ML20249A549

Transcript of 101st ACNW 980612 Meeting in Rockville,Md.Pp 569-608.Reporter Certificate & Viewgraphs Encl

ML20249A549
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/12/1998
From:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:
References
NACNUCLE-T-0123, NACNUCLE-T-123, NUDOCS 9806170042
Download: ML20249A549 (57)

Text

accMn%wk8 w n% % y% Qt %s%y ~ pip BMM  % w@ @o. .nn.

$d_h,@@h)~INIMN_N 4 N an.n - - n, n da i1 a i$$e$w$_@aa

_t

..:c:ww

A

(;lipt,h .

_f .

hM Md@$Vk@ssa _ ,

4

$$s 4_2,.:

u . .: ...

7;.

'.3AP#",

.., . 3 , ,. ~,1.... y 1 . . j, ' j;pT,i E'l f3 h?hh

• fh a s: h. -

o y;.. # av -

p v

ew

.l. egg: . , . .g

.'lc,.  !

, J;,} , , ,.*t.

w ,g

e. . -

+

p@,$ 'a -

.,.,j 7,, y -

b ,;# i ,,

[a,

..gYfm,(. g - TV'g. . . q!x

. . ..s w a

.9~

l,!0, h Tg;,.dp , . .f/,' e W' M- - . - ,e *# ,

-i ljfM(q$% I r [ch -

3

' '?1f y . hs iig{n}h M

,k,yddh$

3 .

d!k$hEkNNNESl

,w .n, ... .

?Y,p[e 4.c s ,,acn L, m.,

q$ , a,y: k 7 l7wp l y

f. fh,Qb; N . . .

g q.,

~. w u . m m, $ Q W . .m p c., ,c & n. f ac.

. : 7.

- - p: q:,w. ' em :4. i

. ,..

;: :z.,  :;. p.i.p.y:g

.py s.;.ngyf sgy. . .ig ,;. gp. . . s. . . . .,,,:;p

, , i g. . , j,.

} ; i k . c; m>a m' _ _s ' * '

' . ~h  ! .,. e  ;. , ,

t,.:'..

m . , ,. s 4 ' .

.~,

~ t ? ; 7..Md = t. ':;)e,' ,,. . .L,'

. 2;. . . p. $;r.

_t ,.yn, .,y. _,

s. : .f;;;y , r,:;; , .,4 . e,. _~

v ;_ . L, 9, ,

.n f'

, ~, ~ , ,, , . n if_ ..'

.ikg)+y,t,nq .fg;,n .

x.

h.1 ' ~l;f::l

_l7:e e$m.l;,.

l:hy'UWhiR{,hln_

-wWewma ;g k .bf$h0lhlQ%M(l;f.Qh!hl , lgl[h gemmumm% ed @

ORIG iNAl_. h 6 /M T- 8 0 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

Title:

101ST ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) MEETING Docket No.: TR08 (AcNw)

RETURN ORIGINAL TO BJWHITE, ACRS T-2E26 Work Order No.: ASB-300-330 fdMKsf 1 Of LOCATION: Rockville,h1aryland DATE: Friday, June 12,1998 PAGES: 569 - 608 AV U LE 1-0123 4

PDR C[.

~

• 7 . , u k> ' ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.  !

1250 I Street, NW, Suite 300 ^ l g

0 ""*#5f"<3fe#"" '

ACNWOFRCECOPY- RETAIN FOR L, .THE UFE OF THE COMMUTEE 1

,r l

DISCLAIMER UNITED. STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S-

. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 1

JUNE 12, 1998:

The contents of this transcript of the proceeding-of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory.

1  %

(ss/ Committee on-Nuclear Waste, taken on June 12, 1998, as reported herein, is a record.of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.

This~ transcript had not been reviewed, corrected I and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.

.fe Af u

r

569 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 3 ***

'4 101ST ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON 5 NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) MEETING  ;

6 7 U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission 8 Two White Flint North, Room T2B-3 4

9 11545 Rockville Pike 10 Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 11 12 Friday, June 12, 1998 13' 14 The Committee met pursuant to notice at 8:40 a.m.

15 16 MEMBERS PRESENT:

17 B. JOHN GARRICK, Chairman, ACNW 18 GEORGE HORNBERGER, Member, ACNW 19 E. CHARLES FAIRHURST, Member, ACNW 1 20 RAYMOND G. WYMER, Member, ACNW 21 22 23 24-

~25 ,

() ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters ,

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014  !

Washington, D.C. 20036  !

(202) 842-00341 i,

570 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:

() 2 DR. ROGER STAEHLE 3 DR. JOSEPH B. PAYER 4 DR. CHRIS WHIPPLE 5 MARTIN STEINDLER 6 DR. MICHAEL APTED 7 DR. WILLIAM MURPHY 8 DR. JOONHONG AHN 9 DR. DAVID W. SHOESMITH 10 ANDREW C. CAMPBELL 11 DR. SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON 12 DR. BRETT LESLIE 13 14 fs

%,- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

.25

./%.

('~') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2 84 $ b3

w

.; '571 1 P R O C E E D I'N G S Ll ) 2 [8:40 a.m.]

31 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: We'll now go on1the record.

4~ MR. BEEDLE: Well, I certainly appreciate the l

'5 opportunity tottalk today to the ACNW today. In looking l6- over some material on ACNW, I note that.it was ten years ago 7- that the ACNW was created by'the Commission, so I know it's 7

Et happy anniversary or happy birthday, one of those two. 'But L 9 ten years of working and' advising the NRC in matters 110 associated with waste disposal from the nuclear operations 11' in'this. country, I think the need for that today is as great i

12 as it was when the committee was created ten years ago.

l 13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Some people didn't think it 14 would ever survive.

15 MR. BEEDLE: Well, I think in some respects, maybe L

16 the.need is more crucial at this' point in time than it was 17 ten years ago.

C18 - CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Ralph, just for the record, 19 maybe you should introduce yourself and your companion and

20. set the stage for this, because we just went on the record 21: with the commencement of your presentation and we need to 22 make it as. complete as we can.

23- MR. BEEDLE: Sure. I would like to start out by.

24 'giving.youfjust a brief overview.of NEI and my role in.the l

25. -NEI; organization, introduce Lynette Hendricks, who is my l

2

. ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.

' n(]'s Court Reporters l 11025' Connecticut Avenue,-NW, Suite 1014 P

^

Washington, D.C. 20036 L -

(202)' 842-0034-

572 1 director of plant support. Lynette has a group of three (n) 2 individuals that work for her. Ralph Anderson is one of 3= those, and I'm sure you're familiar with him. I think he 4 was up here with Mark Fratell, who is part of our

.5 international and deals with our waste issues.

6 Lynette is very capable and, in fact, at one time 7 worked with the NRC, worked in the NRC, and has been 8 involved in low-level waste issues, high-level waste things, l 9 radiation for some time, very knowledgeable, and I certainly 10 count on her expertise and advise in directing the 11 activities of that organization that she runs and giving me 12 suggestions, advice on how to proceed. So a very good group 13 of people we have there and Lynette is one of the key ones.

14 NEI is an industry organization, association, and O

k ,)

m 15 our purpose is to influence policy with regard to the 16 nuclear operations here in the United States and in the 17 international community as well. We have over 250 members, 18 and they are all organizational members. All of the l

19 utilities in the United States that operate. nuclear power 20 plants, the manufacturers of equipment for the power plants, 21 many of the consulting organizations that deal with power 22 plant operations, a large number of universities. Our 23 international. community includes electricity to France, l

24 Spanish utilities, Mexican utilities, a large. group of  ;

25 international consulting firms, I would have to refer to

<~w

( l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\#

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

573 1 them. So it's a fairly broad-based organizational

() 2 association that deals with all aspects and facets of the

-3 nuclear' operation.

4 We have within NEI a little less than 200 people.

5 We have a group of almost all professionals, there are very 6 ' direct entry. They are people that have had experience in 7 the industry, either directly related to power plant 8- operations, construction or maintenance, or in the 9 consulting area. So they're knowledgeable of the NRC 10 activities and the way the power plant operations are

'11 conducted.

12 My specific role,.if I may, is senior vice 13 president of the Nuclear Generation Organization within NEI, 14 and we deal with the technical issues. If you turn to page 15 2 on that handout, at the top, the nuclear generation 16 organization consists of six divisions: engineering, 17 licensing, operations, plant support, the organization that 18 Lynette runs, a programs group and then a regulatory reform i

19 strategy group. It's a group of two men that sit down and j 20 try and figure out how we can influence the NRC to be more i

21 effective in the regulatory process, at least from our point 22 of view.

23 The engineering licensing ops things I think are

24. pretty classic lines drawn along functional relationship 25 between'the' activities that are conducted within the nuclear A

(j ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.

. Court Reporters

-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202).842-0034

'574 1- power plants as well.as the NRC.

() 2 Page 2 at the bottom are some of the activities

'3 that we conduct >resu1~tiin these. things -- formal positions 4- on issues, we' develop guidelines. For example, a 5 maintenance rule' guideline was developed by NEI. We have.a-6- . guideline out on Year 2000 activities for our power plants,

7. :we've got a guideline on a variety-of topics, ranging from 8 -things like the_ Year 2000 safety conscious work environment, 9 5059freviews, FSAR updates and so:forth.

10 We periodically publish white papers where we try.

11 'and develop a consensus on the part of'the industry 12 representatives, and then we float that paper to a large 13 constituency, from NSSS' vendors to consultants to the NRC,

.14 ACRS. We're frequently up at~the.ACRS and trying to 15 -influence-their thinking. Land that's really what much of 16- NEI's activities in these products-are focused.on, is to get 17 people-to think about nuclear. power operations in a little

18. bit different way than they,would otherwise.

.19 At the top of page 3, just a sample of the active 20 issues that we're' involved with. ALWR -- we were very-121' active in trying.to bring together a consensus on how to-

"22 deal.with advanced lightwater reactor construction, L 23I development, design, so_forth, and that.was the principal

24 focus-for ourfinitial1 strategic plan that was-developed a

=

25- -; number of! years ago,:to try and set the stage for-the next a

n'

, Ms, :' . :6-

[(" LANNiRILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD.

Court' Reporters 1025 ConnecticutLAvenue, NW,. Suite.1014 p, Washington, D.C. 20036l P - (202 ) L 842-003.4 -

w a - n--.mA- .e ^ - - - - ~.--N-- ' u- - - - -

I 575 l

1 flight of nuclear power plant construction projects, and rx

( ,)

2 ~this May at our annual nuclear energy assembly, we issued a 3 kind of a close-out report on the activities of the 4 lightwater reactor program, the development program, 5 . recognizing that there was still work to be done. We were i 6 still working on the AP600 final design, authorization, so 7 forth. But we're moving along in that, and I think that the 8 progress we made with the GE program was very successful, 9 and we think that that set the stage for a utility to, with 10 confidence, go forward with the construction program when 11 the need is developed here within this country.

12 Decommissioning -- we're very active in trying to 13 influence the way our utilities think about decommissioning p_

14 as well as the NRC, and we'll talk about that a little bit (N- ') 15 later.

16 Dry cask storage license renewal is certainly a 17 big item for the industry. With the submission of the 18 Calvert Cliffs license renewal application, you know, it 19 just changes the while tone of the nuclear agenda within 20 this country. It has revitalized and rejuvenated the 21 thought proces ses that people have towards nuclear, and 22 we're trying to capitalize on that by building a 23 constituency that will support that license renewal process.

24 Low level waste disposal -- we'll talk about that 25 a little bit later -- plant shutdown issues, site clean-up

/~~N

• ~' )

( ANN _RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

576 1 and: steam generator integrity -- all these are active'

() 2 issues. These few are, you know, a small portion of the 3 roughly 80 to 90 active issues that.we have ongoing at any 4 one time within the nuclear generation group.

S The bottom of page.3 is the organization-chart for 6 'Lynette's organization. As I mentioned, Ralph Anderson is

7. one of our key advisors in the radiation area. Paul Genoa

8. is very active in low-level waste activities and Alan Nelson

'9 is our expert and I think our only expert in emergency plan.

He's the only individual in any of:the trade ill organizations / associations that has any credible experience

12 in dealing:with emergency plan activities, so he's called on

13. frequently to deal-with issues associated with that topic.

14- At-the top of page 4, I have listed some five 15 topics that I would like to talk about. In preparing for 16 this, we reviewed the ACNW's 1998 priorities, and in your 17 first and second tier priorities, we saw a lot of 18 commonality between the things that you are focused on and

-19 the things that NEI thinks are extremely significant to the 20 industry, and as a result, . we've devoted consid3rably j21 resources and time and effort to try and deal with and

-22 ' address those.

23L I think that the application of risk informed 24 . techniques and processes to all of these11ssues is the key

~25 to success. We continue and have for the last 20 years or

. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD.

Court Reporters

1025:: Connecticut Avenue,f NW; . Suite 1014

' Washington, D.C. 20036-nJ -(202) 842-0034

d 577 l

. - -. < i l '- .so tried to deal'with this' deterministic approach to things,

i 2 and all we do"is ad'd more and more and more.and more things

.3 to-the plate ofLthe' nuclear industry, and it, quite frankly, 4 -is_ going to put the industry out of business if we don't 5 tigure out or-sort-out the important from the trivial. Not'

6. only that, we--need to' deal with this risk informed in a

-. 7 fashion such that the-public can understand and appreciate 8 what the problems are.

I' l . 9 '- I'think we tend to deal -- perhaps it's because of.

l

.10 the scientific and engineering inclination of the people in l

11 the industry, we tend to deal with things in numbers. So, .

12 you know, when I 'tell my-mother, don't worry about it,'it's 13 probably a ten to the.minus six, she says, say what? If you 14 can measure it, it_can happen, and therefore I'm going to be 15 concerned about it.

16 So this is, you know, it's a public relations 17 problem, it's a challenge to communicate with people that-18 don't understand what ten to the minus one, let alone ten to 19 the minus six means,~and when you talk to my mom and my dad 20- and my brother, they don't know what ten to the minus 21 anything is, but they're convinced that because you can put 22 a number on it,.that it is real, and that you understand it 23_ -and you can control it, and if you can control it, it 24 shouldn't. happen,-I don't care what that number is. .

.25 Soiit's a, you'know, public relations risk.

JANN-RILEY &' ASSOCIATES,;LTD.

Court Reporters fl025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington,-.D.C. 20036

- (202); 842-0034 ,

--_. 'a_.(.__m .

1 578 1 Somehow we need to commun?.cate to the public what these risk

() 2 things mean. Now, you say, well, they live with risk all 3 the time, but they still don't understand it. We in the 1

l 4 nuclear industry, I think, have been extremely successful in 5 frightening them on a regular basis.

6 What I would like to do today is focus on these 7 five issues: dual regulation, waste classification issues 8 specifically directed at the Trojan program, low-level l

l 9 waste, some clearance of material, and then some dry cask 10 storage issues.

11 I understand we have just about 40 minutes, and so 12 I'll try and be brief, but if there are questions, please 13 interrupt me, I'll be glad to stop, and I probably won't be 14 able to answer the question, but I'm sure Lynette will.

ks 15 The first issue, dual regulation of the nuclear

, 16 facilities. There's no doubt in my mind that you're well 17 aware of the conflict between the NRC and the EPA over the j l

18 regulation of decommissioned facilities and establishing I 19 standards. It is, in my view, as much an issue of whose 20 number is right, and maybe even more an issue of who should 21 be setting the number, and that is -- you know, that creates l 22 all the ingredients for conflict.

23 There was a meeting in Annapolis, a by-invitation 24 meeting in Annapolis on Monday and Tuesday, and then again a 25 meeting yesterday here in White Flint, to try and bring i

i O)

( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\~

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.-20036 (202) 842-0034 l-

t 579 l' together the agencies that are dealing with radiation

( 2 exposure control.and so forth, and we hope that from that, 3 we'll end up with some reasonable standards and approaches 4 to this issue and resolve-the matter of dual regulation. So 5 that remains to be seen.

6 In the meantime, I think that if you take a look

7. at that proposal that was made a year or so ago,'we had over 8 7,000 comments on the exposure standards and so forth

9 associated with the decommissioning. We had scientific and 10 academic communities weigh in on that. The Environmental 11' Protection Agency hh: come out with a differing opinion on 12- those standards. We-have had licensees and environmental 13 groups that are all weighed in there.

14 The standards -- we feel that the NRC standard is

15 based on some sound science, and when we look for that same

-16 sound science in the EPA proposal, we find that it's not 17 there, it's more emotion and political than anything else.

18 So we would encourage the ACNW to continue to support the i

19 NRC in that and look for a scientific basis for it.

20~ The issue is -- you know, we're down at the 25 21- millirem, 15 millirem level. The concern we see and we fear 22 is that we will clean up a site under the rules of the NRC, 23 and then we'll end up having to go back and revalidate,

-24 remeasure, retest in order to satisfy the EPA.

25 Now, the threat.that they would put that site on I y

Jj:

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters.

1025 Connecticut-Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C 20036 (202). 842-0034

!-b';

u____l_________._____.___1_____-__a_----._._

580 1 the Superfund list appears to me to just totally miss the

() 2 ' point of the.Superfund list. Here you have a site that's 3 cleaned up, meets NRC standards, and they're putting it in 4 the list with the facilities in New Jersey where you've got-5 high chemical content, and you're telling me that we're 6 going to figure out'how to spend money on that nuclear plant 7 clean-up before we try and address a very significant health 8 r i s k a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c h e m i c a l d i s p o s a l ,: a n d I d o n ' t t h i n k 9 that that's going to happen.

10 So the net result is, you put them on the list and j

11 they sit there and they just percolate for years and years 12 while the EPA eventually gets around to doing something with 13 .it.

14 So, you know, I think it's a posturing measure on 15 the part of the EPA, but nonetheless, there's some potential 16 down sides to it in that they could put you on that list.

17 We think that the only solution to that is to 18 really develop a legislative fix, one that clearly points to 19 who is responsible for establishing those standards, and so 20 we would again encourage the ACNW to advise the NRC to 21 vigorously push for that kind of activity.

22 Now, that's not something that -- our observation 23 -is that the NRC is not inclined to deal with their~ problems 24 in the Congress, and so they need somebody to kind of help

, 25 them-along and show them how to do it. .

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

1

. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,-D.C. 20036.

i (202) 842-0034

l l 581 1 I think that is where the value of the people with

() 2 your experience and expertise come to play, to give them a 3 push in that direction, show them how to solve the trouble.

4 MR. LARSON: Ralph, isn't it true, though, that 5 most of the utilities, at least what I read in the trade 6 press is that even though the NRC limit is 25 and EPA is 7 talking 15, that like Maine and the others are saying, well, 8 we'll go to the 15 and obviate having a future problem with 9 decommissioning licensing? So while you're exhorting the 10 committee here to push for the 25, your own members are 11 going to the lower level.

12 MR. BEEDLE: Right.

13 MR. LARSON: Have there been any efforts in trying 14 to provide some guidance to them as to what they should do n/

\_ 15 or not do?

16 MR. BEEDLE: Well, coming in on Route 50 this 17 morning, my daily commute, we normally travel at about 70 18 miles an hour, and anybody that travels Route 50 knows that 19 that's really a 65-mile-an-hour limit in most areas. We 20 normally travel at 70, except when there's a police officer 21 present, and when the Maryland State trooper is sitting over 22 on the side of the road or driving with you, what do you 23 think our speed limit is? It's not 65, it's more like 60 24 and maybe 55.

25 MR. LARSON: I make the same ride.

O

( )- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,-D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

582 1 MR. BEEDLE: I beg your pardon?

2 MR. LARSON: I'm on the same route.

3 MR. BEEDLE: And you probably experience that same 4 sort-of phenomena. And our licensees are a lot like the 5 people that do all this commuting. -If the NRC, EPA are in a 6 conflict over who's going to set the standard, and it's an 7 issue of 15 and 25, the licensee is going to say, what is my 8 most probable path to succeed in the long run? And he says, 9 well, if I take the absolute most conservative, I get ten 10 miles below the speed limit, I know that the cop isn't going 11 to pick me up. That's not the rule, but I know he won't 12 pick me up. And in this case, the licensees are saying, I

~ 13 - 'can't afford to really hit right on the 25, and quite 14 honestly, that's not what they do anyway. They clean it all 15 up and then they go back and measure and verify it's below 16 25. Well, it's probably far less than that in most cases.

17 So they are taking a course that they think is prudent for 18 the long haul in the eventuality that the NRC doesn't win 19 out. So they're going to try and demonstrate through their 20 measurement process that they're below the 15 and meet that

.21 criteria as well.

22 That happens every day in a thousand situations,

.23 because when the NRC inspector comes in and says, Dr.

24 Garrick,7we think that you've got too much paper on your 25 desk there, you've exceeded --

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036

'(202) 842-0034

! 583 1 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I agree.

l() 2 [ Laughter.]

3 MR. BEEDLE: -- you've exceeded some waste 4 standard for that desk, and you look at it and say, hey, 5 that desk can hold that and ten times more, and he says, no, 6 I don't think so, and then you -- it all of a sudden dawns 7 on you that tomorrow, he's going to have an inspection team 8 in here, and you say, well, why should I take him on on this 9 issue and irritate him, create some adverse environment; 10 I'll just remove some of this paper and make him happy and 11 then the whole problem goes away.

12 So it's the same thing. Those rules are 13 operative. It's human reaction, I think.

14 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Well, isn't the real problem x_/ 15 here is that yielding to something like EPA preferred 16 numbers involves also demonstrating compliance with the 17 groundwater standard? And that's where it gets to be 18 extremely difficult, not that the standard that any other 19 agency, including the NRC, would come up with is not 20 protecting the groundwater standard; it's just being able to 21 demonstrate.

22 MR. BEEDLE: Right.

23 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: And so the question then is how 24 do you do that? And maybe you can't do it. So the whole 25 issue of waste facilities is compromised and confused and

,~

( ).

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

.1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 584 1 baffled.

O 2 MR. BEEDLE:

( j Oh , absolutely. I.could not' agree 3 more with that assessment of it.

4 MS. HENDRICKS: I think there are two more 5 concerns in this area. One is that the NRC tends to be a l 6 lot more literal in the compliance arena. I had Larry 7 Weinstock of EPA telling me recently that they had looked at 8 a given problem. He didn't say what the problem was. But 9 by the time -- NRC came up with a concentration limit 200 10 times lower than EPA and called it the same dose.

11 So our concern is, you know, we don't want the 12 worst of both worlds. We'll end up cleaning up to levels --

13 I don't know -- EPA, okay, NRC, okay. We don't want to be 14 overlaid with low risk goals that then we need to meet to s_/ 15 very, very literal stringent compliance.

16 The second quick point is, getting back to your I

17 point, Howard, EPA does not go away when the results are j 18 okay. NESHAPS is a good example of that. Tart is the 19 program that implemented the Clean Air Act amendments. The 20 risk target or the goal they set under NESHAPS was ten 21 millirems. They came over to NRC and said, you don't have a 22 separate air limit, and they did a study, and sure enough,  !

23 98 percent of the licensees of interest, which were i

24 non-reactor licensees, already were under the ten millirem.

25 EPA said, this is phenomenal, that's better compliance than 1

I fg l 3'~ ~') l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.  ;

Court Reporters i

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 '

(202) 842-0034

585 1 we see with any of our programs. And so we assumed they

( ) 2 would walk away. But no. The Clean Air Act was amended to 3 tell them, you don't have to. regulate. They still didn't 4 walk away. The end result was we wasted our resources --

5 ours meaning regulators and the licensees -- implementing a 6 constraint for Part 20 and it was actually the less of two 7 evils, because the alternative would have been to have 8 demonstrated compliance to ten millirem under completely 9 different systems. EPA uses Prestopop, which is a very 10 simple code, which nonetheless, even though we've got 11 something that's more technically supportable and j

12 complicated, you can get a different result. i 13 So that's kind of -- the devil is in the details 14 with dual regulation.  !

O

(/ 15 MR. BEEDLE: At the top of page 6, there's a 16 little table that shows some of the radiation exposures that 17 -- I think you have all seen tables of this sort. I mean, 18 this is real. I mean, it's not something we invented or 19 some theoretical exposure that people get. They are 20 measurable. You fly on a trip from DCA to LA and you're 21 going to get five millirem exposure, something of that 22 order. Chest X-rays, a good ten or more. If you live in 23 Denver, it's about 360 millirem a year that you're being 24 exposed to.

25 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: So when do you think Denver

/N

!) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 g Washington, D.C. 20036 H (202) 842-0034 L_--_________-______________-__-_____-.

586 1 will be' condemned?

2- (Laughter.]

v.

'3- MR. BEEDLE: Well, you know, it's interesting you

'4 should ask that. .At the bottom of page 6,.we have got_the 5 future in your hands right there, the' headline.that says

-6. we're going to have to evacuate Denver,.and, you know, it 7- .really;is an interesting phenomena where we're concerned 8' about two millirem from a nuclear power plant, yet1we're

~

9 -willing to live in'an environment where you get'360 and-11 0 nobody. worries about it at all.

E11 DR. WYMER: This is written in Latin.

12 [ Laughter.]

13 . MR. BEEDLE: So, you know,.when we look at this 15 14 millirem standard tart the EPA is pushing and the 25 l[ 15 millirem, I mean, I think they're all so far down in the mud 1

16 that, you know, we just don't have any balance in this risk 17 issue, and tart's why I think the risk and where-it' lies, 18 how it's portrayed, how it's described, becomes a major 19 issue and challenge for not only NRC, but the nuclear 20 utilities t'o deal with. j 21 Now, I'm not saying that the NRC is the one that

~22 is. responsible for this general public -- I mean,'our 23 . utilities ~are their own worst enemies, too. I mean, for

.24 years,Lthey.have taken~the view to keep your name out of the 2 5.- headlines, and_as a result, the only time you end up in the

' ANN RILEY &l ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-Court Reporters;

1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1 1014 3

. Washington, D.C. 20036.  !

'^; (202)?842-0034 i er_ _- -- _ _ . _ - _ _ _ - _

587 1 headline is when you have done something dumb and, you know, (A) 2' the NRC is on your case and it becomes a public issue.

3 I think for those utilities tart have had and 4 experienced good relationships with the public, it's because 5 they are out there in the public domain all the time, their 6 representatives of the company are participants in the

'7 political process, they're participants in public 8 activities, they're always in the newspaper showing the good 9 things tart they do. BG&E just recently was in the paper --

10 those of you down in the Cal'.srt County area -- for helping 11 out the Coast Guard. You know, those things do a lot to 12 demonstrate that those facilities are part of the community, 13 they're not something set apart and something to be feared 14 or threatening in nature.

(m-) 15 So the population of Denver -- and I think we 16 would end up having to evacuate the whole state of Maine and 17 New Hampshire, too. You know, that's -- I lived up in New 18 York and worked for the New York Power Authority for a 19 number of years, and I was always struck by the appeal that 20 Governor Cuomo's charge that you can't evacuate Long Island, 21 and everybody said, wow, if you can't evacuate Long Island, 22 tart means Shoreham is really not a good plant to have on 23' Long Island because you can't evacuate Long Island. And I 24 agree, you would never be able to evacuate Long Island, but 25 then nobody ever seem to ask the question about, why would f

Q ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

7, i

[ 588

[ 1 you ever want to and what is the risk?

But why can't we 2 evacuate Long. Island-became a real major problem and a 3 ' stumbling block, and became-that'real charged' political 4' atmosphere that caused the. demise of.Shoreham. Now, there 5 were other-things that went into it, but, I mean, that.was 6 .one of the principal ones.

They got everybody excited over

'7 i t ', '

.8 At the top of page 7, if we'could turn to the 9 second of'the five key issues, disposal of the Trojan 10- reactor vessel. We have a book that we will leave with you, 11 Dr. Garrick, to at least give you some more background on 12 Troj an . I don't know whether your committee has been 13 briefed on the Trojan proposal. It deals with taking the 14 reactor vessel intact and shipping it up to the Hanford for 15- disposal.

16 Are you familiar with that?

17 DR. HORNBERGER: We're familiar with it. We 18 haven't'been briefed on it.

19 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: We are familiar with it, yes.

20 MR.'BEEDLE: I think it is a good example of where 21 the utility, in looking at past practices in the industry 22 and within the nuclear industry as whole with the United i

23 -States, has looked at the way the,U.S. Navy has dealt with 24: .the shipment of high level waste. The Nasj core is packaged 25 ~ intact, or the vessel,:and all that greater than Class C

-ANN RILEY~& ASSOCIATES,. LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut. Avenue,- NW, Suite 1014 -

-Washington,.D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034-

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

7.

589 1- material issbundled.in there,1they average it and take it.up (f 2: to Hanford and bury it. It is a process issue.

3 We have been -- or I should Trojan has had.before 4 the. commission a request to approve the shipment of their

.5; vessel. intact for.well over a year, and we still are no 6 close to getting that out of the staff than we were a year 7 ago. .o, S you know, I look at that, and I say there's 8 something wrong with.our ability to deal with scientific 9 information in a reasonable fashion.

10 And I think, quite frankly, it's a matter of 11 figuring out who else in the bureaucratic process has to 12 , pass judgment on it, and when we send it to their desk and 13 then we sit around and say it's not problem, we have got to 14 wait for the State of Washington, we have got to wait for a I

15- contractor, we have got to wait for somebody else to do 16 something, so I absolve myself and my office of any 17 responsibility for doing things because I managed to send it 18 somebody else.

19 So this is one that makes sense. It is worth 20 about 70 man rem and about $14 million. I think that's' 21 significant. I think it's very significant. And yet we 22 haven't figured out how to deal with that. One that I would 23 encourage you to take a look at and provide some advise and 24 -counsel.

'25- I-think-the DOE's issue on greater than Class C ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

LCourt Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,. D.C. 20036' L (202) 842-0034' l: ,

l

______-_-_____a

I i

)

590 1 waste also helps contribute to these things, because we

() 2 don't have a convenient way to dispose.of and deal with the 3 materials, so we try and look for ways to solve some of 4 these problems, and that's, in part, one of the driving 5 factors'in this. Here, again, a risk-informed assessment 6 view and application of those techniques to these problems I 7 .think would help shed some light on it.

l 8 I was struck by the'1etter that the committee sent 9 to Chairman Jackson, I believe it was in early March, that l 10 talked about risk-informed and asking the three questions.

11 You know, is it likely? What are the consequences? And 12 what is the scenario that will take place? And those three 13 questions, I think, are the ones that we tend to overlook.

14 We postulate some. scenario'that would show some disaster or ,

r' l

'k- 15 some event that is unacceptable and then we kind of key on 16 that and we never ask whether it falls in the realm of 17 possibility.

18 I live in fear one of these days we will wake up 19 and Sn3 will have a generic letter that says you have to 20 design your plant for a loss of gravity accident. Now, is 21 loss of gravity something that would have a profound effect 22 on this nation? I think the answer is yes. Dire 23 - consequence. We couldn't survive with that event. Well, j 24 .does that mean we got to run off and put straps around 25 everything to hold us down to the Earth? I don't think so.

l i

D

.jj ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue,RNW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.' 20036

-(202) 842-0034

i 591 1 Sometimes these situations that we have to deal

() .2 with fall in that same category, at least in my mind, from a 3L probability of occurrence standpoint.

4 At the bottom of page 8, the third item is the low 5 level radioactive waste. 'We have provided you with a copy 6 of " Nuclear Energy 200 and Beyond" and one of the -- we have 7 kind of made compass points out of the various elements in 8 -this strategy. And on the inside cover we have these 9 compass points. The one down here on the lower righthand 1

10 side talks about low leve] waste. And our objective here is 11 to try and deal with low level waste in a managed fashion, 12 in a logical fashion.

13 I would tell you that low level waste is not a i 14 crucial issue, it is not a safety issue for that plant,

. 15 power plant. I think it is a major issue for bio-medicine, 16 hospitals and so.forth. If push comes to shove and the 17 nuclear utility cannot dispose of his waste, or at least 18 ship his waste off-site, his alternative is to built a 19 building on the site and store the material on-site. I mean 20 that is what they have been doing for years.

21 I would not like to see any of the current low 22 level waste disposal facilities closed, but if they did, it 23 wouldn't be a crisis for the nuclear utility. I'll tell you l

24 what it does do though, it creates so much uncertainty in 25 the minds'of the public because they seen the end process,

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

.. - _ _ _ - ___-_ - _ -.__ _ -. _ _ - _-_-__ _ -_ . - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ .__ -_= --

592 l' disposal' of the material, storage of the material as a key l

-f( ) ~ 2- element'. You'know, we hear -- frequently hear the plea, 3 don't generate any more unless you kncw how you are going to

'4 dispose of it.

5 And.I think that makes sense. We really ought to 6 know how we'are doing it, how we'are going to dispose of it, 7 . where it is going to ultimately be placed. But it's not --

8 -it's not something that.affects the safety of the public at 9 this point in time. It's almost a business decision more 10 than anything else.

11 'Our objectives, as outlined in this strategic 12 ~ plan, are to maintain the existing capability and capacity 13 for low level' waste disposal, to promote viable new 14 capacity, and, more importantly, to create an environment O

k/ m .15 .where there is some competition.

16 The Barnwell facility is a fairly high cost 17 . facility, and it's not high cost because there's high 18 technology involved in burying things. It's high cost 19 -because they are the only game in town and the state 20 . recognizes that and imposes a fairly sizable tax on that 21' operation. If you want to know more about tax in South 22 Carolina, I'll be glad to talk to you about that. I know 23 more about'it chan I ever wanted to. But it is a ,

i 24 significant issue for the nuclear utility. l 25 And so this third issue of trying to foster some e /s . .i

( )- ANN RILEY-&. ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters- I

-1025: Connecticut Avenue,3D7, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034

- i m_m

593 1 -. . competition is one that we spend a-lot of time trying to

( 2 figure outthow we can create an environment where 3 competition becomes --

4 DR. HORNBERGER: You mean all the state compacts 5 aren't competing?

6 MR. BEEDLE: Oh , I wish they were. I wish they 7 were. I wish we had two of them competing.

8 Until we are able to create, I think, multiple 9 site, competitive pressures, I think we are going to see 10 ourselves get slowly priced out of-this business. We are

11 going to have to figure out some other way to deal with it.

12 The NRC has recently issued some decommissioning

-13 estimate requirements for the utilities. And it's an 14 interesting situation because the price for disposal at 15 Barnwell becomes the key factor in determining your overall 16 decommissioning cost. So we are going to see utilities go 17 from a decommissioning cost estimate of $150 million to 18 close to $400 million, all based on the disposal cost. And 19 it's one.of those things where you say you have got to 20 dispose of all this material,'it costs this much, therefore, 21 that gets reflected as a multiplier through the other three.

22 areas in the decommissioning cost estimate process.

23 We have talked to the Commissioners about that and 24 .said you need to go back and take a look at what you are 25 lasking the utilities to do, because what is going to happen l

l

. ,, g .

l\~') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court. Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.'20036

. (202).842-0034 l

l I

594 1 is utilities will have to report these decommissioning fund l

(q / '2 values to the Commission,.and once you put the_ utility in'a 3 position where he has got to report, he is going to sit down l 4 and try and get this thing down to the penny, because he 5 knows that how the NRC inspector is going to look at it.

6 And as a. result of that, he is going to come in with a whole 7 series of exemptions because of the change in the rule that 8 got him in a position where he had insufficient funds.

l 9 So it is another area -- you know, waste disposal 10 is the issue that is driving this train. So while it may 11 not be a crucial issue for the operation of the plant today, 11 2 it has ramifications far beyond the boundaries at the plant.

13 It goes into the board room and the financial community. It 14 affects the, you know, silly things like having to go out 15 and get an exemption because of cost estimate on 16 decommissioning.

17 The NRC's role in this, you could say, well, the 18 NRC is just going to sit back and monitor what the states 19 do. But I think the NRC sets the tone, they set the --

20 almost set the agenda for the states and how the states are 21- going to react and deal with some of these problems. And in 22 a more subtle fashion, every time they have a Connecticut 23 Yankee event where we had a few atoms founds somewhere 1

24 outside the fence and we make a major issue out of that, 25 that causes states to' question whether or not they ought to

-l A

i ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

~'

Court. Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

-595

'1 have a low level waste disposal in their back yard. And so, i ) 2 you know, alnost everything you do, every. day, influences 3 the way people around you behave, think and view your 4 operation. And we need to be very deliberate and thoughtful 5 about how those public interactions take place.

6 The solution to the problem,_though, is to have 7 reasonable disposal processes established and eliminatefmuch 8 of the ambiguity that we currently have with regard to this 9 issue. The ambiguity I am talking about is a 10 decommissioning plant finds themselves in a position where 11 they'can not have one atom outside their' control, yet,-when 12 they were operating, they could ship material off to a 3 13 consolidating facility, have it incinerated. They have got 14 waste streams that are well within regulatory limits. And 15 so you see this. change in focus that was applied when you 16 are operating to a decommissioning mode. And all it does is 17 cause delay and increase in cost.

i

18. Now, the.NRC hasn't been idle in this. I think j 19- Chairman Jackson's letter to the Interior Secretary several 20 months ago that talked about the challenges on Ward Valley, 21 you know, it was a good letter. It put Babbitt on notice 22 that he is using wrong information, incorrect information, 23 . ascribing to the NRC things that the NRC didn't say or 24 contribute to.

25 She sent letters to Congress that has addressed ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporter:

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ,

I 596 1- the issue'of the: Texas compact effort in talking about.the l( ) 2 various amendments that were.being, you know, the-effort to 3 try and tack those amendments on to that bill, saying that-4 that really was putting them in'a disadvantaged position.

5 And.it was a requirement that would have been levied on 6 Texas, and the two, Maine'and Vermont, that were not levied

'7 on any other compacts. So, you know,.she is looking for 8 'some equal treatment in that, and I thought that the letter 9 helped punctuate the need to move on with that legislation 10 and not adulterate the legislation with some frivolous 11 requirements.

l l

12 I think those kinds of letters really do a lot to 13 set the record straight. Now, it's one thing to send the 14 letter, but I think you need to back it up with some 15' interaction with the Commission, Commissioners and the I 16- members of' Congress. These letters go into the members of 17 Congress' desk and they get reviewed by a staffer and if the 18 staffer doesn't think they are particularly important, they 19 ' sort of sit there. So, you know, send the letter is the 20 'first step. Getting it out into the public domain is an 21 important thing. That's what those members of Congress 22 react to.

23 So when you -- as you consider this thing, I think 24- .maybe 1 a holistic approach and recommendation, knowing how 25' 'theLpolitical process works, needs.to be something that.is I

';(\,(

-ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD. .*

Court Reporters-1025 Connecticut Avenue,-NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036

.(202) 842-0034 1

I 597

~

1 , factored into your recommendations as you' deliberate'on 2 'these' topics.

3 The issues-in Texas that I, mentioned on those .i

'4 amendments to the bill, one.was restricting'the authority of 5 the state over who could dispose of material at that site,.

'6 and then the other'one was the' requirement to deal with 7 environmental justice issues at the. site. And I am sure you 8: are'all familiar with the LAS decisions that have been made 9 that focused on environmental justice and how that-10 . environmental justice issue is slowly working its way into-a

'11 lot of the administrative processing that goes on in the 12 federal government. And it is something that could just. 1 13 bring an absolute halt to any major construction in this-14 country, whether it is -- I think this new highway bill, if

-s 0 15 they want to put any new highways in, environmental justice

.16 is going to be an obstacle that they have got to figure out 17 how to overcome.

18 So as you look at the whole picture of 19 legislation, regulation, how these other federal mandates, 20 how the Executive Branch thought processes play on this

-21 thing becomes, I think, a very important element of it. And 22 it's -- you know, you almost have to' sit and develop a j 23 strategy on how to address some of these very technical 24 issues.

'25 You know that very, very, very famous analyst, L.D -l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

. Court Reporters j

~1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington,-D.C.'20036 ,

(202);842-0034 j h

L__ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _

598 1- Yogi Berra, in referring to baseball, said. baseball is 90 (Oj- '2 ~ percent' mental and'the other half is physical. Well, in 3 .this game we are playing, 90 percent is' political and the 4 other half is technical. And far more times than not, the 5 technical issues'get buried in some absolutely obscure 6 political issues.

7 So should ACNW be involved in political activity?

8 Well, I am not saying you ought to go out and challenge the 9 President for the next re-election campaign. But then, t 11'O the other hand, maybe you should. But I do think that those il factors need to be dealt with as you sit and look at the 12 technical issues, and you have got to kind of forecast the 13 technical issue roadblocks that are created in this 14 political environment that we live in.

[)

i s- 15 That was not a paid public or political l

i 16 announcement there. )

17 Let me move on. Another area in this low level {

18 . waste that is I think kind of bubbling below the surface, or 1

19 maybe not too far below the surface is the Envirocare i i

20 situation out in Clive, Utah. This is one where there is a

.21. mix of political issues, maybe some legal Department of 22 Justice kind of issues, and the technical issues. And, here 23 again, we get these all mixed up. We want to make technical

.24' decisions based on what we think are moral issues, and that 25 just totally confuses the picture, I think.

ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.

i

. Court' Reporters 10251 Connecticut 7. venue,.NW, Suite 1014

' Washington, D.C. 20036 j' (202) 842-0034 f.

599~

1 The bottom of slide 10 talks about ways that the

,m

(,) 2 NRC could possibly help in this low level waste area. One 3 is to maybe use the DOE in low level waste disposal. When 4 you take a look at the DOE's capability to store low level

~

5 waste, it's tremendous. I mean it could take every bit of 6 low level waste, the nuclear, the commercial nuclear 7 industry could generate. We are down here fiddling around 8 with Barnwell with limited capacity. Barnwell cannot take 9 all the waste that the nuclear utilities can generate. DOE, 10 on the other hand, has got an enormous capacity.

11 Yet, somehow we have managed to draw a line 12 between these nuclides. Now, when I went through college 13 and this part of chart of nuclides up on the wall, nobody 14 said that this is a commercial and that's a DOE nuclide.

O

\,sl 15 Thht this is a blue one and that is a red one. But that's 16 what we have done in our political arena. We have drawn a 17 line and we have said this nuclide is good and this nuclide 18 is bad. Or this one can be stored there, but that one 19 can't. And as far as I recall, the laws of physics applied 20 to both nuclides equally, they had the same atomic numbers 21 and all those good things that made them nuclides. So I 22 don't know how anybody told the difference. But we have 23 managed to label them and we say you can't do it.

24 So I think one of the things, this country needs 25 to deal with nuclear waste in a very rational manner.

1

\

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

600 1 MS. HENDRICKS: Another reason that makes more n

'( 2 sense than it may sound initially is DOE has tremendous 3 capacity and the problem on the commercial side is you need 4 a few. sites for competition and for predictable access, but 5 if you get too many, the economics just go down the --

6 whatever. It will be like mixed waste. I mean the volumes 7 are very small. I get calls oftentimes from consortiums, 8 states, whatever, that are interested in taking low level 9 waste, and they are not impressed at all when they hear 10 about our volumes. They kind of get interested looking at 11 DOE's volumes.

12 So there's a lot more than just -- there's a lot 13 of economics that suggests that -- going with the DOE. I

, 14 mean we need to go -- that's part of the reason Envirocare k_/ 15 is so successful, because it's a DOE site. We are a small 16 part of, a tiny part of the volumes that go there. So, for 17 economics, we need to be together.

18 MR. BEEDLE: You know, there's another example of l 19 this, and that's with the Barnwell facility. The nuclear 20 operator who operates that facility is a smaller component 21 of a larger waste disposal organization. That larger 22 disposal organization is making a lot of money collecting j l

23 bottles, cans and pop tops. I mean it's just money, big 24 money. The nuclear component as a contributor to their 25 bottom line is trivial, yet it demands a lot of their D

i,

). ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

601 1 attention. It's one of those issues where the return on

() 2 investment on time and concern and worry is almost not worth

3. it.

~4 CEAIRMAN GARRICK: Ralph and Lynnette, I want to 5 say that the committee appreciates this kind of feedback and 6 input and we.need it, as does the NRC, because it is a 7 continuing reminder of the real world. And I know we are 8 about five minutes late in getting you on, but we do have to 9 move-on to our agenda. And I think, therefore,'if you can 10 wrap it up in about five minutes, we'll give you back you 11 five minutes.

12 MR. BEEDLE: Okay. Great.

13 MS. HENDRICKS: Thanks.

14 MR. BEEDLE: Let me go to the bottom of the slide 15 11, I'll talk about clearance material. This is becoming a J

16 more and more important issue as we get into the 17 decommissioning areas, and that somehow we have got to lift 18 this even one atom' restriction on material disposal and 19 removal from the site. It's one that is going to cost us 20 dearly if we can't figure out how to rationally approach 21 disposal of the materials on-site.

22 And, here again, it's -- I think a risk-based l

23- approach to this makes an awful lot of sense to try and put 24 .these thinga in perspective. l 25- The last item on the top of page 13 is dry cast  !

l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters )

q 1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW,' Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 -)

'(202) 842-0034-u-----__ _ _ = - - i

602 l' for the spent fuel. 'This is another one, at an ANS meeting

() 2 'n' Nashville, Monday and Tuesday of this week,. they had a i 1 3 session on' decommissioning activities, and the utility put-4 the timeline up there for the decommissioning process, and 5 it has'got the year 2000 to start. I mean they are planning 6 all of it now, and they are physically going ~to start 7 decommissioning on the year 2000, and would you take --

8 venture a guess as to when they think they will be finished?

l l 9 I mean they have got.it out at 2035.

l 10 We are going to take almost four times longer to 11~ decommission the plant than it took to build it.

12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.

13 MR. BEEDLE: If then. If then. The dry cast is 14 one that is not only a decommissioning issue, but it is 15 rapidly becoming an operational issue. We have got a couple 16 of plants today that are measuring the hour by hour

17. development of the NRC's certification approval process and 18 then the. construction process by the vendors to get a cast 19 in time to prevent them.from having to shut the plant down.

20 That's where we are.

l 21 And when that happens it is going to be a sad day 22 for.all of us because it just points to the inability of our 23 processes to deal with things in an' expedient and efficient L .

l 24 manner.

25 The. bottom of.page 13, just to give you a i

l l J/~Ni .

j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

N' i

Court Reporters t 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 t

Washington, D.C. 20036' i (202) 842-0034 L

_____.________--_-_____-______-__-_-_-___.___-__O

603 L 1 dimension of the problem, 25. plants will lose that full core I Or' l ( ,)\ 2 offload in the year 2000. Now some of these plants will be t

3 able to do some reracking. Some of them may be able to ship ]

l 4' material from one of their sites to another. There's some j 5 of that that takes place today, but we have got 25 that are 6 going to be in that full core offload limit capability.

7 By the year 2008 we will have 45 plants, so in 8 eight years you almost double the number of plants that are 9 at risk on this storage issue and obviously it is an issue 10 for the decommissioned plants. )

i 11 An ambitious licensing goal process for the cast I 12 think is one of the elements that needs to be brought into 13 play and we have had a lot of discussion with Charlie 14 Haughney and Bill Kane and the folks in that area and they 1 0 i 7

\_ 15 assure us they are going to manage this process and make it 16 run smoothly and we'll see if we can't provide some 17 assistance. We have been working with our members to try to 18 get them to focus on the need for advanced planning, to get 19 involved in the cast storage and take an active role in the 20 design and construction process. They are not buying 21 trashcans to store trash on the South 40. They are buying 22 an engineered storage system for the control and 23 habitability of spent fuel, and until you recognize that you 24 tend to treat this trashcan that you are building like you 25 are buying something from K-Mart and ycu are not. You are

,m ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

1 l

607 1 Environment.was in a very difficult position though. ,

() 2 LMR . BEEDLE: Well, you know, I think we are 3 . dealing --

4 MR. FAIRHURST: 'Got in on the agreement and had to 5 defend France's position.

6 MR. BEEDLE: Well, you are dealing with a public 7 that when they turn the light switch on they want the 8 electricity.

9 MR. FAIRHURST: Sure.

10. MR. BEEDLE: .They don't care where it comes from, 11 whether it is nuclear or coal or whatever, and they have 12 been fed a fairly steady diet of we can get all the energy 13 we need from solar panels and biomass and geysers and things 14 of that sort and they say, well, instead of taking the risk O

(m l 15 on this nuclear, why don't you just build another solar 16 panel. They don't recognize that wind and solar have got 17- some major limitations -- you know, just plain old power

18. density at one of those stations is trivial compared to the 19 base load coal or nuclear plant.

20 You say well, it is an education of the public and 21 I agree that in part is one of the issues that you deal 22 with, but I am'not sure you are ever going to be successful 23 .in educating the public.

24- I think you can educate the political leaders and

.25 ifLyou can~get the political leaders to agree that this is

,-~.

i\y- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.

Court Reporters-

'1025 Connecticut l Avenue, NW," Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 0

(202)~842-0034

608 1- the right way -- if the White House said nuclear is-

'm I) 2 important,.it would change the whole dynamics in this 3 -environment'we' live in, but as long as the White House 4- ' ignores the word nuclear we are going to continue to 5 struggle to get some visibility.

6 The best thing that happened to us was Senator 7 -Domenici saying nuclear is important,; and so that really is 8 'I think the' answer to that thing, to get our political 9 leaders to understand the issues.

10 Thank you very much, sir.

11 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you very much.

12 I think that we will move back into our letter 13 preparation mode, but let's go off the record now and take a 14 five-minute, a short break, okay?

15 [Whereupon, at.9:40 a.m., the meeting was 16 concluded.)

17 18 19-20-

-21 22 23 l 24 25 O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

4' J Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~

604 1 ~ buying an engineering storage facility.

() .' 2 '

When'we have that relook at it and that kind of

, '3. , focus.weiget pretty good products.

4- The other thing -- the NRC can really improve this 5; through' increased communications'with"the industry, the L

6 vendors and the fabricators and I think that that is going 7 to.come to fore here very soon. We have'been working with 8 Charlie Haughney to develop'a. workshop. This would be an 9- NEI sponsored workshop. This will be our third workshop on 10 'this topic. We'll have one here soon to try and this time L 11 get--vendors more involved in the thing.

L 12 We do that frequent 1y' . We.have workshops on a 13 variety of topics to try to get some focused attention on 14- it.

. 15 -On the top of page 15 I do think that the Advisory 16- Committee on Nuclear Waste is an essential ingredient to 1

17 help keep focus. The Commission and the Staff has got b 18 thousands of things they deal with and I think you gentlemen  ;

19 provide that focal point that can keep the level of interest 20 high.on the Commission's agenda and I think it is really-

[ 21 -important that that take place on a regular basis.

22- I applaud your effort and certainly appreciate the  ;

y 23- opportunity to'come talk to you. I am sorry that I didn't ,

E

! H24 talkEfaster.

25l CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Well, no, that's fine. I think

)

l

, ' ANN RILEY &; ASSOCIATES,.LTD.

~

^'^1 '

Court Reporters 11025 Connecticut' Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,nD.C. 20036-L ' (202) ~ 842-0034 7

e

l.

605 1 if you review the committee's letters of the last two years

() 2 on this issue of risk and adopting a risk-informed approach, 3 you will find that our positions have been pretty outspoken 4 'and strong in support of moving in that direction.

5 We appreciate --

6 MR. BEEDLE: I do recognize that and encourage you 7 to do more.

8 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: We appreciate your coming by.

9 We always learn something from it and we look forward to 10 seeing you again.

11 MR. BEEDLE: Thank you very much, sir.

12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.

13 MR. FAIRHURST: Could I just ask a question.

14 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes, sure.

p'x ,/

m 15 MR. FAIRHURST: The kind of issues that you are 16 rs: sing, which we are all aware of, the public perceptions 17 or nuclear whatever, it is assuming increasing proportions 18 in every country that is dealing with that and I was 19 wondering how much interaction there is, because everybody 20 is facing that problem -- the Canadians, the Swedes.

21 Do you have a dialogue with those people as to how l 22 they are going to deal with it?

23 MR. BEEDLE: We have a number of our members that 24 are in the international community.

25 One I have been very involved with is the

'-} ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

606 1 Japanese. We meet with them about once a quarter. We talk

\

D Q 2- 'through some of the issues. We are seeing in Japan the 3 development of some public interactions that occurred in 4 this country in the early-'70s and they are starting to l 5- recognize that that is an issue that they have to deal with i

6 and their outreach to the political leadership'around the 7 communities or around their plant has not been all that l 8 great, and they are starting to recognize the value of that.

-9 MR. FAIRHURST:

I am thinking perhaps most 10 particularly about the recent Seaborn report and the

, 11 Canadians where the decision or the statement was you have 12 demonstrated the technical feasibility of waste isolation 13 but you have not demonstrated its social feasibility, and 14 now it's your job to go' out and convince the public. )

r,

' j 15 MR. BEEDLE: Yes. 4 16 MR. FAIRHURST: Which has thrown the ACL for a 17 loop.

18 MR. BEEDLE: Yes.

19- MS. HENDRICKS: I think the Kyoto conference 20 galvanized industry getting together more politically and we 21 are very optimistic about their forum and I feel stupid -- I 22 can't remember the name of it -- that is being put together 23 and hopefully that will be a good -- dealing with the clean l

.24 . air benefit..

25 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes. The French Minister of the t

(Y J ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\~' ' Court Reporters 1025~ Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 4 b3 1

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached' proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in_

' the matter of:

NAME OF PROCEEDING: 101ST ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)

DOCKET NUMBER:

I PLACE.OF' PROCEEDING: Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

l (YWc (MW Mark Mahoney Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

s u

h__ma -__ .___mm m . _ _ _ _ __m-__ a.__ .2__u__.__--m_ _-__ -~uu _. - _

L O

Briefing for ACNW Ralph E. Beedle Senior Vice President & CNO Nuclear Energy Institute June 12,1998 O

NEl's Nuclear Generation Division . . .

E Comprehensive management and policy direction Industry coordination O

1 .-

O Six Departments

• Engineering

• Licensing Operations

• Plant Support

• Programs

• Regulatory Reform & Strategy i

O Work Products

• Formalindustry position or policy

. Guidelines

• White papers

• Issue summaries

• Industry comments to federal agencies O

2

O Sample Active issues a a e a e a e a a a

• ALWR regulation

• Decommissioning

• Dry cask storage

• License renewal

• Low-level waste disposal

• Shutdown plant issues

• Site cleanup and restoration criteria

• Steam generator integrity O

Plant Support Department )

l Lynnette Hendricks Director 1

I l l Ralph Andersen Paul Genoa Alan Nelson l J

Sr. Project Mgr. Sr. Project Mgr. Sr. Project Mgr.

O 3

e O

Five Key issues

• Dual regulation of nuclear facilities

• Disposal of Trojan reactor vessel

• Low-level radioactive waste

• Clearance of materials

• Dry Casks for Spent Fuel O

Five Key issues

• Dual regulation of nuclear facilities Disposal of Trojan reactor vessel Low-level radioactive waste Clearance of certain materials ,

Dry casks for spent fuel I

O 4 ._

O NRC 1996 Standards . . .

Four years of development and more than 7,000 comments from:

1

{

. Scientific and academic communities i

• Environmental Protection Agency State, tribal and local governments

• Environmental groups

• NRC licensees O

EPA Standards . . .

. . . based on what?

No comments solicited from public

• No comments solicited from NRC licensees No involvement by scientific and l ,

academic communities  !

O.

l l

l l

)

_ __ a

4 O

Typical Radiation Doses

-Living near a nuclear plant 0.1

-Watching television 0.15

-Flying round trip, DC to LA 5

-Chest X-ray 10

-Full set of dental X-rays 40

-Living in DC 300

-Living in Denver 360 O'

Headlines of the Future?

m a s e e a e a a m

, , . ~ . - - . _- ~.

l l City of Denver Condemned

, Residents Seek Lower Grow 2d

-- ~

, _ , , , _ , , , , 3

~ ~~

, = U.S; Flights ~ _ i

~~

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . et=~e . -j cimmedli=kmWhbEmms,arfM"

, empoGnosBursbhiges <

i eso ses ames m ammes psamen e m en a huesset temme one f W A8 til WhqB-_2 4

O 6

O Five Key issues Dual regulation of nuclear facilities

• Disposal of Trojan reactor vessel Low-level radioactive waste Clearance of certain materials Dry casks for spent nuclear fuel O

Risk-Informed Reactor Vessel Disposal Shipping the vessel with internals intact is the smart thing to do:

• Averts 70 rem of real dose to real workers by not cutting up the internals

• Saves $14 million

• Avoids creating " orphan" waste

. Follows long-standing Navy practice

.O 7

O The Current Situation . . .

NRC staffis reinventing policy on concentration .

rm;7:p; averaging L;. %,;. 3 Significant delays in ga..cnir

,n @a ,

decommissioning j R .(E

.,- - yf ....;g..,

a/T:g.-

yg .

. ) > i; ; i ! t y' , g , .

u .. _ . . . xa -

C O,

Five Key issues Dual regulation of nuclear facilities Disposal of Trojan reactor vessel

. Low-level radioactive waste Clearance of certain materials Dry casks for spent fuel O

8 l

O Low-Level Waste Priorities

• Maintain access to existing disposal capacity Promote access to viable new disposal capacity Foster competition among LLW waste treatment and disposal vendors 1

O l NRC plays a vital role in ensuring access to low-level waste disposal sites.

O 9

O Important NRC Actions

• Chairman's letters to Interior Secretary Babbit on Ward Valley

• Her letters to Congress on Texas / Maine /

Vermont LLW compact bill

• Swift disposition of rulemaking petitions on Envirocare facility

• Guidance to assist in transportation of waste oflow specific activity O

More Ways NRC Can Help

• Include DOE low-level waste disposal sites in its pilot project on external regulation

• Sponsor studies by the National Academy of Sciences i

O 10

O 1

More Ways NRC Can Help

• Extend certifications for approved Type A packages

• Continue to support Agreement State activities related to LLW O

Five Key issues Dual regulation of nuclear facilities Disposal of Trojan reactor vessel Low-level radioactive waste

• Clearance of materials  !

Dry casks for spent fuel l j

O i

11

O "One Atom Detected" l Standard l

A single atom is detected off site:

• Part of normal effluents?

A loss of control oflicensed material?

• More sensitive measuring devices tlian previously used?

rp7 - .

. y;ymy.gp v

h,, ;>' _ ; :

e,,.

.:p_,y m t 9 7_r;

, ..  ; , . ; ... y.3

, . g. %)yg p' .

~

..- . v

.p 4 W...

,,;, ij9-[  :, J-..--.'......-.-.a--l-

'[ .

O Risk-Informed Materials Clearance The NRC should:

• Clarify that it follows guidance on clearing materials for release

• Issue new guidance for licensees on developing programs for materials clearance i

O .

12 l

l

i 4

O Five Key issues I

Dual regulation of nuclear facilities Disposal of Trojan reactor vessel Low-level radioactive waste Clearance of materials Dry casks for spent fuel O

Industry Needs Dry Casks I

Year 2000 - 25 plants lose full core ,

off-load Year 2008 - 45 plants lose full core off-load Dry casks - critical path issue for decommissioning 1 O l 13 l

I

O Important NRC Actions

- Ambitious cask licensing goals

- Rules of engagement

- Publish schedules

- Participation in NEI workshop for vendors, utilities and NRC O

More Ways NRC Can Help

- Clarify NRC positions on cask licensing l - Open lines of communication with vendors and utilities.  !

Meet schedule review times O

l 14

O The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste . . .

. . . can help the NRC fulfill its mission by promoting a better

! understanding of risk in the regulation of radioactive materials i

O Risk-Informed Choices

• Legislation to end dual NRC/ EPA regulation of radiation safety Approval for intact disposal of Trojan reactor vessel

• Sensible standards for low-level radioactive waste

• Risk-informed guidance on clearance of materials O

15 ,_

..- _ .... . . . .