ML22230A199
| ML22230A199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/01/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780601 | |
| Download: ML22230A199 (1) | |
Text
ORIG!i ~l URN TO srcRET11R\\J\\1 RECOR\\)~
NUCLEAR EGULATORY COMMJSSION IN 1HE MAT1'ER OF:
SECY-78-276:
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND SPENT FUEL IEGISIATIVE M:>DIFICATIONS PUBLIC MEETING Place -
Washington, D. C.
Date -
'Ibursday, 1 June 1978 Pcges 1 - 58 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
Official Reporters 4A4 North Capirol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATlONWIDE COVERAGc
- DAILY Telephone:
(202) 3.47-3700
1 DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regu 1 a tory Cammi ss ion he 1 d on
,June 1
- 19 7 8 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. l*J., l*lashington, D. -C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This trar.scriot has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inacoiracies_
The transcript is intended solely for general infonnationa1 purposes~
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infomal 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 arg~ment containea herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
CR 7745 WHITLOCK barbl 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 BEFORE:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SECY-78-276:
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND SPENT FUEL LEGISLATIVE MODIFICATIONS Room 1130 2
1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, 1 June 1978 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m.
DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner VICTOR GILINSKEY, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
- s. MEYERS
- c. SMITH
- w. BISHOP H. SHAPAR L. GOSSICK D. RATHBUN J. KELLEY C. STOIBER L. SLAGGIE
745.01
- 1 I jwb 2
3 3
P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Commission s subject this afternoon is a briefing on a sta+/-f paper on the subject of 4
waste management, and particularly on various legislative 5
initiatives that both are underway on the part of other people 6
and other similar ones that might be suggestsd by the 7
Cammi ss ion.
8 9
JO
.1 l 12 13 Lee 1 I see you have got the table pretty well blocked in full, so I assume you have adequate forces to carry the argument forward.
Please go ahead.
MR. GOSSICK:
Mr. Chairman, I would just like, in an introductory way, to say that we would have liked to have 14
.been able to have spent a li.ttle more time in trying to 15 resolve some of the differing views and comments that were 16 made on this paper, as weil as perhaps to take a little harder 17 look at the resource implications of what is involved here.
18 At the present time, with the schedule for the 19
.hearings and everything else, we thought it was essential to 20 get it down for your consideration.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE~
I agree with your decision on 22 the matter.
I also agree.with your comment about a little bit 23 more time.
24 MR. GOSSICK:
With *that, I.will turn it over to 25 Shelly Myers to procesd with the briefing.
'745.01
- 2 jwb -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10
.11 12 13
- 14.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4
MR. MYERS:
Let me give you the premise under which the paper that we put together was based upon.
That is:
That all nuclear waste which poses the same radiological hazard should be regulated in the same manner, irrespective of source of ownership of.waste -- or ownership of the waste.
That was the rationale behind putting it together.
What I would like to do is describe for you the essential content of the paper we put together, as compared to some of the other bills that you mentioned earlier.
.. There are two kinds of bills floating around -- or several kinds.
The most signi1icant one is one by Senator Hart
-Which expands NRC..,s authority considerably.
Some of the others also aim in that direction.
Senator Domenici has one which provides for a state veto.
I *.wi 11 go into that, as we.11.
The NRCJs, or the NM.SS..,s proposal is to license all future DOE -- 1 passed around to you a sheet that gives you the kind of information I will be taiking about.
The NRC proposal is to 1 icense a.11 future new. operations, or expansions of DOE waste-management activities which are intended for long-term storage of disposal or which could be converted to long-term storage of disposal.
Included in that, we would propose to license AFRs for spent fuel and waste solidification facilities.
There is a memo out from ELD and OGC which essentially says we have
'7 45. 01
- 3 jwb le 2
5 authority to license those facilities.
However, I think it
- also ends by saying:
but to make it clear we ought to go for 3
legislation.
4 MR. SHA PAR:
The concern is spent fuel; we think 5
it can be licensed as a waste now.
And this same rationale 6
would e~sentially apply to the AFRs generaily in the 7
commercial sector.
8 MR. MEYERS:
One of the reasons for the legislation 9
is to make clear there are some people who donJt_think spent 10
+/-uel is a "waste."
This is a.way of avoiding that probl.em *
. 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But it contains waste.
I 12 guess I have never understnod.
13
- _~MR. MEYERS
Well, as Howard says, because it 14 contains waste, you Yery likely can treat it as waste and 15 disp.ose of it was such.
The way the current law is written --
1 6 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The difficulty is that definition in the present statute isnJt it? -- that says 18 that high-level.waste is.first-stage 19 20
.21 MR. MEYERS:
That is by regulation.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is just a r.egulation?
MR. MEYERS:
Y~s.
The law only talks about 22 "high-level waste.Ji 23 MR. SHAPAR:
We think the law presently makes the 24 spent fuel licensable. Some people have an argument about it.
25 And the position is:
As long as people are arguing about it,
745.0 l.4 jwb 2
3 6
you better* clarify it by legislation.
We don-'t_ think you need to, if you are looking at --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The issue arises not only 4
over the fa~t, but the definition that some people say "spent 5
fuel-'1 is a Ji.waste.*"
Other people say spent fuel -" contains 6
wasts.-"
No one would deny th~t spent fuel contains waste.
7 Some people would argue that it is not itself 8
"waste.-
9 10 J l 12 13 14 15 MR. SHAPAR.:
We think the better vie.w is the one you have espoused, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Thank you.
MR. MEYERS.:
In order to avoid the argument, it
~ould make sense just to legislatively --
MR. STOIBER.:
Unless you would fail to get the legislation, and that would call into question your ability 16 to regulate~
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have been assured by ail the 18 legal offices ~hat precisely that difficulty could be avoided 19 with regard to a certain proceeding under.way now, both 20 legislatively and in rule making.
21 I recognize the problem, but you have also told me 22 you can win the case when it comes up.
23 2-4 MR. MEYERS:
That is encouraging.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Onward.
I am sorry I upset the 25 whole thing.
7745.01
- 5 jwb le 2
7 MR. MEYERS:
The next point is:
We believe we should have authority. to.require DOE to take title of the 3
waste which we, NRC, would require through regulation to be 4
transferred to a federal repository.
This is because we are 5
talking about the ownership of material.
This is a materials 6
license.
That would also avoid any possible confusion as to 7
what our ability or authority to regulate DOE to -
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why do they have to take title, 9
as contrasted to receiving?
And is there a differencs?
10 MR. MEYERS.:
There could be.
The mate.rials license Jl that we now issue is to po...ssess the material.
The licensing 12 of the repository will be done under a materials license.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE~
Why?
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Would it have to be?
15 MR. MEYERS:
What other alternative is there, 16 unless we got additional legislation to provide for licensing 1 7 a,w a st e di s po s a l fa c i l i t y, p er s e, as a *" fa c i l it y
- 11 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why not?
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Since '-(le are making all 20 sorts of proposals, that certainly is possible.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would think so; it.,s just 22 as distinguishable from "materials" as a production facility, 23 24 25 i sn--*t it?
MR. MEYERS:
That is true.
MR. SHAPAR:
We raised.the same question, as to
7745.01.6 jwb 2
3 4
5 8
.why, if this is for protecting the public health and safety,
.then this is a question that needs to be explored.
MR. MEYERS:
We do have authority now, under materials licensing, to do it.
We have the authority.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But *if.we are embarking on 6
what ~onstitutes a vastly expanded regime, it would'£eem to 7
me that we ought to go back and look at the assumptions under 8
which the existing regime is being conducted._
I don't see why we 9
donJt look at the question of distinguishing this particular 10
~lass of facility *
. JI If we are talking about DOE, for example, we ar.e 12 talking about a *hole long list of facilities of different L3 types, all associated with waste management.
14 MR. BISHOP.:
In this instance, the concern was:
15 Jf we said, by regµlation, the waste must go to a repository 16 and the DOE said nwe donJt want it," the dDors are locked.
17 You have an impa5se.
18 19 20 21 22 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is, the language "takes title to waste," it i.s.not e5sential to your conc*ern?
You
~ould like some assurance there somebody will take it, if ~e think ~t ought to be taken?
MR. BISHOP:
I think ELD-'s point.was pretty well taken that if DOE has the authority to take title, that should 24 be sufficient; and we can operate under the assumption that 25 they would, in good faith, take title, if we required it.
'745.01.7 jwb 9
2 3
On the other hand, if they didnJt want it, there would be an impasse.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The thrust of a lot of this 4
legislation is to put all of the waste facilities in DOE's 5
hands, low as well as high level.
It.would be a peculiar situation 6
where they, in turri,.would say "no, we wonJt take it." That 7
would be quite a problem.
8 MR. MEYERSJ It is not very likely.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What if they said, "we can't JO because we donJt have any place to put it?"
We would then be Jl in a different kind of impasse.
We would have a law which 12 says they are required to do something that is physica-1ly 13 impossible for them to do a situation which I would suppose 14 someone would have to correct rather quickly.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDR!EJ We understand_the thrust of the 16 point.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.:
You make a distinction 18 bet.ween J'future +/-acilities" and "existing facilities."
I 19 donJt know.whether youJre going to get to_ "existing 20 facilities."
21 MR. MEYERSJ I will when I discuss what Hart 22 proposes.
Essentially, in our proposal, all we asked for was 23 authority to review their existing facilities for possible 24 remedial action.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Would you also get to
745.01
- 8 jwb 10 discussing "waste-solidification facilities"?
2 MR. MEYERS:
I will do it now, if you like.
Why 3
that?
Is that the question?
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
That-'s dif.ferent from 5
Js storage. 11 6
MR. MEYERS:
We would have no -
essentially, no 7
ability to check the waste as it came in.
We feel that the 8
best ~ay to make sure that the waste is solidified properly is 9
to ltcense the facility and the process it goes through.
10 Absent that kind of assurance, we would sit by
.11 and do our licensing action 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Wouldn-'t the waste solidification 13 facility haYe to have a materials-po.ssession license from us, 14 anyway?
15 16 MR. BI SHOP:
Not if it is operated by DOE.
MR. SHAPAR:
A.11 DOE activities are exempt, except 17 to the extent that we specify otherwise, as in the Energy 18 Reorganization Act.
As of now, they are exempt.
I think the 19 20 21 22 23 2A answer is that we can require, as a condition of receipt at burial ground, certain properties CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Properties of the waste product.
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me that more than that is involved.
I would think a large part of the 25 risk is in the above-ground handling of the waste.
I think
45.01.9 jwb 2
3 J 1 you would want to assure yourself it would be handled in a safe.way.
MR. MEYERS:
That is part of it.
4 MR. BISHOP:
But we looked at it from the disposal 5
end, and our rationale was something like this:
We would 6
.specify something about the characteristics of the waste 7
ac_c.eptable for disposal.
As Howard points out, that might be 8
9 enough.
On the other hand, we would have to ensure that JO that waste somehow met those specifications.
The usual way J 1 to do that is to put some sort of quality assurance control 12 13 on the ma~ who produces it and require him, somehow, to show that.
That requires us to lnok at that facility through some 14 kind of procedures.
15 The thought was to take that to the next logical 16 step and say the real ~ay to do that is through the licensing.
17 MR. SHAPAR.:
On the same theor-y, we ought to be 18 licensing_people who build pumps for reactors.
19 MR. BISHOP:
Or have the certification stamp on 20 it, through quality assurance procedures.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you are going to raise 22 that, of course, then let me go back to the premise and give 23 24 25 If it is true that all nuclear waste poses the same radiological hazard it should be regulated in the same manner irrespective of their source of ownership, then couldn~t one
T745.0l.l0 jwb -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 J I 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 argue the same thing about production reactors, plutonium processing facilities?
MR. MEYERS:
You could.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How do we distinguish among these._things?
I guess I am asking:
Does the premise itself hold up?
I have some questions about that.
MR. MEYERS:
You should extend the premise to include all of DOEJ's facilities.
One.could argue that the in the same manner in which we treat the commercial world, we ought to treat the federal.world.
Remember, the DOE was sor~ of unique in the law.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or argue the other way:
That the lawmakers were wise in the first instance by separating the government facilities from the licensing.
MR. MEYERS:
If all there was was the government facilities, then you really donJt need one agency to check on another agency.
In the commercial arena, that which the commercial world is subject to, there is a good argument for not having a particular governmental agency being self-regulating and having them treated as any other person.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But that isn*'t true of reactors.
MR. MEYERS:
I say, you could extend the argument to that.
MR. BISHOP:
There is a hidden premise in this that
745.0 I.JI jwb 2
3 4
5 6
13 may not come straightforward.
And that is:
That the lawmakers were correct when they first established that we should regulate some DOE activities -- those "some" being waste disposal.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
"Long-term waste disposal."
MR. BISHOP.:
And they limited it to high-level.
7 Our argument is it should not have been limited to high-level 8
waste, alone; it should be extended to other classes of waste.
9 That carries, because of the rationale o~ the Disposal Act, 10 at least one step into the operation, we think, although the
.JI quality-control assurances could t;>e adequate.
12 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
But the essence of your argument with regard to carrying the licensing back up into the waste 14
.solidification facility is primarily one of ensuring the 15 quality of the product which then goes forward into the 16 licensed long-term disposal facility, and it is lass concerned 17 with the item Commissioner Gilinsky mentioned about the 18 radiological hazard associated, in itself, with the handling 19 of these materials in the solidification.
20 MR. BISHOP.:
Our rationale did not look nearly as 21 much at the radiological safety of the solidification facility._
22 23 It is based primarily on the quality assurance of the product.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And it is also the case that, 2¢ depending upon the particular arrangements that were made, 25 they are st~ps shnrt of NRC licensing of the solidification
1745.01.12 jwb
' end #I 2
14 facilities which £ould provide the sort of overview with regard to an assurance -
.with regard to the quality of the 3
product to go forward.
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 J l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MEYERSJ The quality assurance program.
745.02.1 mte 2
3 15 We could require the licensee at the site to have a quality assurance program extending back -
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or you could have a direct 4
requirement that the operators of those facilities would have 5
to coordinate with NRC on operating problems, product quality 6
assurance measures, and an assortment of such things, which 7
neverthe l e.. ss.would 1 ie short of NRC 1 ice ns ing.
8 MR. MEYERS:
The most. direct and straightforward way 9
of controlling that is through a licensing procedure.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Licensing of the facility,
,I I that is shorthand.for requiring materials licensing.
12 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It could be -- once again, it could either be under the general tent of the materials 14 license, in which you would insist on looking at the way they 15*
did things before you issued the materials license, and that 16 would put assurances that they were handling everything in a 17 safe way.
But it could also be, as pointed out over here, for 18 the disposal facilities themselves a new type of license, 19 which would be a facility license in the same way as.we 20 license rea~tors, again, with appropriate legislative
-21 MR. MEYERS:
Under this scheme it would have been the 22
+/-ormer, materials license?
23 2-4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.:
Who would regulate the 25 transportation?
745.02.2 mte -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
JO
.1 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 MR. MEYERS:
Well, the Department of Transpoftation is involved in that in terms of packing the material and shipping.
COMMISSIDNER GILINSKY:
Even if it is government?
MR. MEYERS:
We are involved with them.
COMMISSIDNER GILINSKY:
Even if it was DOE-transported?
MR. MEYERS:
I believe so.
MR. MALSCH,:
DOT" s present regu.lat ions exempt the shipments that are accompanied by DOE couriers by lsgislation.
That is.what the pres.ent regulations provide, DOT-'s.
COMMISSH>NER GILINSKY.:
Do they have authority to regulate DOE shipments?
Do they ha've the authority to change the regulations?
MR. MALSCH:
I am not sure.
Apparently they do.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
About the proposition of licsnsing facilities operated by other government agencies on the same basis that we deal ~ith commercial institutions:
We certainly do it for TVA, for instance.
MR. MEYERS:
DOE is the only one that is exempt.
MR. SHA PAR:
No, Department of Defense is exempt, 91 (b),
under military activities.
Some of DOT~- DOE"s activities are licensed and others are not.
The 91 (b) exemption comes into play, for example, submarines are not licensed.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. I have some difficulty with the
745.02.3 mte 2
17 proposition.
It seems to me that the government ought to be able to function in a way in which -- in which there is 3
internal coordination, and you.shouldnJt have to have -
you 4
shouldnjt have to license government facilities.
I don;t 5
know.
6 MRo SHAPAR:
The original sequence here might be 7
significant to your point.
Originally, all government 8
agencies were subject to licensing under the original Act, 9
exc_ept for DOD and except for AEC.
The theory for AEC was 10 that it didnJt make any sense for a government agency to Jl license itsslf.
But all other agencies, except for the 9l(b) 12 exemption for DOD, were subject to licensing, like TVA, and 13 for that matter, DOD when they engaged in essentially civilian 14 re.search reactors and that type of thing, that wasn;t strictly 15 military.
16 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Army -
MR. SHAPAR:
That was the original theory.
Then the 18 AEC.was split.
So the original exemption for AEC devolved 19 down to both of its components, NRC and ERDA and now DOE.
20 That was the original thinking.
The first time it got changed 21 was with the Reorganization Act of J60 -- of J74.
That meant --
22 that had four limited exemptions from that general theory. Breeder, 23 2A 25 the research and development reactors and. the kind of waste we have been talking about; that is the historical antecedent
+/-or this discussion.
'745.02.4 mte -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Jl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let us go on.
I just will comment that in some ~ays I find it a pu2zling concept.
MR. MEYERS:
Let me run down the Hart biil, which is Senate 314.6, and its provisions.
It r.equires that we license sho.rt and long term storage and disposal facilities for all radioactive wastes.
And.. th.en they say including, but not limited to, and then they run down a ~hole range of things:
lo.wand high level.waste, spent fuel, trans-uranics, radioactive gases.
They also cover in that bill the naturally-occurring daughters of uranium and thorium mill tailings, which we have proposed in different legislation on mill tailings.
It also covars materials generated in ~ctivities in foreign countries, the activities presumably of a foreign country.
COMMISSI.ONER GILINSKY:
That means material COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.:
That has entered our country, even though it was generated someplace else and was not -- is not owned by us.
It indeed still belongs to someone, perhaps offshore.
ThatJs sensible, okay.
MR. MEYERS.:
I think it is that, but the language in the bi 11 do esn-'t really speJ 1 it out that way.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This is just covering the Administration proposal to authorize import of small quantities of spent fuel.
MR. MEYERS.:
It also covers activities which are
745.02.5 mte 2
3 19 part of research and development in defense programs, decommissioned facilities, and -
a real catcher -
facilities in existence prior to October,JI th, 1974.
4 As I mentioned earlier, our proposal and our 5
proposition was to only review existing facilities to 6
determine ~hether or not remedial action needs to be taken.
7 Now, they have along with this, in elaborate action in their 8
bill, that allows us to go through not a proceeding exactly 9
10 J l 12 13 with them, but to provide some exemptions, to review it periodically.
And when you finally end up, you can end up
_shutting down a fa.cility if they can-"t comply.
CHAJRMAN HENDRIE~
When it says defense programs, the NRC would then licBnse such_things as refueling of the 14 nuclear submarines.
15 MR. MEYERS:
Just waste, nuclear waste.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What comes out of those 17 submarin.es at refueling time includes.waste at low, medium, 18 high levels.
You mean we are going to have to go to the 19 President to avoid checking the refueling_- you mean we would 20 have to go to the President?
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We would have to get him to 22 exempt it.
23 24 25 DR. SMITH:
I assume the Navy would move pretty quickly to be exempt.
MR. MEYERSJ Again, we are talking about long-term
7745.02.6 mte I -e 2
3 4
5 6
20 storage or disposal.
One could make the argument of taking it out of the reactor for refueling purposes, it doesnJt require a license.
But when you ship it someplace else for storage and disposal, it then requires a license.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How about lo.wer limits on activity levels?
If you talk about R&D activities and donJt 7
put lower limits on activity level, you know, you have got a 8
fair part of the western world that you have to license.
9 MR. *BISHOP:
That is one of the pl aces where we 10 differed.
We suggested only those R&D facilities that could J 1 only be converted into long-tenn storage or di_sposal; our proposal.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does that.mean?
13 MR. BISHOP:
Something like *.:WPPS, for 14 demonstration, a very large vault test into salt, something like 15 that.
But certainly not a laboratory -
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You didnJt put an activity level 17 on it, either.
l 8 MR. BI SHOP:
We are st i 11 struggling with how to 19 draw that, delineate that line between those things we really 20 ought to be involved in and those things we know we shouldn-'t 21 be involved in.
22 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We need some kind of a lower bound cute.ff.
Other.wise, we just are going to get hopelessly 24 enmeshed in churning great reams of paper on trivia.
25 MR. BISHOP:
Another suggestion came up since.we
1745.02.7 mte 2
21 drafted.the paper, which you have seen,
.which is that we review all experiments of some size to decide whether it falls 3
into a category of requiring a license.
We are not sure how 4
that would be done either.
But indeed, there needs to be some 5
limit drawn.
6 7
8 9
JO
- 1 I 12 13 14 MR. MEYERS::
Their languag,e is all-encompassing.
MR. MALSCH:
Although the Hart language talks about all radioactive materials generally, they would still be regulated with reference to the Atomic Energy Act, which gives authority to exenpt from licensing classes of byproducts, special materials.
Even though the language is broad, we would still have authority to not license csrtain very small quantities that donJt present a significant hazard.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Have you looked at the proposed 15 language sufficiently.well, Marty, to be fairly sure that the
_ l 6 new language i tsel.f doesnJt somehow sta.11 that use of the 17 other parts of the Atomic Energy Act?
18 MR. MALSCH:
I have looked at it and I don~t think 19 it does.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is a useful way of dealing 21
.with those things, because that would.then presumably leave it 22 to the Commission to undertake by rulemaking whatever they 23 24 thought appropriate lower limits.
MR. SHAPAR:
That would have to be based on 25
- essentially a determination that there wasn1 t a health and
7745.02.8 mte 2
3 22 safety problem at all before you could grant your judicial type of exemption.
The threshold may be too low for you to usefully use.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I s.ee.
5 MR. MEYERS:
As Cli.ff m.entioned, the.re is also a 6
provision in Hart~s bill to provide a presidential exemption 7
for national secu~ity. _ The bill also provides for NRC to 8
define what short~term is by rule or regulation within three 9
months after the bill is enacted.
JO CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is too short a time to J 1
_ define.
12 13 back MR. MEYERS:
That is one of the comments we sent 14 Going on, other parts that NRC had proposed in our 15 package was regarding low-level waste disposal facilities.
16 Our proposal is to require agr.eement states to regulate such 17 facilities according to minimum national standards developed 18 by NRC.
And this.is the same kind of language that we 19 proposed for the mill tailings 20 MR. SHAPAR:
I might point out in connection with 21 the mill tailings, the returns have come in from three states 22 on the conc.ept of minimum federal standards:
Col_orado, 23 California, and Texas.
I understand that Colorado has no 24 problem.
I understand that Texas and California have 25 problems.
45.02.9 mte 2
23 MR. MEYERS:
Colorado has mills and California and Texas don-'t.
3 The next on'e is that we also recommended that 4
agreement states be required to perform the same kind of 5
environmental analysis that NRC would have if we were 6
licensing it.
We also recommended a state grant program to 7
help the states out.
And we also recommended that agr_eement 8
states be encouraged to establish licensing fee programs so 9
that they reduce their dependency on the Federal Government.
10 Right now we are proposing that a grant program be set up to
,11
.. help the states _through a proper kind of environm-ental 12 analysis.
The law said, you do the same kind of analysis that 13 NRC does if they were licensing it. Generally, they don1 t 14 have the resources to do that.
15 The grant program --
16 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.:
Taxes.
MR. MEYERS.:
The fee way is another way to do it.
18 They do have taxing authorities, but when they get socked with 19 something because the Federal Government tells them to do it 20 they would not other.wise volunteer to do it, they generally 21 look to the feds for that kind of assistance.
22 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That would reduce some of the licensing fee disparity between agreement and non-agreement 24 states, to whatever extent that isn1 t desirable.
25 MR. MEYERS:
The Hart bi 11, on the same subject,
77 45. 02. I 0 mte -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10
.1 1 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2-4 25 24 provid.es for agr_eement states to adopt and enforce standards for lo.w-level wastes, mill tailings, and decommi.ssioned facilities which are at least equivalent to standards adopted by NRC for the same purpose.
The bill provides for requiring state or Federal Government ownership of disposal sites, and requires NRC to promulgate those minimum standards within two years.of enactment.
DR. SMITH:
A key dLfference between the Hart bill and ours is +/-hat the Hart bill provides for a minimum standard.
That is, the states could be more stringent than
~hat the Federal Government requires.
MR. MEYERS:
The way our language reads, thatJs true.
COMMISSIDNER GILINSKY:
Is that not true in our bLll?
MR. MEYERS:
In the proposal we have for waste management legislation, it is not.
In the mill tailing one, they are the same.
MR. SHAPAR:
You are applying that standard for the low-level wastes, are you not?
MR. MEYERS:
This one here?
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, I think itJs in there.
MR. MEYERS:
The way this language is worded, I think it just talks about minimum standard, not "at least. 11 The mill tailings one said "at least. 11 This came out, just
745.02 *.11 mte 25 minimum standard.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the difference 3
between minimum and least?
4 MR. SHAPAR:
I think the paper says you would apply 5
the same.
6 MR. MEYERS:
Excuse me, I didn-'t hear.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the difference 8
between a minimum standard and saying that it has to be at 9
least?
10 MR. MEYERS:
Minimum standard would be what we set.
J l That is what you-'ve got to do.
At least is -- would imply 12 l.3 that the minimum standard alone, or more stringent.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why couldn.,t that be true of 14 the former?
15 MR. MEYERS:
It is less clear.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Regulating facilities according 17 to minimum _national standards developed by NRC is probably not 18 the right way to put it.
It sounds as though those national 19 standards developed by NRC are some irreducible set.
I think 20 what you really mean to regulate is to require ag~eement 21 states, as a minimum, to regulate such facilities according to 22 national standards developed by NRC
- 23 MR. MEYERS:
That is a be.tter way of putting it.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In which case it is 25 indistinguishable, I think, from at leasto
I r745.02.12
- 26 mte 2
MR. SHAPAR-:
Th.e actual recommendation is on page
- 9.
It says, -11 We recommend that the existing leg is lat ion he 3
amended so that with regard to low-level waste disposal, 4
agreement states are required to regulate, a.ccording to minimum 5
standards developad by the NRC.
The rationale for requiring 6
7 8
9 10 J l 12 13 14 15 16
. 17 18 19
- 20.
21 22 23 24 25 agreement states to regulate mill tailings disposals ~ccording to minimum standards, s*ee Commission Decision.of April 1978, als.o applies to the regulation of low-level waste disposal."
If that is so, then the language ought to be the same.
745.03.J pv 2
27 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Onward.
MR. MEYERS:
Those are the guts of the comparison 3
of the Hart bill, versus what we propose.
There are 4
additional parts of the Hart bill that were not addressed at 5
all in our proposal.
These are as follows:
6 Each applicant for a facility license to store, 7
dispose of low~level, high-level spent fuel, TRU, et cetera, 8
shall identify alternative sites.
The bill goes on further 9
to say that, except as required by the National Environmental 10 Policy Act, NRC may waive thB alternate site requirement if JI the subject +/-acility is intended to demonstrate the existence 12 13 j 4 15 16 of a safe, practical technology for permanent storage.
Also, we ar.e required to develop criter.ia within 18 months for evaluation of alternative sites.
That is sort of an interesting requirement, since they introduce it with the National Environmental Policy Act, and then they say insofar 17 as the National Environmental Policy Act allows.
18 One of the main requirements of the NEPA is to 19 analyze alternatives.
I really don 1 t see_how we could 20 exercise that provision they gave us there to waive that 21 alternative analysis.
22 23 MR. MALSCH:
I think I know what that was.
I think that was designed to overrule by legislation the Commission 1 s 24 secret decision which talks about a disparity in data being 25 controlling possibly on an alternative site decision.
The
745.03.2 pv 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
.J l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
./).
28 idea is to get the same amount of data before the Commission on several alternative waste disposal sites.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Really?
MR. MALSCH:
I think that was the intent.
The language is not as clear as it might be.
MR. BISHOP:
That is how we read it, also.
CHAJRMAN HENDRIE:
My impression is that the proprietors and movers of waste products may find it about all they can manage to get up MR. SHAPAR:
Some western states, I. think, California, have a statutory requirement or other requirement that a given number of alternatives be presentsd.
I think it is two or three
- MR. MEYERS:
All on the same detail.
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Considering the amount of detail it would require for a site evaluation I have a notion that that amounts to not having any valid applications.
MR. MALSCH:
That is why they added in the exclusion +/-or a demonstration project in the later part of that section, so we could waive that requirement for*
demonstration facilities.
In those cases, all we had to do was comply with NEPA, the assumption being that NEPA didn1 t require any more than what the Commission's --
MR. MEYERS:
Another point that the Hart bill has
745.03.3 pv 2
3 4
5 29 is a requirement for NRC to study the technology for disposal and storage of high-level waste, spent fuel, and TRU and of the current program to regulate such waste.
NRC is then to report back to the Congress 2 years after the enactment, and the report is to include several specific findings:
- one, 6
~hether or not there is a re~sonable assurance and practically 7
sound method and plan existing for the safe and timely 8
containment of high-level waste, spent fuel, and TRU which are 9
10 JI 12 13 14 15 produced by nuclear power reactors and reprocessing facilities; two, whether adequate and reliable information is available to make that determination; and three, in light of the required study and finding, the NRC shall take such action as iS nece~sary to assure the protection of the public health and safety.
There is another part there that says that in the 16 event that NRC finds that adequate and reliable information 17 does not exist to make a finding that waste can be safely 18 contained, then the NRC shall design a plan to generate such 19 information and report thereon to the Congress within 6 months 20 of such negative determination, and shall take whatever action 21 is necessary t.o protect the public health in the interim.
22 23 That is an interesting one.
There is another requirement to have NRC establish 24 by rule or regulation -
which* is.not on the sheet --
25 licensing requirements for financing future decommissioning,
- 7 45. 03. 4 pv 2
30 decontamination, reclamation of and long-term care of site structures and equipment.
This is similar to the financial 3
assuri ty arrangements we are now requiring for miJ.l tailing 4
operators.
That is the guts of Hart 1 s bill.
5 Senator Domenici, in his bill, Senate 2761, which 6
essentially is a bi.11 to provide state veto, covers a number 7
of things.
It requires an applicant for waste disposal 8
facilities, at least 6 months prior to filing such application 9
with NRC, to publicly notify the governor and presiding 10 officers of the state legislature in the state in_~hich the
.11 facility is to be located that it intends to fil.e such an 12 13 application.
The Commission, then, is to notify th~ governor and 14 the legislature when that particular application is received.
15 The NRC is to also notify the governor and legislature upon 16 issuance of the authorization to dev~lop such a facility.
The 17 authorization is not to take -
in other words, once we decide 18 that we are going to authorize it, we notify the governor and 19 the state legislature that authorization does not become 20 effective for at least 120 days, 30 days of which is while the 21 legislature is in session; and during that time period, the 22 state legislature, by majority vote, can either delay the 23 24 25 decision for a year or essentially veto our authorization.
That is the heart of Senator Domenici 1 s bill.
It is an interesting philosophy, in that we could
745.03.5 pv I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
JO 31 generate an awful lot of work prior to the authorization and then they can just turn it down arbitrarily.
It is a bad expenditure of public funds.
You know, if they were serious about a veto +/-or such a site, they could just have an arbitrary veto at the time that they are notified.
In any case, that is the guts of the Domenici bill and the Hart bill.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is an interesting proposition Whether, in fact, states should have a final veto power.
MR. MEYERS:
One of the recommendations we could
.JI make in responding is that there be some s.ort of congressional 12 or presidential _override, as an example, or that such a 13 determination--
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.:
Statutory?
15 MR. MEYERS.:
The re are a number of things.
One;* you 16 could make th.e veto contingent upon some health and safety 17 determination, rather than just being arbitrary.
18 MR. SHAPAR:
One of the lsgislative concepts being 19
~onsidered on the hill is, in fact, a pre~idential override --
20 I don_,..t know whether it has surfaced yet as a bi 11 -- the idea 21 being that if all states say no, then you are rea.lly.. running 22 right into a national interest, so somebody has got to --
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Then, you* run into a 24 national consensus.
25 (Laughter.)
- 45. 03. 6 pv 2
3 32 MR. SHAPAR:
-Perhaps, and which may or may not be acceptable to the President.
And it _is also a
political problem, more 4
importantly.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
Okay.
Does that run through to 6
the bottom?
LetJs come back to the proposition that you start 7
~1th about you regulate on the basis of the radiological 8
hazard level.
As OPE notes, in a commentary, if one were 9
starting from scratch, that might be an appealingly rational JO way to go about things.
At this point, moving in that
.1 I direction puts us de_ep into a gre.at many operations in the 12 Department of Energy, and maybe some other places that haven~t 13 occurred to me.
That is the Department that certainly may be 14 maybe even other places beyond that.
And I have very 15 considerable concerns about the resource levels that would be 16 required, and just basically about our ability to deal with 17 that very wide range and.great number of individual facilities 18 experiments sites.
They run into the hundreds.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How many people would it 20 take?
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The paper estimates about 60 --
22 60 and some, that that also -- the estimate in the paper also 23
- do.es not deal with monitoring after an initial review period, 24 and, like all of this kind oi, you know, first-crack resource 25 estimate, it wouldn~t take very much development on this sort
745.03. 7 pv 2
3 4
5 6
_33 of look that is proposed at all of those existing facilities
- to get a factor of 2 or 3 on the resource required to digest those things.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is this,.for example, taking into account all of the inspection that would be required by I&E?
7 MR. MEYERS:
No.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In just the NM5S initial --
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is a not very useful 10 man-power estimate.
I think.we ought not to be called upon J l to consider rnajo.r issues without having some fairly cl ear 12 notion of what the impact is going to be, not the impact that 13 is going to gove.rn.ing it, but it certainly is an i.nfluencing 14 factor that ought to be taken into account.
We ought to at 15 least know what we are doing.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is obviously very -- I 17
.wonder, however, whether some of these persons that you are 18 talking about, whether they would otherwise be in another 19 agency, in other words -- or are.we talking about functions 20 that would other.wise not be performed at a.ll?.
21 MR. BISHOP:
They are functions that would not 22 otherwise be performed.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or to the extent that they are 24 being performed, say, by operational safety, the DC~, but the 25 old operation safety ground -- never mind.whether that was
7-45.03.8 pv 2
34 good.stuff or bad stuff or is now -
an agency which operates those facil iites is not going to say, "Well, since NRC is 3
licensing, we just arenJt going to worry about the safety of 4
those facilities in conformance to regulations, health 5
standards, and so on."
6 They can"'t do that.
ItJs irresponsible.
They have 7
to continue to have, no matter what we do, their own internal 8
processes and personnel to try to make sure that those 9
facilities operate in a safe and responsible fashion for the 10 protection of their own people as well as the general public *
.J l 12 13 14 15 So, you just arenJt going to go in and swoop out a big group of people who are already doing. this, whether it is DOE or DOD o.r the Bureau of Standards or anybody else.
COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY:
It comes down to whether you think thase functions need to be performed and whether it 16 is worth this s.ort of -
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE~
And another question is, you 18 know, ho.w far back into the -- or a.11 of the R&D facilities in 19 DOE, does one really need to go?
You have talked -- Hart bill 20 talks about for licensing.
The mind boggles, but you talked 21 about a review, you see.
If remedial actions are necessary, 22 how do you see that?
Could you develop a little bit of that 23 difference in how you.would see that be in scope?
2-4 MR. BISHOP:
I think you have mixed two things.
25 One is the existing operations, be they R&D or what; and
745.03.9 pv 2
3 4
5 35 whether.we go back and look at or grandfather those.
We suggested grandfathering them to the extent that we wouldn.,t license, but we might review them to see if something ought to be done in a remedial fashion.
The other is the R&D, and.we have a very difficult 6
time drawing. the line between things that we fully. think we 7
should license, like the demonstration, and those things that B
We think we shouldn't, like a laboratory experiment out at 9
Argonne.
And we have not fully grappled with that, how to 10 draw the line *
.J I We think that we are only talking about a few, a 12 very fe.w, facilities of R&D types in our proposal.
But in 13 existing facilities, we are talking the same number in the 14 long-term storage and disposal.
Again, we draw the line 15 between long-term storage and short-term storage in our 16 proposal.
The Hart bill draws the line on the near side of 17 short-term storage.
So that we would license short term, 18 long term, and disposal all three.
So, in all cases, the 19 Hart bill is talking about a much larger number of licensing 20 a.ctions than.we would propose.
21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
It will turn out to be in the order of hundreds; won.,t it?
MR. BISHOP.:
We haven.,t analyzed the Hart_ bill for ho.w many facilities.
We just don.,t know what DOE is doing to the extent that we could.write that down without going to DOE
745.03. 10 pv -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 J l 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 and asking a lot of detailed questions right now.
There wasnJt adequate time to do that.
MR. MEYERS:
It would be large numbers.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The bulk of the waste is concentrated in a relatively small number of facilities.
MR. MEYERS:
That is true.
MR. BISHOP:
Within the boundaries that we drew in our proposal, and.w.ell within the boundaries that the Hart bill draws.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you were told to license those othe~ things, ~hat are you going to do?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you expand a lLttle bit on what you have in mind concerning existing facilities?
MR. MEYERS:
Are you familiar with the DOE proposed legislation to correc~ the mill tailing, existing -- those 22 sites?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY-:
Yes.
MR. MEYERS:
That particular bill cails for NRC to revLew each of the plans from a health an~ safety point of view and concur on them in accordance.with some criteria to be generated by the EPA *. This would be similar, without the standard or criteria that you look at -
and there are a number of ways of doing this.
You can set up a regulation saying all facilities that fa.11 into. this category, we would like to review and make some sort of independent determination
7 45.03. 11 pv 2
3 4
5 37 that the health and safety of the workers, the public, or whoever, is protected.
In the case where you see something is going awry, you would recommend some remedial action.
That is all that there would be.
There would be no force of law or the normal Commission procedure to make them do it. It would 6
be a recnmmendation.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
You wouldnJt have a shutdown 8
control?
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.:
What does that.mean, to 10 shut down an existing waste tank?
11 MR. BISHOP.:
But you could recommend remedial 12 action of some kind.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.:
But Shelly was saying that 14 we would not have legal authority.
15 MR. MEYERS:
We are not asking for it.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are not contemplating 17 that?
)8 MR. MEYERS:
No.
It is essentially the independent 19 review and a determination by us that it is either 20 satisfactory, or, if you correct it_this way.
Obviously, a 21 tank, not much you can do, other than pump it out and build a 22 new tank.
But letJs say that it was a low-level burial ground 23 that.. was leaking.
You might recommend trenching it,draining 24 it.
25 COMMISS.IONER GILINSKY:
And they could do it or
'7 45. 03. 12 pv -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
JO
,11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 not?
MR. MEYERS:
Right.
We would not ask for authority to make them do it.
If you are wondering why go through the exercise, our letter would have some validity in terms.of bringing it to their attention.
They may be per+/-ectly willing to do it.
They may be.embarra.ssed into doing it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY,:
How do..es that square with your principle that all nuclear waste which pose the same rad-iological should be regulated in the same manner, +/-rrespective of source, or ownership of the waste?
MR. MEYERS:
We are differentiating between new facilities, where you have some. control over deciding what is done and how it is to be done, as opposed to an existing facility, where it won1 t even be feasible to set up any kind of ~at.ional criteria or standards that cover a whole range of activities, that were built or operated 20 years ago.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You wouldn 1 t propose tha-t; for West Valley or some other existing £ites handling commercial waste, woul you?
MR. MEYERS:. We are talking about DOE.facilities now.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But you have.set up this principle they ought to handle everything the same.
MR. MEYERS:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are rea.lly proposing to
7 45. 03. 13 pv -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10
.JI 12 13 14 15 16 17 rnd#3
]8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 handle existing DOE waste differently than existing commercial
,waste?
MR. MEYERS:
West Valley is under a license.
Presumably, we have some leverage with them by virtue of the license.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But you are stL.11 differentiating.
DR. SMITH:
Between DOE facilities --
CO.MMISSIONER GILINSKY-:
But they are more or less identical.
That may be all right, but I. think it conflicts with your principle.
MR. MEYERS:
Well, if the DC~ facilities have been licensed, then, thsy would be equivalent to the West.Valley situation where you mandate that they do certain things.
MR. BISHOP.:
Another principle overlaying the main one::
grandfathering existing facilities from new requirements.
COMMISSIONER GILINKSY:
Existing, unlicensed facilities?
MR. BISHOP:
Yes, from new requirements.
7 45. 04. 1 jwb 2
40 And we have therefore overlaid that.,, but in a softer.way, from just a complete grandfathering?
3 DR. SMITH:
The Commissioner~s point is that, to 4
some extent, when you grandfather, you are violating the 5
principle.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are grandfathering the 7
DOE different than commercial facilities.
8 DR. SMITH:
We wouldn 1 t grandfather them.
9 MR. MEYERSl It is a practical approach to avoid 10 ge+/-ting into a situation from which there is no.way out.
11 MR. BISHOP:
You may want the facilities inspected 12 differently, or supervised differently.
Obviously, there are 13 14 15 16 limits to what you can do.with existing facilities of any kind.
MR. MEYERS:
That is the point.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is it that we 17 anticipate?
Overlaying an NRC licensing on top of the 18 existing DOE goals -- their own establ.ished on.es?
What would 19 this offer?
What additional advantage is.there to be gained 20 here, other than adherence to the principle?
21 MR. MEYERS:
It avoids the concept of 22 self-regulation, for one thing.
There would be a situation in 23 a geologic facility, for exa~ple, where we would license the 24 disposal of commercial waste, for example; while in the same 25 facility there could be unlicensed material.
4.2 jwb 2
41 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Not if we were licensing "the facility.Jr We are talking about a new geologic storage 3
facility.
My understanding is that we are going to be 4
licensing the facility.
5 6
7 8
9 10 MR. MEYERS:
True.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That problem.wouldn1 t arise.
MR. BISHOP.:
It is a materials license.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Maybe that is the problem.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:. I just lost you.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Their point is that you can
.11 have the 11PPSS facility, for example, with -
12 13 MR
- B I SHOP :
11 Sp e n t f u e l, or h i g h-1 e v e l waste * "
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.:
-*- spent fuel from domestic 14 power reactors, and some high-level waste from Hanford, or 15 wherever, or whatever, and the power reactor fuel would be 16 licensed but the other would not.
17 My point is -- going ba.ck to what we said earlier --
18 the problem is not with who is being licensed, or who is doing 19 it in that case, but the nature of the license.
If the 20 license is on the "facility," then it would seem to me that 21 whatever goes into it is going to have to be: Ca) of the 22 quality and character; and Cb) managed in the same way.
Isn 1 t 23 24 25 that right?
MR. MEYERS:
Yes.
MR. BISHOP:
DOE also
7745.04.3 jwb 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 42 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And operate the thing in a way that is going to be safe.
The input has to be safe, or they won-'t accept it other.wise.
They set standards for that JI Cb).Ji After it gets in there, it-'s got to be managed properly.
MR. BISHOP:
DOE also makes the point that, even under materials licensing, one could make a good case for regulating the other material that is going into the same facility with ths licensed material.
On the other hand, I think I could design a facility where there.would be a noninterference basis, and the case would be weak.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is the "materials."
But the facility-'s license would be a different question.
MR. BISHOP:
Entirely.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You wouldn-'t have to go a.11 the way back into the beginning o1 the chain where the waste was being generated.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE1 If you do h~ve a facility and it has several kinds of things going into it as WPPSS may have, if you have authority to deal with each of those kinds of things, why then you may in fact, on that facility, have two or three materials licenses that have to be in place --
one for spent fuel, and one for something else.
MR. MEYERS:
Or, one license.with several
45.04.4 jwb 43 conditions.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, which would probably be a 3
better way.
And whether that is a better configuration than 4
trying to devise some sort of new license and put it in the 5
legislation isnJt clear to me.
6 It seems to me you could cover it, either way.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That doesnJt really get to 8
the question I asked.
9 Now assuming a.11 that is true, what is it about 10 the existing installations that we think is going to be
.11 substantially improved -- or improved at a.11 -- by extending 12 NRC licensing authority, other than conformance to the 13 principle?
14 MR. MEYERS:
Well, perhaps~ ~uicker action.
15 As you well know, the number of cases where there 16 have been leaks, for example, and it gets corrected in time; 17 then, perhaps by virtue of an NRC license -
or, use the word 18 "enforcement action" -
that would move it quicker.
19 20 21 22 23 DR. SMITH:
I think the other thing is pointed out in the Deutch report.
At least that task force thought it much better from i f yo u w i 11 --- a " pub 1 i c per c e pt i on viewpoint," that an independent agency regulate their high-level and low-level waste sites.
They didnJt make the 24 point that it would be done "be.tter"; they just found that 25 it would be better to have someone who wasn't part of those
45.04.5 jwb 2
3 4
5 6
7 a
44 operations.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The same question comes up in I&E inspectors inspecting TVA reactors.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I understand.
COMM! SSI ONER KENNEDY:
Yes, 1 understand.
COMMISSIONER G.ILINSKY:
Everybody.works a li.ttle bit better if he is audited.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The only question is how 9
many times he needs to be audited.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is a pretty important
.11 area.
12 13 MR. BISHOP:
There is a further, and maybe peripheral item, under the licensing procedures that would be 14 a proceeding in which other interested parties could enter.
15 Under the present regulations, there are no procedures 16 under DOE -- I did say this was 11 peripheral."
- 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Before we quit, would you help 18 me -- to the extent you can -- on the following matter.
19 There are a variety of initiat~ves, program 20 development, policy development, legislative proposals, and 21 so on, flying in all directions, on waste management.
There 22 seems to be _a batch of legislati v.e proposals., of which I 23 24 believe Senator Hart./s bill may be the most comprehensive.
There are the thoughts that you have, with regard 25 to what might turn out then to be an NRC legislative
75.04.6 jwb 45 initiative which is somewhat less expensive.
2 How do these things mesh with the attempt by the 3
Administration to get in place an Administration national 4
waste management program that has. the Administration -- ail 5
the inputs, and the blessing, and presumably the President 6
can say i 1good; that--'s it, now go.with it.J' 7
Do all of these things in effect preempt those 8
initiatives, perhaps at a time that is tno early to allow 9
fair consideration of the direction in which they are going?
10 MR. MEYERS:
If you take the Deutch report upon
.11 which the deliberating group is making its base, that report 12 recommends that NRC license much of the DOE facilities.
In 13 that respect, it would be consistent; whether or not the 14 deliberating task force comes out and supports that, we will 15 find out in Oc to be r.
16 DR. SMITH~
I.think, to some extent, Mr. Chairman, 17 it is true that these bills, if enacted, would preempt these 18 interagency task forces.
And after all, if you are hit ~ith 19 a piece of legislation that says NRC will.do this, this, this, 20 and that, that obviously puts constraints on whatever that 21 interagency task force is going to come out with.
22 23
- "preempt"?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In which sense do you mean 24 DR. SMITH.:
Perhaps not "preempt."
It puts 25 constraints on whatever workable policy they come out with,
745.04.7 jwb 2
3 4
5 46 unless they are prepared to go and seek new legislation.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It may introduce some extra steps in some of the programs.
I think they are mainly concerned with getting programs going.
MR. SHAPAR:
The licensing ~s a very main part of 6
the overall program.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
WhLch facility.is going to 8
be available, when, and that sort of thing.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Solidification.
All of 10 these technologies:
what should we pursue, at what rate?
J l MR. SHAPAR:
Right.
12 CHAIRMAN GILINSKY:
You attempt to formulate such 13 14 15 1 6 programs, and ignore the licensing aspects of them, at your peril.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But the high-lev.el facilities I mean, everybody knows that they are going to 17 be licensed.
18 19
.20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They have said that.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
"They"'.?
The law?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes; sure
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think "preempt" is much too strong a word here.
It will introduce some new requirements, depending on just how far you go.
1/4B. MEYERS:
It may help them speed up their 25 process.
745.04. 8 jwb 2
47 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think.what Cliff is suggesting -
I think you are right.
It is 11 preemption II is 3
the wrong word.
It is rather constraining.
It may be for 4
5 closing some avenues that might otherwise they might have proposed to examine or approach but it is pretty hard to 6
say whether that is true, either.
7 DR. SMITH:
But if the task force, in its final 8
report, comes out with recommendations to the President saying:
9 Looking at the total scope of_this waste-management problem, 10 both commercial and governmental, these are the pieces; and JI these are the ways that we think it is best to handle this; 12 and then what follows from that would be the legislation to 13 accomplish that.
14 You may already have some of the pieces locked in 15 on how to do that.
16 MR. SHAPAR:
The licensing decision can be J*yes*11 or 17
- "no. 11 And if it is 11 no, 11 that is constraining.*
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess I am less concerned --
19 I am concerned about the compatibility of_the approaches.
It 20 seems to me that, to the extent they are_ incompatible, that 21 these elements are incompatible in the direction that is 22 proposed here from NMSS, with getting a national policy 23 24 program squarely in place, I would kind of like to understand what the nature of those incompatibilities are and what it is I
25 reasonable to do about them.
And I would say the same about
74.5.04.9 jwb 48 the other proposed bLlls, which we will be asked to comment 2
on.
3 For instance, the Hart bill, which sweeps 4
considerably beyond what we have outlined this afternoon, 5
from your standpoint.
To what extent does it, you know -- is 6
it compatible.with the direction?
7 MR. MEYERS:
I.would say so.
-"Compatibility" is 8
the wrong word.
If the Hart bill is enacted, all that it 9
requires is that whatever DOD does is licensed, as Howard JO says, unless you say 11 no, IJm not going to license youJ*; and
.11 that would be a constraint.
Insofar as the geologies they are 12 considering, the techniques they want to use, there should be 13 14 no constraint.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How about having the licensing 15 of all the DOE facilities that are already in.existence?
16 MR. MEYERS:
That is something we would recommend 17 that you write back to the Congress and tell them that that 18 is not such a good idea.
19 But again, as far as the deliberations of the 20 task force, they are trying to figure out what to do in the 21 22 23 24 future.
They are also looking at -
DR. SMITH:
They are looking at.what to do with it now, t.oo.
MR. SHAPAR:
Of course, the task force is not a 25 DOE posit ion, as of now.
I
/
77 45. 04. l 0 jwb -
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 49 Point number two:
I assume that DOE --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I donJt know.
It may even be a DOE position, but it isn*Jt necessarily an Administration one.
MR. SHAPAR:
I think the testimony that we heard when Deutch testified, he made it clear that it was not a DOE position.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Just a thing he came up with over the weekend with some friends, was it?
MR. SHAPAR:
A slight of hand, or something like that
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE~
He kicked ~t around one night --
MR. S~APAR:
And it came forth_full-blown.
The other point that I was going to make is that I assume that DOE is ;ietting ready for testimony on these bi..lls, and I assume they have made thB kind of analysis about which you are asking questions.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What do.es that entail?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think Howard is suggesting:
Let the Administration worry about its program itself, and perhaps that shouldnJt necessarily be a major element in NRC commentary on ---
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is pretty hard for us to sit here as though we were in a separate world.
MR. SHAPAR:
My thrust is different.
If they have done the work getting ready for testimony, there is no reason
-745.04. 11 jwb 50 why we can-'t find out how they vie.w it rightly, or wrongly.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.:
I am not suggesting that we 3
ought to be governed by what they say, but I guess it would be 4
.us.eful to know what that is.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
Okay.
6 With regard to the -- Let-'s see.
The study, 7
reports, and findin~s the Commission is rsquired to make under 8
the Hart bill -- how closely does this track the language in 9
some of those draft MOU documents?
10 MR. MEYERS:
It is not very much like it at all.
-11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There was a comparable sort of 12 13 statement which we worked on for those draft ventures.
MR. SHAPARJ I think the Hart bill wouldn-'t be as, l4
- say, 11 stark" as the one that is in the memorandum of 15 understanding.
It seems to allow more flexibility.
Did you 16 have that impression?
17 MR. BISHOP:
It builds in several steps and backup 18 systems that are not in the draft memo.
On the other hand, it 19 is a bit more openended in where it draws from in doing the 20 study.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is the study practicable?
22 MR. MEYERS:
The one that is presented in the Hart 23 bi-11?
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
Yes.
25 MR. MEYERS:
Other countries have done it.
745.04.12 jwb -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
JO
.1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 MR. BISHOP.:
I ha ven-J' t anal y_zed it quite that way, but, yes, I think it probably is.
That is an o.ffhand assessment.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I mean, can it be done in two years?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
As an organization able to meet due dates, I notice that we occasionally trip and fall when the date comes and goes, and then we pick ourselves up and we ~et there eventually, but -
Are there other comments?
MR. KEUEY.:
Mr. Chairman, about the comme.nts on the preparation of test.imony, Carl and others in..our office have been preparing for that and shooting for tomorrow, or some time on the w.eekend.
I think that -- you can expand on this, Carl -- but we were hopeful about shooting for a Commission statement as to what the Commission thinks.
I
/
suspect it will take some chopping and cutting to get to that point.
I would think that we could usefully put in some historical context a description of existing law, and we can argue about that.
tHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
We may want to spend all of our time on that.
MR. KELLEY.:
I suppose that we could describe the Hart and other major bills, and what some of these principal
745.04. 13 jwb -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10
_J 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 52 considerations are when we get to the point of what the Commission thinks.
We may be nather general (inaudible}.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
He means, co.J.lectively.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:.
I. suspect -- one of the reasons we wanted to have this briefing and discussion this afternoon was precisely to begin to get the thinking about these things; what the Commission actually_thinks about these things we have to go and testify on.
MR. SHAPA~:
Why don~t we try multiple choice?
MR. STOIBER.:
We wLll have a meeting Monday to talk about the testimony.
You may find that the testimony is somewhat far afield from your particular ideas about.what should be said.
We have no guidance at a.11 on what your positions.wLll b.e.
MR. KELLEY:
If we get to you by tomorrow or the
.weekend, it is going to be hard to factor in Howard and NMSS also.
That is about the best we are going to be able to do, I think.
MR. SHAPAR-=
Try multiple-choice on this one, Jim.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You_might have in mind possible alternate language for some of the things that we have discussed this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, at least, there*are two positions generally sketched; OPE has a narrowing, which
7 45. 04. 14 jwb end #4 2
3 53 I didnJt gather that that was quite as narrowing as I thought it was, based on what you said, BLll.
That is, that in terms of what you int~nded to reach, there may not be so much of a 4
difference as I thought there was in the number of the 5
facilities.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That was my impression, too, 7
from th.e discuss ion.
That is why I d idn-'t ask for comments 8
from 9
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess what we can do is 10 we can have Bill be a little more pre£ise in clarifying that, JI because that was my impression, also.
I thought that there 12 was a rather -- a much larger difference of view than there 13 14 seems to be.
MR. STOIBER:
I think one fundamental point would 15 be whether or not we would find ourselves, in this round, 16 commenting upon the Domenici and Hart drafts?
Or whether.we 17 would be suggesting that we may be producing our own proposal 18 at some later stage.
19 MR. SHAPAR:
Are we committed to producing a draft 20 by virtue of any testimony ~iven before the committees?
Have 21 we made any commitments t.o produce a bill?
22 23 24 25 CHAJRMAN HENDRIE:
I don~t remember making any such -- LetJs see.
IJd better be careful.
I donJt remember
\\,
making such a commitment, but that doesn-'t mean that I havenJt.
Does anybody remember?
77 45. 05. 1 mte 2
54 DR. SMITH:
I think it sort of evolved when we were discuss1ng waste managem.ent at the gen.eric briefing that 3
Meyers gave.
We pointed out at that time some of the gaps in 4
the legislation are those things that we didnJt license.
I 5
think the suggestion was made -- and I forget exactly how it 6
came about -- that we ought to work together putting some 7
legislation together that would close those gaps if we felt 8
them necessary to close.
9 I donJt believe, as best as I can remember, that it 10
.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 was any request from any congressional committee.
MR. SHAPAR:
There may be. a fair amount of con sens us about the licensability of the real gaps in the high-level stuff going into a place like WPPSS.~ Based on the discussion, I think that there really is a fair consensus about that high-level stuff for ultimate burial, and.the gaps are kno.wn.
I think that to the extent that there has been disagrEement that has surfaced at this meeting, it is how far 18 you move.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE~
I think we failed to provide you.
20 more guidance than you were able to gather from the 21 discussion.
Get whatever you can put together on out, and we 22 23 will gather on Monday and start chewing on it.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
One useful area to address 24 would be some ~rticulation of the point that MMMS indicated 25 that didnJt get articulated in your own mind, which I guess
7 45. 05. 2 mte 2
55 the point at which either a lasser level of review and concurrence or else none at all.
3 MR. SHAPAR:
On the existing facilities?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
Somebody.is going to 5
have to put that down, whether itJs based on size, function, 6
or age or.what have you.
It is going to have to be a standard 7
that is articulated.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where do you dra.w the line 9-when you say existing facilities?
You are referring to JO something like Hanford?
.I I MR. MEYERS.:
Yes, something in place now -
.wait, 12 not the Hanford facility.
The building of new waste storage 13 14 and disposal facilities.
MR. BISHOP:
Not tanks at all.
Tanks can be 15 considered short-term.
We drew the line between short-term 16 and long-term, and so the things at Hanford that would require 17 a review would be things like the burial ground there, some of 18 the trans-uranic trenches and pits that exist.
But certainly, 19 not the tanks, unless they were some syst~m which cannot be 20 shown to be short-term storage.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How do you define 22 short-term?
23 MR. BISHOP:
For purposes of discussion, the 24 Commission has had an exchange of correspondence with DOE for 25 20 years.
7745.05.4 mte 2
3 4
5 56 MR. MEYERS:
They are there for more than 20 years.
They were designed that way.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.:
That right away is a problem area.
Whose determination of 20 years is binding?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.:
If a guy says, I am pu,tting 6
this stuff in these tanks for 20 years, do* we then have the 7
authority to say, no, you ars not, you are putting it in there 8
9 JO
.11
]2 13 for 30 years?
MR. MEYERS~
Not until after the 20 years goes by.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That-'s right.
And the twentieth year the question can arise.
(Laughter.)
MR. BI SHOP.:
The logic we use is that we wouldn-'t 14 license a person in a warehouse on a wharf downtown for 15 possessing a radiological source if he said he wasn-'t going 16 to, so we wouldn_,,t license a tank if somebody said he was 17 going to have it as short-term storags -- if he said he was 18 going to long-term storage.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That ma\\(es a certain amount 20 of sense if you look back on the twentieth year and wonder ho.w 21 you ---
22 23 MR. BISHOP:
I understand.
MR. MEYERS:
The issue of new versus existing -- the 24 Hart bill wants us to license whatever has been kicking around 25 for God knows how long, and we say we donJt want to license
7 45. 05. 5 mte
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 J l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 existing facilities at all.
It seems to ms that that is something that the Commission could come down on
- MR. BISHOP:
But the ones we think w_e ought to review are long-term, not short-term like tanks.
So the Hart bill expands in both directions, both in terms of going to the short-term storage facility, which would include the tanks, and then going to the licensing of existing facilities.
COMMISSJ01'JER GILINSKY:
If you use the word "regulatory,-11 you can MR. BISHOP:
Licensing is formal procedures:
hearings, licensing reviews, exchangs of documents, on a very formal basis.
COMM! SSIONER BRADFORD:
Would there be intervention in these reviews?
MR. BISHOP-:
Not the way we would foresee it.
CHAIRMAN HENDR!EJ If it is a licensing action, you have the full*array.
MR. BISHOP-:
Right.
MR. MEYERS:
That is what Hart ?ays.
We are proposing something else.
COMMI.SSIONER KENNEDY:
As to the Hanford example, Mr. HartJs bill would take the --
MR. MEYERS:
It would take everything.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Including the R&D facility?
MR. MEYERS:
And defense.
,745.05.6 mte 2
3 4
5 58 COMM.ISSIONER GILINSKY:
Except it says that they canJt relicense within, I believe, a ten-year period.
MR. MEYERS:
Then they will be shut do.wn.
COMMISSI.ONER GILINSKY:
What shutting down one of these tanks means is not clear to me.
It may turn out that 6
the difference is not all that great.
7 MR. MEYERS.:
One.could pump it out and transport it.
8 There are things that you can do if the law says that you will 9
do them.
10 DR. SMITH:
If the law says right now, pump out West J l Valley, we have got a problem.
12 MR. MEYERSJ Well, it is interesting.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Pump it into the spare tank.
How 14 about that?
15 DR. SMITH:
The problem is the solidification of it.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEJ Is that enough discussion for the 17 time being?
We ran a little bit overtime.
I think it was 18 well worth it.
I thank the staff very much.
It was a very 19 interesting discussion and one_which held_me considerably.
20 (Whereupon, at JJ07 p.m., the meeting.was 21 adjourned.)
22 23 24 25