ML22230A172
| ML22230A172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780317 | |
| Download: ML22230A172 (1) | |
Text
{
(
(
RE1URN TO SECRETARIAT ~~§ "*..,
y l DISCLAIMfR This is an unoffic al transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm ssion held on tiAA-C,L. l 1, l'f7 i in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, 0. 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 informationaT 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 detenninations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argLlment contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
7::::0880119
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 l.L 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EXEMPT SESSION (Open to Public Attendance)
BRIEFING BY DOE: ON WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORT Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Friday, March 17, 1978 The meeting of the Commissioners was convened at 1
9:40 a.m., pursuant to notice, VICTOR GILINSKY, Acting Chairman, presiding.
PRESENT:
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner (Acting Chairman)
PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
R. LeGassie (DoE)
J. Shaheen (DoE)
- s. Chilk J. Shapar L. Gossick C. Smith B.. Snyder J. Kelley
- w. Bishop I J
- l.
2 3
4
- 6.
7 8
9
- 10.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO CE E. DI* NG S COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, we are here to hear about the Report of the DoE Task Forc'e on Waste Management.
Roger LeGassie is the Chairman and has come he:Ee to brief us on it. and we welcome you,. Roger.
2 MR. LeGASSIE:*
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have some vu~graphs, and I thought I would just try to take you quickly through a short presentation, and then I think we might want to discuss some of the things that I bring up in the presentat.ion of others.
The first slide, please.
(Slide)
The most important point about this report, this Task F'orce effort is that it represents only the efforts of an internal Department of Energy task force.
It is not official Department of Energy policy.
While.the document contains a number of recommendations and suggestions, they are those of the Task Force only.
They don't commit the Department to actually_ make those changes or enter into those program revisions.
Rather, what is anticipated is that the Task Force Report is an input to_an intergovernmental policy formulation activity.
The President signed a letter to a number.of government agencies last Wednesday appointing them as an
r 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
- 8.
g, 10 II..
12*
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3
interagency review group... It will. be chaired by the Department of Energy.
Its purpose is to develop an administration of view of nuclear waste management policy, plans and programs; and to produce a report itself by the First of October.
COMMISS*IONER BRADFORD:
Is that when this. draft report stops being. a draft?
MR. LeGASSIE:
I don't know that the.word "draft" will ever be taken off this report *.
I think it serves its purpose by being an input to this larger process.
Decisions,. I think, would not come out of** the. interagency activity.
And the reason. we put "'draft'"*
on the document, even though. it is really a final report of the Task Force is to emphasize the fact that it is not a decision-al document and that no one is moving on the basis of the recommendations in it, per se.
We do expect that this intergovernmental review activity will.have a substantial amount of public input of going -- deliberately reaching out to get the views of Congress, states, industry and the concerned public and so on, as the slide indicates.
The objective of this_-is to develop an administration view, not just the Department of Energy view of waste managemen policy and what should be* don.e, and to have a sufficiently broad consensus in the Nation and an agreement among the interested agencies that one has confidence that the resulting
I
- 2.
3 4
5:
5; 7
8, 9
1.0 ll.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4
plan and program can actually be accomplished on the schedule that might come out of these discussions.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Who will chair this new Task Force?
MR. LeGASSIE:-
It will be the, Department of Energy, they will chair* i.t and there has been no meeting yet of the principals because the letter was just signed out by the President day before yesterday.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So they will form inter-agency working groups.?
MR. LeGASSIE:.
Yes *.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY ::
Has anybody been app0inted to run that?
MR. LeGASSIE:
No..
Within the Department I would.
imagine that the Secretary of the Department is the official designee to the Task Force.
Within the Department John Deutch has responsibility for neclear waste management policy.
And so I would assume that he and his office would provide staff assistance to the Department of Energy participation in terms of the policy development function of that Task Force.
Next slider please.
(Slide)
A number of.findings have been highlighted in the press announcement and elsewhere. I don't want to dwell at length on these, but we do feel that the review has indicated
- l.
2 3
4 S:
6' T
8 9
10, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that there is a consensus in the technical community that the approach of geologic disposal for nuclear waste manage-ment is the valid approach to be following in terms of the status of today.'.s. technology.
There are obvious*ly other ideas that could be * *.,
- developed over much longer time frames *. Transportation, space disposal. and so on, but on the nature, you know, of subsequent kindl;:! of technology which are much further away from validation than geologic disposal.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY ::*
Now,* who are these independ-ent technical experts.
Do you mean from outside the govern-ment?
MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes. -- Well, both in and out.
Some of the groups* that have made findings like these in the United States involve the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, the U.S. Geologic Suryey has a report in draft which will be published shortly which reiter-ates their independent view that this is so; and there have similarly been findings abroad of that kind.
So these are not governmental findings, they are opi'nions of reputable and independent technical people.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Which findings abroad are you referring to?
I MR. LeGASSIE:-
The HAIR Report of Canada, there
,j was, I believe, a legal finding by the German Government now.
l 2
3 4-5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
- 22.
23 24 25 And there have been other reports of groups commissioned by foreign governments which say some of the things to those reports prepared in the United States.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What does the word "independent" mean?
6 MR. LeGASSIE:
Well, it means that in this context, I think, not on the Department' of Energy payroll.
In other words, not inside the funded program of the Department of Energy.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It could be a General Electric research project?
MR. LeGASSIE :.
Well, actually in terms of something like the American Physical Society and National Academy of Sciences, they are people who* are not even involved in the nuclear industry.
But I think with or without that adjective our view is that there is a technical consensus in the Scientific community.
Now, this is as distinguished from the question of whether or not a particular site, a particular media and a particular repository design are _indeed suitable.
We are talking about a generic view.
As you know, the government itself has never made that generic finding because the -- an input to that would be the-generic environmental statement which the Department of Energy is preparing.
And that is a document which we need
- r
- 2.
3 5
T 8
1.0
- 12.
13 14**
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to complete before, I think, there*can be an official government view of this, meanwhile, it is the basis of our planning.
7 Tha second. point is that reprocessing is not required for the disposal of commercial spent fuel wliich is to say we think that we can safely dispose of the waste from commercial nuclear power either in the form of spent fuel elements or in the form of reprocessed waste from reprocessing plants in. that we do not have to have reprocessing in order
. to. be able to safely dispose of the product of the commercia*l nuclear power industry.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is based on what, nuclear* properties and things like that?
MR. LeGASSIE:
Again, in discussions with the technical people in the program and those external of the program, we continually ask them questions about whether there was anything in their view that was generically associated with spent fuel which would mean that there would be a problem of disposing of it such that reprocessing would be required.
And I think we found even more unanimity of opinion on this question than we did.the first one.
That is it might be in some ways more desirable not to have plutonium there to put in the ground if you are a waste manager, but there is nothing about the situation that means that you cannot do it.
l 2
3
- 4.
6 7
8
- 11.
12 13' 14 15 16*
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8
Again, this is a,,generic kind of finding and doesn't say anything about a particular fac~lity or a particular
-;-J media or a particular site.
Those happen-to be determined on a case-by-case basis obviously *.
. The result of this in our desire to keep
- progress on the*waste management program and not get it entangled in arguments about whether there should reprocessing or there should not be reprocessing but because we-as waste managers have to hav:e the ability to handle any kind of waste.
Our view is that if you. put priority within the program on demonstrating the capability to handle the, existing mili ta.ry-waste-on the one side, which have come out of reprocessing operation, and spent fuel assemblies on the other side which are the current product of the light water reactored fuel cycle that if you do those two things in parallel that you will have done the highest priority activity in the waste manage-ment program, and that's what that third billet is trying to say.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you, would the facilities be significantly different or are there significant-ly different requirements for placing one way as opposed.to
- the other or MR. LeGASSIE:
There could well be differences in the thermal loading of the repository, but it is not clear that the corridor or the size-of the facility would
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 necessarily be different~
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, can It it.-,be. arranged that the... thermal~ loading _will-be the same.?
9 MR. LeGASSIE:-
Well, you may not wish to or that might depend upon the.matrix in which you put the reprocessed material and so on..
There are* a number of* variables, particularly when you go out through reprocessing that you could control.
So it does appear that you could build a single facility and.then that facility could receive either spent fuel. or reprocessed material which had. been petrified and placed. in canisters'. in some way so that the facility design could be developed independently of exact knowledge of which one or another material was going in to it.
We are saying here that means that as waste managers we are able to proceed with the job of waste management independently of the status of this other decision.
If we could have the next slide.
(Slide)
There is a recommendation of the Task Force report which is really a strong vote of confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if I could put it that way, expresses the view that the response, to be an independent and objective regulator with a high degree of public. credibility.
We think that the responsibility for the permanent
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 IL 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 disposal of all forms of nuclear waste should be with the Federal Government operationally, and all such facilities should be licensed.
This leads to recommendations which would flow from this that we think or we suggest that the Department.
of Energy_should assume responsibility for the low-level commercial. burial. grounds, integrate their operation with those of the Department's own low-level buria*l. grounds from a managerial standpoint,. that all of those low-level burial grounds s1?,ould.then;be subject to NRC licensing, that the disposal of true waste* should also be licensed by the NRC and: those: would. be the primary changes from the present situation which flow from this language.
We can come back to that in just a moment.
MR. SHAPAR:
That is strictly disposal and not long-term storage, is that right?
MR. LeGASSIE:
We are talking about ultimate disposal, permanent disposal as opposed to interim storage.
So we do not think that the Hanford waste tanks, which we view as interim storage, pending the development of geological depositories should be licensed.
There is one interim storage activity which,. if we conducted we think should be licensed and that is the construction of away-from-reactor storage pools which to receive fuel from reactors prior to ultimate disposal.
And if those were built by the Department they would obviously supplant private facilities
l 2*
3 4
5 6:
7 8
9 1.0
- 11.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20*
- 21.
22 23 24 25 that might othewise*be built by the same purpose.
Those private facilities would h&ve been licensed.
So we think any such facilities built by the Depa~tment should be licensed *.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me*ask you,on tha°t:
Hanford. tanks, why do-you draw the line between int~rim and permanent disposal as opposed to say those activities which 11 are -- have greater or lesser impact on the public health and safety.
In other words, I would think that those tanks are more significant in that. sense than say some of these low-level burial si tes:T MR. LeGASSIE:
Well, first unless one takes the view that the entire activities of the Department should be licensed, then a line has to be drawn somewhere.* This is where the line presently is drawn, we think it is a workable situatio.
Those tanks and the rate at which they are filled and so on have fairly close connection with the operation of the facilities from which the waste comes and we think it is simply pragmatic and desirable to keep the-situation the way it is.
What we have done is' to try to make sure that the status* of that situation receives a lot of public exposure.
Just recently there has been published a report of the review of the National Academy of Sciences as to the status of the waste situation at Hanford and so on, which is a public
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
- 11.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 overview of this.
So I think it is simply a. vote of a somewhat pragmatic way.
If we are not perturbing the present situation which seems to be workable and recognizing that a line has to be drawn somewhere and that decision is to aome degree an arbitrary decision.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there some internal DOE independent audit of those operations?
MR. LeGASSIE :.
Yes there is.
There have been procedures established now following some criticism of the General Accounting Office and others in the past with respect to*,:-_the degree of* internal Department overview and a larger degree of overview has been established..
MR. KELLEY:
In terms of planned duration where exactly is the long term as distinguished to the short term.
There has been litigation over that, you know, and it was thought of 20 years then there was a suggestion that that line should be 50, so it was 50.
Is there an understanding as to where.that line exactly hits?
MR. LeGASSIE:
I think it is probably a mistake to try to decide that it is 19 and a half years.
What is really significant about the situation is that the Department's planning has clearly indicated its intention to remove the material from its present mode of storage as rapidly as we can.
We are busy preparing the Environmental Impact Statements which will allow us to make a decision with respect to the alternativ
l 2
3 4
5
- 6.
7
-8 9*
10 lI 12 13 14-15 16 17 18 19 20 21.-
22 23
- 24.
25 13 disposition of that material..
We have laid out plans, including this document which shows the time lines to get it there, so I think our behavior is indicating that we are not allowing this interim situation to simply drift and perpetuate iself and thus become a long~term situation through negligence.
And as long as we are displaying that kind of vigorous attack on the problem, I. think it is clear interim storage, but is not intended_to be* long-term storage.
MR. KELLEY:
But it does turn on the Departmental attention of what you are doing now as opposed to the design life-of equipment.
MR. LeGASSIE :-
I would not want to get in to the legal basis for -- I'm aware since there is language in the Act that there may be legal issues in terms of defining that language and I don't think I can contribute to that discussion because I'm not a lawyer.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There are plenty of people who are not lawyers.
(Laughter)
COMMISSIONERGILINSKY:
Let me ask, what about the facilities that convert the waste.
Would those-be licensed?
MR. LeGASSIE: -We are not proposing -- if you are talking about Department facilities, no.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
_Well, I would pr-esume the would be DOE facilities that would turn the liquid waste
1 2
3 4
5
- 6.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13" 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into. solid wa*ste.
MR. LeGASSIE:
Again, we are-not proposing that --
we are, proposing that the licensing be. with respect to the ultimate-disposal facilities themselves.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So it i.s really the rep9sitories that you are talking about?
MR. LeGASSIE:
That's right *.
IA Now, as I say, what this language really adds that is new is the low-level burial ground operation, the disposal of transuranium and separatelY' from this-we have indicated.
that if we, were to build AFRs. then it is recommended in**.the report that those also would be. licensed.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because I would think a significant part of the ;risk would be connected with what goes on above the surface.
In other words the movement of the facilities the ---
MR. LeGASSIE:
Well, I'm sure the risk starts right at the point of generation of the waste.
So one can go the argument leads one back eventually to cover every activity and I do think.it is simply a judgmental process as to whether all is covered or some part, then a line has to be drawn.
_ Let's say the Task Force's emphasis and interest was on waste management, and so we addressed the disposal facilities.
In our view, those should be licenied.
We also found, and we will come back to this point
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10:
- 11.
12'.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 briefly that the NEPA process inside the Department is, in our view, in significant need of strengthening in terms of the job that has to be done.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does -that mean?
MR. LeGASSIE:
Wellr I would like to come back to that point and there is a, slide that is coming later that will expand it.
If. we could have the next slide.
(Slide) r think we-talked. already about the importance 15 of away-from-reactor storage.
Our view is that such storage ought to be in place by 1983 in terms of implementing the President's spent fuel policy offer.
That's about the earliest that it could>be done in any event, assuming that one goes trough the licensing process which we do assume. So we would think that in terms of say, planning between the agencies at this recommendation or point of view of the Task Force i,f it becomes oparational that we would need to work closely with.
respect to the scheduling and elements of licensing activities because we think facilities of this kind should have to move forward on an urgent basis.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Have you seen our draft environmental statement on this subject and I wonder whether your analysis tracks with ours?
MR. LeGASSIE:
I know that people in the Department
1 2
3 4
5:
6 7
8 9
10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 my impression is that they have.
I have not personally looked at the document, but this is a subject -- here what I think I am trying to do is simply flag some areas in which there will. be normal*transaction between the agency because of their near-term significance, and r think this is one.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:-
Now, how critical is this 1983 if we don't have* the facilities-by 1983, are the reactors going to be chocked with fuel or is this-the point at which it is desirable to have it?
MR *. LeGASSIE.:.
I tnink it is dangerous to argue that some truck goes over some clift on June 17th at midnight, so I don t know that it is* possible to say that it is critical..
r: think it is. highly desirable and important.
A lot more sophisticated analysis would be necessarybefore one could. state the consequences with extreme confidence.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What are you talking about the volume in 1983?
MR. LeGASSIE:
As I recall there are something there are numbers in the report and it is -- I think we are talking about designing and building facilities that may either hold 3,000 or 5,000 metric tons of fuel.
There are some economies of scale so if we talked about a 5,000 metric ton facility, then that would be it, but it would take a number of. ¥ears for that facility to be filled.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But you are saying about one
1 2
3 5
6*
7 8
9 10 11
- 12.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 such facility by 1983?
MR. LeGASSIE:
That's right.
And ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But you.could build such a facility -,in stages?
MR *. O::.:LeGASSIE:;
That's right, yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So you really need the opening of. that facility to be around that time?
17 MR. LeGASSIE:
Right.
Then even in the minimum cases we studied where there was no growth of nuclear power at all, but simply the reactors that already had some stage of licensing including a limited work authorization.
Several such facilities were needed a few years apart.
So it is clear that one would not be building just one.
We also recognize that we would want to proceed with the present spent fuel policy offer and this includes establish-ing a charge for storage and disposal which requires some conception of the waste management program in order to develop a charge.
And within the Department we think that's a high priority matter.
domestic?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's both foreign and MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes.
The next slide?
(Slide)
This is simply to indicate the scope of the report
l 2
J 4:-
5 6
T 8
9 10 ll.
12' 13-14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18
_with respect-to the kinds of waste that are discussed in it and there is discussion from the source to the point of perman-ent disposal.
could we have the next slide~
(Slide)
I have already* referred to our view about assumption responsibility for the low--level burial grounds and that these should be-licensed as well as. DOE'-s own site.
I did not make. the point then and I want to do so now that we-recognize that there is a variety of approaches a number of approaches. to the licensing of these facilities, because five of the six commercial burial grounds are presently licensed under agreement state provisions.
The six that are licensed directly by the NRC.
And the Task Force recognized that one could either have either one of those, presumably with some improvements in the standards and criteria and so on from the present status or develop some intermediate kind of situation.
We were unable to decide between the merits of one or another of these approaches and we think that really the views of the states involved and the NRC itself and the public ought to be sought in trying to develop a final position on which variation or whether a variety of variations might be pursued with respect to the continuation of this licensing process once DOE became the operator.
So we recognize there is room for formulation there
I 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 1:1.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that we have not tried to solidify further.
there?r Next slide.
(Slide)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY::
How. many DOE programs are 19 MR.. LeGASSI.1!::
There are about 14 now that are in operation.
I'm not sure that all of those would remain active in a few years.
Some of those-may be filled and we might want to do some consolidation.
So we are taking about licensin those"which continue in operation and would be continuing
- to receive material for burial.
And we assume there would be some* interim period established in order to lay that licensing in place, because the standards and criteria in other material with respect to that licensing are not yet available to us.
So once that was known there might be some period of time necessary for us to make sure the operation was in compliance with those standards and criteria before we could actually seek a license.
So we are assuming that provision would be made for getting from here to there.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:.. Is this. assumption of responsibility for the West Valley extent of the operation,
- do you know?
MR. LeGASSIE:
No, with respect to the rest of West Valley we have indicated that we think the Department
l 2
3 4*,
5 6
T 8
9 10 ll
- 12.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19*
20 21 22 23 24 25 should attempt to* assist the State of New York and nuclear fuel services in reaching an agreement as to getting the 20 West Valley site cleaned up and the waste* in the hands of the: government, all of the waste now, not just the low-level.
We are, talki'ng about the high-level waste in the tanks and the fuel in the storage. pool.
~o while it -is not clear that the Federal Government has some legal reaponsibility in the sense of the Department of Energy, our view is that it is good public policy to get that situation in. hand and the Task Force has recommended. that the Depar1:mentbe forthcoming in that regard.
But that would have.tOL*be developed through discussions with the other interested parties.
I guess we would turn now to the waste isolation pilot plant which we found to be an important facility in the Department's program.
There has been some unfortunate confusion as to what WIPP ought to be in the views of ERDA that preceeded the Department and the initial stages of the Department itself.
The Task Force has tried to sort that out and make its own recommendation on this point.
And what we have said is here.
First that WIPP should be a licensed facility.
We don't quite care which one of several mechanisms is used to get that done, but we think that no matter what is done in WIPP it should be licensed.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 lL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 Secondly, that the basic mission that we see for WIPP is as indicated there, it is a research and development facility for salt geology.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Maybe it ought to undergo a licensinq renewal~
MR *. LeGASSIE:
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear what you said.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It should undergo a licensing review.
MR. LeGASSIE:
All right.
The primary volume mission of WIPP would be as a facility to be the geologic -- you know -- for the geologic.*
disposal of transuranium waste, those primarily stored above ground in Idaho.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How are they storing that?
MR. LeGASSIE:
In drums, 55-gallon drums and in packages which have internal lining, various way.
They are COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The drums are in containers of some kind?
MR. LeGASSIE:
No.
The drums -- there are several different kinds of containers.
The photos I've seen show either drums or packages.
The drums have been stacked and covered with earth on the top.
There are packages which have internal material inside the package.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And what, just sitting
l 2
3 4
s 6
7 8
9 10, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1-9 20
- 21.
22 23 24-25 outside or ---
MR. LeGASSIE:
The drums are sitting outside but covered with earth at the top layer of the drum so the face of the drums are exposed as one brings additional material to..:the* pad_
But they are basically in above-ground storage*
on an outside pad, but then covered to a degree*.
22 It is not the kind. of storag.e which one wants to have as a permanent storage mechanism.
And that has been recognized and that is -- I think it has always been the primary func~ion.
of this. facility is* to, receda:ve this material in geologic*
storage.
You. know,. we stopped within the Department of burying it in shallow burial ground: in the early '70s.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Before you leave this slide, what is your time schedule for this?
MR. LeGASSIE:
It would become operational in 1985 and we have talked about the submission of an environmental report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this fall.
Now I recognize ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In other words, you are planning to put waste in this facility in 1985?
MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes *.
The basis on which, I.think there was preveious correspondence with Department staff about the licensing would not remain in place if these Task Force recommendations were approved. So there obviously has to be some discussion about how
l 2
3 4
s 6
7 8:
9 10 11:
12
. 13 14:
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
. 22 23 24 25 one. would proceed.
But let. me complete my remarks on WIPP which are on the next slide, and you might want to come back to that point.
(Slide}
In addition. to those two activities, TRU disposal and R&D, neither of wh,ich would. require a, licensing, under present law as we understand,, we recommend that there be an additional mis*sion, namely, that there be a demonstration with a small "d" of the ultimate disposal of spent fuel in this.facility, that this be done with up to, 1,000 fuel assemblies.
Our calculations indicate that it would use no more than 20 acres of the available space for that purpose.
We recommend a technically conservative loading be used
- 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is the available space*?
MR. LeGASSIE:
The facility would be designed conceptually designed for 2,000 acres, each of two levels.
One would not obviously excavate that degree initially. It would be a funcation of how rapidly there was a need to expand it in order to accommodate the receipt of waste, but in terms of conceptual design there are two levels and each of those two levels could go to 2,000 acres. So this
.20 acres is about one percent of the ---
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Would each of the levels go through that?.
MR.. LeGASSIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER.GILINSKY:
Now, does...:putting in spent
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 I.l 12 13 14
.15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fuel pose any particular problems?
MR. LeGASSIE:,,, We do not think so, those of us on the Task Force who have looke.d at.this do not think so.
In terms of our state of knowledge, but that is obviously* something you are going*to have to review with us if we* proceed with this,.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY::
And what about the retreivability?
MR. LeGASSIE:
What is said here is that we have recommended that the loading of this* material be done on a technically conservative basis* in terms of some parameter like kilowatts per acre.
When. one has* done that, we think it would then, 24 as a consequence of that, it would be physically possible for
.us. to go back, remine passage ways and physically remove this material, let's say within a 20-year period if somebody wanted to.
But where that is simply a consequence which follows from the loading which we have recommended and we are trying to inform the people of New Mexico that in our view that could be done.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you.
Would the assemblies be packed MR. LeGASSIE:
They would be in canisters which would be placed into holes. which would be -- have been prepared in the salt corridor and the canister would be
l 2
3 4
5 6,
7 8
9 10 11..
12 1.3:
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lowered into that hole.
The hole, would be filled and then the whole passage way would be backfill.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So basically you would have a solid. matrix?*
25 MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes.
It is a mine. It is an under-ground. mine is what*it is.
One has gone into that mine,
___ mined__ tunnels. so that you can traverse it ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And t:ti.en fill it all up again as you put in assemblies?
MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So you have to mine it again if you are going to retrieve them?
MR._LeGASSIE:
That's right.
COMMISSIONER GILJNSKY:
They are not just hanging out there?
MR. LeGASSIE:
The idea is not to put these assemblies down for the purpose of retrieving them later.
The idea is to put them down in ultimate disposal*
configurations.
Now,.-it is* not absolutely clear, but the impression I hav:e is that if we were to take these assemblies and say that we wished to place them permanently_ away underground that in effect we would be. saying they were a waste from our standpoint.
And it would seem to me then that from where I sit that the provisions of the present law would indicate
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 lJ..
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that in any such action on our part ought to be. licensed.
That might be something that lawyers would have to pour to decideL.one way whether or not what I have said is correct.
But if that was. either not correct or if for some* reason it was decided that this. would not be done and one was* back only to the elements on the first page, it is still our view that --- within the Task Force that the WIPP facility should be licensed *.
And that would then require some action such as the-legislation with respect to TRU disposal and its license situation to insure that was done *.
But we-are quite serious about this view, and I think the Department is.. :already:_*indicating to the citizens of New Mexico that it will be a licensed facility some way, some how.
So they have the further assurance of a regulatory process with respect to it and their ability to participate_in such a process.
MR. SHAPAR:
Is that conclusion, however, like the other conclusions subject to the middle review group?
MR. LeGASSIE:
No, I think that WIPP is proceeding on an independent schedule because it is a near-term action and decisions cannot be deferred on it.
So what we are doing or going to New Mexico-in April to discuss the recommendations of the Task Force with I
respect to WIPP.
Try to explain what is intended and obtain the views of* the people in New Mexico. It has been indicated
l 2
.3 4
5 6,
7 8
9 10 lI 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that following those public meetings and discussions there would be a decision in the Department about whether or not to proceed with the plan -- whether oz-.not to accept the Task Force's. recommendation on the spent fuel demonstration and~ make that formally part of the project *.
Again,. it has* been indicated that if that did not h_appen that it is the Department' s view that WIPP ought to be licensed..
So that is not just the Task Force view.
27 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is not federally-owned land-is it?
MR. LeGASSIE*::
- Well, there is some State land which would have to be acquired, but the end result would be that it would-be. on federally-owned land.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Has the Department made a commitment of some sort that the State of New Mexico has a veto ---
MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes, it has indicated to the State that this facility would not be built in New Mexico without*
the concurrence of the State.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And how do you expect that occur?
MR., LeGASSIE:
The process by which that would be done,-obviously needs to be developed in consultation with the State and those discussions and meetings haven't taken place yet.
Perhaps it will be a difficult process to work out,
1 2
3 4
5*
6 7
8 9*
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but we have* made a commitment in that regard.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But until New Mexico actually says yes are you going to go:ahead or are you. going to go ahead unless they say no?*
MR-LeGASSIE::
Well, it obviously could work in a number of ways.*
28 The-- that has not been developed in detail and I think our thinking also is that this decisional process in New Mexico would be coordinated in some way or connected with the licensing process, because it would seem to me that.one of the inputs. to that decision might well be a.:*demonstration by the Department that an independent overview by the Regulatory Commission as to the. adequacy of the*facility had been achieved.
Clearly, if we are unable to get a license f.rom NRC the State doesn't have to decide anything.
It has been decided.
So it would seem to me that the real question of the State's view would arise on the successful achievement *of the*, license from the NRC.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When you say the "State" does that mean some State regulatory body or the governor?
MR *. LeGASSIE:
That again is a question that needs to be discussed with the governor, and the people in the state because it could be accomplished by a number of
. different approaches.
So both the timing and of.theaspecific
l
- 2.
3 4-5 6
7 8
9 10
- 11.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 mechanisms are going to be developed over some time period.
But we are not talking about some decis*ion that we are seeking from the State next Thursday either.
There is a fair amount of time, I think, to work out some, mutually acceptable procedures.
I. don't know how much time we have here and I want to let you ask everythinq you want.
If we could have the next slide.-
(Slide)
We have* indicated that the previously announced schedule:,. which was established ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could I just interrupt for a moment?
MR. LeGASSIE.:;. y*es ~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What kind of license is involved here, are we talking about a materials license MR. SHAPAR:
This is a materials license.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is it?
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
It is not a production or utilization facility and those facilities are the only facilities we license under the Atomic Energy Act.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You could reach that more by a process of elimination than by saying is is really a materials license.
\\
MR. SHAPAR:
It is based upon a fair and literal reading of the* Act.
Facility as defined in the Act is a
1 2*
3 4
5 6
7 8
9*
10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 production and utilization faci.lity.
I don't think anyone is arguing that a disposaL facility would be utilization or production.
However, the contemplated procedures the staff has been thinking about are, very, very close to those that are used in a facility licensing.
In fact, I-think we would be rather hard put to distinguish between the two at least as far as the staffs..,;p~esent thinking is concerned.
30 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:.
But there is nothing in the way of a construction permit?
MR: *. SHA.PAR:.
Well, as I indicated in my prior remarks although it may not be called a construction permit the net result of the process would be very close to that.
MR *. LeGASSIE:
Well, the answer or at least as I understand it is essentially yes, there will be something from our standpoint will feel like a construction permit.
Whether you call it that or not.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, that's the important part.
MR. LeGASSIE:
This brings up a. point that I do want to make in the discussion with you, both with respect to WIPP and the development of *procedures for its licensing.
Similarly the National Waste Repository, which is the subject of this slide.
(Slide)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9, 10 IL 12 13 14 15 16*
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 It is extremely important to us for you to press forward with the development and resolution of any questions with respect to the nature of your process because we need to better understand what it is: that we have to be able to say to: you at what stage* of the process and. exactly what a reasonable: schedule* for the process is or some approximation of it *.
This affects what we do this instant in the conduct of our research and development program, our scheduling of when certain elements of research will be done, when certain site.characterization*activities. will be doner whether we are behind or ahead of schedule with respect to modeling of systems*
and accident situations and so on.
So we would really like to know much more today than we do know from you in order to define our program and its timing with much more assurance that we will. be able to have the work done and on the table at the time that your licensing process will ultimately say that has to be there.
So we really feel that it is extremely important to get developed a detailed view of the licensing process and schedule with respect to both WIPP and the National
- Waste Repository at the. earliest possible date, because will affect our instant conduct of research and development activities.
This is a near-term problem for us in terms of understanding whether we are moving rapidly enough or too slowl
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in.certain areas with respect to when information and knowledge will be needed.
Now, the point that is on this slide is that 32 the 1985 date, which has been public for some time, for the operation of a National Waste Repository and in the Task Force's view cannot be met.
Part of this. is associated with the fact that the ERDA program to characterize sites in 36 states ran into substantial difficulty, and basically, you know, needs a lot of revision if we are going to get somewhere in terms of characterizing potential sites in real states.
In addition to that, there was a conception of a licensing process associated with that date which has not withstood the test of your own staff's analysis of feasibility and so there has to be some more realistic assessment of the licensing process. =*--Even at the present stage it is indicated same time has to be allowed.
So we find the earliest revised date is 1988, but that is still only the earliest revised date.
It is not at all certain that that date can be met or should be established as a target.
It would depend upon many things and this is an area that we think the interagency task force has to address.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where do you stand with your search for sites?
MR. LeGASSIE:
We are -- have not gotten very far at
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the: moment.
We are now drilling in Louisiana and we are talking to a number of other states about beginning to drill in those states.
33 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Have you fixed on a medium?
MR. LeGASSIE:.
In terms of a date, like 1988, it seems to me that that date would presume salt as a.medium.
If the date were somewhat later then other media could be considered.
In terms of knowledge, we are further ahead than salt. It is a recommendation of the Task force that we accelerate our efforts to look at and understand other media, Basalt and granite and stop treating them like second cousins because they may, on analysis, turn out to have virtues that should be compared with the virtues and problems of salt.
We are concerned that we seem to have inherited a program that basically had made its mind up about the media.
On the other hand, salt may be a perfectly adequate media.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When did the decision seem to have been made?
MR. LeGASSIE:
Back in 1957 by the National Academy of Science.
It is not really clear that after that initial recommendation that other media were ever seen except as possible back-ups.
But we think the program of the Department of Energy ought to be considerably broader.
T 2
3 4,
5 6
9 10
- 11.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If I could continue with the next slide.
{Slide)
There are cost estimates within the report..
I don't think I want. to dwell on this with you *.
Could r have the next slide *.
(Slide)
All right, you asked me about what did we mean the NEPA process.
As far as I know this is the first time that anybody has gotten on one piece of paper, hard to read or not, a. picture -- and I don't expect you to absorh.c that-,:.
you know, it's* a horror chart if you will, -- of the action_s that have-to be taken in order to proceed with the entire waste management program of the Department.
And there are anywhere from 18 to 45 individual environmental assessments, impact statements or reports, what have you,_ that have to be accomplished based on that chart with in the-next 15 years or so - if all of the things that are to be done in the program that are now conceived actually get done.
And our point with respect to this chart is that this is a lot of hard work.
And we have been concerned that the organization within the Department has not recognized the magnitude of the job that *has to be done here in terms of the kind of staffing that is put this and the way it is approaching it.
34 So we have been concerned with the internal Department organization to prepare impact statements in a way
l 2
3
- 4.
5 6
7 8
9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that are acceptable and will survive review.
And.we do recommend strengthening of this* at every stage of the process, starting within the program in the first place and then strengthening the. overview process inside the Department in the Assistant Secretary fo'r the Environment in the second place and other aspects of the process.
35 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Who is preparing the generic statement*or the broad statement on the whole waste program?
MR. LeGASSIE:
It's being done under the direction of the program people and the contractor, if my memory serves me correct is. Battelle at Hanford.
And we have seen a-preliminary review copy of what is suppose to be the draft environmental impact statement and there are in the report that you have, the Task Force members who looked at this were rather critical of what they looked at and.. ~feel concerned about the status of that document.
Operationally inside the Department, I think that*
document needs a lot of attention.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What are the areas?
MR *. LeGASSJ:E:
They are indicated in the report.
They have to do generically with whether or not there is enough information in the report, whether or not alternatives need to be discussed in the report are in fact discussed.
And there are concerns of this character.
There are some specific
l 2
3 4,
s:
6 7
8 9
10 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24, 25 36 things said in our report and this is sufficiently sensitive that I wouldn't want to wing it.
I would rather read the exact words to you or point to the page and let you read them.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When would you expect the* draft of that statement?
MR. LeGASSIE:
I don't know.
I don't think the Department has been able* to assess yet how long it is going to take to do the things that need be done.
But it is a very important document and the fact that it needs the kind of attention we are now finding it needs is an indication that we have-a problem._
If we could have the next slide, I think I am essentially done.
(Slide)
There are some organizational recommendations which include remarks about the environmental office.
I guess ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you tell us a little more about the present allocation o-f responsibilities in dealings for waste management?
MR. LeGASSIE:
All right.
There is a director of nuclear programs who is in effect a deputy assistant secretary reporting to the assistant secretary for energy technology.
Under him he has a box which is the director of the waste management program.
That then divides into two pieces, one of which is associated with the terminal storage program and the other, which essentially
l 2
3 4
5 6-7'
- 8 9
10
- 11.
12' 13 14:
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 has the remaining elements that are inside energy technology.
In addition to that, that is to say the low-level DOE low-level burial grounds, TRU.disposa-1,, the plans for managing the defense waste are all done inside the energy technology assistant secretary in this chain I have just described.
In a, parallel chain, also reporting to the director of all nuclear programsr is another office director who has under him the interim storage of spent fuel.
So that that is separated. into another section of the nuclear program, although we find-in this report that there are connections, we think that are rather intimate and have recommended in that billetithat that be combined into the waste. management program.
In addition to that one then moves out of energy technology into the assistant secretary for the environment.
The dec~ntamination and decommissioning responsibilities are with the assitant secretary for the environment.
And decisions there obviously determine something about the volume of waste that has to be handled and its character.
And we think that it would be better for that to be integrated as well.
In addition, the assistant secretary for the environment is conducting the only studies that are now going on in the Department on the possible suitability of the
1 2
3 4:.
5 6
7 8
9 l.O 11 lZ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 seabed as an ultimate disposal location.
So that is. how that is -- I would say that most of the programmatic responsibilities are in fact we.11 integrate.
We are not having difficultT now in terms of military versus commercial and the integration of that has taken place in terms of program managemen:t;..
It is: just these few things -- those two things really that are,mentioned there, the interim storage of spent fuel and D&D which we think should. be added to the present organization and the remark about systems analysis. is that we found basically that there wasn't any capabi.lity in the waste management::program to be doing this kind of analysis and we felt i.t was badly needed, should be added to the program.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you expand on the transportation. item?
MR.. LeGASSIE:
Yes, that's really the reason I showed the*slide because that was the point I wanted to make.
- Weare concerned that when one begins to get into*
the transportation of fuel from reactor sites to storage facilities that are away from reactor sites and then eventually from there to disposal locations, which may or may not be the same location that there could be step changes in the size of the transportation requirements and there are -- since there is not a great deal of transportation of spent fuel going on commercially there are only a. small number of casks that have
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 ll.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 actully.:. been built and trucks and rail cars that are prepared to receive this.
We are not at all confident that that system is institutionally going* to be able to take the load that is going to be laid on it.
And we think that is something that needs-to be looked at in considerably more detail.
So we: are-expressing concern about the status of
- advanced planning in terms of receiving* -- the beginning of a significant load in transportation at some point in time relative to where we are today~-
COMMISS IONER GILINSKY:
Do you expect this to be government transported or commercially transported?
39 MR. LeGASSIE:
We expect this to be commercial transport using under the Department of Transportation regulations and using canisters and casks and so on that have been approved under those procedures in which you have participated.
So it isn't that we think there is anything wrong with the casks -- I mean it is not that the casks are a problem. It is that we have a system that is not functioning yet, that everybody is assuming we will be able to institution-ally start __ up and run at a high level of activity starting from a low level of activity.
And there are questions about insurance, about rights-of-way and things of that kind which the previous task forces have indicated need attention, and
l 2
3 4,
5
- 6.
7 8
9 10 11 12
- 13.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23'
.24 25 haven't been getting attention.
And we are not at all sure that the instant system will institutionally stand the strain...
Do you understand what I'm saying?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think so.
MR. LeGASSIE:
So this is something which we think our-Department needs-to address if we are going to depend upon the ability to transport materials.
Could I have the next slide.
(Slide)
These are some points having to do with our status of knowledge about technical facts, physical. research questions. about different media, state of systems modeling and so on.
And we are saying here that we don't think the program i~ where it_ ought to be, where we would like to see it be in terms of its knowledge of these matters.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How would you characterize our present state of knowledge?
40 MR. LeGASSIE:
Well, I would say that historically the prior system had placed an emphasis on engineering and had not done fundamental supportive work to underl+/-e the basis of that engineering approach.
So I find -- my own view is that we still have a substantial amount of such work to do.
I don't know how to characterize it with an adjective.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It sounds like a geological investigation. In other words, the characteristics of the medi
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 a~
9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 and.so on?
MR. LeGASSIE:
That's right.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The impact of heat and ---
MR. LeGASSIE:
That's right.
And in fact, there.will be a study coming out by the U.Sc Geologic Survey, we. understand shortly, I don't know what the exact date is which we saw in the Task Force which set forth in detail their view of what many of these areas of investigation are that need attention.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :.
Now, did the Task Force itself indicate what these areas are*or make any judgment about them?'
MR. LeGASSIE:
We have not attempted to describe them in detail because we know that this other material will be available that will do that.
They are the character indicated there on the slide in having to do with our understanding of the physical chemistry of the systems, the ability to model what happens through rather long time periods, the repository systems if I can describe them that way, geologic systern_-and the material that has been placed in them in an.adequate way.
And we feel that when we come to you with a licensing request or a facility which have essentially a lot of material in it, a significant powerful potential, that we ought to know a lot more about these matters than we now do, but it will be coming to you.
So we have time to
- 1.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9*
10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get there f:to:tnwhere we are now.
The report is basically in that significant area that needs attention within the program in terms of expediting the rate of activity and broadening the approach that is being used.
42 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you seem to feel that these gaps could be closed in a number of years?
MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes.
We think that the information that this will not turn out to be a schedule.limiting problem as long as it is addressed instantly.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did your group meet with the Geological Survey?'
MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes, we did.
Not as a survey, not as a ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, I understand.
MR. LeGASSIE: -- I mean, we met with individuals who were working on this problem, working for the Survey as we met with many individuals.
I guess I have one more slide which is self-explanatory.
(Slide)
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Could you go back to the program cost slide?
MR.LeGASSIE:
(Slide}
Yes.
].
2 3
4, 5
6 T
8 9-io ll.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23' 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now what does that say?
MR. LeGASSIE:
This is an estimate of the DOE budget exp,enditures in 1977 dollars f::i;:-om *now until the year 2000 and witho~t any consideration of* off-setting revenues that would be* received from the commerci'al. power indust~y and we think those would be substantial because some of the*
repos-itories that are* costed and built into this computation are-primarily to serve the commercial power industry.
43 We have two cases, the cases are described in detail in the report.
They differ in many respects, but from.
the standpoint of this, slide*, perhaps* the most important one*
has to do with the fact that case one had 148,000 megawatts of nuclear power in the year 2000 and case two had 380,000 megawatts of nuclear power in the year 2000.
Also, case two had a lower design basis for loading repositories so that it took more repositories to handle a given volume of waste.
We were trying to establish some ranges.
As a result, what you see there is in case one we have_.a cost estimate of $13 to $17 billion broken down into components as shown and case two, $18-$23 billion.
Now, this includes all levels of waste in both military and civilian waste.
And the scheduling of the handlin of. the military waste was such that it was dealt with by the end of the century in this computation.
That may not occur in fact, but we wanted to make a computation which included
l
- 2.
3 4
- s.
6 T
9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all of the waste* covered in the report.
'This does not include private costs and there are, for example, the cost of transportation from the reactor to the government which* would be borne:,by~the private party.
They are not in this. computation, but if the government transports from an interim storage facility to a waste repository, that' cost is* included.
I would say the report called these guesstimates rather than estimates which is. to say something about how they are really first-cut attempts to see what this looks like..
MR. SMITH:
Roger, did the report break out.the cost for military versus commercial?
MR. LeGASSIE:
No, it deliberately did not do that and there may be enough information in the report that if somebody wants to attempt that.on their own they can.
MR. SMITH:
I didn't see it and I didn't remember it.
MR. LeGASSIE:
We did not do that.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In fact, if you had the numbers that led up to this, you could arrive at a rough guess.
MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes.
There is in progress this business of estimating a charge for the civilian industry, and because that was so we didn't want to make a division within the Task Force report that might seem to be prejudging that charge calculation
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 II
- 12.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would think who ever was making the charge would find that essential.
45 MR *. LeGASSIE:.
Well, the basis on which that charge is developed has got its own philosophy and methodology.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is that b'eing developed independently then of the Task Force's report?
MR. LeGASSIE :. Yes, I mean everything*, of course, was independent of the Task Force *work.~*~: We just came in and took a look.
There is an informal activity in the Department to develop this charge. It will have to.be taken out for pub-lie* comment when it is ready for that exposure-_
So it is*
something that isn't simply going to happen.
It is going to get a lot of public comment.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What part of the Department is working on the charge?
MR. LeGASSIE:
That's under the people -- it's Eric Beckjord and -- who is the dir.ector of -- and I don't recall the exact title on who has the interim storage.
(Reporterts note:
Mr. Beckjord's title is Assistant Secretary for Energy and Technology.)
So Eric Beckjord and Mike Lawrence are the individuals in the line under Bob Thorn who are doing this.
Well,. I guess I would like to say that. if one were to take this report and look for the interactions between the
l 2
3 4
5:
6 7
8 9
10
- 11.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 NRC and the Department of Energy that are upcoming in almost.
any waste program, they are quite significant and of a large variety.
There are many things that if you would pursue vigorously in terms of establihsing process definitions, the. definition of what TRU. material is which is another matter you. are reviewing*, standards and criteria' for l?w-level waste handling which is another matter within your system, there are many such things that would be very helpful. for us to have moved along with vigor inside the Regulatory Commission and which would assist us in preparing better to. *do-the job that we have to do in terms of coming to you with applications that are timely, and have the
- information in they are suppose to have and so on.
I think if one is to give high priority to resolving these. issues of waste management that there are going to be lots of opportunities for the two agencies to interact admittedly in a regulatory and applicant framework, but never-theless with a desire to at least reach toward decisions in a timely way.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see, you are familiar with the pace at which some of these things are moving within NRC, do you want to be more specific?
MR. LeCASSIE:
Well, not in the sense of an off-the-cuff conversation.
The Task Force, you must remember, was a rather short-time event.
We looked at a lot of things in a few
1 2
3 4
5-6-
7 8
9 10*
11
- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 months. and in the course of this we talked with people about these various activities stood. But I'm not familiar with each one of these things personally, and in. detail.
I think that one* of the things perhaps the Department and the-NRC might do together.is-to be sure we understand what the contemplated schedules. on both sides are and whether.. they are compatable and seem_'._consistent in the placing of high priority on the waste management task.
I think that that's a matter that could stand some joint looking into and certainly try to get it done. a little more orderly ins*ide the department, our own department now that we have the Task Force out and perhaps a little clearer view ourselves of. the importance of various elements of the program.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see, how do we interact.
Is there a point of contact at DOE?
MR. SMITH:
Bill might want to address that. He interacts with Collin Heaton and some of the others there on the staff.
MR. BISHOP:
I have been interacting t:.hrough Heaton on programmatic questions that come up.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :.
So they are kept informed of the rate at which we are proceeding and what our schedules are.
. MR. BISHOP:
The interacting on WIPP has become
l 2
3 4
- s.
7 8
9 10
- 11.
12
- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 quite formal.
MR. SMITH:
I think that it does make sense, though, for us to perhaps make sure the DOE has a report of everything we are: doing and the schedule that we are moving on and what time frame we are. going to arrive with certain regulations and guides and look at that with respect to what you feel you need.
MR. LeGASSIE:* Yes, but to come back, for example, to a point there is -- the report does contain a recommendation that it is* critical that we arrive at a clear understanding of the* licensing process for repositories:and what the infor-mation needs. are at each point of time, so while I'm sure there are substantial contacts between Collin Heaton and Bill Bishop, about how we are heading towards getting there, the feeling that the Task Force report had was that they would like to be there this moment in terms of knowledge because of the potential for affecting this programmatic decisions that.are being made in terms of where R&D money are now being spent, because of the concern that you saw in that one slide. about the status of programmatic information.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I think we probably will have to find a way to stay in closer touch with each other and with the government-wide effort here.
MR. LeGASSIE: _Also, I think that the contacts are probably diverse rather, I'm not sure, B.i,11 can speak,.bllt in the case of geologic repositories I understand tha.t is the
1
- 2.
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contact point.
I'm less certain that low-level waste discussions or decontamination or decommissioning.discussions are always through a single channel.
I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER* GILINSKY:
Now, how do you deal with other agencies, the other agencies that-are involved such as EPA.
Do you have some formal mechanisms with them?
MR. LeGASSIE:
I'm not really aware of the status of this.
49 My own view is that I have found that the actors inside the Department of Energy are -- who are concerned in these matters are in a number of different places.
Energy Technology, Environment, the Legal Office, John Deutch's office.
I have found that within the Department of Energy that the communication is not always very good.
I found that in connection with one activity with EPA it is one person in the Department who is doing it, another activity with EPA it is another person who is doing it.
And getting the story around the circuit has not always happened very well. So my own feeling is.this is something that needs to be looked at.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it sounds like the government is going to have to get its act together.
MR. LeGASSIE:
Yes.
But I do see a significant burden, perhaps, being laid on the Regulatory Commission by our trying to proceed with WIPP by what we said about burial
l 2
3 4
s:
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 grounds, about what we said about trying to move AFRs into a licensing process at an early date.
So I think that upon analysis of the things that were said_. in this report were done..
They represent to some degree, an addi t+/-anal workload perhaps. on the NRC in terms of responding to it and even.*
some adjustments and emphasis in terms of. priority in terms of our view of the situation which could then have some implications for you.
So:I think.it would be helpful to stay in contact in discussions at*the staff level about how this. develops.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you have any thoughts on this, Mr. Smith?
MR. SMITH:
No, I agree with what he said.
We have been looking at reevaluating our program with respect to resources that we would need in order to meet DOE's program, and Bill has actually already submitted something to me that we are going over right now..
The only thing I.would say that bothers me a little bit, maybe it is not too much of a problem for us is that it is a Task Force report.
I suppose we, wontt really have a definitive finding as to what government's policy will be until October or November.
At the same time, you know, we are moving down a certain path and trying to use the resources that we have to best advantage.
So that perhaps might cause 50 us a little problem, but there is not anything that can be done
l
- 2.
3 4
5
- 6.
7 8
9 10 11 12 1.3' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22*
23 24 25 about it right now.
MR. LeGASSIE:
I think the WIPP piece and the AFR piece have been identified as something that would be proceeding with a lot of emphasis regardless of the schedule of the interagency, because they have* near-term requirements to move.
So they are not quite as uncertain, I think,.* as perhaps some other elements that were discussed here.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wonder, just as a final point right here, you have been around for a long time and watched. task forces come and go on. this subject MR. LeGASSIE:
I wish you hadn't said that..
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-- I think the problem 51 is being.: taken a lot more seriously than it ever has before, I think.there is no question about that.
The President has underlined it a number of times, but do you have any thoughts on what went wrong in the past and how we might avoid it now or in the future?
MR. LeGASSIE:
It seems clear that there are at least two fundamental conceptions which would have been better not made.
One.was that the handling of waste is the last thing that happens therefore it*is the last thing we need to get to.
Looking backwards over history the system, whether it ever said that to itself or not, seem to somehow behave that way.
Secondly, I think there had been maybe simply
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9*
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 52 precipitated by the fact there was what appeared to be a strong recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences.
I think too rapidly a lead_to a view that specific media and specific fundamental approach had been laid out and it was clear that that's what ought to be done and all one had to do now was worry about engineering problems about hqw round the ha-le_,ought to be and how deep it ought to be, and things" of that kind, rather than. to lay in a broad base to support* the technology as we do with all of the* technologies.
We try to build a broad base underneath them and the whole nuclear power industry is built on a very broad base*, critical experiments,, all kinds of radiation work and so on, as you well know.
So somehow the failure to see the desirability of establishing a broad scientic base for waste management and to initiate that early, to my view, is what we are not suffer-ing from.
And we are in the right, I think, now trying to within the Department of Energy recognize this as a s*erious issue, one critical to the nuclear power industry's acceptability t.o the American public and to move on it with a lot of priority.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Thank you very much, Roger.
MR *. LeGASSIE:
Thank you for inviting me.
(Whereupon, the briefing in the above entitled matter was concluded at 10:57 a.m.)
U.S. n_;;.c_ VI"[$
O\\si R\\Gll1\\0N SER BR,'\\llCH