything^will come out of this d

15 session of Congress, but.if it does,'the bills that are pending 16 are very significant in terms of the' programmatic' direction of j

i 17 our programs..

i 18 The second major change since our last quarterly 19 briefing before the Commission, which wa indicated to the l

20 Commission we wil' be working-on, is the fact that DOE has' 21 changed their plan so we will now have in January'three

.L 22 consultation drafts of the alte characterization plans.

23 Hopefully, as we now understand it, they_will all-be submitted l

24 at the same time, and we will'be prepared to_do what we needcto

/

25 do.

x x n_ a n ;_

-~- w -.- ~~~ --

a--.= - -

,g:

w

f. /..

' i <

cl-lh

' I L,...x >.

a;j{'fj; v

hg E

w'o,

. s 4

r/

^

'/'

j s

s s

.. e:

1

.We'are continuing.our program'at the~ moment on the s -

.s f.

- i 2

basis of the-law an it exists and are preparsd to continuei o

(

3

. ):.Q

.k 3

do what we need to do for.our review'of their programs.

4'i-

h[PM

'4 How.that might be adjusted in'the future, of course,1 g]

Y',

/

i 5

.we.willhavetobrief-the,commissionJwhen.~weknow?more/ofwha3L

.e, i.

.. ( ;

6 those programmatic changes are..

I[

l yj 7-

' With that;brief' introduction,.let me turn to Hugh

,7. 4

_n Thompson for a brief overview, t and then. we will get,[:into theg;!

c ; [

~

4 :

8

-s

u o-

.L.

9 briefing itself in a moment..

g

) ( '

W i, [(

1 jl i

10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:- Thank you.-

'.V,

]

11 MR.. THOMPSON:

As.youknow,'.Mr. Chairman)vehave

.j l

.?

12 responsibilities'not only for.the rapository;and'Tthe? site M

a 13 selection activities, but tho'MRS and:some-tran'spoN.atEon I

'i

~

,n

~

activities we thought.that.we.would' highlight to you.today 1

14 a

o

,s a

15 also.

Mr. Browning will ' address where we are fwith respec to

[

l 16 therepositoryprogram,.andthen.:Iiwilliaddresssome'of%hese other issues,~ including : the 'one; you talked. abouh, ! he nd,emak-17 t

1 18 ing on the high level waste definition) and'some of:th'e-I 19 uncertainties that we are facing'in the' legislative.dront.

l 20 So, Bob,' if you could start with'the repository and j

21 have the first slide.

[]

22 MR. BROWNING:

If you will' turn to Slide:No'.-2,'as (j

l 23 Mr. Stello indicated ~ one of the key.changesisince the'last 1

24 time we briefed you on the status.of the high: level.wasta, J

(M repository program, the Department'of: Energy announced a change-

.f(

D 25

..[

a s

0 u

9. wen 4

n t-e.u.s ewehr 8

. y. q --

7

.- > p. ).

m m

m.

s t

-,g.

i f p{, a -

0

.t' u

(,/,

l.-

~

,\\

5

? f.

3

'l in their plans ~for issuing documents which are the key docu-f.

ments for understanding how they plan to investigate the sites g

a l

that -are being considered for the reposihky.

3 q<

tm(

~

>-4 As indicated'en.the' chart, thes' previous DOE. schedule

' h,'..

& ('7,

/

5 wasito some~ extent a series kind.of scheduleW the Nevada site

.j

?O j

a 6_

being first, the Washington second, and-the-Texas third.-

' 7-

'Whereas on August 26th of this' year,they announced tS t they j

j S

would be issuing'. three consultation. draft site characterization c

ii 9

plans in January 1938; so.that three documents-will be issued'

. / f /. t l 10 and have to be 1eviewed Lin ' series.

. J' i

11 M you can see, 0.n order to meet the 19'88.date, the 12 Nevada-site.* the, plan for issuingithe NevadaEdocument would-h 13 be slightly extended.

The Washington,one.and the Texas'ene 14 will have to be pulled up somewhat.

AlltheindicationsweYaveisthat/theywillbe'ab1'e'

]

15 s

js

'A' 16 to do that, and we are planning;,to-be able to respond to the-j l{

January 1980datenforsubmitIal'ofthethree'draftdocuments.

1#

One of the considerations for doing it in a consulth-

\\'

p.'

19.

tion draft form rather than the final. document format was to-

! $ J20 accommodate, to some extent, the state and tribal' concerns, 1

1 L

'21 that they wanted to get involved in various programmatic

)

r >

i

+

22 documents at the earliest possible stage,.before the Department-23 of Energy had. locked into a particular docikment, and this is a m

,1 o

b' 24 case examp1M diere we are trying to get. people ~ involved at an' l

1.\\ p.,

pn i

s

'V 25 early stage..

g l

y

[

O

)

g

.L*

'f

'6.'

d

'1 COMMISSIONER' ROBERTS:: Will:the states'and affected-l

.[s"h.

j 2

tribes agree lto that characteri'zation?.

3 MR. BROWNING: ' I'm'not sure.

.I'm really characteri -

hl 4

ing what. DOE indicatedi--

d i

5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:~

I-understand.

I J

6 MR. BROWNING: - And'I think it.does give them an early j

l!

7' chance:toiget involved. ' Whether1they would agree with it or.

i; 1

8 not, I --

il 9'

MR. THOMPSON:

Commissioner,'I.doLbelieve'that they' 10 would agree that-they -

the~ timeframe whichithey : allowed is N

-l 1

11 significantly improved over;the.three: months.that they were!

l 12 originally discussing with DOE. IAt one. time we had mentioned q

13 six months, t'ne states also indicated they believed that,that l

l 14 six-month timeframe was needed.to do this kind of riview'and 15 consultation.

I think this 1s much,more consistent with that 16 timeframe.

17 MR. BROWNING:

At th: bottom.of that chart, we-18 referred t' o doct.nents called study plans, 'which are the more 19 detailed procedures that would actually' implement the overall l

20 planning strategy for conducting.the test a that would;be laid.

i 21 out in "he site characterization plans.

And'itLis our under-22 standing tint soce of those documents would in fact be" issued -

23 in parallel with re/iewing the' drafticonsultation drafts, 24

.because to some extent they;do want to'actually implorantysome V

25 pieces of the test programs in parallel-with'this' document" 9

d

e

)..

7-j review effort;

'1'

(?% '

~

(

2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

As far as the Staff is concerned, do 3-you believe this current DOE schedule is feasible, and will you 4

be able.to do.the type of work that you feel confident will 5

allow you toLdo the jok' properly?

6 MR.~ BROWNING:

I believe the answer to both things is 1:

7.

yes.

8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

9 MR. THOMPSON: -Mr. Chair $an, we have established

-h 10 three review teams.

We are now finalizing what I would: call l

L 11 the review plan for our review of these documents,. such'that j

12 the people know what their jobs are,. they are identified, and j

13 we believe that we can do this job, and we will probably need 14 soms outside contractor assistance in some of these areas.

But 15 I'm confident that we have in place a plan that'will give us

. :l 16 l

reasonable assurance to be able to.do~that.

o 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Please proceed.

18 MR. BROWNING:

That's laid out on chart No.

3, if you 19 will turn to that.

As you recall in the earlier briefing, we 20 divided our buk: StaffLefforts into two categories, proactive 21 and reactive.- Reactive be'ing the one where we have to react to t

(

specific DOE programmatic docume'nts, the proactive pieceLthe 22 thing we need to be able to do to issue guidance and develop 23 24 our own capability to do the reactive piece.

And the-first 25 Lullet describes what Mr. Thompsch just indicated, and we are i

-_-_.___L__-____-________._-_.,_.-

..._._.m-

.8 1

in the process ofIfinalizing the. review plan!for reviewing the

(::

2 site characterization plans, the draft consultative drafts,'and-3 the associated study. plans,'and basically what the reactive 4

effort.would consist of is highlighted on.this' chart, where:a 5

consultation'~ draft, becausa it'.is;a draft form,-would be a

.6 lesser effort than.the actual: final 1 review;of the site charac-7 terization plan.- Thi first one would be on the order.of a 8

four-month: effort, with an initial. acceptance review:of:two 9

weeks.

7 10 I might highlight here that in both' cases we.do' plan 11 to do an acceptance review.

The cont'ent of that-acceptance 12 review will be identified in the review plans.

I know t.he 13 Department of Energy is concerned about that particular aspect, t

14-because in their mind-it looks more formal than they would-p 15 consider to be necessary for reviewing a draft document.

16 However, it is our intent to do the acceptance. review 17 as quickly as we can.-

We have indicated a-two-week timeframe' 18 here.

And then in the first.. workshops that DOE plans to have 19 to review the documents with NRC and the states.and tribes,.we i_

20 would plan to. identify any concerns'that'we.havelin the-area;of.

f L

21 that initial acceptance review, in the hope.tdutt th'ey might 22 perhaps be able to point out to us:where ourfacceptance review-L 23 concerns may or may not be valid, before we actually formalize 24 the acceptance review reaction..

(is-

' \\

l' L

25 MR. THOMPSCN:

The key approach here is to make sure;

__._.m.

-___a--

(

,. g.

.. c y

.w.

z.

l' R

l HL. ;

O i

' 9.-

o l'

'that we identify to DOE!as early as we can any significant j

f"%

(

'(,

2 major deficiency that may be identified.

That is, that may I

3 take additional' work for them.

That doesn't'mean.that we 4-necessarily have agreed if they have' addressed an issue.andia

]

~

topic, then'we ob'iously have-to;do our complete' review on that 1

5' v

)

6 area.- What'we.want to:do is make sure that we don't have an:

j 7-

. area that's importantathat DOE has-overlooked by chan'ce in.the t.

4 8

-process that they were dsveloping their' document.-

9 JZt'is.an are& that'we are going ~to be v'eryLcareful-j 10 on, because DOE does not want this to be a reason;to stop the.

N 11

' review process.

So typically they are concerned that we don't h

12 prematurely say, hey, this part' is notiadsquate for review and.

j 13 consultation, and we have' agreed to maki mure we are very -

j S

4 14 cautious in our review of this activity' to make sure it :bs 'an 1

15 i

appropriate *one to fall under the acceptance review approach.

16 COKKISSIONER CARR:

Are.y'ou goingito do'all these I'

17 simultaneously, or try to. figure out which one to do first?.

1 18 MR. THOMPSON:

That's' correct.

Well, the plan :bs wa l

u 19 have three separate teams, each with stai'f and capability to do

'l 20 these simultaneously.- That created.a1 major programmatic: impact 21 cn the program, and we had to. reprogram some rerources back.

into the high level' waste program in order'to be able to'do) 22 23 that.

Out we hav9'the capability and the. staff identified-to'

\\

04 do that approach.

25 COMMISSIONER CARR:

And when youLget down'to that 1

.~---n-

r q

10l 1

1-next bullet-that talks about selected study; plans, who' selects l

("N j

L\\,.

2 them?

3 lKR. THOMPSON:

Our staff.

4 MR. BROWNING:

Based on some-logical hierarchy 7 of-

)

i

,I

-5.

importance and --~

6-

'MR.' THOMPSON:.Their relationship to site charac-.

]

l 7

.terization. plan,-which.is'--

l

~8 MR.-BROWNING:' -The site. characterization' plan, and' l

9 the degree,to which'you can draw a' conclusion about all.the-1 L

10 study plans based on reviewing atselected' sample.

But we do-

-j l

11 not intend'to review 100' percent of the study plans.

l 12 MR. THOMPSON:' Let me make sure that' we are: kindt of 13 clear there.

What we will do is we will have read essentially i

14 all of the study plans to make sure there's no major problem, o

15 but:we will'not do an'in-depth review =of all of.them.- We wil'1 16 do an in-depth review of a sample portion of those,'which will,

. i 17 as Bob said,agive us some confidence that the DOE program that~

4 18 developed these study plans are-indeed ones which they have 19 done in su'fficient detail and with sufficient quality that they 20 are likely to be good ones.throughout the program.-

1 21-MR. BROWNING:. If.you will turn to' Chart No.-4 --'-

~i 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Before you go off that.one, it:.is my;

't 23 understanding that theLStaff has recently performed an audit of DOE'squalityassurance: prog $amthatLosAlamosNational 24 j

...3 3

- 25 Laboratory produced, and.I understand that the Staff'has l

a j

+

1.,

=_.....,-

..s c.

7 g

.m..~

11 1

1' l concluded that that' program'was not' fully!in' place.yet,"the

.f,.

AL 2

quality. assurance program not fully'in1 place yet, and needed-3 some; improvement prior to conductingosite characterization i

4 work in.the area of geochemistry.

5' Does' DOE agree with your comments on.this particular-1 6

program, do you know?J

-,7 MR. BROWNING:

They have not' formally lrespondedito 8'

the.auditJreport, but based on informal. discussions =we have.had q

9 with them at the conclusion ofIthe. audit,~I; don't 'think'there 10 is any disagreement with the findings lthemselves.

~I think 11 there is a' question.with regard to the significance of the 12 findings, and the term.with which you label the. finding.' And-13 that is something we have indicated in-our forwarding' letter to 14 the Department of Energy.that we' mutually need to-be working

-15 on, to make sure there.is a common understanding lof the 16 significance of the findings.

17 CHAIRMAN-ZECH: ' But you are~ working.with them on that 18 19 MR. BROWNING:

Yes, sir, that is part of.the ongoing 20 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

-- on this;particular-issue?-

22-MR. BROWNING:

-- ongoing dialectic that I think we'

. 23-need in order to make sure we'both are calibrated as.to what's

~

24 required.in this kind of unique,.first-of-a-kind ~ endeavor.

I'm:

25 not sure anybody has had,.you know, NRC type QA programs on b

4

p.

12 l-l 1

areas like geochemistry and geology.

2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Those are important decisions /and I

3 important discussions, and it seems'to me that it's just an

- i 4

. example of the necessity of taking a very thorough look and 5

making the best decisions.that we'can from a safety and a 6

technical standpoint early on in this' program.

And I know you-7 are doing that, but you're right, it is a unique program,'but 8

are you getting the technical assistance you need inside and i

9 outside our-agency to help make those decisions, the best ones

.10 that we possibly can?

11 MR. BROWNING:

Yes, sir.

12' If I might just elaborate, on Chart No.

4, the' 13 subject is quality assurance.

DOE has made a --

14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

I have different numbers on my 15 charts, I think.

Mine says No.

5, that.you are-about to turn 16 to.

17 MR. BROWNING:

Is the label quality assurance?

18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Quality assurance, j

19 MR. THOMPSON:

We must have a quality assurance 20 breakdown here.

21 (Laughter.')

22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

I think you do.

But, anyway, it's 23 the same slide.

Let's go ahead.

l 24 MR. BROWNING:

Quality assurance is one of the key 25 fundamental aspects of the ongoi g relicensing program to make W

. - - - ~

-~

l 3

7 13' a-1 11

'sure~that' DOE"does in fact have a program in place before (n.

2 beginning.the. majority.of the' site characterization work.

1 3

NRC's QA'programLincludes developing' guidance, commenting;on.

4' DOE's-written QA plans and procedures.

The emphasis on the 3

5 audits is afte'r the Department'of Energy '1.as conducted their

,y

,6 own audits and. concluded everything.is'all right.

Then onia n

7.

selectivaibasis, we.would con' duct our own independent. audits,.

H 8

of which she Lose Alamos audit that you referred to just a.

J minute ago, sas a specific.first. example of our own independent 9~

4 10 audit activities.

11 In the area of' developing guidance,. we have issuedi I

i 12 generic technical positions on key subjectsJthat are critical-j s

13 to this particular phase of the program.

For example, peer

~

14 r,eview of data.. We have issued a generic technical position 15 which includes comments from the. Department of. Energy,fthe 16 state and Indian tribes, all the affected parties,Lon ektetly 17 what would: be an acceptable way' of doing the peer review.,

18 We have also issued a generic technical position on

~

i 19 qualification of. existing data. 'That is data that was'taken

~

20 before a qualified quality assurance program is-in place..

We.

21 are currently working ca a generic draft technical position

' :t 22 identifying what items should be on the so-called'Q listewhich' i

23 does involve an' awful lot of iteration'with the DepartmentJof i

24 Energy and the other affected' parties.

(I '

s/

25 With' regard to the written QA plans of. DOE head-

_. _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ __________._i_

i1-

' - - ~ ~

~~

i

blg

.c

,j ) ? L 14 I

I s

1

' quarters'and the sites, r was trying to,get an overall feel for.

2 exactly where we stand.on that effort, because DOE has issued 3

procedures in all.these' areas.- We have' commented and, to.some 4

er: tent, they have responded to ourLconiments,.and right:now I'd 5

put.like an 80 percent? kind,of number roughly on our overall 1

6' status of: making sure that.the written plans'and procedures are 7

in place to allow a program to start off.

They'obviously.will' 8

have.to be constantly chacked through audits and up' graded.as 9

necessary through actual tNperience.

But to get'a baseline for 10 starting the program, the: Staff estimates we are roughly 80 11 percent of the way there.-

12 COMMISSIONER,CARR:'.You.mean there's 80 percent of 13 the plans and procedu'es been issued already.and approved?

r 14 MR. BROWNING:

No,.that have been issued and reviewed 15 and commented on, where we're satisfied that they're an 16 acceptable basis for proceed'ing. -It varies _from' site:to site, 17 but.that's an overall estimate ascto where we stand.

j 18 With regard to the. actual implementation of work,'is 19 you may be aware, the DOE essentially stopped all adjor work at

~

20 the sites in calendar year'1986.to~ allow upgrading;of the

~

qdality assurance procedures, and they havs been selectively 21 22 releasing those to begin operations.

We in turn will-. audit, as 23 we did in-the Los' Alamos case, where they. feel that.they.were 24 ready and they had the procedures.in place, LASL had.done their audit, DOE headquarters had done their audit, and the.n we,.to 25

,, m.y...

7.q.~ z w.,

..r-

,e

~

15' 1'

get calibrated,'did our' audit.

And there.were still somei' C

2 remaining areas we found in.our auditLwhich they will now have

]

.' 3 to' incorporate ~into.their procedures'and their work plans.

4-So ILthink the overall perspective isLthAt the.

1

5 program isIlmproving'. - It's not mov'ingl.at.the' rate which we>

6

would like it, and'I think.this still" requires.'a. tremendous'.

7.

amount of-'NRC'andIDOE' management attention to,make'sure that' 8-this area'is mutually agreed'.to be under. control before the 9

major work' starts at the sites, i

10' COMMISSIONER CARR:

Now when'you.say'in place before-11

. site characterization and major werk starts,' is it. going to be a

12 in place before the stirface characterization starts?.

(

13 MR. BROWNING:

Yes.

Yes..

\\

14 COMMISSIONER'CARR:

Okay.

15 MR. BROWNING:

That's the effort...Now keop 'in mind-16 that it may not be completely in place, but-it.would be in 17 place sufficient to handle.the particular' piece of charac-18 terization-work that's actually' underway.

_A case example,is 19 the work that's going.on at the Hanford' site.with' regard,to'the 20 groundwater monitoring.

Th'ay' feel they are.rea'dy and-they'are-21 proceeding.

There is nothinel to say.they can't proceed,-

22 there's no hold point.where they can't proceed.untiliwe.say we 23 think you're all'right.

'But at the. earliest'possible stage',.we.

24 want to take a look so that if there are any problems, we can

~

25 identify'them at the earliest possible stage..

)

L L

l I

1 d

16 q

)

1 And'again, it is a mutual calibration effort.

We may

{

(~

\\

\\

2 very well need to be calibrated by DOE as opposed to the other j

3 way around.

I mean this is a two-way dialogue that is going on

(

4 right now.

l 5

With regard to --

6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

How about explaining that just a 7

.little bit?

What do you mean by that?

i 8

MR. BROWNING:

For example, in the LASL audit, when

{

9 we made our findings and conclusions of the audits, we used 10 terminology that is understood within the reactor plant arena, 11 and the Department of Energy and I believe the contractor felt 12 that the terminology wasn't appropriate for the level of 13 concern with regard to the particular facts that were uncovered 14 in the audit.

I 15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

So it's --

16 MR. BROWNING:

As I referred to earlier, it's what i

17 you call it.

I don't think there's any disagreement with the 18 facts, but the significance of -- you know; the degree of 19 concern that you associate with the facts is what's at --

20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

So you are all agreeing on the words being used and an understanding of the issue; that's what you 21 22 are talking about?

23 10R. BROWNING:

That's right.

24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

So you can all speak the same

(~\\.

m./ - 25 language?

a-+,em-,

.-e..

~

u g*-

v _

-c.

\\

l 17 I

1 MR. BROWNING:

That's right.

It's a matter of 2

getting calibrated.

3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Proceed, please.

l 4

MR. BROWNING:

On Chart No.

5, we have attempted to 5

identify whatLis going on. currently at the sites.

With regard 6

to the first repository selection-process, of course, there are j

7

.three sites that have been recommended for characterization.

i 8

At'the Nevada site, they are doing workfin:the unsaturated zone 9

andoseismic monitoring.

This is work that is.being done i

10 through bore holes and surface-related monitoring devices.

11 In Washington, there is a very important' hydrologic test program that is cu$rently underway to understand the deep.

12 l

13 groundwater system at that' site,1 and ongoing seismic monitoring.

14 tests.

15 In Texas, they are basically developing the ability 16 get on the site and do.the test.

So there is not much going 17 on at t'ha Texas site.

18 MR. THOMPSON:

The key one there is the hydrologic 19 testing at the Hanford site.

That's one 'we'have be.en mention-i l

20 ing to you for some time.

They just, I think, started what, 21 last week,'although I think we agreed in principle way back in 22 April, they just took a fairly extensive period of time to get 23' all the necessary state permits and programa'in place before 24 they could start the actual test program.

. :7 25 MR. BROWNING:

And'we will. continue to use that as a e

1

m

.z

-j

'ML

)

18-1 1

- first-case. example of'how well our monitoring and auditing (71 j

t.

2 procedures are to. identify whether the -(NL programs or the' l

1 3

technical content of the programs are. correct.

4

'This is just to:reori'ent'you to the siteLlocat' ions

)

that we.are currently -- the Department!of Energy.and the Staff-5 6

. are currently looking at.

On th'is map' that also identifies all:

7 the other. sites that were initially' considered'for tho'first

,[j 8

repository site -- because~from timeto time you-willicae l

i l

9 evidence of interest onLother states,'because they'stili' feel

>I

\\

10 that'they are vulnerable, if one'cf the current sites that'is' 11 being characterized wculd fail at:some;early stage.

And of 12 course, there's effort in the state' of Washington, the Yucca-13 Mountain site in' Nevada,,and the Deaf SmithLuite in Taxas..

14 COMMISSIONER' ROBERTS:

Is that.how they pronounce 15 that?

l 16 MR. BROWNING:

I;believe so, Deaf Smith.

17 MR. THOMPSON:

I've heard-"Deef" Smith.

18 (Laughter.)

19 MR. THOMPSON:

'There are natives who'would say'that.

20 MR. BROWNING:

With regard to the second repository, 21 if you put on 5B,'the Department offEnergy had' postponed work 22 on the second repositcry site in MayLof 1986.

Recently, 23 October 1st, to be specific, Herrington announced to.the.

24 governors that they were restarting lthe second. repository

./'k-25 program.

The restarting being to collect the cor.ments that i

I

g.

,qf d '

19 j

1 they.had received on the last. programmatic-do'cument issued

- ("'

2 before they had-postponed work on the.second repositoryisite',-

J H

3

.which is referred to"as a draft area secommendatien report,.

l 4

which~had identified'12 candidate areas in;seven. states, which

~

5 are roughlyshown on this particular. chart,:in'the north centhal,' northeastern!and' southeastern' regions'of the country.-

6 7

Basically'no' site; work willlbe going on atLthese

'i g

8 locations because.it is. going.toftake'them anywhere from a+ year-1 9

to a-year'and a half'to. identify the comments, resolvolthe 10

' comments, and issue.a final' area-recommendation report.

'll '

MR.-THOMPSON: ' I.think that covers what's-kind ofL j

1 1

' going'on at.the site activity.today..LIathink(generallyjwe'see

- 12 13 not a whole lot ofLactivity, but that our leve1Lof communica-tions, and I think incorpor,ations,Lare improving on'ths. reports 1

14 15 we get back, that'they are -- the-level of!discussionsJareJ--

16 well, again, we still have some rough' edges in the'QA area that j

17 we are working with DOE'on to make-sure that'we both. understand 18 what the regulatory r, requirements are, as well'as th'ay under-19 stand how we can assist DOE'in de,velopingJan adequate.and, sound j

20 QA program at.the earliest stages of'the program.

21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

As.I recall, the lastJquarterly.

22 report of the~NRC's high level waste. program discussedcthe ne'd' e

4 23 for increased frequency and'effectivenesslof NRC and DOE 24 specific technical interactions, and.are.you telling us here 25 that the effectiveness of;the site-specific technica1Einterac-I i

- ~ _.. -, - ~ _

j

.j.

s f

20' I

1 tions has-increased?

d A(s; 2

MR. THOMPSON:

I'd-say that they have' improved.

I-don't'know that they are where we want them.

Bob?L 4

MR.-BROWNING:'

I think~the content of the specific..

5 ones'has_-improved.. The frequency and' number'is not1what we.

6 would mutually like to have. -But:as.we indicated in thei' i

7 ccurrent,updat6, the afforts on'.the part of;the DOE projectsuto 8

produce these documents, which we are going to have to react

l 9

to, has detracted from'their ability to be able.to have those 10 meetings.

11 We are hoping-that thene workshops and 'echnicalo-t 12 interchanges are. going to be:part of the. review.-of'thendraft.'

i 13 i

Consultative drafts will permit that-process to: improve so that l

14 the next quarterly briefing we will be able to'have a more 15 positive report for you.

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:. Well, you know, it seemsLto:me-that l

17 it's.probably appropriate to have the numbers and effectiveness 18 increased.

Numbers are important, but the,eff'ctiveness is e

.19 awfully important,.and the quality of your.' technical interac-'

tio.ms and the -- you know,-the'tachnical decisions that youi 20

.21 make are really-important.

'Andlso I'm.not so worried about 22 that number as I am the effsetiveness, but from what I under-L 23 stood,-your feeling was that the numbers probably~should 24 increase, as well as the effectiveness.

L 25 My only emphasis is that-I'm certainly'for increasing L

[

I l'

c I

. 2 l' 1

the numbersof. interactions,Jif you think'that-is neces'sary,.

CD 3

J-2 but my real concern is the~effectivene'ss of,those' interactions,-

H1 3-the hdghost possible technical'and~ safety quality.

4 MR., BROWNING:. That is improving, that area has j

5

'improv.ed.over:the last, quarter.

.6 CHAIRMAN ZECH2-All' right.

Well, proceed, please.

71

' MR _ THOMPSON:- 'If we could turn to the'next slide,.

.I 8

which identifies the safeguards.in transportation. areas; As ~

9 you know, the Department'of Energy, as'a matter of. policy,.has 10' made'a decision to have NRC' certification of'the cask that'is 11 used for the spent fuel transportation as part?of the-Nuclear 12 Waste Policy' Program.

13 They have now gone out'for bid and identified a 14 program for developing nine new cask designs.

These include 15 two legal weight truck casks,-two overweight truck casks, two 16 rail. casks, two dual purpose casks that's'for. storage and 17 transportation, and then one kind. of miscellaneous cask. '

18 These cask designs will come'.inHin FY '90 to92 19 timeframe, but,in the meantime we will be-working with DOE and i

20 their contractor,.whoever.they and up. selecting 'for each of 21 these - ;I think they have awarded some'contractatin these-22 areas -- in developing those designs to' meet our regulations, i

23-

-They proposed and were planning to come'in, in'the FY~

24

'93 timeframe, with nine other cask. designs, and-anticipate

.n 25 about five. major' amendments to currently designe'd casks,1 which.'

q h

tg

7 l

22'

]

~

1:

would allow those casks to'be. utilized in the nuclear waste 2

spent fuel transportation for-this program.

3 There'are a number of technica1' issues that we are-4 really facing-in these.cas'k' designs ~that DOE would like to' R

5 limprovefthe capacity of the cask designs'by takingl credit for 7

6 fuel burnup, which iswhat we have not done'-in the past, but

-l 7

that really goes.into the. heat: loads thatl are.'in.the plants, as j

l 8

well as'the ability to: address the criticality issuasithat i il 9

might occur.

10 Likewise,1we are looking at. square geometry, as a-11 more effective measure.of' expanding the eapability.of'the cask, T

12 and again we are looking.at that~ impact versusfour criteria, 13 primarily the 30-foot. drop test.

And finally, in the technical area, we'(are looking,at-.

l 14

.j 15 the update of the~ environmental impact statement with' respect

• I 16 to the transportation of.the spent'. fuel through the various 17 modes.

That'will be an update of NUREG 0170,.that will reflect.

~

j 1

18 the results that we had in.a modal study.

.)

19 The licensing activitie's that we have had in this 20 area are fairly small at thi's' time.

We hold-about one-meeting 21 with DOE in the quarter.

That-primarily relates to the final 22

' repository design,-not the site characterization plan,.and 23 ensuring we have matarial control in the accounting, aspects 24 associated'with tracing the spent fuel'to its final burial and-f : a,.

V' 25 disposal place.

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - =_- _

_L

.m 23 1

Security matters are fairly well understood in this

(

2 area, and I don't anticipate being any major problem.

3 If I can have the next slide, pleace.

4 As you know, there is a proposal by the Department of 5

Energy to proceed with the MRS as an integral part of the 6

Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

DOE has done no work on the final 7

design since the major activities, I guess, have been placed on

)

8 hold, both by the court suit with the state of Tennessee, which 9

has finally removed the prohibition about recommending to 10 Congress that a site be selected in the state of Tennessee.

11 We have had one meeting this past quarter with the 12 DOE people in this area, just going over the' status of the 13 program.

They have a couple of activities underway that we 14 have audited, one at the Idaho site dealing with the spent fuel 15 consolidation technology.

That's where they are developing the 16 techniques, the hardware to consolidate the spent fuel rods.

17 There are some cooperative agreements that we have 18 audited primarily at Millstone, which is some at-reactor work 19 that they're doing to develop fuel consolida ion.

And Virginia 20 Pcwer has some consolidation of the fuel cask storage.

That is 21 for the dry cask storage activity where they are trying to 22 develop a cask at the Idaho lab, which would increase the 23 storage capability from about 24 fuel rod assemblies for a PWR 24 to about 48.

[N-25 We are currently developing our review plans for

~.

_t a

i 24 1

reviewingithe ')GUS.

'That sh6uld be completed thislyear.. We

.] Co

.1 2

have agreed with IX)E to review topical reports regarding :any of-

]

3 their developmental activities, the dry cask, seismic _ problems l

4 that.may come up'with the MRS during this period.

t

- We haven';tireally received anythingLfrom DOEUin this-5-

s 6

area yet.- There's really not.much funding in thisfarea'to 7-develop =these activities,' but we are prepared to review'them if; 8

they'do come in.

9 A key element that We' ara developing;is a memorandum 10 of' understanding'which would establish the appropriate rol'e?and 11 interface between NRC and DOE for the relicensing-interface in' 12 activities.

It will be modeled after the one thht weLare doing 13 with a highl level wasta repository' activity, to.make sure we l

L H

14 have an understanding of what the participation.would be, -

15 whether in the role of the s'tates of selectingjrepositories, 16 and finally, we are also -addressing tlus environmental impact ~

17 statement.

1 18 As you may remember,-inLthe Nuclear Waste Policy Act I

c l

19 the environmental impact statement requirement'for the reposit-20 ory itself has been assigned to DOE. lit's clearly stated.there

~

L.

21 that we are to adopt that' environmental impact' statement.to the 22 extent practicable.

.23

.There.are some procedural' issues, it did not address 24 the MRS, and we'will need to work with CEQ and the other ones

. 25 to define the appropriate role for NRC in' reviewing the:-- in l

l t

7 33

.---Am_.-m.

a_.,-

,L..--.s--.-..

a_-._.-a._.___-_-_..

.a n.----

y.

y ii;

'o"

' I 25 a

~

l-preparing what our role would be with respect to th'a environ-(..

1 2

mental impact statement options._

J 1

h, 3

COMMISSIONER CARR: 'That:MOU.you are discussing,'.does i

~

t' '

4 that MOU also have in it:the' reimbursement.of NRC costs from j

ll

, the. Waste Fund?,-How are.'we(doing on.that?

6-

'MR.: THOMPSON:

That's a'differant MOU.

That;one, we l

y 7,

have' held a meeting recently with Ben Rusche and his staff to

. 1 l

8 develop the proposal.

We.have~a draft proposal;to DOE.that is j

l 9

undergoing their review.and comments.

They identified a couple

' I 10 of key issues that they were: interested in doing i

1 11 One was for us to ensure that,we have identified,-

0 i

l 12 through.an independent probass, the funds'that we charged to I

13 the Waste Fund.Act.

That,is.the process wa goLabout getting 14 Commission review, OMB review, and Congressional approval.would 15 be, they believe, adequate to assure that the funding that we.

bill DOE for are being billed for appropriate activities.by.

16 D

17 NRC.

j 18 Secondly, they are wanting to make;-sure that there l

19 was a division of funding between the wasta-~ activities that are 20 commercial, and the.ones that are ~ defense wasties. - They want to l

21 have two kind of categories in~that activity..And secondly, 22 they wanted an outsideLaudit,.and of courseLif thatfis neces-o.

23

. sary we'll -- are negotiating what the appropriate role that --

.24

.. e-would~hireiour own~ auditor to make sure.the' funds'thatLwe w

7 25 had_are charged appropriate to"the NRC.

~

i

,sa...-

m.-.:_m.u

__u~

--_.-_--..L--_--

.a~__

--_n

, _ = - - - _ _ _ _ _. - -. - -.. -.. - - -

126 1

So those are the kindLof technical issues that have

.{ -

4

.2 been identified in,thisLMOU at'this time, and wa anticipate' 1

s

?

3 having that MoU complete --'the negotiations' completed bylthe i

4 and of this year,-calendar year.

l

'5.

YoumikhtiknowLth'at-DOEdoes'nothaveanyfunds'in-6 their FY '88 appropriations tolinclude paying the NRC! costs.out L.

7.

of the activities,'andiso;thatis another area that we'.!will have 8

to address.

~

9 If I could have the next slide,'please.

10 We.have a number of very'important.rulemaking.

11 activities.

As you know, the one;that the-Commiss'on is'very.

i 12 interested in is the definition.of the.high. level waste.

We 13 have reevaluated the schedule, and 1E believe we have informed 14 the commission.that-we will be proposing a rule to the, 15 Commission I think in January of '88..

We are,looking very 16 carefully at the options,'the'public comments on the advanced l

17 notice of proposed rulemaking.

18 We are attempting to goLeloser to the approach of 19 defining, I guess at least in the civilian waste area,fthose 20 activities that are greater-than-class C.to a great extent will 21 be the high level waste and will'be disposed of in a high"levelL 22 waste repos~itory unless there is.some petition by DOE for 23 storage in another approach.

.24 I think -- Bob,- is that generally tho'ri~ght approach?-

25 MR. BROWNING' ~Yes, sir.

l 1

L

..__.h.__i._m______. _ _. _. _. _ _.

.n E,

)

527.-

'I l '-

MR. THOMPSON:

So I think the Commission's'desir's to~

T

'.. N

1 2

bring a bit more clarity to this.activityLand get it more in.

3

.two bins, I believe will be the end result, but)we'llu not have 4

only.two bins.-

I thinkLthere would be some capability;ifLDOEL 5

had a technical approach'that would be ace'eptable?to! protect'

'l s.

i 6

the public healthiand safetp,-an' avenue.would b'e7available to 7

them to.come to.the Commission on:and getiour approvallon that' l

t.

q

~

l 8

particular. approach.

'9' We have placed!our'rulemaking activity to conform 10 with the EPA hollow 1repo'sitory: standards kind of'on' hold.now~

'I 11 since.the court' ruling in that area has found that EPA must 12 redevelop and repromulgate their rulemaking activities.. We i

13 don't see this having a major impact on the nearstermisite R

14 characterization activities.

Those activities ~ essentially,,will, 15 develop the' data with respect toLthat site,..andiwhatever the.

-)

16 ultimate. criteria are wculd have to -

the site ^would have t'o-17 meet that data, and the' site characteristics;would be.the' site 18 characteristics.

19 I mentioned earlier that we are developing the' 20 proposed response for our NEPA responsibilities;for the 21 repository siting on the Nuclear Waste-Policy lAct.- In essence, 22.

we,will be adopting'the DOE environmental impact statementJas l

L 23 part of.that, but that rulemaking, I believe, Stu, willibe doyn 24-to the commission probably this months certainly.by the end of-l-

+

i

'25 the' year, in any event..

d) 1 o._,_ _

1

j 28

)

l MR. TREBY:

We.are hoping to'get it down to_you by

]

f 2

this month.

OGC has essentially _ completed its actions.

It is i

3 now in the process of being circulated amongst the other-q 4

offices, and we would hope it would be here before'the'and of j

1 5

thls' month.

i

~

]

6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, thank you.

Proceed, j

7 please..

l 8

MR. THOMPSON:

Secondly,.the negotiated rulemaking to

)

9 the licensing support system, I think you are aware that the.

10 Commission has approved us to continue that activity.

It's 11 moving forward, and all parties are, I think, participating.

{

12 reasonably well in that effort.

13 COMMISSIONER CARR:

I. notice in your report that DOE-14 is in charge of that..

{

Is that going to cause us any' problems 1

1 15 down the pike?

'I

.1 16 MR. THOMPSON:

Well, I think part of the negotiated j

1 17 rulemaking is really to establish who is in charge ~from'the 18 management activity arsa.

DOE is in charge of the funding.

19 area.

20 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Who is going to be running the 21 licensing support system?

'22

, MR. THOMPSON:

That will be determined, I believe, as 23 part of the negotiated rulemaking.

24 MR. TREBY:

That's correct.

That's one.of the 1_/

25 subjects that is<on the table.

' 29 1

MR. THOMPSON:= So hopafully'we.will get all parties ff

(

2 in agreement on;who should be in charge and'the procedural 3

safeguards, who willsbe responsible tothave that syatem.: The 4

last major rulemaking activityfwa have ongoing 11s amendments to.

5

'10'CFR Part 72.

The'first' major' area l relates to the MRS~and'to j

u 6

assuring the:MRS licensing period is a-four-year timeframe:-that:

7 would be' contemplated.for the' lifetime of thdt; facility 1as l

8 opposed to the'20 years that we have currently,_.and theLsecond'

.9 one is, in fact, to provide'for generic. licensing of the', spent'-

10 fuel storage cask..This is where we~would actually.give a, 11-review of those ' casks, giveLthat cask a certification, and' then't u

12 a general license to the nuclear facilities,c.that they could 13 use that cask for on-site storage under specified conditions, 1

, ithout the need to come to the NRC for formhl' licensing.

That 14 w

l 15 will have a proposed rule to the Commission'in June of '88 for 16 that effort.

17 MR. TREBY:- Just to'cl'arify, that'sifor the second L

18 part of the effort.

With regard to the first part,-the l

19 amendments to accommodate the MRS licensing, that should be 20 coming down also either in the next month.or so..

21 MR. THOMPSON: =That's right, that should be very'soon; 22 to the Commission..

l 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Tall right. -Thank you.

l

.q 24 1GL. THOMPSON:

The next slide.that deals with tho-25 uncertainties, as Mr. Stallo said,: -this. area is'one of very.

_---_.---.--.__--.-E.__.---__._-._

_m

._.--___s m

e q

.30 1-high Congressional interest.

There'are uncertainties-in this 7.x jc 2

program that make'a significant-impact on our activities 11n the 3

long term.

They probablyLdon't'have as significant impact on 4

the short-run activities, which really' deals with reviewing 15 DOE's proposed. site characterization l plans of consultation 6

- dra f ts. ' That is, I would anticipate no matter what happens, we-l 7-

.would need to go' ahead and review these site characterization 1l 8

plan activities so that we will.have in place either an.

l 9

improved site characterization ~ plan.for. DOE, if they go toLone-j 10 site or, as you know, th'e Commission has recommended l asia l

11 matter of prudence that DOE not be precluded from; conducting

.l 12 some site character,12ation activities'at other sites, if tIhey l

13 deemed it appropriate and needed, and we would1think that 14

, approved site characterization plans would be an. integral 1 pert 15 of that approach.

16 So the short term activities impacting on NRC is not 1

17 significant, though it does make a significant difference:1'n-18 the long run activities.

19 As you know, with respect to the repository, the 20 program is focused on a moratorium-for a. year or so, in having 21 an independent commission review the activities prior to proceeding, versus an approach that'would almost have DOE 1

22 1

.23 selecting a single site for site characterization.in January of 24

'89.

25 As'you know, the Commission has considered and-been b

l l

k

4 s

31 1-

. asked to comment on a number of these proposals and dates, and m,

2 it's an area'of some key' interest to the Congressional s.

3-oversight committees on this area, and:we have_ developed, I-4 believe,1some' questions and. answers asLto some of.thoseLkind of'

'(

5

, key areas that'I.think Mr. Stallo'has sentIdown'to you'-- 'if.

t 6L not,ohe will'be sending it.down.to'you shortlyc--^ addressing 7

.some of the areas'that continue 4 to come upLin..the question-and' 8

answer areas.

9

-Likewise,.with the[ monitored; retrievable-storage, 10 some of the current legislation'has us ~~would,haveLDOE,.

11 rather, looking at potentially" selecting;more;thanl monitored.

12 retrievable storage facility, placing-theLfacility in Tennessee n

13 nulled and revoked pending the: opportunity for other states.and 14 potentially Indian' tribes to identify and volunteer to be.an 15 MRS site, and require that you have-three sites in at least-two 16 states.

17 Likewise, a. moratorium for this particular' area is' 3

18 also under consideration.

19 Finally, as part'of the' transportation area,,there is.

20 some Congressional proposals'that.would require ~NRClto" conduct 21

'a foreign cask design and report.to Congress for' -us to-do this 22 survey, as well as. require DOE to conduct a-full! scale test for 23

' certification'of cask' design.-

i 24 As you know, we have'expressad our; concerns'about

. r.,.

u 25 those approaches and the cost'of those approaches to-Congress,.

\\

y

_ ~

m s

_m 7

,3 1

'O s

1

.33 and however they'are in some of the current" legislation.

l' 2

(Commissioner Roberts left'the room.at 10:50 a.'m.').

~

3 MR. THOMPSON:

If I could'have;the next. slide, 4

.please.

E 5

Finally, Mr. Chairman,' we would~like'toL dentify what i

s wethink(arethekeyissuesthat.wouldbecomingLtothe-6 7

Commission in the near term before~we.have an'. opportunity.to L

8

-necessarily.come.-down and brief again. lThis..would be the.

j 9

. modifications to Part 72, with respect to the MRS: licensing, 1

10 which we.believe wi11 b's here in November,.the proposed 1 rule on 1

11 high level' waste definition'will be hopefully?in(January, Land.

.l 3

.I l

12 the NEPA responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,.

13 again we anticipate that in November.

I 14 So those are the_ key activities.t I think that the 15 program is stabilizing, but the uncertainties about' DOE?s 1

l 16 overall siting activities with respect to the Congressional l

t 17 action is-the main unce.rtainty in the programs at this time, l

i 18 MR. STELLO:

That: concludes our pres'entat'on,,Mr.

i 19

-Chairman.

20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:' All right.

Thank you;very.much.

21 Questions from 'm'y fellow Commissioners?

22 Commissioner Carr?.

1 4..

23-Commissioner Rogers?

i i

24-CHAIRMAN ZECH: 'Let me just say, can you give.ma a

]

25 summary statement as'regards;-

I.. recognize'the uncertainties k

.j e

l i, tre r,

• ,4

.u m-[-..

m.

7.-

o

_, ;.[.

e

..p.;

.}

kl

.33

y 3

9 v'

.u the?importantist3hesthatyou. raise-asJbegards:

1..

an

(? '

congressionN1Se.ctio,(ni.too,cthat do -- that,will bear.

q 1

V

.2 3

significant1yLon this.whole; issue. 'But asifar as you are 1(

a w

4' concerned,jfrom7the NRC sta'dpoint,.from-a',technica1Jand7 safety J

n q

5

; standpoint,,are we. making!the. progress that;you feelfis

,6 satisfactory at this point'on this'1veryjimportantiprogram, for.:

q 17-our. country?

s 8

MR.-JSTELLO: ' I think!the-short answer:is yes, because much of 'the uncertainties that result from tha Congressional'.

9.

10 interest in this matter,.and'possible legislation, al1~.'look.for;

.i 1

11 the longer term.

But.much_of theLbasic' fundamental work that'

)

12

.has to be-done is ongoing, moving reasonably well.- It's a new

~

y 13 program, and even in spite of.that, I think we are doing very 14 we13.

Y-15 When you look to the.futurs.in the outyears and:some

. i 16 of the things that have to be done, those can change very, very J

17 substantially, depending on the outcome-of Congress, and we s

18 won't know that for some time;'Iidon't know whan.

l 19 MR. THOMPSON:

As I understand the Congressional' 1

,R legislation, they are --'some of -- the Senate is pr.epared to:

j, 20 r

21 have some floor action possib'ly this week'.

.(Commissioner' Roberts entered.the room at 10:53fa.m.]-

22

'23 MR. THOMPSON:~ There may be some act'on on tho' i

i 24 congress.by the end of this month or by early..Decemb r,land if r

.....s 25 that doesn't occur, whatever legislation activities are' going h

b!

e

i 1

~34:

, y g

~

to occur will probably beiin the', appropriation bill's,!in7 1

{

p w, ;

2 spending limita# cions,~1ike they haveidone in the past, as.to-3 3-give the program direction.-

1 4

But I think-what.we-see is that DOE is pushing very 5

~hard.to novefforward with the site characterization and,the b

6 drait consultation plans,. consistant withLthe current 11aw.-

i 7-LThat is,c if -- you know,.ifytheyedo8't change the. law, Ewe,will=

1 8

have those draft consultation. plans in place, and'we will!do.

~

9 our' reviews within'the timeframe:that's set out'tofidenti'fy' b

10 what those site characterization activities are.

11 We believe that there are a' number of s'ite 12 characterization activities-that will be very. beneficial, in 13 understanding what 'the licensability of those sites-are, L andlI-j 14 think it is time to move: forward, and we have e,xpressedtour 15 belief that the program has made1 good progressLtoidate',:and-16 needs to continue and not have a moratorium.-~

t b

17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Commissioner Roberts, did-you have d;.

18 any questions?

19 Well, let me just say that I think.it'a important to' 20 maintain our contacts with the states and Indian tribes astwe-move ahe'ad, as well as with:the' Department of Energy', and I' 21 22 guess the important thing, at least from my standpoint,11s1that-

'i i

'23 we continue to put foremost in our~ mind as we rev'iew this 24 program our. safety and technical,respon'aibilities as a-q

./ a 25 regulator, and to just always keep;inimind that.th's'isia?

i i

4 s

2--

2 y

-.)

l 35 1-unique program.

Our judgments are awfully important,-and they,

j (s

2 are going t.o be made with the best.possible advice we.can get 3

outside our agency, as well as inside our agency, and no matter 4

what the schedule turns out to be, at"least from my standpoint, 1

the bottom line is always.'s.this thelright decision, is this 5

i 1

6 what the public health and safety would require?- Is this 7

technically, for safety, the right thing to do?

And it is a 8

new unique program, we all know that.

We all, of course,.

j 9

recognize the importance of it, but I think that if you need 10 more time, for example, as the schedule goes on, it seems to me I

11 we just are going to take'it.

We.are going'to make the best 12 decisions we can, and not be moved by any scheduling l

13 programmatic planning process.

14 We will certainly do our best, but we are going to

,i i

15 make the best technical and safety. decisions for public health 1

s 16 and safety, and that's what it's all about.

That's what we are charged with doing, and I want the Staff io know that from my 17 18 standpoint -- and I think I speak for my' fellow Commissioners 19 also -- that is what we expect you to do..

20 And so I think I am encouraged by the progress you 21 are makingi I am encouraged by the way you are working with the 22 states and Indian tribes, and with the DOE, but remember, we 23 are an independent agency, we are going to make the best

(

)

24 decision we can, and we are going to call it just like we see d

25 it, and certain'y I expect you.to use again the outside N._

A

r i

i. ;

3 1

36

..:o 1

technical advice t_ the extent.you need:to do'so, because.in k.s

. q 7

)

2 the final run we are going to analyze everything we can and 3

study it very carefully and thoroughly.

I. expect you'to do-1 4'

.that in order to make the'best' decisions.that we possibly-can-

)

5 so I'thank you for an informative' briefing ~this 6

morning.

I expect that you will'be back again reasonably soon' 7

to giveLus another. status. report, and.unless there are any 8

questions ~by'my fellow Commissioners, we.thank you-very much 9

and we will stand adjourned.

1 10 (Whereupon, at'10: 55 ofclock a.m.,

the meeting was:

11-concluded.]

]

1 12 l

1 i

13 14 15

..1 J

16 j

17 18 19 t

I l

20 l.

j 21

' 1 1

22 i

23 24 25-e -

Y t

---w

_--9

m y

a 1

9:

1 i

l(? '

i2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE-

'I s

3' i

4 This is to certify that the attached events of:a-

I 5

meeting of-the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:-

+:

x

)

4 r

e 7

TITLE OF MEETING:

Ertef.tng on the. Status'of High'Leve.1 Kas te Issues'

'l 8

PLACE OF MEETING:'

Washington, D.C.

9 DATE OF MEETING:

Tu e s day', No vembe r ' 3, 1987.-

i 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this: is the original

I 12 transcript thereof.for the file.of the. Commission taken

{

j 13 stenographically by.me, thereafter reducad,to'. typewriting by.

E 14 me or under.the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record-of the

j 16 foregoing events.

17 ic

)

q 19 nn Mley 1

20 21 22' Arn Riley & Associates, Ltd.

i 23 i

O 24 g-} 25

+

I g

S C

R N

E H

T M

A N

R O

G O

N R

O P

7 8

I S

E 9

1 S

T I

M S

3 A

R M

E W

B O

M C

L E

V E

O E

V N

H E

T L

R H

O G

F I

H G

N I

F E

I R

B F'

t i

I 4

)

S R

M

(

N N

E O

O G

I ITA S

AR S

T O

M I

R T M

O S

P O

SE C

W NL MAB F

E AR A

O I

V RTV E

S R

G E

DI R C

V O

I N T P

O R AE S O P

. RSE TT S

- GT N

I Y

R DD NNME e

O RE I

I ARKA RM T

E E

UOAT ISGTMR TV L

OE E

E R

I L CA O

P F

N E

A O UNE V

RSMRUN N

I

-o o

o o

oo

{i!

N N

O O

I T

IT A

Z A

I R

Z E

T I

R C

E A

R T

A C

H C 8 A

)

8 7

E R

9 E

8)

T 1

A L

S 8 I

1 8 S

S H

U Y9 N 9

D E

T R8 A C

T F A9 L 89 1

E AR A U1 P 8 8 E R N 9 9 H

L E L

E C )7 /T D A YY1 1

U FD T

S8 DR J

YY D N U F F A

I E

Y T I

9 M U O

L S

E1 Q

C T )s R HI

(

S ODN SA P A D00 Y

DI OT T

E M

R T S E L C E 5 8 T1

(

S G (1 O U (S

- A*

O AN D S sI U DI S NS P C T

OA H A

TONCO V S I

X NCASS I

S VE A E

E L

S O

ENWT R 3 P 3 A R

R P

P U

E C

R o

o t

1 L

S

)

A N

C AL S

P

(

S Y

D 1

O U

YL T

A S

S N

D N

R A

E A

E T

)

L T

P N

S S NP R

A O

E C

N O

O P

N I

Y F

T L

A I

A T D F

T A

E L

L A U E

N Z

S P

P T T I

I L

Y S

H O

R N

N U

E O

D T )S P

)

S T

O U S D N

K K

C T

N E O E S ITT E

A N

AS OT ME P E

R E

Z CA

WO W

A M

D I

I R E R C 4

H H

(

M E T O O 2 S 4

C T A F S P( K O

(

R

-.G S

CI S

C W O WN E N C AC S A' S

T A

)

I E W T E F RO N

D I

S L

I I

AS A D TV RVE PN HS TL N F G I

OE R -

A AR F R B Y

CA

,R P A T R

- W F -

W DW O~

R E D F WP DE E E E NE UE TN F E C O

CI C

I HNIOV TI S A EI S FNN V V

I E

S E

V F

E OA E

R TAS DJR T '

NTS R E E I

V R P T P F OP MF I

E F C

EA I

E F ME F

T F TE S VTL CA

- CM A A A CR T

I UCT GCOT CT I

AA T C

OP F SAS RE A N

' -._ ACS O S

(

AE P

S*

P R R O*

O*

S R

PD C

S A

C C:

R R

N N

o o

~ -

-. L.

[9lp

,f l

l

u E

A E

T Q

ST C

S I

I N

D F

N G

E U

O A

N T

AS T

SS I

S M TE R

N TI E

R E

AI I

U N

N WRO R D T

E I

I S

G'-

UD G UV E

MsD AI DO T

S B

P E

N O

E C

A E O L

O C E

R C A

TP R

E D O C I

R T OA V

R E

N N E

Y MF Z ME N

P L WT O A DO E

D T

AE ON D S I

RB R

R E T N

E I

D L

G E

A OE T

CN ARIRD G

E NE OE N T O

CC E

R S TH C

U P

A A

R AM NI T

P P

E L

R DM A N E

Q L

A P

A I

AUOL OFD E

Q H

NC QGCP MON S

I I

E C

O R

D N

o o

ii i

G N

I R

OT I

N G

O N

M R

I O

S C

T I

I E

M NS M

S OR IT E

M E A

A I

S F

R E

I G

R V

CU l

O A

D IT N

M Q I

R A

T C

A S

P 7 F IE P 8 A N

N E

SE 9R N

E O

1 D I

O DD T

E Z

N S

1,N F

T A

D O

U O T I

R

- R I

E C

Q ES O S

T.

G C

BT I

A G N A

ON P

E T

R OI TE R U

L T D

N T

O S CM S

N E

YOMNE E

A R

A R

Y S

D 'T R

T OFOOI L

CITV R

N YC I

R O

U HI G

TO AI

'I N

G N

S S O F D T U

T GOGO P

OA N C I

I S

N T NL O

P

- S E A C

O GI O I

L E TI M E P AO NO R E

R RS MT E DGI G DS V

.AY RAN H I

S NYAE DTL OS V O TE A OHXD NSAC SN*

W**T*

OENE O E

R C RAR N E

IF S

o o

~.

t' 1'.

4

YT IL I

N B

A O

TN IT U

A O

C T

C R

A O

/

L P

O S

Y R

L R T

N L E N

A TA O

A M

I T L C.

N A

R I

R N

O S

L T

G NS A

T C

I O

S GT R

U I

R NI N E

L D

P GS E T

O N

E M S

A S

I N

S D E

A O

E D

E M

R I

DKN T

IT S E D

E I

V N

U S

A K AM I

C S CA T

A S

D IF A

C S

R CRR A

Y I

I T

E O T

A R

L I

WHJ G

R A

E U

C ETA N

U C

G NOM S

C I

I K

N E

N E

S 9 9 5 E

S H

F A

C CE A

C L

I T

S o

o o

~

L l'

i

TN' a

E M

D E

s E

R Y R GG Y

l R

E OA L

T G

OE S

V U

A NI D

HT E

N G R

CA N

O E R G

)

I

/

S I

TE A E D N

T

. P R O R O

S NOO D

A I

OO T G

T E

T (C G E P

S I

R O

N A

K)

L DNS T DT S

I B

L OAN RN E

I I

S A

OI CE AE

(

T R

M GM S A L M E E S

V NDE EE RE E

E N OI U R

RS U L

R G C OF G OSGR S O

I I

R S

F TAMIS T

E L S DA D E N R

E E

UO T E N OL R L L F V

A P A A

O R

A -

CAI L E R R

DT P

F NE L A

- RU U

N TL I

D N D R

WL E E

I D

F E UO E

O E

P FS E ACI C P

N S N O V C OT O I

R O

O O E P R A R I

SE C ROP C P O

KRN C

I T

- L

.T RMO:

P P PE

(

O T O N O WOPV I

C G L

L A L N

W: S EIE E - O L L I

O OE L PS V V

'# ES E E EE I

NIN MV D RE 5

M E

C DRDPR O

R D

N o

o s

f[4jg

=-

r

. h 4

1.

l

{

D M

R E

A T

D S

N Y

A S

T

-T S

R Y

O R

P G

~

O P

N T

U I

S G

S I

N S

N E

I O

G S

C P

A N

N L

I S

E P

E I

R W

S C

C I

I N

L R

G N

E S

E N

W S

N O

L R

C T

N R

E N

M I

I K

T H

E L

I E

GS D

/

K I

N A

N G

M E

RS A

T F

P U

N D

A OA I

N D

FC M

E E

I D

Y K

E O

.EE E

H T

A M

M DG I

L E

T O

VA L

M A

I C

OR I

T W

E I

U S

C R O B

L 2

A P T I

R A

E S

S U

7 S

R O

O W

C N

E I

L T

T T

N O

S D

R E

A P

S S U L

E

'E E

A T

T F V

M S

E R

E O

T P

N N T D

A E

E N

R R

M M E L

O T

I T

F D

D P F

A P

O C

N NS H

N P

O G

E E

G O

E D

E O

M MF I

A A

AO H

C N

N T

o o

o o

o

h

~

~

m S

m SE

~

R c

G m

N -

s S

OR E

CO T

F O

I D

S TS E

T K

R TS O

O RE V

F OT M

E P

A R

S E E R

T R L

)

G S

D S

A O

R N

E D C N S R

M AS U EQ A

P

(

S DTE L

N L

E A

E E AR N U G P

G L T IT W

A L SE GFS I

I N

R U

B S

E N

O NOR M E T D 9

I I

O T

N WT U D C A

T S

A

UK T

I R

E T

R KDS i

R O S NA E

S TESN TO T AOC A

C E

S LROS I

G BMI A

CC P

N N

E A TAE R F

E U

A N VE AET O NOO

/

H OIEN C L ATM GT E

RO OTS

- N O

I C

L A GN R OI E

NT EO D

m w

M OEN E ENO O D A T

G T

U RA EINGI I

N RG HS A RTF I

DT SSR EA E C S

ISY H

ON E E EUIDT Y RF I

OR l

N TOS R EI I

PO TSRE A

I VUT A UOR NSCNO RQR A

G I

~

OT R CTO N

E NO P I

S UE E RSO OINMT3E C SRC N

O P OMF N

I T

P O

A O

A S

i L

L E *

• M* * * *

• R*

IT S

L R T

A I

G B -

I G

I E

T L

L i

o l

o A

~

=

~

p7 lI!

l lii?

F

TN E

M E

)7 V

8 L

E 9

O T

1 V

A R

D N

O E

E M

T B

I M

N O

S A

E A

P O

C V

W W O C )7 I

S A

N S

8 L

N E

O9 R D.

1 V

I M

T E

E E D T M

2 R L

)s N A 7 E He O

-. B UP G9 l

C TM S b I

1 RE H

B E T i

F AV Y

I O

PO N R TNA I

F (N OA L

I U

BE S

O E N L

t G

L S U C

A NN U

N R P

OI R (J I

S O

I O

TN DN PD SE T

AE E O CC SI ES T

RO I

I M

F L OI P N P

I A O R

D S OF P

I E

OR RE E R T

MM P D N (P R

o o

o AE N

^

a I.L f

i

w GN' IF E

'S R C M I

B R

A N

R R

G OE O

F H R78 T

P L

9 1

ANE R OTS3 I

=

ET N ARE AOWB M

MIS LE SEV L

VO k

I AM EN T ML

'N O

E H

M C G E

I E

H L

P H

P T

~

U S

7I

! r{ 4 a

.i 0

Y R

h O

~,

Y T

s~

~

c I

I S

1 yf.'

j O

P t,.

E f

r j-,

a' R

qJ4._ r..

0xR N

SS g.T EK f

T

i F, p

.),

H E

C PE

/

Y' S

1 s

4.,

'C C g

i h.

R l

s e

a.

I 4 ('\\.

7 F

ie.

(.3 a, p E

H

-(-

,g

]

H {-

T u$'

1 I

1 R

Mf,

L-t E

$E i

R

- \\

l O

H C

_ AI%

A F$

V F

O W

N S

_ )N N Y

D

\\

i-

-\\ -

YC N

E 1

AR 1

J CE R

D m e S!

am

[f E.

n o is yV.

a AA _ r.

D 3, IA t __ky. i ;j -

\\

rl.md I

S s

N

(.

e

• u t n' -

a

.j e

O

_I.

F

, Ll l

j f

C I,\\j )

D j-j R

A.

0 S

t C -

f CT E

I

~

UH tA Y

i T

I 1

e n s" s

S I

a s

)[i QOD m.

i I.

~ i ;

3

i'll 1

l u

]s l '

e e

t i

s 4

i S

n

's r

r e

o 2.

)

r g

t "

e s

t a a5 s e e9 nt #'

m9 t

r e

a

~

r t

• s so.

s i

u e

o s.

a n

s s

t e

s in t.

e e

a n

i.

~m n

t t

g nl g

r t

o C

S_

i a

t :

f V

r n

"n i

e.

s.

h S-r u

r. r a

3 i

(

o

. t no

.. : g ei a

n C. g

u g.a e

n nw a

~

g t

J a

'.n r

t i

u s

o s

.o u

h e

s a

a n.

w

n. * * *.

e t

e m

e t

n f

s e

i ;..-

.n e

S i w e s i i wy/>..&.s.g e e l

e.n, s.

n yh t.

L.

3.~< js C..%. :.

'I

.y.

.:::;f.C

>s ~i._\\.1

. ::f S

l l.

E

}

~

~

c T

p

.g.L.f.

I l.l.

S 4;

la

. \\.

k

E-1]

,C M>i s

a

\\

L E

n N

_e e

I t \\.

L

.......: 5., G 5

.l..\\.I.

E L

.L-E

{..}

A

~.

l' O

T T

u S

P U

.-.n.{

Y E

C R

A B

C

. sl

.l. e

~

r.

\\

.f~f.l~3

.l.

r

>e iip 1itl

'PN,H ~

t.nli c

,ll' l\\i

\\

' " V v v 'y vv v v vqq.ggy

' TRANSMITTAL T0:

Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips

. ;l j,

ADVANCED COPY TO:

The Public Document Room N/MF 7 b

DATE:

5

[

FROM:

SECY Correspondence & Records Branch-g 2

Attached are copies of a Cummission meeting transcript and related meeting i

document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and l

l placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or j

required.

Meeting

Title:

t,k Arv hoMM/h rd.)

d, fY&s J

/// d'//' 7 Open X

Closed l

l Meeting Date:

l E

I Item Description *:

Copies Advanced DCS i

to POR Copy

)

C-8 l

b

>(

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 (L) b "r&N i

A2 n F7-xd7 c2.

F l

2.

E

~

v e

3-a i =E 4.

S.

!<a 1

a

}

5.

6.

l

• POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.

l C&R. Branch files the original transcript, with attachments,.without SECY.

g:

p.

papers, a /M -

l bbI h

hhhlNhh0hhh i

L