ML22230A075
| ML22230A075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/23/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780123 | |
| Download: ML22230A075 (18) | |
Text
RETURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING ON PROPOSALS FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHEFFIELD WASTE DISPOSAL CASE Place -
~"7ashington, D. C.
Date -
Monday, 23 January 1978 Pages 1 -
15 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 2000 l NATlONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY Telephone:
(202 ) 347-3700
\\II (
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on January 23, 1978 in the Commission 1s offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and.it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As* provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commissiori in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
CR 6166 Barther 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
~ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 a.m..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Public Meeting on Proposals for Settlement of Sheffield Waste Disposal Case Commissioners' Meeting Rom 1717 H Str~et N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Monday,January 23,1978 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 PRESENT:
Commissioners Hendrie, G*ilinsky, Bradford, and Kennedy.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
May we gather on the subject at hand, proposals for settlement of *the Shef*field waste disposal case.
2 Steve Eilperin has been looking at the possibilities of settlement of the suit fiied by the State of Illinois.
Please go ahead, Steve.
MR. EILPERIN:
We were out in Chicago to discuss the possibilities of settlement with the State about ten days or so ago.
The State was there, representatives from another of the proposed intervenors, Citizens for a Better Environment, was there, the company was there, and we were there.
I think it might be possible to settle the suit.
I just wanted to bring the Commission up to date on what happened at that meeting, and suggest an avenue that the Commission could consider.
As you know, Illinois had brought suit saying we had not acted quickly enough on the Sheffield renewal license.
Right now we are taking steps to prepare an EIS, which we will be doing before acting on the license.
So that there is nothing more that the State of Illinois can gain from the lawsuit on that aspect of the complaint saying please act on the license.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Presumably* they could get a court order telling us to do our statutory duty here, I expect.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 3
MR. EILPERIN:
Yes, they could get a court order, perhaps, which would set*a date for completion of the EIS.
But that might be something of an/unrealistic order to get.
Courts gen~rally don't like to set specific dates.
In any event, so long as we are_proceeding in good faith and are seeking to do a thorough job on the EIS, that real~y, I think, is in the. State's interests and in our interests.
So that I don't think there will be too much difficul y trying to get some sort of.specific agreement saying that we are doing an EIS, we will use our best efforts to complete it by a certain time period. And that really is what, if'- they were successful, what they would get out of the law suit, at least in part.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
May*I ask-- I will be asking-, as we go down these things, how the staff is set up to carry out the proposals that Steve has in hand.
So please come up here.
MR. EILPERIN:
I understand, with regard to the EIS maybe Mike can speak to this that right now the staff is evaluating proposals preparatory to letting a contract out.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That is correct.
We have several possible contractors.
We.thought we were going to be able to CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:-- Michael, why don't you come up al o?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 4
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We are having a little bit of a problem with our contracts people:, and we have to go through another formality that might take another month.
At that time we will let a contract for part of the EIS.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This is the agency's normal competitive bidding procedure?
MR. EILPERIN:
.That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So I guess incumbrance is not the right word, but it does have attached to it all of the protections for competitive position and fair consideration of everybody in advertising time and so on that attaches to those procurement actions.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That is exactly right. We have gone through most of that procedure at this time. We have bids on it, we have evaluated the various proposals, and now we will get several contractors in to discuss the bids.
MR. BELL:
The problem was there was not a clearly superior proposal.
There are a number of companies that have to be included in negotiations, audits need to be done of the companies, and these procedures will take longer than we would prefer under the circumstances.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is not infrequently the case in procurement actions.
At this point do you feel that we will get to a good quality environmental. impact statement more quickly by continuing to work on this procurement of
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5
a contractor, or would it go more quickly by turning to some other avenue?
MR. CUNNINGHAM:. The only other two_a~e~~~s_we would have would be for the staff to do it itself, and we are not really staffed to take on that k~nd of action at this time, and carry out our other programs at the same time.
The other option is to have it done at a national laboratory.
I don't think at this stage that would get us anywhere quicker.
MR. BELL:
Before we decided to advertise this particular project for competitive bidding, we did investigate the possibility of having it done at all of the national laboratories ~hat normally do impact statements for the Commission.
And all of them were committed at the present time, and would not be able to start on it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So that both on the staff and the laboratory side, you just ran into manpower problems, which are likely to in the long run delay rather than improve?
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Steve, is it going to be difficult to talk about this element of the settlement on a best efforts basis?
MR. EILPERIN:
I don't think so.
I think it is Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
difficult to give any firm date, I think it is unrealistic to 25 give a firm date, and I think that the State should be willing
6 to accept a best efforts representation, we will do our best 2
to proceed towards preparation of an environmental impact 3
statement in the time period consistent with a thorough 4
analysis.
5 If we can get any sort of range _of dates, we can 6
offer that.
But it seems to me that if, for example, you choose 7
a date and that date is missed, and the process is nine-tenths 8
complete, it shouldn't be any problem about finishing up 9
that last period; the* judge wouldn't listen to that.
10 11 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
~ might also point out, Mr.
Chairman, this is the first environmental impact'.*.statement 12 we have done on a low level waste burial ground.
So while 13 we think we know all of the problems, we really won't know until 14 we get into it.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I think -- excuse me, Peter..
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
As to the draft EIS, if the State felt that that were a real sticking point, I take it there is no barrier to coming up with a fixed date there, the way there would be with the final environmental impact statement?
MR. EILPERIN:
That is correct.
You can control a draft more than you can control the due date of the final, because the final depends upon the extent of comments that Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 you receive, and the extent ef the analysis that that requires.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
!Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 7
Plus it would depend, it might also depend upon requests for hearing, that sort of thing, that might extend the process for acting on the license, and not getting out the final.
So I think that is true, that the draft is more controllable.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I just Mouldn't want the riegotiation for settlement to break down over that point.
MR. EILPERIN:
Yes.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Except in the draft stage it is a question of the technical problems we will run into that is rather undefined.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Obviously any deadline would have to be a reasonable one..
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If mentioning*a date, at least in a target sense, gets to be an important element of the ability to settle on this point, is there any way to build into the agreement some sort of, you know, for good cause the Commission will come back and explain why it is having trouble meeting the date or something?
Or do you have that in hand?
MR. EILPERIN:
I think the best efforts implies that.
But if one had to give some sort of statement of some problem, a changed circumstance, I think that would be possible as well.
I really don't th.ink it's is going to be any great difficulty in disposing of that aspect of the case.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
By the way, you are going to have 2
to make some estimates.
They better be fairly realistic 3
4 5
6 to take account of the difficulties.
Because I am sure even if no date is required to go into the agreement for settlement, I am sure people will be interested in knowing just how long we have in mind.
If it is ten more years, I 7
doubt if people will regard that as getting on with it.
So 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 you are going to have to make some estimates.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Two points.
First, the contract itself will have a performance date on it.
Secondly, the contractor will be required to submit progress reports that will tell us where he stands and any problems he runs into.
Those would be publicly available, of course.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
How much staff involvement will there be in the sense -- there will certainly be a cognizant engineer on the contract.
How close a track are you going to be able to keep?
MR. BELL:
We will attempt to manage this very Ace-Federai Reporters, Inc.
carefully.
We are particularly concerned about the fact that this is the first statement of the kind. 'It might be of interest to note that portions of the statement having to do with the hydrology and geology will in fact be written in-house by the geologists and hydrologists in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
25
2 3
4 5
6 7
B 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 9
The main emphasis on the contractor's part will be putting the documents together -and then handling all of the non-radiological, the social, political areas of the statement.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I see.
MR. EILPERIN:
The second aspect of the case is the interim operations, what to do as to trenches becoming filled, and what to do with respec"t to the company's application to uti-lize a compact and fill method for trench 15.
As to that, as you know, the staff is asking for public comment on the company's request.*to be allowed to utilize trench 15, and that public. comment is being considered under the standards for an exemption, which look to the kind of criteria which would be used under NEPA, the foreseeable consequences of utilizing trench 15 before a full environmental survey is completed, the extent of regressability, that sort of action, and matters such as that.
The State indicated to us at the meeting that they are willing to utilize NRC's administrative process, that they will be submitting comments, and consequently, that they are unlikely to ask the court to enjoin all operations at this time.
So I think, again, that that aspect, that that is favorable to us, in that it allows us to consider the company's application and give a decision on whether or not
t, 2
3 4
5 10 the application should be granted regarding trench 15.
So I don't think that should present any difficulty in the settlement eitehr.
I would expect that the company would probably, or that the State would file another lawsuit if the company received a license to us~ trench 15.
Presumably 6
the company would sue*us also if we refused to grant it.
7 But in any event, that would be a separate lawsuit an 8
it would be based upon our consideration of the specific 9
request, with a factual record, and I think that is in a much 10 better position to be in than to battle it out in court on 11 trying to resist an injunction to future operations.
12 So I think that will work out without too much 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 difficulty~
The main thing the State seemed to be concerned about was the possibility there would be other licenses, especially licenses which Illinois would be concerned about, licenses in Illinois, which might be in the same kind of position as the Sheffield license, in the sense of renewal application that has not been acted upon quickly.
And we think that -- well, we told Illinois that we would go back to the Commission to explore possible avenues of looking into, making changes in the timely renewal section of our regulations, or the way that we become aware of what licenses are under that kind of status, where an application Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 for renewal has been made, and has not yet been acted upon.
2 3
4 11 I think, in looking into things, that the Commission actually is rather well-informed.
The staff, in the brown book, publishes on*a monthly basis a very detailed listing of the status of at least the major licensing actions, and I 5
think what the Commission might -- in terms of the major 6
licensing actions, the Commission has information available 7
to it which lists when the renewal application was submitted, s
when the expected completion date is, matters such as that.
9 COMMISSION GILINSKY:
- Did we ever get the memorandum 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 listing-the facilities that were qn a timely renewal basis?
MR. EILPERIN:
Yes. I think that was set out last December by the staff. I think we have no specific suggestion for changing the format of the brown* book.
But* one thing we could do is to ask that consideration be given to minor~-
revisions, such as perhaps classifying some lists by the state in which the license is pending.
Right now, if you look at it, you can't tell what state things are in, and it may be,if Illinois' reaction is not unusual, that the specific states might like to be able to turn to a heading like that.
section?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You mean have an additional MR. EILPERIN:
Yes, just an additional section.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That cross-classifies.it.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
MR. EILPERIN:
That's right, cross-classifies by state, so a state could look at the situation in its state and.find out rather quickly where licenses stand.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You could have a page that lists all of the icenses on a t~mely renewal basis.
MR. EILPERIN:
YOu could do that.
The other thing the brown book does not give you right now is a full isting of licenses.
As I understand it, it is the major ones, but there are something like 9,000 material _licenses which we handle, and I think there is something like 1500 running out every year.
So obviously in the nature of things there are obviously going to be a number of those under timely renewal.
It might just suffice to have a list so someone could see where those stand.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Steve, do you detect in Illinois' concern perhaps the pressure that the Commission give special attention to Illinois' licenses as to quid pro quo?
MR. EILPERIN:
What I told the Assistant Attorney General from the State is that materials licenses are just one aspect of the Commission's business and the Commission couldn't just totally reset its*priorities to go after materials licenses when there are obviously many more important licensing actions that the Commission considers.
25 And actually the State agreed it would not particularly want
2 3
4
.. -----~----~-----------------------,
its tax dollars spent by a crash project on the materials licenses, which let things like power reactors slip, or other types of licensing actions.
13 So I think it is more a way of trying to make things 5
visible to people, so that they can see where :'.things are, f\\
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 rather than any marked shift in priorities that is called for.
Another thing the staff could consider is whether or not it is conceivable to set up milestones or bench marks or classify various types of materials licenses into different kinds of actions setting different priorities for them.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Of course we have this as a workin part of our program.
The staff in fact does set priorities 6n. some of these licenses.
But when you are dealing with a large volume, I don't know how meaningful that becomes after a while, when you have 200 of these and 100 of those, and so forth.
But there are several things that are going on that might be useful to the State.
First, you will recall that we are getting ready to start up our regional licensing program.
This is a pilot program, it is scheduled to start March 1, and it will be in Illinois in the regional of£ice there.
So that brings the materials licensing closer to the State in that case.
Exactly how that is going to perform, we don't know yet, but hopefully it will c*ertainly make the operation more-..
2 3
6 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 visible and more available to the State itself.
Secondly, we have a study due to the Commission at the end of March that reviews the whole license renewal process, not only licensing periods, which are five years on materials licenses, but also the scope of the review.
When a license comes up for renewal, we look at the whole license again.
We are seeing whether or not there aren't certain parts of this we can eliminate or spend less time on, so that should speed up the process.
I might point out in I~linciis the bulk of their 14 licenses certainly are the small materials licenses, hospitals, universities, that kind of thing.
They only have one other fuel cycle operating plant and that is the Allied plant, UF6 conversion plant, 1 that the license has been renewed on within the last few months.
aware of.
So they don't have any other big operation I am There iij a special problem with the closed-out Kerr McGee rare earth plant, but we are working with the State and local community on that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay. Any comments, gentlemen?
I must say the proposition from the Solicitor seems to me eminently reasonable. As we did before, I would suggest we urge him to move forward along these lines and see if a settlement can be accomplished.
MR. EILPERIN:
Fine.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would also add, keep ih close 2
contact as these negotiations go forward with NMSS staff, 3
so you have at all times a pretty clear realistic idea of what 4
is practical from their standpoint.
An.d they may also 5
have some ideas that will help ~n the settlement.
Does that 6
seem fair?
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fine.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's move along those lines then.
~hank you.
(Thereupon, at 11:40 a.m. the meeting was concluded.)