ML22230A185
| ML22230A185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/07/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780607 | |
| Download: ML22230A185 (1) | |
Text
RETURN TO SECRETAR AT RECORDS
~p.R RfG(J{
e,'- ,q>-o
'<!'~
f 1'1 Transcript of Proceedings
\ ~') ..,.o
,l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TESTIMONY ON WASTE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION (Open to Public Attendance)
June 7, 1978 Pages 1 - 31 Prepared by:
C.H. Brown Office of the Secretary
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on :!'-I Ne 7 1 1171 in the Commission 1 s 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 Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
I" I
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION
.3 4
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT' TESTIMONY ON 5
WASTE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION 6
I.
7 (Open to Public Attendance) 8 Commissioner's Conference Room 9 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
10 Washington, D. C.
11 June 7, 1978 12 The meeting of the Commissioners was convened at 13 11:00 a.m., pursuant to notice, Joieph*Hendrie, Chairman, 14 presiding ..
15 PRESENT:
16 Chairman Hendrie 17 Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy 18 Commissioner Bradford ALSO PRESENT:
19 20 H. Shapar 21
- c. Stoiber L. Slaggie D. Rathbun 22 s. Meyers 23 24 25
2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, why don't we be in order 3, and',go to work on"waste testimony.
4 We have a *redraft which I haven't had' a chance to 5 read myself.. Car-1 tells us that the front end is *pretty much 6 as was and if you go to page 5 'there is a section.here which 7 sort of, 'la:is
- philosophical groundwork for* what you* ,are doing.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can I make a brief'comment 9 al:;>out page 2.
10 The top of the page, I found that a little bit 11 patronizing.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We welcome your concern.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: " a~d your bill is a 14 helpful beginning.. " I would put i t a little bit differently.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, why don't we put an "X" in 16 the margin with recommendations to the drafters.:*.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Also on page 2 in the bottom 18 paragraph i t says, "The Atomic Energy Act authorized the NRC 19 pEedecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission to license and 20 regulate the possession, the use and the source, byproduct, 21 and special nuclear material .... in certain hands." Do you want to say that or do you think that is unnecessary.
22 It is, I suppose,explained later.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think i t is sort of intrinsic 24 in the words. How do you mean "in certain hands"?
25
4 1
redundancy of "proposed proposal"
- which is probably a little 2
much at the.top of the page.
3 MR. STO.IBER: I thought r . had marked that one Oll;t.
4
.CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. Onward, 3, 4, 5.
5 MR. STOIBER: I sho~ld mention, on page 4 in. that 6
first full paragraphr line 6, this was .dri Magcard and I think 7
they avoided changing* the "same health and safet~ pi~ble~s" to 8
"the similar health and safety problems."
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Where was that?
10 ,.
MR. STOIBER: Page 4, the first full paragraph, lfne 6.
11 This wasn't picked up on the Magcard.
12 "Although such*action presents similar health:and*
13
- safety problems to the long term."
14 COMMISSONER KENNEDY: That can be taken care of 15 later.
16 As in general not on that point, however, where w.e 17 are talking frequently, repetitively throughout the document 18 about hazards and health and safety problems, i t seems to me 19 that we have got to be.very careful if we talk about potential 20 problems. The *way it is written they are existing problems.
21 I'm not confident that that's so at all.
22 MR. MEYERS: In some cases that is true. For example, 23 the mill~t~ilings.are.e*iSting problems.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's fine, but right now 25 it is general throughout th~ whole document. That is particular y
3 1
COMM_ISSIONER .GILINSKY: Well, for example, not 2
if possessed by* th*e AEC.
3 n*.
CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE: Ah. to license and regulate 4
the possession. and use of source, byproduct and special 5
nuclear material ... " --
6 MR. STOIBER: , For commercial activities?
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, i t is more than that--
8 it is except where held by the AEC or certainly DOE.
9 COMrvlISSIONER KENNEDY: Isn't that going *to get to 10 a refinement which ---
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, I think that's right.
12 The point probably,ii ~o~ld us~fblly b~ fuad~;~p~rhaps 13
- i:a anoth~r:,*sentence or two a .little later. The point is, and 14 Vic** s right. The* Atomic Energy Act said, look, if the AEC 15 has the material or the Department of Defense has some material 16 over there in a weapon or *something- -1 ike that, that' s non-17 licensed and regulated in the sense that we use the word at 18 any rate, and if the though is in there some place they 19 will catch it. It needn't be right at this point. This is 20 a very general; sort of starting out. We will leave it to 21 them, then to crank the thought in.
22 MR. STOIBER: We will put the sentence in at the 23 appropriate spot.
24 We included on page 3 the mention of *NEPA because we - -
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: While we are on page 2 you have
5 1
.true when you are talking about the high level waste. They 2
are hazards.
3 CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE: Okay.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me see, I'm not sur~
5 I und~rstand the top paragraph on page* 4~
6 You say "~- th~t the 1974 Act provides for an NRC
,7 licensing of DOE facilities authorized for th~ express purpose 8
of long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste 9
- generated by DOE activities." You then say this doesn't hold 10 if i t is in an R&Df acili ty. Then you say, ". . al though such 11 action presents the same health and safety problems as the 12 storage of commercially high-level waste."
13 Wh~ do yow,.compare i t to commercially generated 14 high-level waste',?_. I would think you would compare i t to the 15 previous DOE-generated waste.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we put a period after 17 problems? You know, you have.said, look, *the Act says do it 18 for the long term DOE high level, however R&D is o,ut ". . . al thou h 19 such actions present similar health.and safety pro~lems ... "
20 period and theri we don't have to go stumbling over -- I see*
21 what you meant. It then goes and compares not to the ~irst 22 thing, but to some new thing which we haven't mentioned in that 23 paragraph. Just delete the end of that.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now, " .. we would like ... "
25 it says, "*** .. statutory. authority to regulate TRU waste :Ln DOE
6 1
facil{~ies." Is that bec~use of our definition of high-level 2
waste? Could we redefine high-level waste to include TRU?
3 MR. SHAPAR: We could; -You* can define it any way 4
you waht to by statute, but most people always thought 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Would that do violence to 6
MR. SHAPAR: --- the technical aspects of it. Most 7
people have neve_r~.;cbhsig.e:ted that TRU would be anything like 8
high level.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I mean, would it do violence 10 to any congressional intent/ do you think,in talkin~ about 11*
high __ level waste?
12 MR. SHAPAR: I don't think it woul<l do any violence 13 to any congressional intent. Congress never really considered 14 it.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't think you can really 16 say we lack statutory authority_; to regulate. 'J,'RU. It is simply*
17 the way we have interpreted high-level waste in our regulations.
18 MR. SHAPAR: There are certain limits on what you 19 can do in dealing with a term like high level. Most if not 20 all technical p*eople would tell you that under any commonly 21 accepted definition of TRU, TRU is not high level. So, 22 someone could attack it if you did it.
23 COMMIS.SIONER KENNEDY: Why does one need, to? Why 24 don't we just clean up -- if we want to deal w£th the 25 material in essentially the same way, you don't have to define
7 1
it as the ,same material. Just define as it is~ as everybody 2
tinderstands it and say it is going to be dealt with in th~.
3.
same way as "X" or. "Y".
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that's one way to do it 5 ,'
and maybe that's the best way,*. but .I don't-:-- I'm not sure it 6
foLl.ows if the Commission lacks authority to *regulate* it.
7 MR. STOIBER: We can certainly eleminate that 8
judgment ~y merely saying as currently treated by the 9
Commission; we. would not license it.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:' Fine.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It is defined in the 12 statute?
13 MR. SHAPAR: No. It is not.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: High level is?
15 MR. SHAPAR: No.
l(;i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, it is defined in the 17 regulations.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well;.. under current Commission 19 Regulations.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, that implies that we could 22 just as easy as could be change the regulation:and bring it in.
23 I think a better wording or sort of drift of the wordi g 24- is that under generally accepted interpretations as to the mean-25 ing of high-level waste the Commission currently lacks authority
8 1
to regulate TRU waste in. DOE-facilities.
2, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: .. Cur:tently doe.s not~
3 MR. SHAPA.R: We have faced* the saine precise problem 4
.in other correspondence from the Congress and what we hav~
5 said in 0th.er .occasions is* that the NRC probably lacks 6
authority. We told the Congress that'before. IIProbably" was 7
the.word used.
8' CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE: Well,* that's another way of 9
introducing thought.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well', why don't we just 11 say the Commission has interpreted high-level waste to mean 12 the following.
13 MR. STOIBER: It is an important concept to say that 14 the Commission, for a long period of time has used this ---
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would like them to understand 16 that if they said, well, fix that by changing your regulation, 17 wh1/4_you are going to have to struggle some because there is 18 a very considerable body of praciice th~t 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In fact, the regulations 20 say .that the high-level waste comes out of .th~ r~processing 21 plant.
22 MR. SHAPAR: In liquid form.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In liquid form, yes. Which 24 is a pretty narrow definition. Now, we are sort of saying ---
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And i t is clearly not the
9 1
definition that the Committee is working.:*with. in their
'2**,
draft. I think this .. 'is like the short term~l6ng*_::ter:m thing.
We ha~e got to.tell them what ,we mean by the phrases we use in our testimony becaus.e in some .cases we use i t differently from the .way .. the Committee is a'lready using* i t in legislation thei are _cqnsidering. . If they think that o:ur,:propos.als are 7
using the words the same _way that t'.t,:iey are, we are.going to 8
have confusion. Maybe we had better give them a g1ossary.
9 MR. SHAPAR: I t i s kind of significant.here because 10 i t depends on whether we are saying we are asking for new 11
.authority or we want to clear up*an ambiguity and I think 12 you at least ought to be clear in your 0wn minds as to which 13 of'those you are*going for.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, .I for one am not happy 15 with th~ present definition of high-level waste~
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRtE: It clearly needs expansion.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It needs expansion and whether 18 i t can be expanded this far, I don't know. Maybe we are going*
19 too far, but I wouldn'.t want to be tied to that definition.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I_ agree.
21 The transuranic waste includes really trace contaminat d.
22 blotting paper, gloves, coveralls material, which under no 23 stretch,::.of the imagination can be called high-level in any 24 sense. You are concerned about i t because the *stuff has a long 25 life and you don't necessarily want to treat i t the way you do
10 1
similar low curie content short-half-life material that you 2
know will*decay out .in 70 years in the trenches. That's 3
the. basis for concern. But to lump it*into high level. is 4
something else 'and I think it is better to have eventually 5
an explicit authority on transuranic ---
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well,. I think that's right.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The point just is the current 8
language is not -- lacks certain re~trictive elements with 9
regard to ~he' situation. So if you would fix that, why I 1.0 will put a little "X" in the margin.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Peter's point is the important 12 one, that we have got to be sure that they understand the way 13 we are using words and we must understand the way they .are 14 using them and they are not necessarily the same.
15
(, ~) They think we are using in the same.way. The 16 result could be extraordinary to say the least.
17 MR. STOIBER: It might be worth ~oi~ting out h~re 18 that we did not attempt a definition of short term-long term 19 in this draft . . Wedidnot have any guidance on that point 20 and we would appreciate any technical assistance.
21 MR. SHAPAR: The Commission has had a problem with 22 that concept before.in dealing with what's intermediate and 23 what is high level. It has been a recurring problem through 24 the years.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well,'. ,okay, let me see if I can
11 1
drive on pa~t page 4.
2
~age 5. Qn p~ge 5 there is a ~~ction which has 3
been added in this. draft which now outlines some of the 4
- principle or.sort of ,the ---
,' r *
5 MR. STOIBER: We call them considerations rather 6
than piinciples.---
7 CBAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right, good.
MR. STOIBER: -- by any other name.
9, There are two, one,is the comparability principle 10 that we discus~ed in the last meeting and I just took that 11 sort of verbatim from your, statement of the principles, 12 Mr. :chairman, then on the next page is the other consideration, 13 the value of the iegulatory process in assuring the public 14 he.alth and safety.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: A minor editorial comment.
16 At the bottom of page 5 you refer to: * .. ".The first is that ... "
17 and you never do refer to the second, although i t is obvious 18 what follows on the next page is the second, but just 19 editorially" to,*make it. track.
20 COMMlSSIONER GTLINSKY: . *What is the second?
21 MR .. STOIBER: The value of the regulatory process 22 in insuring the public health and safety~
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: A more controversial point than 24 the first one. Hence, it is~lbng~r and will have to be said 25 in a firmer tone of voice.
\,.
12 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would reverse those.
2 MR:* STOIBER: All right.
3 CHAIRMA~ HENDR,IE: The (A) and (B) within *number.
4 2.
cq.MMISSIONER GILINSKY: The (A) an,d (B) within number 2.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Prov.ides a *structured meaning.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I was the first to provide 9
the value judgment of one versus the other.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, i t seems to me that 11 the primary benefit of our being involved ought to be that 12 we are involved and the second is that oth~rs get.involved.*
13 COMM,ISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, :'_it doesn It matter.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Because otherwise, we seem 15 to be saying we don't do anything but we do provide a vehicle 16 for others ---
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Logic **would argue for it 18 to he the other way, because we,as we became involved we 19 would then wish the others to.
20 COMM!SSIONER GILINSKY: Don't confuse me by the facts.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: -What we could do is put a 22 little parenthesis at the end. The foregoing does not imply 23 any value judgment.
24 MR. SHAPAR: Or the Commission is divided om,Mli.ich 25 goes first and which goes second.
13 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes. The Commission had 2
great difficulty in ascertaining the order by which these two 3
should be executed..
- 4.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Or better *still, in no way implying 5
- an order of importance.
The two points here are 6
COMMISSIONER BRADEQRD: You could get one of us to 7
read the other simultaneously with your reading, which ever 8
one you chose.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Correct. And not only that, it 10 would open a whole new realm of possibilities for Commission 11 testimony. We could have the. primary reader,* the sort of 12 adversary reader and then the two or hopef*ully three remaining 13 could be a Greek chorus leaning one way oi the other.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Or proceeding in a different 15 way entirely.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Maybe we could get some 17 advice from~the Bell system as to how they fit words within 18 words in order to carry more conversations on the cable.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I can see this becoming a
.20 performance,of.people coming from miles around to attend one 21 of our briefings.
22 Okay. On to Wast Activities Requiring NRC 23 Licensing Authority.
24 MR. STOIBER: Now we have divided these areas to 25 be brought within our purview into two subsections.
14 1.
The first is we use the term "r~quiring 2
licensing authority,"
ahd t,hat is. not precisely accurate, 3
I'm afraid. You will see that the other main section of 4
activities are back here on page st:i;-arige:l::y: .. numbered ARR.:.,l,'
5 that is after page 11.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:* I understand that:.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That isn't quite the rci;ght 8
h~ading. Is that what y6u are sayin~?.
9 MR. STOIBER: That's what I'm saying, -yes.
10 We had trouble coming*up with the *one that really 11 described what you were saying, but the second heading ---
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is sort of nu.clear waste*
13
. activities .for which we think clarification* of NRC licens.ing 14 authority would be useful. Clarification Qr authoriz.ation.
15 But that's :much:rntoo long, but isn't that the*'.::thrust?
16 MR. STOIBER: Right.
17 If you look at the second subset though;': "Activity 18 Warranting Exf)anded NRC Regulatory Involvement" what we were 19 trying to do here was set up two categories. One in which 20 we would be the* primary licensing authority and the other 21 is where we would have regulatory involvement short of the 22 licensing authority. For example, the waste tanks.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, you could just raise 24 the question here and say to what extent should the Commission's 25 regulatory authority be enlarged.
15 1
MR. STOIBER: Well; that is basically the heading 2
above on.page 5, "Revising the Regulatory.Framework for 3
Waste Management. 11 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But that's pretty.general~
5 Or specific areas for congressional attention, but any way, 6.
that's the main thrust.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Is it enlarged or should it 8
be extended to the DOE facilities -- or should extend to.
9 The extent to which our ---
10*
MR. SHAPAR: Yes. And that's what it.says in the 11 first complete sentence on page 7, the extension of NRC 12 li6ensing authotity.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Would it be helpful,' Carl, before 14 you launch on this section headed "Nuclear Waste Activities 15 Req~iring NRC LiciensinqAuthotity" to put in a paiagraph --
16 transition paragraph which tries to explain how we are going 17 to do the things we are now going to talk about.
18 There appear to me to be three groups. First.of; the 19 group which include the bullets. These are places where we 20 think and we are saying that new authority to let us in or 21 clarification of authority would be useful.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But those'are not all DOE, 23 just some of them.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Then the second category are the 25 ARR page where we are saying, well, we don't think we need full
..... 16 1
licensing authoriti here _in some of these areas we wouldn't 2
warit to do .it, but these ar~ ~r~as in which. involvemen~ --
3 we ~hin~ou~ involv~ment would*coritribute us~fully to these 4
in.the national picture. And then there are a-group of 5
these things.
6 Theri. finally, the third group which m+/-g}J.t be* t*i tled 7
sort of-other items that appear in the bill that we wou:hd like 8
to say a word or two about in this testimony, that's not 9
a title, Leo, that's a category, that is the way this thi11g' 10 lays out from here on it seems to me. * .I wonder if a couple of 11 sentences which say, in effect, *look the rest of this testimony 12 we would *. like to divide up in the three areas as fallows .. which
\. 13 ,_wm(Ld _. then frame that and perhaps relieve. -the difficulty 14 of devising titles which in.themselves manage to communicp.te 15 all of that, if that's okay with everyone.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wasn't listening,;:,but it 17 sounds all right.
- 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's the best way.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You weren't listening but i t 20 sounds all right.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The cadence.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The cadence sounded okay.
23 I was trying to figure out how that works.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. We recognize the difficulty 25 with the title at the bottom on page 6 and I don't know what to
17 1
suggest to you, but the transition paragraph, by allowing.
2 some more words fo explain.what is meant in each category, 3
I think may be of considerable help.
4 Now, with*regard to the b~llets 5
.COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Before we get to the bullets, 6
i t seems to me in the paragraph above it, I think.there is 7
an assertion there that realli needs either to be eliminaied 8
or to be justified. We just assert that clarification of 9
currently ambiguous authority over sev~ral present and future*
10 waste management activitiei ~ouid significantly enhance the 11 public health and safety, the implication being that there
. 12 is a significant deficiency now affecting th~ public health 13 and safety in any or all of these. And I j.ust-do11-'t think.
14 that is an assertion that can stand on its own.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why do you say that? It just 16 says it significantly enhance.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You know, we have just got through 18 citing several reasons why it is useful to have NRC regulating 19 in some place and I don't think you need to 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: To enhance the public, yes.
- 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would prefer to ---
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, if it is not going 23 to enhance the public health and safety 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I'm not suggesting it won't, 25 I am just suggesting that_ the simple assertion that it will is not
18 .
1 enough for me. I would like to know what it is going to 2
contribute.
3' CHAIRMAN- HENDRIE: Well, page 6. We see various 4
benefits in_ NRC involvement, brings the public in in a 5
structured way. Second, ---
6, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Which may or may not enhance 7
sitnifiqa~tl~~erth~nce the public health and ~afety.
8, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But is it an important point ---
9, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: whether it in fact makes 11 a substantive difference.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: On its own merits, that.',s 13 a good thing.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You know; and the independent
,15 view of the Commission and so on.
16 I guess in a general way you could say that the 17 trust of all of these things is ultimately an improvement of 18 the public health and safety. But I don't know that it nee<l.s 19 to be ---
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The effort is in that direction, 21 but it does.not go to saying the public health and saf~ty 22 is going to be any greater, necessarily.
23 MR. SHAPAR: It is potential enhancement.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where is this?
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is page 7. I think something
19 1
along the line, the Commission believes that extension 2
- etcetera, et cetera ---
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Would be desirable.
4 CHAIIDiIA.N HENDRIE: would be desirable in the 5.
following areas. *You have already said why*you think we*
6 ought to be in.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I don't have a*problem with.
8 that,just because I think the word "enhance" somehow implies 9
that all o~ the f?~lowing areas currently meet those currently 10 in existence provided some level of menace that we are not 11 sure that they do.
- 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ye-s. I think that's just Dick'.s ---
13 MR. STOIBER: We do link the concepts at the bottom 14 of page 6 by saying, "By applying:'.the above-mentioned 15 principles the Commission has identified specific areas ..* "
16 COMMISSIO~ER GILINSKY: Right, which ties it to 17 public health and safety.
18 MR. STOIBER: Right.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: All right.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good. So fix that thing at the 21 top of page 7.
22 Okay, the bullets. We have got WIPP, AFRs, GRU, 23 Long-term Low Level 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see. You have a 25 bracket in there with new. I thought the DOE proposal was
20 l
that we license all of them, wasn't it?
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: .The low level facilities?
3, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought so.
4 MR. STOIBER: I thought there might be some 5
ambiguity so I ,included it.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Wasn't that the Task Force 7
recommendation?
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That was my understanding.
9 MR. RATHBUN: I think that's right.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why don 1 't we just take that 11 right out.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Shelley, there *are now what, 13
- 15-20 low level DOE ---
14 MR. MEYERS: I think there are 14 active ones and 15 6 or something on that order.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, I thought the Deutch group 17 thrust about licensing of DOE low level repositories was 18 headed toward the proposition that DOE would probably end up 19 being the operator of all such facilities, and this was sort 20 of looking to the new ones. Did they plan on us going back 21 and grabbing the ---
22 MR. MEYERS: I don't think :the word said new or 23 existing. It just said low level facilities. I don't think 24 they differentiated between existing or new ones.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Without_* prejudice to other
21*
\
\
1 arguments :which we may have on other issues later.,for
,2 our discussion, wo~ld i t make sense fo pursue only new ones.
3
- The'three categories, those which are currently operating, 4 which I think are the DOE ones are all on tioE facilities, 5 they are the labs aren't theyi MR. *MEYERS: .I believe so.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The*others there 'are other 8 operating facilities which I gather or my impression was.the 9 Task Force was proposing that DOE take over ---
10 MR. MEYERS: In the agre_ement states.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Right. And then thirdly, 12 conceivably there could be new ones yet tb b~ established~
13 Now, wouldit make sense .to differentiate among all 14 of those?
MRI MEYERS: Probably not, except that one of the 15 rational:for DOE taking over all low level sites is to avoid l6 proliferation of sites and provide some national prospective 17 so that each state doesn 1 t have to have a low level site.
18 It may be that the regional sites are the most desirable, 19 but you want to make sure ,there is adequate capacity and
. 20 that can only be done nationally~ That was the rationale 21 behind it.-.
22 Now, with regard to licensing existing DOE facilities 23 that have never gone through a licensing proces you have the 24 same problem with those as you do with the tanks. They were 25
.. 22 1
built and designed obviously to protect health and safety, 2
but not to go through the rigotous lice~~ing procedures, 3
whereas in the agreement states they have gone through a 4
liceising procedure. So what you may want to do is provide 5
this NRC review of existing DOE sites fot *possible corrective 6
action and say .we condu~ in -the remedial action to be taken, 7
but not explicitly in licensing that site.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In this bullet then one would want 9.
the .new.
10 MR. STOIBER: The Task Force Report seems to imply 11 that all other. It says, after discussing.the program to 12 be developed here those operating DOE ~ow level base and 13 waste burial sites integrated into the :proposed system for 14 ultimate disposal should themselves be placed -*-,-
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good, you just *solved it.
16 There are a number of those that they don't 17 prop9se to integrate and ---
18 MR. STOIBER: We could just use that language.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you mean use that language in 20 our bullet?
21 MR. STOIBER: Yes.
22.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How about that?
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But how would you then 24 translate that into a statute?
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Heaven only knows.
.23 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Couldn't you use that 2
language'.'in
- the statute?
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Which sites doe*s
- this include 4
and which ones does it exclude?
5 MR .. STOIBER: Well, here :it talks about the low level.
6 ',
waste' in the program and it says _::.. 'it goes on and says the 7.
six commercial low-level waste burial sites are subject to 8
licensirig in one site, et cetera, while others are regulated 9
by states~: __:, :Under DOE ownel'."ship-:_.and management the si te*s should 10 continue to be subject to licensing. Then i t talks about ---
11 I'm not sure which of thie ones it _.is(*going to' ,exclude here.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: *I would change the word 13 "licensing" to "regulation".
14 COMMISSIONE.R KENNEDY: That's fine. Because 15 regulation can imply something less than licensing.
16 MR .. MEYEB.S: Where applicable. I think.that gets 17 out of the concern about licensing something that you can't 18 license. But you could say if you correct a particular 19 situation it will be acce1:table .from .-the *health *arid':Bafety 20 point of view.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes. It is subject to the 22 regulatory process.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think that is really 24 what the DOE people meant any way. I think they just meant 25 subject to NRCsupervision. I don't think they thought through
24'
,1 the details.
2
- MR. SHAPAR:
- Are yo1,1 pr-oposing to lic~ns~. the new 3
ones though, or not?
4
' COJ71MISSIONER GILINSKY.: I think I .would.
5 ,,,
MR.
- SHAPAR: ,Regulate* the old ones* and license the 6
new.*
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Obviously you are going to 8
have to treat the old ones.differently. Just exactly how 9
you do that, I'~ not*sure.
10 MR. SHAPAR: *Wel'i, the big difference, of course is 11 when you say no when you license they can't operate it at all.
0 12 COMM.ISSIONER GILINSKY: . Well they can't. put stuff 13 there, .but in the other ones the stuff is there already. So 14 what sense does it make to tell them they can't put the+/-~
15 stuff in there.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And does it really make 17 sense to make ---
18 COMMIS.SIONER KENNEDY: But i t does make sense to 19 note that because they.can't put more stuff there.
20 COMM1SSIONER GILINSKY: Right, possibly.
21 COMMISSIONER ~RADFORD: -- to make a recommendation 22 like this without telling either what we mean by l'ong term 23 or by low level waste?
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, T .. think we ought to tell them 25 what we mean by long term .and low level. There were some
25 1
definitions ~dopted in the paper. Right, Shelley?
2 MR. ME'~(ERS:
- We used that 20 year and we talked 3
about retrievability. When you say long term disposal, you 4
are being redundant.
5 Suppose you ;mean that is for ever and certa~nly.
6 nobody is making provfsions to dig.up.the low.level sites.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But have you got a definition 8
for low level waste?
9 MR. MEYERS: No, we don 1 t~
10 MR. SHAPAR: I don't think one exists.
11 MR. MEYERS: No more than there is for TRU, though 12 TRU does have a ~~fi~ition.
- 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How do you sort out .what they 14 put in the license for low level--'- you know, in the trench 15 facilities?
16 MR. MEYERS: Generally the* short life low* specific 17 activity and._:in ,some *cases. it has been TRU. I think that you 18 are aware that .one of the studies.we have under way is a-.waste 19
~*iassif ication study where we are trying .to get away from 20 high level TRU and low level. We are talking about class A 21 and class B where class A goes to a geologic repository, 22 class B goes to a shallow land burial site or something similar 23 to that.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And how do you define class B?
25 MR. MEYERS: That would be something -- Do you mean
26 1
where it goes?
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Don *~t tell me low level.
3 MR. MEYERS: No, no. Where it goes. The definition 4
is tied to where you put it. If it_is something* that deserves 5
to be in a geologic j:eposi.;t.6ry :for ~hatever the~ ::r*eason, TRU 6
would be in the case because i t lasts for hundred thousand 7
yea:rs.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think Peter is saying, 9
how do you decide where you put it?
10 MR. MEYERS: i t can be tied to 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He is going to have a classifi-12 cation branch out there in the basement of the Willste 13 Building and you.will put your ticket in the front window 14 and it will come back stamped A:or Band that's that.
15 MR. SHAPAR: What the Supreme Court said about 16 pornography. They will know it when they see it.
17 (Laughter) 18 MR. MEYERS: But generally speaking, those 19 specific activities short lived would be in the equivalent 20 of a.shallow land burial site. Long lived activity and high 21 specific activity would be in the geologic repository because 22 we can make that distinction, but it would get out of high 23 level, low level, intermediate level and TRU.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But if the Congress is 25 seriously considering writi~g those phrases into the statute
27 1 this thing will never get away*from here. If you pick as 2 a better classification_ system of high, low and intermediate, 3 we ought to tell the.corirmittee now.
- 4. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes, :_,but they are riot there yet.
5 MR. MEYERS: We haven't finished.
CHAIRMAN~HENDRIE: But we.could note as a matter 7 'of fact, whether i t goes in the testimony or not,. woui'd,you 8
- please crank up for me a sheet or two which includes ;the 0 9 f0ll6wing. i terns, yom:'.know;;:::.not in na,rrative
- form, but just 10 an outli~e form.*
11 What are sort of our rough operative definitions for 12 low level waste, intermediate, high level. Transuranics T 13 can figu~e out. You know, for low level purposes, why*you 14 just said, well, it*is stuff that tends to be of low specific 15 activitf, a shorter ha~f life.
16 Highllevel waste, clearly we had originally in mind 17 the m1tput of the separation stream from spent fuel and it 18 tends to be a high specific acti~~ty an4 ihcludes both short 19 and a long half~lives, but the ess~nce of ~he matter is that 20 it is pretty potent ori ~:~curie and specific activity ba~is.
21 Intermediately, I.don't know what you would do.
22 Then secondly, would you outline this proposed A-B direction you are proposing to go, because we may get 23 in to a discussion over there. and if we got in to a discussion 24 and if we can say that we are working on trying to work out 25
28 1
a definition that. __ _
2 COMMIS,SIONER GILINSKY: You would like the law:_
3 to have enough f le_xibility so that if, they are going to use 4
the term high level you could then allow that to, encompass 5
cla~s A, and. then low level, would i~ be pos~ibie for that 6
to encompass.class B.
7,*
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE: Yes.
8 Okay, now Peter bas to go in five* minutes, if, 9
that*clock is right. If the other two of you can stay.a 10 bit longer why we will probably work until noon and tak~ a 11 few minutes to do an agenda.
12 Now, we just got this draft in this morning so 13 weJ..thaven' t had much of
- a chance. to read i t yet and certainly o
14 not much time to work on it~
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Th.ere might be something to 16 be said for* -- since our own meeting time is fairly chopped 17 up for the next 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or so **--~ for letting the assistants 18 hav~ a crack at it -- well, we *do have one further meeting 19 on this, don't we?
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We do have a meeting scheduled 21 tomorrow afternoon from 2:00 to 4:00. We have a further 22 session reserved for Monday morning. You won't be*:.here, 23 however.*
24 I don't know, the assistants argue -- I have observed 25 the assistants group having more trouble dealing with the words
29 1
than we do. I'm not sure that a notable i+nprovement in 2
the efficiency of the processing would 'come about.
3' But what. I was going to say.
4*'
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Can't we consider it further 5,
this aftern6on? We are going to have a Seabrook meeting:
6-and I would hope that that would not take us w];l.at time*
7 is that?
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: 2:00 I believe.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 2:00 o'clock. That wouldn't 10 take us more than an hour.
11 MR. STOIBER: From the drafter's point of view, it 12 is by far preferable to this type of arrangement.
,13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Why yes, you know what i t i s
- 14 you are drafting.
15 If we go thoug]J this thing one more time, then 16 the assi tants can do _the word submitting.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Since the drafter would like* to 18 hear this august body argue more than he would like to hear 19 the assitants argue -- we ~ere talkingi if I got back as I 20 hope~ will in~ reasonable time from the Brown hearings and 21 you conclude your~Seabrook activities here we were going to 22 see if we could gather on the meeting that was cancelled.
23 Would you like to convert that to a crack at 24 testimony?
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would like to go ahead with
30 1
this and see if we cian't get it"-~~
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me that Peter.' s
- 3 .. .
suggestion is a pretty reasonable one.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well_, we haven't gotten yet
.. 5 to discuss -- they put in some options, and it would seem to 6
me that for.the assistants to sit. there and debate whether.
7 to choose option:A or Bis a fundamentai question of 8
Commission decision and it is not fruitful from the point of 9
v:iew of. the. drafter . .
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Is there some A.and B sort of 11 stuff here?
12 MR. STOIBER: We have included some materLb1.l in the 13 back of it here. +/-he High Level Waste Tahks issue, the 14 Waste Solidif:i.ca:tion and so on.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is very likely to result 16 in the assistants meeting is the assistant won't feel free 17 to go beyond the initial directions from the Commissioners 18 and we will have to gather on the item any way.
19 What is your.afternoon situation?
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I would have to bump a 21 meeting, that's all.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You had probably let him know soon, 23 because he probably has to start in from the outlying districts 24 pretty soon.
25 Let us see what -- if we aren't able to get together
- 31 1
for a little while and get on through some of this option
.2 stuff and see where we stand.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This afternoon?
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
5 Now, Peter has to leave right at the moment*.and why 6
don't the other three of.ask the Secretcj.ry what if anyth1.ng 7
we are going to do about the agenda planning session:
8 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
9 and t_he Commission moved on to other _business.)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
J