|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:; . , | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| . 8W710004 ORSNAL UNITED STATES O
| |
| NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE In the Matter of: )
| |
| )
| |
| )
| |
| SECOND MEETING )
| |
| )
| |
| O Pages: 1 through 208 Place: Washington, D.C. .C Date: July 21, 1988 !
| |
| ! \ O',N
| |
| ;ggf gb(ne(1_..g-:onW"CItI5 h 1 h,
| |
| A
| |
| .........................a9 g;R...
| |
| egoy.e.l.
| |
| LOW cRS 1
| |
| HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OfkielRy-ters O >22 t ser . s.w., s a 6 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 fl$f'7290113 seo721 TOoof M NACNUCLE PDC
| |
| | |
| 1 1 PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE 2 -UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S t 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
| |
| 5 6 I 3
| |
| 7 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the 8 proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory i 9 Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
| |
| 10 as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the' discussions ,
| |
| 11 recorded at the meeting held on the above date. l 12 No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at 13 this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or 14 inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
| |
| O x/ 15 16 17 18 19 20 l
| |
| 21 22 23 ,
| |
| 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| (]) (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| :l 1-1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
| |
| )
| |
| 2 ADVISORY CCNMITiEE ON NUCLEAR NN7IE l
| |
| 3 .
| |
| y 4 In the matter of:- )-
| |
| )
| |
| 5 )
| |
| )
| |
| 6 .
| |
| )
| |
| SECOND MEETING -)
| |
| 7 8 Thursday July 21, 1988 9
| |
| Room No. 1046 10 1717 H Street, N.W.
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20555 11 12 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at-10:30 a.m.
| |
| 13 BEFORE: DR. DADE W.~MOELLER 14 Chairman, ACNW
| |
| (-)
| |
| (,/ 15 Professor of Engineering.inL Environmental Health '
| |
| Associate Dean for Continuing' Education 16 School of Public Health Harvard University' i 17 Boston, Massachusetts 18 ACNW MEMBER:
| |
| 19 DR. MARTIN J. STEINDLER 20 Director, Chemical Technology Division Argonne National Laboratory 21 Argonne, Illinois 22 ACNW CONSULTANTS:
| |
| M. W. CARTER 24 R. F. FOSTER j R. L. KATHREN l 25 j lloritago Reporting Corporation
| |
| (]) (202) 628-4888 j i
| |
| j 1
| |
| 1
| |
| ._. ~ _ . , . . _ .. .- . __.
| |
| | |
| -2 1
| |
| ACRS MEMBER:
| |
| () 2 DR. PAUL G. SHEWMON 3 Professor, Metallurgical. Engineering Laboratory Ohio State University-4 Columbus, Oh!.o 5'
| |
| NRC STAFF:
| |
| 6 ROBERT M. BERNERO 7 RICHARD CUNNINGHAM DONALD COOL' '
| |
| 8 KITTY DRAGONETTE ZOLTAN ROSZTOCZY 9 WILLIAM LAHS-JOHN TRAPP 10 JOHN-ROBERTS LEE-ROUSE 11 JOHN LINEHAN PHILIP JUSTUS 12 RAYMOND F.'FRALEY H. STANLEY SCHOFER 13 ROBERT BROWNING 14 DOE STAFF:
| |
| Os 15 KEITH KLEIN 16 CHARLES HEAD DWIGHT $HELOR 17 GREGORY HARTKOFPT ED RENGIER 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| .(]) (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 3 1 PROCEEDINGS
| |
| ) '2 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The meeting will now come to 3 order.
| |
| 4 This is the first day of the 2nd Meeting of the 5 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
| |
| ~
| |
| 6 -I'm Dave Moeller, Chairman of the Committee.
| |
| 7 The other member in attendance is Martin 8 Steindler.
| |
| 9 We anticipate that Clifford Smith will be joining 10 us tomorrow.
| |
| 11 The ACNW consultants present are Mel Carter, Dick" 12 Foster and Ron Kathren. Paul Shewmon, ACRS member, is also
| |
| , 13 in attendance.
| |
| 14 During today's meeting, the Committee will hear 15 presentations on and discuss three primary topics.
| |
| l 16 The first will be the subject of Below Regulatory 17 Concern, and the NRC staff will be meeting'with us to 1
| |
| 18 discuss that subject. They have a proposed policy- l 19 statement, which they will be discussing with us.
| |
| 20 The second topic will be DOE's Dry Cask Storage 21 Study, and the DOE staff will brief the Committee on their 22 Dry Cask Storage Study, and the study, incidentally, is 23 required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments. The
| |
| .24 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, and the
| |
| () 25 deadline for submission of this report to Congress is lloritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 4 1 October of 1988.
| |
| () -2 Thirdly, we'll be discussing;the consideration of 3 Rulemaking on Anticipated and Unanticipated Events, and, 4 again, the NR'C staff will'be making this' presentation and 5' discussing proposed rulemaking on this topic.
| |
| 6 And, then, we'll close out the day with an 7 executive session in which we'll discuss what we've heard 8 and attempt to prepare written comments on each topic.
| |
| 9 Topics for consideration tomorrow include the 10 following:
| |
| 11 Number 1. Environmental Monitoring of Delow Level 12 Waste Facilities.
| |
| 13 Here, the staff will discuss with us draft 14 technical position on this topic.
| |
| 15 Number 2..We will hear a report on the Center for 16 Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses.
| |
| 17 Representatives from the Center will be here to 18 brief the Committee on the status of that program.
| |
| 19 Number 3. We will hear about EPA's Standards for 20 a High-Level Waste Geological Repository, and EPA staff 21 members will provide us a briefing on that topic, which is 22 influx at the moment as they attempt to get back on track on 23 that subject.
| |
| 24 And, then, tomorrow afternoon, we'll have a 25 briefing on the Barnwell, Savannah River, Chem-Nuclear,.and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| . - - + y . - , , < +
| |
| | |
| 5 1 LN Technologies Facilities, and this briefing is in
| |
| ; ~2 anticipation of a field trip or site visit by members of the 3 Committee and its consultants to their facilities in South 4 Carolina early next month.
| |
| 5 This meeting is being conducted in accordance with 6 .the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the 7 Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws 92-463 and 94-8 409, respectively.
| |
| 9 Seated on'my right is Owen Merrill, the_ designated 10 federal official for today's meeting.
| |
| 11 A transcript of portions of the meeting is being 12 kept. Those portions being everything except the executive 13 session this afternoon, and similarly tomorrow afternoon,
| |
| (,)
| |
| 14 and it is requested that each speaker identify himself or 15 herself, move to a microphone, and use'it so that, again, 16 everyone can hear what is being said.
| |
| 17 We have received no written comments or written 18 statements or requests to make oral statements from members 19 of the public regarding today's session.
| |
| 20 Let me ask if there are any comments. Marty, do 21 you have any? Paul, do you have any comments before we move 22 on? Any consultants have comments?
| |
| 23 (No response.)
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, our first topic then, to
| |
| ) 25 repeat, is a discussion of the subject of Below Regulatory lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 6 1 . Concern, and for that presentation, we have William Lahs, 2 Chief of-Regulation Development Branch, the Division of-(v'') ,
| |
| 3 Regulatory Applications, the Office of Huclear Regulatory 4- Research.
| |
| 5 Bob, you want.to make a.few remarks, first. -Bob 6 Bernero will come on first.
| |
| 7 MR. BERNERO: Thank you, Mr. . Chairman.
| |
| 8 Before Bill Lahs starts the formal presentation to 9 you, I just wanted to introduce the subject and make a few 10 remarks.
| |
| 11 There is a dream. Our Commission and many other 12 people in our society have that dream. They share it that 13 there is a numerical statement, a simple. threshold of G
| |
| V 14 radiation exposure or radioactivity level, that is high 15 enough to be of practical use in regulating and separating 16 the dangerous from the trivial in all of the practices that 17 we are concerned with, and that that level, though high.
| |
| 18 enough to be practical, is low lenough to be beyond 19 reasonable controversy. That it could enjoy a consensus 20 support from a broad range of our society after due 21 consideration.
| |
| 22 It is an attractive dream, and we are trying to 23 develop a policy statement that will approach it, if not 24 realize it, and I would like to make sure that the Committee A)
| |
| (_ 25 understands some fundamental philosophic principles that we Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| ---,r- - - , , - ,.,+r.- e t - -- y --+
| |
| | |
| 7 1 are not comprora. sed in the pursuit of this dream.
| |
| The linear hypothesis for radiation exposure has
| |
| '({) 2 3 been and continues to be the basis for policy. We are not '
| |
| 4 changing that policy, and we are trying very hard to be 5 consistent with the linear hypothesis, even to the lowest 6 level.
| |
| 7 As such, we hold to the view that all radiation 8 exposure should be justified and that entails the 9 possibility that some radiation exposure may never be 10 justified, may be deemed frivolous, and without merit and, 11 therefore, never justified.
| |
| 12 And in the context of the linear hypothesis, we 13 are seeking a careful risk-based selection of policy and O 14 practice and thresholds of concern, thresholds of action, 15 that will serve as a rational basis for regulatory policies 16 over a broad range of practices. Ilot Just waste management, 17 consumer products, all sorts of practices, r 18 .We're looking for that underlying policy. Again, ;
| |
| 19 we want, to the extent possible, to have a policy which is 20 robust and rational, pulling together both national and l 21 international activities in this field.
| |
| 22 So, with these ideas in mind, I'd like to turn it 23 over now to Bill Lahs to start the morning's presentation.
| |
| l 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you. R
| |
| ) 25 MR. LAllS t Can you all hear me? ,
| |
| I lieritage Hemrting Corporation ;
| |
| (202) 628-4888 j l
| |
| 'I
| |
| | |
| :) u i
| |
| ^
| |
| o 8
| |
| 'r 1 Bob did, I think, a very nice introduction.
| |
| 2 I should point out in the draft Commission paper
| |
| (}})
| |
| -3 and the proposed policy statement, which was distributed to 4 the Committee, that has not just been a research project.
| |
| 5 It's been developed by a group of people, including members 6 f, rom NMSS, NRR and the OTC, and they really haven't just.
| |
| 7 served in a review role. There's been some significant 8 contributions, and'I specifically mention the contribution 9 by Don Cool, who's taken time away from his work on Part 20 10 and done a nice job, I think, in writing some of the 11 sections of the policy statement.
| |
| 12 The purpose of my presentation today is to try to 13 review that draft Commission paper and the proposed policy O 14 statement with you.,
| |
| 15 In doing so, I was hoping from time to time to i
| |
| 16 address several of the comments you made in your report, l
| |
| 17 which resulted from the early May meeting we had with'you, j 18 To make sense to you, though, I'd like to kind of l 1
| |
| l 19 go through the whole presentation on the policy statement ;
| |
| 20 and on the draft Commission paper and then, I'm sure there 21 are comments I haven't addressed, that you will probably 22 want to have discussion on and I'll try to answer those 1
| |
| 23 questions.
| |
| 1 24 In the presentation here and the viewgraphs that I l
| |
| fs !
| |
| lss) 25 I'm going to present, there are a couple of viewgraphs which Heritage Ro orting Corporation j (20 ) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 9 1 have really been tailored for presentation.to the i 2 Commission, and if I remember, I'm going to try to highlight 3 those to you, tell y'u o what the reasons for why we're 4 escentially putting them in, and either doing the 1- 5 presentation or some time afterward, I'd be happy to get 6 your opinions on their value.
| |
| 7 You'll note the presentation, the titled 8 presentation is "Proposed Policy on Exemptions from 9 Regulatory Control", and then there's a subhead we have,.
| |
| 10 "Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Significance Below 11 Regulatory Concern".
| |
| 12 Throughout this project, I think we've had a 13 terminology problem, and the term "Below Regulatory Concern" 14 has been used to date by the Environmental Protection Agency-15 in trying to establish a threshold for waste stream which 16 can go to disposal bites other than low level waste sites, 17 and in our discussions with EPA, I will just call it this i
| |
| 18 overall broad policy statement which Bob alluded to.
| |
| l 19 They had some problems that we were using the same 20 terminology, "Below Regulatory Concern". So, we've tried to j 21 bring in this idea of what we're really talking about is I i
| |
| 22 exemptions from regulatory control.
| |
| 23 Okay. The contents of the Commission paper which 24 was passed out to you include the staff requirements memo of 25 March 30th, 1988, and I think Bob alluded to very well what Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
| |
| | |
| a 4
| |
| 10 1 iessentially the Commission was-looking for.
| |
| -t 2 The' desire essentially for a single number 3 applicable to exposures to people which can be. considered at 4 or below regulatory concern, and at'that meeting, they 5' definitely made a distinction between below regulatory 6 concern and de minimis.
| |
| 7 Below regulatory concern being a number which is 8 justified at some sort of a cost. Risk reduction analysis 9 and de minimis being a level of risk which, on its own 10 merits,.is without any consideration of cost, considered 11 negligible.
| |
| 12 In your letter -- in your report, rather, which 13 followed that March meeting, I think in Issue 1, I guess 14 you, in general, tended to support.this idea for a generic 15 number, although in your subsecuent discussion on Issue 4, I 16 think you recognized that if a BRC number is to be 17 established on a below regulatory concern basis or a basis 18 which uses cost risk reduction arguments, that obviously in 19 order to do that sort of analysis, you have to be looking at
| |
| ]
| |
| 20 a specific practice or practices, and I can think we would 21 get into some discussion on that a little later.
| |
| 22 The second enclosure to that Commission paper was 23 the proposed policy statement, and I mentioned there was a J
| |
| 24 number of people worked on that. Unfortunately, as we --
| |
| 25 I've looked over it and there's going to be policy issues Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 11 1 involved, but, unfortunately, there was also a few
| |
| ( 2 typographical errors and incomplete sentences. I'd like to 3 blame that on the secretary, but, unfortunately, I proofread 4 it and, so, all the efforts suffer a little bit from a 5 couple of errors, which I think you probably picked up.
| |
| 6 In our response to your comments in March, we 7 talked about a graded approach and, at that time, we 8 mentioned something about a three-tier approach. As you'll 9 see in the policy statement that you've received, that has 10 evolved now into an approach which involves two broad 11 categories which we'll be discussing in a few minutes.
| |
| 12 The Commission, in their discussion and in the 13 SRM, also asked for options, and I think it came out 14 stronger in the Commission meeting that they wanted options 15 on the numerical values for this number, which is below 16 regulatory concern or oelow the level of exposure below 17 which exemptions can be granted from regulatory control, and 18 that was provided. A discussion of some alternatives was 19 provided in Enclosure 3.
| |
| 20 The fourth enclosure covers a couple of points 21 that Bob alluded to. Justification of practice, the 22 desirability of having a section which discusses exclusions 23 from exemption policy in such policy statement, and another 24 item, which is fairly controversial, and that was the i
| |
| 25 inclusion of an individual dose cut-off for collective dose lloritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 12 1 calculations. So, that was in Enclosure 4.
| |
| ( 2 And, finally, the last enclosure really was kind 3 of a hodgepodge. The Commission had asked the staff to 4 discuss the basis of certain de facto below regulatory 5 concern determinations that had been made in the past, and 6 you'll see that that's a fairly extensive enclosure and it 7 tries to address the questions which the Commission raised.
| |
| 8 This viewgraph is fairly self-serving. I mean, it 9 essentially just says what we're really trying to do, and as 10 Bob said, it's trying to respond to that Commission 11 direction in some sort of a reasonable way with the options, 12 with all the things they asked for, including trying to 13 implement a number which would cover multiple sources, which a
| |
| 14 does not require justification by individual licensees.
| |
| 15 Now, in the SRMs, the idea of justification kind 16 of takes on two flavors. One was justification in the sense 17 that the Commission could have been saying, well,'if we 18 decide that a certain practice or practices are below 19 regulatory concern and we codify that in our regulations )
| |
| i 20 some place, obviously the next licensee that comes along, l 21 just like the regulations for disposal of material in the 22 sewer system, as long as he meets those requirements, he 23 would not have to separately justify his release, 24 distribution or use of material.
| |
| 25 At the Commission meeting, though, I think the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| . ~ . . . . _
| |
| | |
| 13 1 intent, at least of Commissioner Bertal and others, was that
| |
| ( 2 -they were really looking at the big justification issue. The 3 idea that should justification of practice play a role in 4 this policy statement,'and that's how essentially the staff 5 has expressed it in the Enclosure 4. ;
| |
| 6 The other purpose of the Commission paper was to 7 get Commission blessing to at least discuss the options and 8 approaches which we were bringing out at this forthcoming 9 workshop with the International Regulatory Authorities, 10 which is currently scheduled for October 17th-19th of this 11 year. l 12 Now, this is one of the viewgraphs. You probably 13 know a lot of this information, but this is one of the )
| |
| 4 i
| |
| 14 viewgraphs I was thinking of eventually using in the 15 Commission presentation, and the reason is that people seem l 16 to be -- our management at NRC, Mr.-Stello, and the 17 Commission, obviously are focusing on the numbers. Numbers 18 either are too small. Sometimec people think the numbers 19 are too large. And, so, in this viewgraph, what I was 20 trying to do was give you a perspective on numbers in 21 general, numbers that are serving as measuras of adequate 22 safety, other numbers that are being used by EPA and others 23 as being numbers which I think we can relate to below 24 regulatory concern.
| |
| 25 First of all, we have the background, which Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 14 1 everybody is exposed to, excluding radon, which was one of
| |
| ( 2 the things you mentioned in your meeting. You said if we 3- make. comparisons to natural background, should we' exclude 4 radon. That number is approximately a 100 millirem per-5 year.
| |
| 6 It turns out the proposed 10 CFR Part 20 dose 7 limit for -- I'm corry?
| |
| 8 MP. . SHEWMON: Why should we be excluding radon?
| |
| 9 Decause it's so new or what?
| |
| 10 MR. LAHS: Well, as technology enhanced exposure 11 and I think they in the Committee and we agree that it just 12 makes it much more clear-cut to refer to the expocure we get 13 from cosmic terrestrial radiation, the other smaller 14 sources.
| |
| 15 We can use both, certainly. We have many opinions 16 on that subject.
| |
| 17 MR. KATHREN: Just out of curiosity, are these all ,
| |
| I 18 the same? That is, whole body? l 19 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 20 MR. KATHREN: In fact, --
| |
| 21 MR. LAHS: Dose equivalent, right.
| |
| l 22 MR. KATHREN: Except down at the bottom, you've 23 got --
| |
| 24 MR. LAHS: Yes. I'm sorry. With that one 25 exception on Appendix 1.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 15 1 All right. There's the Part 20 dose limit is in
| |
| ( 2 there, which now will apply to all practices controlled by 3 the licensee. 1here's variations in cosmic radiation which 4 is part of our background,'which is varies roughly by about 5 twenty-five millirem, between places like Washington, D.C.,
| |
| 6 and Denver, Colorado.
| |
| 7 By the way, in Enclosure 3, there was an error in 8 the range. It should have been, I think, twenty-six to 9 fifty, instead of twenty to forty-four.
| |
| 10 The range is essentially the same. Twenty-five 11 millirem.
| |
| 12 We have EPA generally applicable environmental 13 standards. The one here that I mentioned, the fuel cycle 14 number is twenty-five millirem. There is also a proposed EPA 15 number for below regulatory concern waste disposal, and I 16 understand, as of last Friday, Floyd Galpin from EPA, told 17 the Commission that the number that they were shooting.for 18 is still about four millirem per year.
| |
| 19 The Commission policy statement, which also 20 addressed BRC waste streams, but addressed it in terms of 21 treatment, expedited treatment of petitions for waste 22 disposal at sites other than low level waste sites, if you 23 look into that statement, you'll see requirements that the 24 practice involve exposures of a few millirem. One millirem 25 is mentioned in the implementation statement, and that the lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 16 1 collective dose should be small.
| |
| p 2 So, the. commission, as recently as -- this 3 Commission, in fact, as recently as August of '86, was
| |
| '4 thinking in terms of a specific practice that members tha' 5 are below regulatory concern were, in this case, around a 6 few millirem per year.
| |
| 7 Then, finally, the last number referred to, 8 ' Appendix I.
| |
| 9 The next viewgraph is also mainly intended for the 10 Commission, and I think Bob hit on it, too, in the 11 introduction. Why developing this policy has become such a 12 headache in a way is when you think about it, to cover all 13 things, you have to cover practices which involve widespread 14 distribution and use of radioactive material. -
| |
| 15 Well, that material can come directly to you or to 16 members of the public, in consumer products, for example, or 17 if we ever get into recycle of equipment and materials.
| |
| 18 Combined with that, we have practices where we're trying to 19 develop a policy with regard to below regulatory concern.
| |
| 20 I've already mentioned the waste streams, but we have the j 21 possibility of trying to come up with criteria for !
| |
| l 22 decommissioning and decontaminating lands and structures so 23 that they can be released for unrestricted use.
| |
| 24 When you think about those, exposure in those 25 situations, you're talking about people to be exposed that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 17 1 essentially have to come to the source. Then, we've got i 2 strange things in between, like remedial action on urarilum 3 storing sites, mill tailings where the source is located in 4 one place but depending on how you do the calcula 'on, you 5 have emissions that, you know, at times, have been 6 calculated to -- where exposures have been calculated to 7 cover people on the North American continent.
| |
| 8 Okay. Getting into the --
| |
| 9 MR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. Can I go back to that?
| |
| 10 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 11 MR. STEINDLER: Is the point of that discussion 12 tbnt you have a multiplicity of sources or that you have 13 difficulty in finding common denominators, or are you 14 unhappy with the requirement for a variety of calculation 15 types?
| |
| 16 MR. LAHS: I'm thinking of --
| |
| 17 MR. STEINDLER: What is it you're trying to tell 18 us?
| |
| 19 MR. LAHS: The problem that's come up is when you 20 talk about a number which is supposed to be exposure below 21 regulatory concern, if you apply it to a consumer product, 22 where you have to consider that that consumer product could 23 be distributed to large numbers of people, all of a sudden, 24 your population dose calculation comes out fairly large, and 25 that's given a lot of people, I think, problems.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-1888
| |
| | |
| 18 1 There are value judgments involved here where some 2 people feel that even at one millirem, if you're talking 3 'about distribution of products across'the United States, 4 you're talking about 25,000 man rem. Is that bad or good?
| |
| 5 MR. STEINDLER: So, you're really saying you've
| |
| -6 got a problem trying to figure out whether you should focus 7 on a population dose as the lowest criterion or on an 8 individual dose?
| |
| 9 MR. LAHS: It drives us to have a policy which 10 includes both. As you'll see when we get into what we 11 called our lower ca:egory, where there is an individual dose 12 limit as well as a population --
| |
| 13 MR. STEINDLER: Well, I'm not sure that the 14 complication that you indicated would necessarily drive.you 15 in that direction, but it has driven you to put two kinds of 16 standards.
| |
| 17 MR. LAHS: Yes. That's fair.
| |
| 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I guess, following that, we'll 19 have comments later, but certain consumer products then 20 could be used in Canada but not in the United States. I 21 MR. LAHS: Yes, yes. That's right.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay. j l
| |
| 23 MR. LAHS: It 's the same problem that cor- - ap in 24 the tailings and, of course, the other thing with c %sumer l I
| |
| 25 products is that the multiple exposure question, which the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l 19 1 Commission obviously recognized in the staff requirements
| |
| ( 2 memo, also becomes a problem.
| |
| 3 Obviously, the chances of you being exposed to 4 multiple consumer products, I would think, is much greator S than you being exposed to radiation at more than a few 6 decommissioned structures, for example.,
| |
| 7 All right. Well, this next viewgraph really 8 applies to the conditions which would be applicable to 9 exemption decisions. The Commission has to recognize that 10 if, indeed, we are going to be exempting practices from 11 regulatory control and the ones that are already, in fact, 12 exempted from regulatory control, essentially, usually two 13 conditions have to be met.
| |
| 14 E3'her one of two conditions have to be met.
| |
| 15 Either a determination has been made that the additional 16 controls, even if you oppose them, would not reduce either 17 individual or population dose significantly. But the 18 broader one is the second bullet, which is that there 19 becomes a point where the costs per the regulations just 20 don't justify the reduction in either societal risk or 21 individual risk.
| |
| 22 MR. STEINDLER: Are you some place going to 23 address the impact of court decisions concerning costs in 24 this context on the notion that you have applied here?
| |
| 25 MR. LAHS: For example, on the recent decision Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 20 l'
| |
| ~
| |
| having to do with the Food and Drug Administration?
| |
| ( 2 MR. STEINDLER: For example.
| |
| 3 MR. LAHS: -I was just going to mention,that.
| |
| 4 Well, I'll have to get back with you. I'm missing 5 a page. Covered conditions before the discussion of the --
| |
| 6 okay. If I had to summarize the proposed policy.
| |
| 7 which you have in that Enclosure 2, essentially it provides 8' two general categories of_ exemption. Both are based on 9 justification of practice and cost benefit analyses or cost 10 effectiveness analyses, using, as Bob mentioned, the linear 11 dose effect model, which also agrees, I think, with one of 12 the comments you made in your comments in May.
| |
| 13 Both categories, we allow individual dose cut-off 4
| |
| 14 for collective dose assessments. The number being a tenth 15 of a millirem per year. The policy also, ac you probably 16 noted, includes guidance on frivolous practices or practices 17 which the staff believes would be socially. unacceptable and 18 in the policy, it gives examples. Things like children's i i
| |
| 19 toys or radioactive material introduced into food products, 20 which can be taken into the body or applied directly to the l
| |
| 21 body, and to comment on what Mr. Steindler was just !
| |
| 22 mentioning, there was a recent court decision, as to the one 23 you're probably referring to, with regard to a court 24 decision on red food dyes numbers 8 and 9, I think, and I
| |
| 25 orange food dye number 7, which were being used, I believe, !
| |
| l lieritage Reporting Corporation )
| |
| (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| , . .c . ~ ,
| |
| 21 1 orange dye' number 11, which were being used in cosmetics.
| |
| ( 2 Essentially, there, the courts ruled that the 3 Delaney. clause applies, and that no carcinogen should be 4 used in material which.has benefit which is only applied to 5 something that's being used as a cosmetic.
| |
| 6 Was that the one you were thinking about?
| |
| 7 MR. STSINDLER: No.
| |
| 8 MR. LAHS: No.
| |
| 9 MR. STEINDLER: But that's not really a cost
| |
| ; 10 issue, is it? Benzene?
| |
| 11 MR. LAHS: A cost benefit -- a cost issue?
| |
| 12 MR. STEINDLER: Yeah. The point I'm tryin to get 13 to is that you invoke a cost benefit analysis and make t
| |
| 14 decisions on the basis of costs, and I wonder whether there 15 haven't been some court decisions saying that the cost is 16 not necessarily a legitimrte way to decide on whether or not l
| |
| I 17 a risk is acceptable.
| |
| 18 MR. LAHS: Well, I think this was one, and there's ;
| |
| 1 19 going to -- )
| |
| 20 MR. BERNERO: If I could interrupt, I think fresh 21 in the minds, there are copies around here of an article in 22 this morning's Post about a benzene decision, where the I
| |
| 23 court ruled, as it has, as other courts have ruled, that the 1 24 threshold of acceptability has to be set and one can go into j 25 cost benefit or risk benefit only beyond that threshold, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| i
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -_-_----_.__---____---.1
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| 22 .
| |
| 1 below it,-in this case. l
| |
| ( 2 In this particular case, I would draw your )
| |
| 3 attention to Part 20, one hundred millirem per year 4 equivalent whole body dose is just such a threshold of 5 tolerability, and all of our policy development here and 6 discussion is on risk benefit / cost benefit below that 7 threshold of acceptability.
| |
| 8 We are not in contrast to that court decision that 9 cays you have to have that kind of threshold.
| |
| 10 MR. STEINDLER: I thought that the threshold that 11 the court was talking about was a lower threshold, not the 12 upper threshold.
| |
| 13 MR. LAHS: You can make a de minimis determination l' which is --
| |
| 15 MR. STEINDLER: Right, and you do that in the 16 absence of cost decisions. -,
| |
| 17 MR. LAHS: That's right. That's right.
| |
| 18 MR. STEINDLER: So, I guess I was a little 19 confused when I continued to see that not only on the slide 20 but also in your paper. The discussion of a cost-related 21 criteria.
| |
| 22 MR. LAHS: Which will come out to be higher than 23 the criteria that you would'come up with on risk 24 considerations alone. For example, --
| |
| l 25 MR. STEINDLER: Is that obvious?
| |
| lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| - ,. - - , - ,,-m ,
| |
| | |
| 23 1 MR. LAHS: I believe it is. -If you believe that, t 2' for example, the EPA, for example, in considering the clean-3 up of toxic wasto sites, they do those evaluations, they 4 look at -- have people do evaluations which look at risks to 5 individuals which vary from ten to the minus six life time 6 to ten to the minus four.
| |
| 7 I think it's ten to the minus seven, ten to the 8 minus six and ten to the minus four, and they call those 9 target levels. They have never, as I understand it, they 10 have never regulated or required clean-up if a risk is below 11 a ten to the minus six life time risk, but in between ten to 12 the minus six and ten to the minus four, decisions have been 13 made to clean-up.
| |
| 14 If you translate ten to the minus six life time 15 risk into an individual dose, using the linear dose effect 16 relationship, you're in the .01, in fact, .007 millirem per 17 year range. A very small number, which, I think, the staff, 18 Bob, I guess other people believe is just so small that it l
| |
| 19 would be useless, serve very little use. ;
| |
| 1 20 So, the FDA is the same way. The FDA, I think, for j l
| |
| 21 residual carcinogens in food has used a limit of 22 detectability which is based on the life time risk of ten to l l
| |
| 23 the minus six, and since this whole issue is, you know, a i
| |
| 24 combination of a technical decision combined with a lot of l
| |
| 25 value judgments, you say, well, there are value judgments l Ileritage Reporting Corporation l
| |
| (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 24
| |
| : 1. out there made by agencies which are -- have been directed
| |
| ( 2 to do things by the Congress of the United States, which 3 represent the people, and in that case, de minimis risk,
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 whether you agree with the number or not, appears to be~a 5 very, very low number. A number which many of us, I think, 6 believe is far too low, but certainly that has to be 7 considered.
| |
| 8 I mentioned the.two categories in the exemption 9 policy which you probably read.- The upper category, what it 10 really just says,- it allows possible exemptions of 11 individual dose are kept anywhere below the' limit of 12 adequacy which Bob mentioned, like the 10 CFR Part 20, the 13 hundred millirem per year. !
| |
| (
| |
| 14 However, you wculdn't expect that - remember, 15 we're talking about exemption decision, something that would i
| |
| l 16 be within the regulations as if you meet these conditions, j 17 you're exempt from regulations. Certainly, it's not the 18 staff's belief that any petition that would come in from the 19 outside involved individual doses at these levels would have .
| |
| I 20 a very, very hard time getting through. i 21 What we're really thinking about is that these 22 exemption decisions would probably involve situations 23 involving maybe individual doses, maybe ten millirem, 24 fifteen millirem per year range, and, in fact, as a matter 5 25 of fact, when we decommission and terminate the license on Heritage lleporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 25~
| |
| 1 research reactors, for example, there have been cases where
| |
| ( 2 the licensing staff.has put a requirement that that 3 facility, for example, should have decontamination such that 4 the level of radiation being emitted from the wall shall not 5 lead to a dose rate greater than five microhour per hour.
| |
| 6 If you use reasonable shielding and occupancy 7 factors, that comes out to be about ten MR per year, and, in 8 fact, that's one of the things we're trying to shoot for, at 9 least we were shooting for early last year, is to try to 10 come up with a policy based on a cost effectiveness-type 11 argument which, for, let's say, take the example of 12 decommissioning structures, might justify the ten millirem l l
| |
| 13 or maybe a number in that range, is really the cost a
| |
| 14 effective member to be shooting for when you're talking i
| |
| 15 about decontamination of structures.
| |
| 16 Once you define that, then you can, you know, you .
| |
| l 17 can back that out through models to what would be actually l l
| |
| 18 allowed as a measurable on the surface of a wall or in the l l
| |
| 19 -- what volumetric concentration might allow in the soil i 20 outside this facility.
| |
| 21 In this first upper category, we require the 22 exemption to be based on supporting quantitative cost 23 benefit analysis. That analysis, in the policy statement, it 24 says, obviously the staff would expect the rigor of that 25 analysis to be extremely strong if you're talking about fleritage Hem rting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| . . . _ _ _ _ .m. .~
| |
| 26 1 individual doses, which are the upper end of the range, but
| |
| ( 2 as you drop down, that rigor analysis, you.might end up 3 doing very simple analysis.
| |
| 4 MR. STEINDLER: Now, does this upper level or 5 upper category have a collective dose number?
| |
| 6 ;MR. LAHS: It would be the collective dose that 7 would come out in the cost benefit. It can vary. It would 8 depend on however it was justified in the cost benefit or.
| |
| 9 cost effectiveness analysis, 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: In the lower category, you 11 gave, as I recall, a thousand person rem.
| |
| 12 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: But you don't do that the upper t
| |
| 14 category?
| |
| 15 MR. LAHS: That's right.
| |
| 16 MR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. I don't want to hold 17 up the proceedings, but I'm having a little trouble figuring l
| |
| 18 out how you do that.
| |
| i 19 I mean, what kind of standards d: you antic 17 ate ;
| |
| 20 being used for conclusions from a cost benefit analys'is, if l 21 you don't provide some kind of numerical target for the 22 collective dose?
| |
| 23 MR. LAHS: The numerical is -- l l
| |
| 24 MR. STEINDLER: I don't understand the process j 25 that you expect somebody to go through.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
| |
| | |
| . .. _ _ . -..-.m.. . _ . . . . . . . .
| |
| 27 J 1 MR. LAHS: Okay. Let's assume that example, to
| |
| ( 2 decontaminate the walls of this room beyond a level where 'j i
| |
| 3 you and I in our occupancy of this room would get more than I l
| |
| 4 ten millirem per year. For whatever reason, it begins to l
| |
| l 5 skyrocket. In other words, the cost of further scraping the 6 walls and washing the walls really begins to go up.
| |
| 7 MR. STEINDLER' Okay.
| |
| 8 MR. LAHS: That cost could be traded off against 9 an evaluation of what do we really think is the collective 10 dose that's involved by leaving this room at a certain 11 level. In other words, today, we have, whatever it is, 12 fifty people or forty people in this room. Obviously, those 13 people aren't here all the time, but we do a calculation on 14 collective dose to find out that when we trade off 15 collective dose using the dollar per man rem figure, against 16 various levels of decontamination, you can come up with a 17 balance which would justify a particular number.
| |
| 18 Essentially, that's what -- well, in a sense, what 19 EPA has done with the -- maybe that's a little unfair. 1 20 That's a consideration even in the EPA evaluations of what 21 waste streams can go to disposal sites, other than the waste 22 sites.
| |
| 23 MR. STEINDLER: Well, using a $1,000 per man rem, 24 is that how you do it?
| |
| 25 MR. LAHS: Well, that's -- the policy statement is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| .i 28 1 somewhat silent on.that.
| |
| ( 2 MR.-STEINDLER: They certainly are.
| |
| 3 MR. LAHS: There's a lot of arguments about that.
| |
| 4 If you look at -- we're going to -- whether that 5 should be included in the policy statement was a 6 consideration of-this group that's been involved in 7 formulating-it. There could be a $1,000 per man rem.-
| |
| 8 Certainly that's what's been used by NRC in several 9 ' situations.
| |
| 10 Internationally, though, there's been a, I guess, l 11 a trend or a desire to go to a graded approach. In other-12 words, where they have set a much lower level for what I 13 consider the societal portion of that dose. In other words, t
| |
| 14 maybe it's a number like $75 or $35 per man rem based on the 15 total man rem you have, but as the individual dose levels go l
| |
| 16 up to reflect the significance on the individual, 17 essentially you wait, have a waiting factor which comes into 18 play.
| |
| 19 The problem with that is that in this policy, we 20 decided to really try to keep away from that because it 21 really gets very complex and it's very controversial, and it 22 should be something that should be decided when you. decide 23 how to implement this policy.
| |
| 24 MR. STEINDLER: I confess to still not being very 25 clear how you can provide at trade-off analysis in the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 29 1 absence of some kind of a quantitative target to shoot for, t 2 but why don't you go ahead and I'll see whether somebody 3 else can enlighten me later on?
| |
| 4 MR. LAHS: Okay. Let me take -- you understand --
| |
| 5 I mean, obviously, you can see where you can make a man' 6 rem. If we exempted from control, you can obviously see 7- where we could come up to models, people have come up 8 collective dose calculations, right?
| |
| 9 MR. STEINDLER: Yes.
| |
| 10 MR. LAHS: All I'm saying is you multiply that 11 collective dose number by whatever you decide is appropriate 12 in terms of dollars per man rem, you come up with the 13 dollars which you essentially balance off against the cost 14 of lowering the number further.
| |
| 15 In other words, instead of requiring this room to 16 be decontaminated to a level which would allow you and I to 17 get ten MR per year, how much more would it cost to do I 18 further decontamination to get down to five millirem per 19 year.
| |
| 20 MR. STEINDLER: I'm trying to put myself in the 1
| |
| 1 21 shoes of the applicant who has done that calculation and is i
| |
| 22 now trying to guess on what side of this balance you folks 23 are going to come down on, and it isn't very clear to me 24 that he can predict in the absence of numerical guidance )
| |
| 25 what you're going to say to his analysis.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| J w, k o 30 1 That's the problem that I'm having. Why don't you i 2 just move along?
| |
| 3 MR. LAHS: That's open.
| |
| 4 Okay. The second -- we said there were two 5 categories. The lower category in this exemption policy 6 provides, I guess, what the Commission was really driving 7 at. It provides a basis for exempting practices which 8 involve very small radiological risks, and the way we, the 9 staff, has finally come down on this is that if the practice 10 involves individual dose target, and we use target because 11 we don't really believe it's a hard number -- in other 12 words, what we're saying is the analysis that you would use 13 to justify an exemption from regulatory control really just l 4
| |
| 14 increases as -- decreases as the dose becomes smaller and I
| |
| 15 smaller. ;
| |
| 1 16 If the practice, though, is below one millirem per I l
| |
| i 17 year and involved a collective dose evaluation less than a l 18 thousand man rem per year per practice, the feeling was that' ,
| |
| 1 19 the applicant could come in with a very -- assuming the 20 practice was justified, the applicant could come in with a 21 very simple analysis to justify the possibility for 22 exemption, and, in fact, that's, I guess, what has been done 23 in the de facto BRC or de facto exemptions that are set 24 already in place in our regulations.
| |
| 25 MR. STEINDLER: Is that thousand man or thousand Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 31 1 person rem?
| |
| ( 2 MR. LAHS: Person rem. I'm sorry.
| |
| 3 MR. STEINDLER: Sorry about that.
| |
| 4 FigureEto be calculated today or extrapolated to a 5 hundred years from now?
| |
| 6 MR. LAHS: It's to be -- it would be the year of 7 maximum -- it's an annual assessment and it would be the 8 maximum over the life of the practice or for things like --
| |
| 9 I mean, you know, you get into things like the tailings 10 question, which would be over a period which, you know, 11 would have to be worked out with possibly other agencies,.
| |
| 12 like SPA, I believe, has over a thousand years.
| |
| 13 So, it would be the maximum. You'd have to meet f i 14 the thousand person rem collective dose per year limit any 15 time during the thousand years. At least that's how I view 16 it. Now, there still could be differences, you understand.
| |
| 17 MR. BERNERO: A dose commitment of the worst year.
| |
| 18 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 19 MR. STEINDLER: No. I understand that, Bob. The 20 problem that I see is the inability to predict population 21 distributions around the landfills, for example.
| |
| 22 I happen to live in a house that's not all that 23 far from a former, I wouldn't say swamp and deposit area, 24 but something that comes fairly close to it, and while I 25 don't believe that that's an issue in our particular home, I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 32 1 can easily see, since landfills tend to be close to i 2 encroaching population centers, I'm just trying to figure 3 out what it is that.the poor applicant is going to'have to 4 do in projecting into the future the surroundings of his 5 activities.
| |
| 6 MR. LAHS: That's the same problem that was 7 probably faced by the people doing the regulations on the 8 mill tailings. They had to make projections over a thousand 9 years, and to tell you the truth, -- can anybody help me out 10 on that as far as -- Kitty, do you have any -- do you know 11 how they treated population distribution over time in the 12 Part 40, by any chance? You do?
| |
| 13 MS. DRAGONET: Well, the tallings are unique in ,
| |
| 14 that --
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Please identify yourself.
| |
| 16 MS. DRAGONET: Kitty Dragonet in the Division of 17 Low Level Waste Management, Commission, i
| |
| 18 In the tailings, you've got the radon being 19 generated by long life parents that continue to produce i 20 those sources of exposure over the periods of time.
| |
| 21 I'm still not sure I know what the question is.
| |
| 22 Can you --
| |
| l 23 MR. LAHS: The question had to do with how they 24 calculated the collective -- when you do the collective dose 25 calculation every year over that thousand years would have a l l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 33 1 number associated with it, that many person rem that year.
| |
| 2 The question is, did the staff, after -- how did
| |
| }
| |
| 3 the staff address that, if you know, offhand? What was the 4 peak year? Was that a consideration? I guess that.was the 5 question.
| |
| 6 MS. DRAGONET: It's the sort of -- I can't answer 7 that. My impression was that it was sort of steady state.
| |
| 8 MR. LAHS: Because of.the --
| |
| 9 MS. DRAGONET: Health effects averted. Steady 10 state. They looked at nearby populations -- they divided it 11 into two or three regions next to the pile and generally the-P 12 near environment and the fifty mile --
| |
| 13 MR. LAHS: See, what he's saying is maybe over 14 time, the population of the U.S. and North American 15 continent doubles, would they have to make some projections.
| |
| 16 We'll find the answer out for you. I'm sure there is ;
| |
| 17 something.
| |
| 10 MR. FOSTER: On your collective dose, that 19 thousand person rem, is truncated at --
| |
| 20 MR. LAHS: Yes. l 21 MR. FOSTER: -- a tenth of a per rem on an 22 individual basis.
| |
| l 23 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 24 MR. FOSTER: Also, that is a per year thing, isn't 25 it?
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| | |
| 34 1 MR. LAHS: Yes. That's been the subject of a lot t 2 of. controversy in the staff, a lot of discussion within the J
| |
| 3 staff on that.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Dick Cunningham, did you have a 5 comment?
| |
| 6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No. They changed the subject.
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, back on this, and we'll 8 get to discussing it more later, but the fact that the tenth 9 of a millirem per year was used to truncate calculation for 10 whatever person rem collective dose exists did not come 11 through too clearly to me until I read it several times. ,
| |
| 12 One could easily interpret your statement;as 13 saying a tenth of a millirem is de minimis.
| |
| 14 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And a number of other things.
| |
| 1 l
| |
| 16 Maybe you did mean that.
| |
| l 17 MR. LAHS: Many feel that way. That's right. I 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay.
| |
| 19 MR. LAHS: It's not unanimous, though. That's 20 right. See, that's where Dick Cunningham has, I hope, Dick l 21 Cunningham, in a sense, has a problem, because he's dealing 22 with consumer products, and he's saying you could 23 theoretically under this policy have something at a tenth or 24 let's call it very close to a tenth of a millirem a year 25 that's distributed widely to large numbers of people. ;
| |
| i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| P 35 1 Even in the uncertainty in the dose test,'it would
| |
| ( 2 fairly reduce. In other words, you know that we all are 3 going to get -- if we have that kind of a product, are going 4 to get very close to .1 millirem per year, and when you look 5 at the population dose, that approaches twenty -- for the 6 U.S., approaches 25,000 man rem.
| |
| 7 Now, the reason we selected -- well, let me back 8 up and mention that one millirem per year comes from an 9 evaluation that most or many regulatory bodies believe that 10 an individual would not go out of his way.to; avoid risks 11 that are one in a million to one in ten to the seventh per 12 yearr and it turns out that the one millirem per year, 13 depending on what you use for the risk coefficient, comes 14 out about two times seven minus seven.
| |
| 15 The collective dose number, the thousand person 3
| |
| 16 rem, essentially, if you invert the risk coefficient, you're
| |
| ! 17 talking about roughly 5,000 person rem per latent cancer 18 fatality. You're saying per practice, if you did approach a 19 thousand person rem, you'd be talking about a fifth of a 20 health factor.
| |
| 21 Now, but because you have the one millirem per 22 year limitation on this category, that limits you l
| |
| 23 essentially to a million people because a million times, if 24 my numbers are right, a million times one millirem would
| |
| ; 25 give you the thousand person rem. So, you'd be talking
| |
| ) HeritageRegortingCorporation (20 ) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| +
| |
| 36 1~ about a -- if you even up near the high side, you'd.have to- .
| |
| (- 2 be talking about distribution to a fairly large number of 3 people.
| |
| 4 If the practice was justified in the first place.
| |
| , 5 that means the benefit also accrues to a fairly large number i
| |
| 6 of people, and, so, a thousand, like you say, led us to a number which predicts less than a --~ unity has a value for a 7
| |
| 8 health effect per year. It also gives you a little leeway to 9 cover whatever that collective dose is that's involved in --
| |
| 10 from doses that'are below the dose cut-off.
| |
| 11 MR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. What-was that argument .
| |
| 12 about the benefits accruing to the same large number of l 13 people?
| |
| e MR. LAHS ' Well, I'm saying if you have -- the 14 j 15 minimum number of people you would have at the highest dose 16 which is allowed under this category, which is one millirem 17 per year, would be a million people. ,
| |
| 10 MR. STEINDLER: Right.
| |
| 19 MR. LAHS: So, I'm saying, okay, now we have this, 20 let's call it a product for the sake of argument, you have a 1
| |
| 21 product that's being distributed to a million people and
| |
| ]
| |
| i 22 they're all getting close to one millirem per year. So, ,
| |
| l l
| |
| 1 23 that's just barely under -- that's a thousand person rem. j i
| |
| 24 So, maybe you just make it underneath. l l
| |
| 25 Implicit, though, is that'if you have a product
| |
| ; l 1'
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| ~. .
| |
| 37 1 going out to a million people, there must be benefit to a
| |
| ( 2 million people. So, the benefit is also going up as the 3 number of people goes up.
| |
| 4 MR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. I guess I don't follow 5 that. If you take the clue that says, you know, supposing 6 I've gotten through a practice in 1990, which is calculated 7 to give over the long run a thousand person rem collective 8 dose to about a million people, but I've stopped that, I've 9 got s landfill, in which I've dumped enough materials so 10 that that's what my target is, I don't have any benefit to a,
| |
| 11 those folks from that dose.
| |
| 12 MR. LAHS: Well, it's a benefit that EPA uses.
| |
| 13 It's a benefit -- I'm sorry?
| |
| 4 4
| |
| 14 MR. STEINDLER: At least I don't think you do.
| |
| I 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Dick?
| |
| 16 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Dick Cunningham, NMSS.
| |
| 17 Is that switch on? I guess it is. Okay. It's on. i l
| |
| l 18 Question of benefit and the collective dose. They '
| |
| 19 are deoending on the facts. As Dr. Steindler pointed out, 20 for a landfill, there js limited benefit within that 21 collective dose.
| |
| 22 There are practices, however, where the benefit i 23 can be proportional to the collective dose. I'll use an i
| |
| 24 example. Smoke detectors in homes. The more smoke 25 detectors we have in homes, the more lives will be saved, at Heritage Re Mrting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| .-_-____________-__a
| |
| | |
| 38 1 least on a statistical basis. The more smoke detectors you i 2 have in homes, also will proportionally will increase the 3 3 collective dose.
| |
| 4 So, you have a benefit accruing as the collective 5 dose increases.
| |
| 6 MR. STEINDLER: I understand that there are cases 7 in which that's certainly possible. All I'm saying is if 8 you require a continuous justification for all practices, 9 then you've got a little bit of trouble with the landfill.
| |
| 10 MR. LAHS: Well, the way EPA handled it, they 11 looked at what the savings to society was in not shipping 12 that material to the licensed low level waste site. That 13 delta was in their minds their societal benefit. That got 14 to be a very sizeable number.
| |
| 15 MR. STEINDLER: Okay. That gets you back into the 16 cost argument, which I don't want to open up again.
| |
| 1 17 MR. BERNERO: I'd like to add something here. It l l
| |
| 18 might be useful to the Committee if you knew of the range of i 4
| |
| l 19 debate that we had in developing the policy draft as you see 20 it, and that is, rather than having a cut-off for the 21 integration of collective dose, that's some dose level, an 22 alternative that was considered was to have a graded value 23 for dose at different levels.
| |
| 24 In other words, the significance of radiation i
| |
| 25 exposure between one hundred millirem per year rate and ten j Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| J A L J = L 39 1 millirem per year is greater than between ten and one and so
| |
| ( 2 on down, so that you might break up the integration and say 3 a $1,000_per person rem between a hundred and ten, a $100 4 per person rem and so on down.
| |
| 5 of course, that would make the analysis far more 6 cumbersome and you're really counting angels on the head of 7 a pin, and, so, we felt that the integration cut-off is a 8 more pragmatic way to do it, much simpler way to do it, but 9 it carries with it the same feature.
| |
| 10 It says that as dose level and dose rate go down, ,
| |
| i 11 the significance and the societal penalty goes down with it.
| |
| 12 MR. LAHS: The last point I'll make on this chart 13 is there was -- I think you've mentioned and other people 3
| |
| 14 have mentioned, you know, should we be relating our 15 decisions here or our policy here to the Commission's safety 16 goal policy.
| |
| 17 My personal feeling is no. We have, though, made.a 18 couple of references in the paper. For example, in this 19 particular issue, we mentioned that the -- I don't want to 20 say justified, but when we were discussing the thousand 21 person rem figure, we mentioned that the societal safety 22 goal that's out there now, which is a cancer risk of one-l 23 tenth of one percent of normal, which comes out to be like 24 1.9 times ten to the minus six, that if you applied that to 25 the average population within ten miles of a plant, which is Heritage Remrting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 40 1 57,000 people, you end up, when you multiply that out, it i 2 comes out to roughly 500 person rem. ;
| |
| 3 So, in other words, in a sense, in the convoluted 4 sense, you almost can say that they're using a person rem, a
| |
| ] 5 person rem goal that is associated with the societal portion 6 of the Commission's safety goal.
| |
| 7 Now, I have a problem. My problem with that is 4 8 because that person rem is made up of people who can be 1
| |
| 9 getting fairly sizeable doses, and that's not the situation 10 we're talking about here.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: There are a couple of things, 12 though, on this collective dose that worry me. The same as 13 you've said, that if you have smoke detectors and more 14 people are using them, the dose will go up and, so, more 15 people are getting benefit.
| |
| j 16 Well, I agree with that, but in a similar manner, 17 if you have a million people exposed to one millirem, it's a 18 thousand person rem, if you have two million people exposed 19 to a millirem, it's two thousand person rem, and the risk 20 per person is no different in either case. It doesn't ;
| |
| 21 double because the collective dose doubled, and I'm l
| |
| 2 22 wondering --
| |
| l 23 MR. LAHS: No. That's right. Remember, we're !
| |
| 24 talking about exemption policy. It would say --
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Right. l
| |
| . Heritage Reporting Corporation i
| |
| (202) 628-4888 !
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 41 1 MR. LAHS: -- that to get the reduction for that j 2 second practice, you'd have to do twice as good a job or a 3 better job in justifying that that practice should be 4 exempted from regulatory control because the alternative.is 5 not to exempt it.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, you would, on the basis 7 of the approach you're taking, but if you simply begin your -
| |
| 8 discussion with a discussion of risk and what is an 9 acceptable risk, then you wouldn't get into this box, would 10 you?
| |
| 11 Bob?
| |
| 12 MR. LAHS: What is acceptable individual risk or 13 how --
| |
| t 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes.-Individual risk.
| |
| 15 MR. LAHS: Well, we've done that, but how do you 16 translate? I guess I have the problem of how do you ,
| |
| 17 translate that into -- do you just multiply? If you say I 1 l
| |
| 18 have an acceptable individual risk and multiply by an 19 infinite number of --
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Let's listen to Bob and then I 21 want to tell you how the NCRP does it, which I do not agree ,
| |
| l 22 with the statements in your report.
| |
| I 23 MR. BERNERO: We did, indeed, discuss the i i
| |
| 24 possibility of confining the matter entirely to individual !
| |
| 25 dose level, and it makes it far simpler, far easier, that we Heritage Rewrting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| 42 l 1 .get down to the Part 100 level, one hundred millirem per l 2 year. You're then in an alora regime between a hundred 3 millirem per year and X, and X, by international censensus, !
| |
| 4 4 is a few, and a few is exactly three to seven.
| |
| 5 We could do that on.an individual risk, but then i
| |
| 6 we would have to stand and say, are we not then saying that 7 collectively radiological exposure in this low level is not
| |
| -8 at all significant to society?
| |
| c 9 Are we not then repudiating that aspect of the 10 linear hypothesis? Can there be an impact? It's certainly 11 in my mind a second order consideration, but can there be an 12 impact on society that has significance when the impact on 13 individuals, taken one at a time, is not significant?
| |
| i 14 MR. STEINDLER: And if you'll now give me the.
| |
| l 15 answer to the question, I think we can all go home.
| |
| l 16 MR. BERNERO: And the answer is possibly.
| |
| 17 MR. STEINDLER: That's not the answer I had in 18 mind.
| |
| 1 .
| |
| j 19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, in terms of drinking
| |
| .1 20 water standards for coliform out bacteria, for years, the l 21 Public Health Service standards have said the larger the 1 22 population, the more frequently you must sample the water 23 and the better job you have to do in keeping the coliform 24 count down.
| |
| . 25 So, that would be an analogy that supports the Heritage Re wrting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 43 1 approach you're taking in terms of collective dose, but, t 2 now, here's what the NCRP did. In Report Number 91, they 3 defined a negligible individual risk level. They even 4 called it the NIRL, and it's a level of risk that can be 5 dismissed, namely an annual risk of ten to the minus seven.
| |
| 6 This risk is that associated with an annual 7 effective dose equivalent of one millirem, period. Well, 8 they say one hundred to the millisievert, but it means one 9 millirem.
| |
| 10 MR. BERNERO: We don't know what those are.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Now, so, they've defined it as, l 12 at least you have the top radiation protection group, 13 organization, in the United States making that i
| |
| 14 recommendation, and then, in Report 93, that was 91, in 93, 1.c where they calculated the population dose from all sources 16 of ionizing radiation, they truncated every collective dose 17 calculation and threw out all doses one millirem per year or 18 less.
| |
| 19 And I think you have a lot of basis then to go on 20 in terms of not spending so much time on the fact that if 21 double the population is exposed, the collective dose is 22 doubled.
| |
| I 23 MR. LAHS: Well, see, but as Bob points out, what l l I l 24 that's doing then is you're saying the linear hypothesis ;
| |
| i 25 then does not, in fact, apply in that situation. :
| |
| i Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| ; (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| . _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ ____ ._____________-_______-______-__-_____-___]
| |
| | |
| i 44 1 MR. STEINDLER: No, that's not true. That's not
| |
| (- 2 true. What you're saying is that the answer to the original 3 question that Bob posed to which he said maybe, the answer 4 is yes.
| |
| 5 MR. LAHS: That's possible.
| |
| 4 6 MR. STEINDLER: There is a limit below which total 7 population dose is no longer.an issue, and it's expressible 8 as an individual dose. Period. That does not negate the 9 notion of the linear hypothesis. At that stage of the game, 10 most of the discuseion can be much simplified.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes.
| |
| 12 MR. STEINDLER: Our calculations may get to be a 13 little bit complicated, and I'm not saying that the exercise 14 of the applicant is going to be fewer pages, but the concept 13 certainly seems to me to be more focused, l 16 MR. LARS: Well, so, you're supporting essentially ;
| |
| 17 a dose cut-off. Instead of take one, we took a tenth of a 18 millirem. ,
| |
| ! 19 MR. STEINDLER: Well, I think a tenth -- I 1
| |
| 20 personally think a tenth is too low.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: No. The tenth is perfectly all j 22 right in the manner in which you used it. That is, to
| |
| ' I 23 calculate whether this application that you're going to !
| |
| 24 treat on a generic basis, and that's what you're talking l i
| |
| i 25 about, you have two approaches, you can call them lower and !
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| i
| |
| _-_=-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 45 1 upper, the one is a generic approa-h.
| |
| 2 If you come in and no individual risk is greater
| |
| (.
| |
| 3 than ten to the minus seven, meaning one millirem, but you i
| |
| 4 should have said ten to the minus seven for individual risk,.
| |
| I 5 and if collectively the population dose with truncated i
| |
| 6 calculation at a tench of a millirem is no more than a 7 thousand person rem per year, we will generically wipe it 8 off the books.
| |
| 9 MR. LAH3: That was one of the opt' ins that was 10 considerad.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Then, if you're coming in with 12 anything else, we're going to treat it on a case-by-case 13 basis. That's all you've said or that is what you've said.
| |
| 14 MR. LAHS: Okay. That option was debated for most 15 of the day, right, Bob? And, by the way, there is a typo, a-16 bad one. You said that we mischaracterized NCRP. The reason 17 is that that shouldn't have been NCRP. I think (t should be 18 related to the National Radiation Protection Board. I think 19 that appears in --
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Oh, l
| |
| 21 MR. LAHS: -- in Enclosure 3. l l
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOLLLER: Sure.
| |
| 23 MR. LAHS: Because the NCRP does recognize the 24 collectivo dose cut-off.
| |
| (
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Correct.
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 46 1 ' IR . LAHS:
| |
| That was an unfortunate typographical
| |
| ( 2 error.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, in the NCRP is your 4 godfather, whatever it is, it's not the NRCB.
| |
| 5 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay. Ron Kathren has a 7 question.
| |
| 8 MR. KATHREN: No. I think you've covered it 9 adequately.
| |
| 10 MR. LAHS: That's right. We looked -- the -- I 11 think also we said in there that there was no international 12 regulatory agency, words to that effect, supports an 13 individual dose cut-off effective dose calculation, and also 14 we came upon a paper where the German, I think it's called, 15 Commission on Radiation Protection had also proposed one.
| |
| 16 So, that statement also has to be modified.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay.
| |
| 18 MR. LAHS: But I think what you're saying is 19 correct. I mean, there were -- when we were in Baltimore 20 with this group of about thirteen people, that was one of 21 the options, you know. Should we -- as Bob said, if you 22 decide that an individual risk is negligible or de minimis, 23 then does it make any difference in terms of the collective 24 dose whether that's -- whether a million people get that or-25 ten million people or a hundred million people, and there Heritage Rewrting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 47 1 were supporters that that could be dismissed.
| |
| ( 2 There were a number of people who felt that was 3 not the case either, but because your -- if you agree that 4 collective dose is a measure of, call them, stochastic 5 societal deaths, then that's -- that would be correct. You 15 should really be cutting that off.
| |
| 7 I guess it becomes more -- I don't have a problem 3 in my own mind thinking about that, except when I get into 9 the area of consumer products, and I believe that's where 10 Dick Cunningham and Don and some others have problems, too.
| |
| 11 MR. STEINDLER: Why do you have that?
| |
| 12 MR. LAHS: Because you're talking about exposures.
| |
| 13 You're talking about exposures t' 1rge numbers of people, 14 and most of the other situatinns, your collective dose you 15 would expect is probably small.
| |
| 16 MR. STEINDLER: Are you telling me that because 17 you may be able to see a death out of a large population, 18 but that you can't see one out of a small population, is 19 that the thing that gives you the trouble?
| |
| 20 MR. LAHS: No. I'm saying that the persen rem, if 21 I'm talking about decontaminating this room and allowing 22 people to come in here to these type of meetings, if I do a 23 calculation, a realistic calculation, the person rem that I 24 would come up with is probably a small number.
| |
| 25 The person rem that EPA came up with in evaluating j
| |
| )
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 48 1 'the exposures if material was dumped at a local-sanitary
| |
| ( 2 landfill were small in terms of person rem.: However,'if 1 3 do-the calculation.for consumer products, where a'large 4 _ number of people could -- like the gemstone issue or some 5 other consumer product, multiple consumer products, you're 6 getting into fairly sizeable numbers of man rem, tens of 7 thousands.
| |
| 8 MR. STEINDLER: The mere fact that a number is 9 large or small is not the issue. I assume that the issue is 10 that a large number.of man rem implies, person rem, implies 11 a number of deaths. Actual deaths. The smaller number 12 doesn't. Is that the transition that you're making?
| |
| 13 MR. LAHS: That's correct, yes.
| |
| t 14 t1R . STEINDLER: So, anything above about five 15 thousand persan rom now becomas an identifiable event that 16 troubles you.
| |
| 17 MR. LAHS: Stochastic. Statistically identified, 18 right.
| |
| 19 MR. STEINDLER: Right. And that's the cut-off, 20 right?
| |
| 21 MR. LAHS: Well, that --
| |
| 22 MR. BERNERO: There is a public perception where 23 you have the stochastic effects. Recall the numbers of TMI.
| |
| 24 They were really a fortuitous happening. The highest 25 theoretical dose to an individual in the public at TMI was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 49 1 cighty-four millirem per year at the North Ridge.- Not' a
| |
| ( 2 real person. Hypothetical person.
| |
| 3 The highest real person is not known but was 4 certainly one order of magnitude less than that or. lower.
| |
| 5 The integrated population dose at TMI came.out to 6 somewhere between 0.1 and 1 statistical cancer' death, and it 7 was very difficult for the public to perceive that as 8 somebody's go.ing to die, but if the population had been 9 somewhat different and the doses somewhat different and it 10 had come out the way Chernobyl has come out, say, in Great 11 Britain, with fifty people will die.of cancer, that's the 12 approximate Chernobyl impact in Great Britain, then they are 13 considerable. They are perceived as a societal impact.
| |
| 14 Now, the average rate of cancer fatality in Great 15 Britain is something like 400.900~ people per yr r plus or 16 minus about 50,000. So that that two score and a half of 17 people who would be calculated to, die fror. Chernobyl are 18 lost in the grass. You just don't see that statistically.
| |
| 19 But it is perceived as a sord e'.a1 impact as an 20 event rather than a fractional probability of any one person ,
| |
| l 21 dying.
| |
| 22 MR. LAHS: And I would also -- I'm sorry. ;
| |
| I 23 MR. STEINDLER: Can I follow up on that? '
| |
| 24 MR. BERNERO: Yes. .
| |
| 1 25 MR. STEINDLER: And the fact that it's an event is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 50 1 sufficient in the minds of the regulators to cause them to
| |
| _( 2 now do something different in principle than they've done 3 when there is a statistical non-event.
| |
| 4 I'm trying to understand the rational for your 5 shift --
| |
| 6 MR. BERNERO: It brings the regulator to.look.
| |
| 7 Remember, the regulator doesn't -- what shall I say? The 8 regulator doesn't believe there's a linear hypothesis.
| |
| 9 Absent a more rigorous scientifically grounded basis, the 10 regulator uses the linear hypothesis as the basis of 11 regulation, and the regulator is faced with this dilemma.
| |
| 12 I have reached a level of individual dose where 13 the exposure, though I still honor the linearity of it, the 14 linearity of it, it is below any credible threshold of 15 concern. It's lost in the wear and tear of my every day 16 life.
| |
| 17 Now, when I look at that, I can justify an 18 individual dose threshold. When I turn now to look at 19 societal dose threshold, conceptually separate, I say, can
| |
| ^
| |
| 20 individual risk be low but societal risk be significant, and 21 the only analogy I can think of is if you have a crowd of 22 people in a great square and some lunatic gets up on a 23 balcony with a pistol and fires into that crowd, the 24 individual risk is virtually negligible, but the societal 25 risk is one person's going to die from that bullet.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 51 1 And is it a singular. event? Should it be treated
| |
| .( 2 as an event? Should society. carry an aversion to that? And
| |
| .' 3 if you do, that's where you go'for the collective dose.
| |
| 4 MR. LAHS: And I think that that article that we 5 discusse(. last time, and I can't remember the date,:whether 6 it was May or August of '87, Environmental Science -and-7 Pathology scys that other agencies, whether they're doing it 8 correctly or not, respect that for other carcinogens.
| |
| 9 In other words, they do look at the number of 10 people that are exposed to population dose. So, in this 11 country, in other words, we do something different. We're 12 going to be doing something that I perceive anyway as being 13 out of line with EPA and others, i
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I've been trying to think of an 15 analogy to show that your approach is wrong, and I thought 16 of one.
| |
| 17 Pollo some years ago was a bad disease, and we all 18 feared that our children would get polio and be crippled, 19 and there was a vaccine invented or discovered, whatever you 20 call it, perfected for polio, and that vaccine carries with 21 it a certain risk.
| |
| 22 I mean, one out of every million, I'm just picking 23 up some numbers, one of out of every million children who 24 are vaccinated will actually get polio, and, so, I'm the NRC 25 and I'm ruling on whether the pollo vaccine, whether we'll Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 52 1- permit it to be used in the United States, and, so, I'll
| |
| ( 2 permit the Public Health officials to vaccinate one million-3 children but no more because if they vaccinate-two mfilion,,
| |
| 4 there will be twice as many inadvertent deaths due to 5 vaccination.
| |
| 6 So, we have this procedure and it can be used in 7 Canada because the population there is small enough to where 8 not enough people, children, will die due to the vaccine to 9 raise any ruckus, but in the United States, too many will 10 die.
| |
| 11 So, we'll only let people in Florida be 12 vaccinated, no where else. Now, isn't that analogous to 13 what you're doing?
| |
| 14 MR. LAHS: I don't think so because you're saying 15 that we're putting some significance on one statistical --
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: No, but you told me that 17 collectively if it's a thousand person rem, it's okay, but 18 if I go to twice the population and it's two thousand person 19 rem, I can't do that.
| |
| 20 Why isn't that exactly what you're doing?
| |
| 21 MR. LAHS: See, it's not that you can't do it, 22 All we're saying is the level of effort -- remember, we're 23 talking about exemptions. Just the level of effort to 24 justify the exemption goes up. Nothing that --
| |
| 25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Can I say something?
| |
| Heritage Hoporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 53 1 MR. LAHS: Go ahead. j
| |
| ( 2 MR. CUNNINGHAM: First of all, I don't like your 3 analogy too much. Trading one risk for another. You're 4 introducing a small risk which you hope doesn't.become a 5 larger risk.
| |
| 6 That kind of analogy doesn't hold up when.you'look 7 at gemstones. Nonetheless, the only function in this 8 thousand person rem collective dose serves is an indicator 9 for when you look harder at the alora process.
| |
| 10 It is not in itself a limit. It simply says this 11 is a fly where we 100k harder and we go into the other 12 process, a more general approach over regulatory concern.
| |
| 13 MR. STEINDLER: I'm not sure I really understand 14 what you mean when the regulator says I'm going to look 15 harder.
| |
| 16 MR. LAHS> In terms of the costs that you would 17 allow to be spent to see if there was some -- for example, l
| |
| 1 18 some control you could put on to the licensee before he j 1
| |
| 19 releases the material from his control status to the exempt i
| |
| 20 status. i 21 Take waste streams. Maybe instead of allowing a 22 waste stream with so many pico curies per gram, I say, no, 23 you can't dump that at the sanitary landfill. Divide the 24 number by two. I mean, you make those type of judgments.
| |
| 25 Obviously, when we're talking about factors of Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 )
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 54 1 two, I don't think there's too'much.significence.in the
| |
| ( 2 factor of two, but in the. order of magnitude, you.can 3 certainly-do that.
| |
| 4 ,
| |
| CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Don?
| |
| 5' MR. COOL: If I can,'let me'make an attempt at 6 this.
| |
| 7 I'm Donald Cool, Office of Nuclear Materials 8 Safety.
| |
| 9 What we mean by look harder, and now let me refer 10 to both categories, i f y o u a r e b e l o w t h e o n e t h o u s a n'd p e r s o n 11 rem, we would be making almost cummary decisions. Licensee 12 -- you come in. You're the licensee applicant. I collect 13 your dose, ask.if you're less than.a thousand person rem, 14 you say yes, the calculation was right, here is your 15 exemption.
| |
| 16 Now, when you come in and say it's going to be two 17 thousand or three thousand, we're going to look more closely 18 in the sense that I'm going to examine the analysis,' examine 19 that there are other mechanisms available to reduce the 20 number or not. Probably, if you've dont a proper analysis, 1
| |
| 21 we'll say that it cannot be reduced. That means you're I l
| |
| 22 going to get your exemption, but I did not summarily give
| |
| -1 23 you the exemption.
| |
| 24 Does that help you any?
| |
| 25 HR. STEINDLER: Yeah. It helps me a little, but I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 55 11 still have a conceptual problem that I'm trying to make my
| |
| ( 2 way through.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Ron and then Dick.
| |
| 4 MR. KATHREN: I'm curious about where that
| |
| ~
| |
| 5 thousand came from in relation to this tenth of a millirem 6 cut-off. Doing a quick calculation, I hope I'm right, it 7 says that if you give every person in the United States, 8 every American, an annual dose of a tenth of a millirem, 9 which is your cut-off, you come up with somewhere around 10 2,500 person rem. That translates perhaps to a fractional 11 death.
| |
| 12 MR. LAHS: I think it's 25,000.
| |
| 13 MR. KATHREN: 25,000, rather. Excuse me. That 14 translates to about two and a half deaths a year.
| |
| 15 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 16 MR. KATHREN: And that says that you're increasing 17 the cancer risk, if those are cancer deaths, by a new term, 18 a milli percent. In other words, you're increasirg the 19 individual person risk of dying from cancer by only 20 somewhere --
| |
| 21 MR. LAHS: It comes out'to about one in a million, 22 the same number you're using for individual risk.
| |
| 23 MR. KATHREN: Right. And that's where this came 24 from. Is that what you're --
| |
| 25 MR. SERNERO: Yes. That also< reconciles if you go HeritageRegortingCorporation (20 ) 620-4888
| |
| | |
| 9 56 1 back to what was the Commission's approach to the safety
| |
| (. 2 geel in the. reactors on cancer deaths. So, cancer risk, of 3 course, is very variable with age and condition, but 4 averaged over the population.
| |
| 5 MR. KAT'!REN : So, am I, correct, and'I hope this 6 may help shed some light on the situation, that what you 7 really have done is you've picked essentially the eqaivalent 8 ofLthis tenth of a millirem per year in terms of a 9 collective, and there's no specification on the numbers of 10 people, etc.
| |
| 11 Then I ask the question, why didn't you pick 2,500' 12 to take into account every American instead of just the 13 four-tenths that are included?
| |
| i 14 MR. BERNERO: Ron, do you see a difference in 15 significant figures between a thousand and 2,500? We did 16 talk about that, you know. To be rigorous, you would make --
| |
| 17 MR. KATHREN: To make it consistent. I think 13 that's part of the angst. We're looking for one significant 19 figure.
| |
| 20 MR. LAHS: Plus, remember, we have a cut-of'f. We 21 left a little leeway in there to account for the collective 22 dose that we're having below a tenth. ;
| |
| 23 So, I mean, the one in a million -- - I maan, so, 24 the one in a million value, which we're saying is how we're 0
| |
| 25 dismissing individual risk, I think one in a million roughly Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| '57 1- applies to the societal.
| |
| (. 2 MR. FOSTER: I happen not to like this collective 3 dose thing, but let me suggest that you're also going to 4 have the. problem of complicating-the regulatory aspects and 5 implementation.
| |
| 6 Let me give you an. example. A manufacturer comes 7 in with a new version of a smoke alarm consumer product kind 8 of thing, which is at the individual dose level of a-tenth-9 of a millirem per year. He makes his calculation and says 10 that, gee, I've got a great device here, but I don't think 11 that I'm going to sell more than a million of these devices.
| |
| '12 So, therefore, I'n. home free under the thousand 13 man rem situation, but these catch on and, by golly, two 14 years later, why, he's sold five million of them.
| |
| 15 Now, he has exceeded the magic number of a 16 thousand man rem. Does he have to come back in now with a l
| |
| 17 new application and say, gee, I've got to go through this 18 again because I've sold five million?
| |
| 19 MR. LAHS: Let me tell you what I think Don Cool 20 -- and you can certainly ask the licensee directly. When 21 you first came in with that application at a tenth of a 22 millirem and made the claim that you were only going to sell i
| |
| 23 a milllon of these devices, I would be willing to bet money l 24 that Don Cool and Dick Cunningham would not accept that 25 assessment.
| |
| I Heritage Reporting Corporation I (20 ) 628 4888 1
| |
| | |
| 58 1 I hope I'm right. For a consumer product, I
| |
| ( 2 think, how would you justify -- a good example, you 3 suggested a smoke detector. How could you really. justify a 4 limitation of a million people? -How do you know there's not 5 more than one smoke detector in a home,_for example?
| |
| 6 I think you.have to assume a large number of 7 people, like the U.S. population. NCRP, when they do the 8 evaluations of collective dose-for a lot of these consumer 9 products, you see a number of them. They use, I believe they 10 use the total population of the U.S.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes?
| |
| 12 MR. PATOSTO: Sol Patosto, RES.
| |
| 13 Dr. Moeller, your example with the polio, I think, 14 provides benefits, but maybe we should explore a little bit 15 and try to explain how would we use it for that case.
| |
| 16 I like the example because both the cost and the 17 benefit in that case is being measured on the same scale 10 basically. The consequence is the same. We get the pollo 19 because we weren't vaccinated or we get it because of the 20 vaccination. It is the same.
| |
| 21 Your question was, in using the risk, would we 22 then be limited to a small area, let's say Florida, and not 23 use it for the rest. The answer to that is a definite not.
| |
| 24 Certainly not what we would be doing.
| |
| 25 When we use the risk screening, in a sense, maybe Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 59 1 it would figure,.maybe we would say vaccination is being
| |
| ( 2 considered;for the whole population, then that would trigger 3 this item, but that doesn't mean that we would not consider 4 it.
| |
| 5 The only thing what it means is that we would askL 6 for a cost benefit analysis. We wouldn't do it on a summary 7 judgment type of arrangement, but we would ask for a cost 8 benefit analysis.
| |
| 9 What would be the cost benefit analysis? The cost 10 benefit analysis would be to see how large the polio 11 epidemic is. If the pollo epidemic is so small that by 12 vaccinating everybody, we are possibly creating more polios 13 than we would have created, obviously we would not approve 14 it.
| |
| 15 On the other hand, if the cost benefit shows that 16 the epidemic is so much higher, if we don't vaccinate, then.
| |
| 17 there will be so many more polios, orders of magnitude more 18 polios than what possibly the vaccination would produce, 19 then the cost benefits would tell us to approve the 20 vaccination.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you. I think that's very' 22 useful. j 23 Well, on this, to get a bottom line, I think what 24 you've said, and I could buy it if this is correct, you said 25 that we, in judging applications under the lower category, )
| |
| i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
| |
| 1 4
| |
| ..m.____
| |
| | |
| 60 1 you.will first look at the individual risk associated with
| |
| ( 2 that proposed application, and if the individual risk-is 3 less than ten to the minus seven per year, you will 4 immediately give it quite favorable consideration, but as a 5 secondary, and I stress that word secondary, consideration, 6 you will also look at'the collective dose, and, again, if 7 the collective dose is less than.a-thousand person rem per 8 year, that -- you're finished. It's okay. Everything's 9 fine.
| |
| 10 If it's higher than that, you will examine it a 11 little more closely and make sure that it's justified.- So, 12 if that's the policy, I have no problem.
| |
| 13 MR. LAHS: Yes. That's the intent. !
| |
| , i 14 MR. STEINDLER: I guess I have a couple of !
| |
| 15 questions. I don't know how long you want to keep going, 16 but let me ask. I need a little clarification. I need more -
| |
| l 17 than a little, but I'd like a little right here. I 18 First off, am I correct in saying that the reason 19 for the population dose is because you don't believe that .
| |
| 1 20 the population will tolerate, the society will tolerate an 21 unlimited population dose, no matter what the individual 22 dose has been set at, is that correct?
| |
| 23 MR. BERNERO: Yes.
| |
| 24 MR. STEINDLER: Secondly, individual doses --
| |
| 25 that's, I think, a central issue with me. I mean, that's Heritage Reporting Corporation.
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| - - - . - . . ~
| |
| 61 1 where I_come apart, and I'll try and couch that into better g 2 English when I get organized.
| |
| 3 Individual ' doses have been set in other contexts 4 by the Commission. I don't see'the population doses have
| |
| , 5 been added to each one of those limits. For example, the 6 reactor accident. limit at, I don't know, twenty-five rem or 7 whatever it is.
| |
| 8 I don't see any of those numbers accompanied by 9 some kind of a population dose. I wonder why not and wonder 10 why you've invoked in this particular case a population 11 dose.
| |
| 12 Am I off base'here?
| |
| 13 MR. SHEWMON: Well, it's my impression that in the 1 14 air travel and in reactor safety, there have been arguments 1
| |
| l 15 that, okay, that was good enough for the first dozen plants ,
| |
| l 16 or when we only -- two percent of the population traveled on !
| |
| l 17 public airlines, but as this gets.up to a larger amount, if l 18 the number of deaths goes up proportionately, we're .n i j I
| |
| 19 trouble, and we'd better keep that number constant if we j l
| |
| 20 can, and I have to get somewhat safer. I 21 I've heard this brought up on reactors, and I've 22 heard it said it was gone through also on the airlines.
| |
| i 23 MR. STEINDLER: I don't -- well, you know, the 24 general notion certainly is not -- makes sense, but I don't 25 see that as a part of the regulatory process. Am I wrong, lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 7 62 1 Bob?
| |
| ( 2 MR. BERNERO: No. Let me -- I think you're wrong.
| |
| 3 To be more expl. cit, I'd like to recall the history of the 4 reactor safety goal for you. Where the Commission took a-5 very active and very explicit role on this very question.
| |
| 6 When the safety ~ goal-was first conceived, we can 7 go back through the literature, you can fir.d this, we came 8 up with a rather odd concept of the typical person in the 9 first mile annulus, most reactors are half a mile radius 10 and, so, in that first annulus of a mile around that reactor 11 site, we took the average individual there cs the-12 representative for individual risk.
| |
| 13 And, then, the philosophy was debated at what 4
| |
| 14 fraction of background risk should we find reactors 15 tolerable, and the one tenth of one percent came in and if 16 you took the background accident risk, it-was five times ten 17 minus four, background-cancer risk was one times ten minus 18 three per year, and divide by a thousand, and, whala, we had 19 individual risk safety goal.
| |
| 20 The Commission struggled and. explicitly wanted to 21 have a societal risk. The facts of reactor risk are that 22 the individual early fatality risk, the accident risk, 23 dominates totally. The latent cancer risk never competes 24 because of the characteristics of reactors and weather.
| |
| 25 And, so, the Commission struggled through several Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| . _ . .. . _ - .. ~ . -.
| |
| 63' 1 generations to get to convert to convert the cancer risk
| |
| ( 2 limit to a societal risk. The fact that it ' fail'ed, we don't-3 really have a meaning for societal risk in that safety goal, 4 is merely due to the fact that we don't know how. We don't 5 know how to convert that.
| |
| 6 It wasn't done effectively, but the desire to have 7 it and the explicit role that it has is right there. The 8 Commission was very explicit. That is a population. risk 9 control.
| |
| 10 Now, in other areas, population risk has been 11 explicitly taken into account. Appendix I, the alora. Once 12 you reach the individual risk level of toleration, then you 13 go into this alora regime and the Commission is quite clear 14 on the alora policy.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Bill,'I notice-the. clock, and 16 it's not your -- you have not delayed us, but if we can go 17 through the rest of your slides.
| |
| 18 MR. LAHS: Okay. The next slide is really geared 19 to the fact that whatever we do here'in this country, 20 because we're talking about -- in certain instances here, 21 we'd be talking about exempt practices that obviously cross 22 boundaries of countries, that we have to be somewhat 23 consistent, I would suspect, in the long run with other 24 countries.
| |
| 25 This slide was just to show what other people were Heritage He orting Corporation (20 ) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 64 1 doing. The Canadians, I think, in the proposal are shooting
| |
| ( 2 for a five millirem per year dose limit for BRC, for waste 3 streams practice specific limit, and in the United Kingdom, 4 it is more general and they have used the -- in the National 5 Radiological Protection Board. The reason it's been singled 6 out is because I think, from what I gather, they're in kind 7 of a leadership role overseas in this area.
| |
| 8 They talk about what they call de minimis, but 9 it's always for justified practices. They talk about a five 10 millirem per year from all sources combined, and then they 11 divide that and get this half a millirem per year that 12 should apply to any specific source or practice.
| |
| 13 NCRP, as you mentioned, has the one millirem per 14 year NIRL level as well as the cut-off on collective dose.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Excuse me. I might mention, 16 too, that on the NCRP limit, that one millirem per year was l
| |
| 17 set on the assumption that no single individual member of 18 the population would be exposed to more than ten such 19 sources simultaneously.
| |
| 20 MR. LAHS: Yes. That's correct.
| |
| 21 See, that's an interesting -- so, when you think 22 about consumer products, are you willing to stand by them?
| |
| 23 That's an interesting question. I mean, see, that's what l
| |
| 24 happens with consumer products. All of a sudden, 25 assumptions like that begin to come into question, i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 65 1 If you told me what your likelihood of being t 2 exposed to ten rooms that have been decommissioned, I'd say 3 it's certainly less than ten. Can I really say that about 4 consumer products involving radioactivity if I'm going to be 5 exempting a number of these? It falls apart.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I can't answer that, but that's 7 what they assume.
| |
| 8 MR. LAHS: Okay. Then, IAEA, which is a position 9 that has been proposed very recently,'has also identified 10 one millirem per year de minimis to individual. They have 11 also divided by the ten, which comes from the English or 12 from the United Kingdom, and they have, as far as collective 13 dose limit, they have a hundred person rem, and if you think 14 our justification for a thousand --
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I was only going to'say, is 16 that truly de minimis as opposed to below regulatory 17 concern?
| |
| 18 MR. LAHS: I think they use the word de minimis or 19 trivial, but I think given, in my mind, given that we're 20 talking about practices which are justified, because that's 21 a basic principle of radiation protection, I would 22 characterize that in my own thinking as being a BRC 23 determination, but --
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Dick, did you have something?
| |
| 25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I was only going to say that the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 66 1 International IAEA one does not call it de minimis. It's i 2 simply the number at which it is assumed that the action is 3 employed. They call'it trivial.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Right.
| |
| 5 MR. LAHS: Okay.'The next viewgraph really has the 6 -- we alluded to this throughout our discussions today.
| |
| 7 Really, the major. policy considerations which came up at our 8 meetings. We've already discussed the justification of 9 practice principle. The Commission, at least, or at least 10 certain of the Commissions, were viewed by the staff to1have 11 said that they would like this number to be applied to 12 practices whether or not they were justified.
| |
| 13 You know, we went around and around on them, and I 14 think it was unanimous that we just felt you cannot get away 15 from the justification of practice principles, and that this 16 idea of this second category was the staff's attempt really 17 to say justification of principle practice should always 18 play a role.
| |
| 19 However, the analysis that they used to show that 20 a practice, once you establish that a practice might have 21 some justification in the analysis, you would use to 22 demonstrate whether that practice should be exempt, and it 23 becomes very simple if you meet the conditions that are in 24 the second category.
| |
| 25 MR. STEINDLER: Can you summarize in a few Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 67 1 sentences why you're driven to retaining that justification 2 principle?
| |
| 3 MR. LAHS: Well,-I guess my first reason would be 4 the same reason I gave to Dr.-Moeller on the -- that had to 5 do.with the NCRP. When he was'saying that the' negligible 6 individual risk level was one millirem, but in the 7 assumption that person wouldn't be exposed to more than ten 8 sources.
| |
| 9 Now, you say that's, you know, -- I have problems 10 with that with consumer products, which are justified. Now, 11 if you open it up to consumer products or to practices which 1
| |
| 12 are unjustified, I can see that number going theoretically l
| |
| 13 up to fifty, hundred.
| |
| \
| |
| 14 I mean, Dick's had applicaticns for some strange l I
| |
| 15 things. Radioactivity in fishing lures, shotgun shells. Any j 16 other good ones, dick?
| |
| l 17 A. "UNNINGHAM: Some I wo.'t mention. l l
| |
| 4 18 MR. LAHS: So, I mean, that's one of the reasons.
| |
| 19 Plus, it's a basic principle of radiation protection. It l
| |
| 20 just seems like it's just something you don't do lightly.
| |
| 21 This chart really is kind of the rational in a 22 nutshell.on why we thought that justification really still 23 has to play a role.
| |
| 24 MR. STEINDLER: Is that principle found anywhere 25 else in the U.S. regulatory framework in which the citizen Heritage ReWrting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 68 1 operates?
| |
| ( 2 MR. LAHS: Well,-you know,-I talked to Harold 3 Peterson on that Part 20. He said, really, I-guess those 4 were -- certainly I can-be' corrected if I'm wrong. Go 5 ahead, Dick.
| |
| '6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Justification is one of the three 7 fundamental pEinciples of radiation protection philosophy.
| |
| 8 It's the use of dose limits, keeping doses as low as 9 reasonably achievable, below the limits, and justifying any 10 exposure, such that the benefit outweighs the risk involved 11 with radiation.
| |
| 12 It's one of three fundamental principles of the 13 philosophical approach to radiation protection.
| |
| I 14 MR. LAHS: I would think that the --
| |
| 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM: And it's used -- it's stated very 16 explicitly in ICRP recommendations. I believe it is stated 17 in NCRP recommendations, and it is certainly a principle l 18 that has been followed through this agency and its j 19 predecessor agency as long as I can remamber.
| |
| 20 MR. FOSTER: I think it's also stated in th'e old 21 FRC.
| |
| 22 MR. LAHS: That could be true.
| |
| 23 Also, doesn't the alora, I guess in my mind, I may 24 be wrong, doesn't the alora -- that if you admit to beitig 25 able to do cost benefit analyses, that almost implies that Heritage Rot >orting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| 69 1 there has to be a' justification to practice.
| |
| -( 2 MR. STEINDLER: So, you're saying that this 3 justification issue is unique to the radiation aspect rather 4 than society at large? Is that what I thought I heard you 5 say? There's no other agency that regulates societal risk 6 -that involves -- thdt requires justification?
| |
| 7 MR. LAHS: Food and Drug Administration. Wouldn't 8 you say that they require justification?
| |
| 9 MR. STEINDLER: I don't know. I'm not aware of the 10 Food and Drug Administration saying you have to justify that 11 you want to use red dye number 45 in order to have your 12 product look pretty, for example. I don't know that.
| |
| 13 All I'm saying -- all I'm asking, I guess, is --
| |
| 14 MR. LAHS: I don't actually know the answer. I've 15 always just applied the justification.
| |
| 16 Okay. Obviously, justification of practice as 17 it's in the policy right nour is closely tied to the other j 18 policy decisions we were talking about. For example, the l
| |
| 19 exclusion. If we go with a policy where justification of l i
| |
| 20 practice plays the -- first thing you look at, the need for {
| |
| 21 a specific exclusion policy gets played down.
| |
| 22 However, .f the Commission decides that 23 justification of practice should be taken out of this l 24 policy, then the need for a very hard-hitting, I guess, or 25 considerable thought would have to be given to expanding l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| . a- - .
| |
| l 70 1 probably the exclusion policy provisions.
| |
| ( 2 I gave you the example of some of the things that 3 the staff in their discussions believed were socially 4 unacceptable regardless of the risk. Radioactivity in 5 children's toys, things that can be taken internally, and I 6 just mentioned this last part. Right now, it's included in 7 that Enclosure 2, but in a way, the way I.think of it, it is 8 more -- as long as justification of practice continues to 9 play the role it should, in'my mind, then the true need, and 10 this is ry personal opinion, in. terms of having a section 11 which deals with exclusions probably is downgraded.
| |
| 12 In other words, it becomes more of a guidance to 13 the people on the outside as opposed to something that says 14 specifically you shouldn't use radioactivity in children's 15 toys because justification of practice when you first came 16 in, you aouldn't allow radioactivity in children's toys 17 anyway.
| |
| 18 I mean; if that came in a license application, it 19 would be ruled out on justification of practice. There was 20 no justification to that practice.
| |
| 21 MR. STEINDLER: Did you have any kind of argument 22 or discussion or disagreement within the staff on this 23 issue?
| |
| 24 MR. LAHS: I would cay there was disagreement, but 25 I think everybody agreed that that justification of practice I Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l q
| |
| 71 1 must remain. It was just how, how do you keep justification 4 2 of practice.
| |
| 3 MR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. I'm talking about the q 4 very first point you made onfthe viewgraph that's.up here, 5 namely that there are some practices that are socially 6 unacceptable regardless of risk.
| |
| 7 Is the staff generally in agreement with that?
| |
| 8 MR. LAHS: Pretty much so.
| |
| i 9 MR. BERNERO: Well, we finally agreed to have it 10 in there, but there was certainly some hot debate on that.
| |
| 11 On the grounds that it is at least hypothetically possible 12 to have some offensive practice, such as radioactive 13 eyeballs for e little girl's doll, where the dose level _or 14 the dose rate is so infinitesimally low that you could 15 possibly not even detect it, but you'd know it's there.
| |
| 16 I mean, that thing -- how far do you chase the l l
| |
| 17 trivial. But the philosophy that underlies it, it goes back l 18 to the principle of justification.
| |
| 19 Radiation exposure is bad. Deliberate radiation l 20 exposure should be justified, and if the justification is so 21 frivolous that if the practice can easily be done by another 22 way and has no redeeming social merit, then it is a l i
| |
| 23 permitted practice.
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l 1
| |
| | |
| 72
| |
| (
| |
| 1 This is a holier than thou attitude'in radiation 2 protection that says I will chase it, I will honor the linear 3 hypothesis while I hold my nose because I don't really-believe 4 in it. I will honor the linear hypothesis all the way.down 5 into the grass. That means I will justify and I will even 6 have forbidden practice. ,
| |
| 7 MR. STEINDLER: Not only that, you're even willing 8 under that guise, and I use the words advisedly, to move'into 9 a regulate;;y domain where you wonder whether or not that's 10 where the government ought to be. When the government says
| |
| ~
| |
| 11 there are some things that are socially unacceptable and 12 therefore I will rule them out of business, I think we ought 13 to think at least twice before we do that. I gather you 14 thought twice.
| |
| 15 MR. BERNERO: Yes, we did.
| |
| 16 MR. LAHS: The last viewgraph has to do with the 17 individual dose cutoff and collective dose' calculations.
| |
| 18 Again', .1 millirem per year, if you equate that back 19 to a risk level you'll find that's a level of risk where in 20 other activities in the government, mainly EPA, state l l
| |
| I 21 agencies, and carcinogenic, toxic waste cleanups involving 22 carcinogenic chemicals, and Food and Drug Administration, and 23 treating residual food contamination has used ten to the minus l
| |
| 24 sixth lifetime risk as a, and I believe they do use the word !
| |
| 25 deminimun, a deminimus level of risk. And that, if you work 1
| |
| i i lleritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4880 l
| |
| | |
| 14 l
| |
| 73
| |
| (
| |
| 1 it back, translates into about .07 millirem. So we 2 essentially _ rounded it off to .1.
| |
| 3 This was inicially proposed in the revision to I
| |
| 4 10 CFR 20. It want through a lot of discussion.. I believe it C 5 -was upped. When the rule finally went out there was.a 6 collective dose cutoff,_I believe it was one millirem per 7 year. Now it's been, at-least as I understand it now for the {
| |
| 8 final rule, that has been dropped. One of the reasons it was 9 dropped, they passed it out to us. Knowing that we had this 10 policy they felt they'd do us a favor. So.we included it in 11 this broad policy.
| |
| 12 Again the col]ective dose number, I guess the review 13 board can discuss that. That was essentially the presentation 14 on the policy.
| |
| 15 MR. BERNERO: I'd like to nake a closing remark to 16 Bill's presentation. I'd like to bring you back to the dream 17 I spoke of at the beginning of th.c and ask that you 18 particularly attend to the Commission's request. They're 19 looking for a simple, practical consensus number to use as 20 some sort of threshold in the rem 31ation of radiation 21 practices. What we've discussed here and what we have drafted 22 for the Commission may not be quite as simple as they or 23 others would like. It may net be as practical at, for exampla 24 one millirem per year. I think we all recognize that one 25 millirem per year individual dose as pretty darn small. An Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| -74
| |
| 't
| |
| -1 'individual just reutinely walking around would ignore far 2 larger variation. And we are.indeed only controlling
| |
| .3 radiation from those practices we regulate. We're not. Grand 4 Cential Station, not the granite aggregate in the building in 5 which we sit and so forth. But.again, our policy' based on the 6 reasens we spoke of through this presentation, we particularly.
| |
| 7 like to have you comment on the simplicity and the utility of 8 this control system we proposed.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLT.R Okay, I hear you'and we'l1~
| |
| 10 certainly try to du tha:.
| |
| 11 I think personally, to, wel) go ahead Dick.
| |
| 12 MR. FOSTER: I have some s,>ecific comments and 13 questions. I don't know if this is the appropriate time.
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN M^ELLER: Fine. This is the time to cover 15 them.
| |
| 16 MR. FOSTER: I have two or three comments on your 17 page six of the draft. Mostly related to cchematics.
| |
| f 18 MR. LAHS: This is on the policy statement?
| |
| 19 MR. FOSTER: That's correct.
| |
| 20 At the outset you lay out a couple of co.nditions 21 that should be met and the language is that to determine if 22 the exemption is appropriate the Commission must determine if 23 the following conditions are met.
| |
| -24 MR. LAHS: It should be one of_the following i 25 conditions is met. Either one.
| |
| )
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| J
| |
| | |
| 75
| |
| (
| |
| l MR. FOSTER: That was my question, whether these 2 were individual or whether both of them should be me.
| |
| 3 MR. LAHSi~ Either one.
| |
| 4 MR. FOSTER: We need some words, something in there 5 to clarify that.
| |
| 6 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 7 MR. FOSTER: The seuond one talxs about the costs of 8 regulatory controls. I don't know what the scope of 9 regulatory controls, is that only the money which is spent by 10 NRC or does this include such things as the' cost of waste.
| |
| 11 processing itself?
| |
| 12 MR. LAHS: The latter. If we follow the EPA 13 approach, the main benefits which_they said accrued from i
| |
| 14 shipping certain very low level radioactive wastes to sanitary 15 landfills instead of the low level waste site was the cost 16 savings. They attribute that as a cost savings to society.
| |
| 17 MR. FOSTER: That wasn't clear to me. You may ns4d 18 some sort of a definition of what-is meant by regulatory 4
| |
| 19 control somewhere along the line.
| |
| 20 Then in the next paragraph you talk about the two 21 specific categories of exemption. I think I understand that 22 all right, but the optics are, for me are kind of negative 23 when you do include the possibility of going clear up to 100
| |
| , 24 millirem per year as a possible exemption fro;. regulatory 25 control. My reaction to that was Holy , ases , are these guys Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 76 i
| |
| 1 thinking that you can have doses that high and not have to 2 have any regulation associated with them? I understand what 3 you're telling me, but my initial reaction was I don't like 4 it. It's too much.
| |
| 5 Also from a wordsmithing point of view in there you 6 say the first category encompasses practices in which the 7 exposure to a critical group is below proposed dose limits, 8 1.e. 100 millirem per year.
| |
| 9 When I read through that first it didn't bother me 10 because I instantly associated the 100 millirem per year with 11 an individual. But if you look at the actual words it doesn't 12 say that. It says 100 millirem per year to the critical 13 group.
| |
| 14 MR. LAHS: It should be a member of the critical 15 group.
| |
| 16 MR. FOSTER: That's all of that.
| |
| l '/ CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any other details?
| |
| 18 MR. KATHREN: Well nix on that. I'll grind a i
| |
| 19 personal axe. In that same sentence you talk about dose 20 limits in terms of millirem. In the next sentence you talP.
| |
| 21 about millirem in terms of effective dose equivalent.
| |
| 22 MR. LAHS: It should ha'e said it right on the j 23 beginning.
| |
| 24 MR. KATHREN: Be consistent.
| |
| 1 25 MR. LAHS: We were trying to, right.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| | |
| 77
| |
| .i 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Go ahead, Ron.
| |
| 2 MR. KATHREN: .I have another question that came up.
| |
| 3 This.one milliram, or this level of one millirem a year, are 4 there any other agencies, you showed a slide on 'the national 5 and international picture, but I noticed a singular absence ot' 6 ar.y other governmental agencies: DOD, any states, any.other 7 agencies, regulatory bodies perhaps. Do they havn a level? I 8 know DOE has stated one millirem.
| |
| 9 MR. LAHS, You're talking about radiation?
| |
| 10 MR. KATHREN: Radiation, yeah.
| |
| 11 MF. LAHS: States and toxic chemical cleanup for 12 carcinogens uses ten to the minus sixth which would be--
| |
| 13 MR. KATHREN: No, I'm asking if there's anything .
| |
| 14 that is specifically stated by other regulatory agencies.
| |
| 15 MR. LAHS: Yes, by DOE.
| |
| 16 MR. KATHRENs Have you talked to them to get 17 their --
| |
| 18 MR. LAHS: They're going to be part of this 19 symposium. We're familiar with some of the literature that 20 they're coming out with on what individual doses they're l
| |
| 21 walking away from in some of their sites. The question is 22 whether some of their sites really can be considered a 23 situation which you consider exempt from regulatory control.
| |
| 21 A lot of their sites will still be under control so they 25 didn't apply. j l
| |
| Sr. tage Reporting Corporation (202) 028-4888 1
| |
| m
| |
| | |
| 78
| |
| (
| |
| 1 MR. KATHREN: I tl' ink I heard Bob mention a 2 consensus standar'd, and if yca haven't talked to the one other 3 agency.that apparently has something --
| |
| 4 MR. LAHS: In EPA. It's tough. Right now we're at 5 a consensus within NRC, and then the next step obviously was 6 we've initially touched base, I think we've had.two or three 7 names. We give them the general idea what we're thinking 8 about. I think Bob Alexander has made contacts.out at DOE so 9 that's what's going on. But again, that's why this is pre-10 decisional. Right now this paper is out for concurrence, even 11 though we've had some very high, Bob Bernero and Dick 12 Cunningham have been involved in this. How we've written the 13 words, even though canceptually I think we're pretty close to
| |
| . 14 agreement, some of these things have to really be very 15 carefully worded, and just because it's out 20r-office 16 concurrence and they've been ir.vcived-in it doesn't.
| |
| l 17 necessarily mean tl.at as they read this over they will concur.
| |
| 18 MR. BERNERO: I think it's worth adding that as far !
| |
| l 19 as our national agencies are concerned, the CIRRPC committee, 20 they're holding a retreat today. In fact Dr. Ross from l l
| |
| 21 research is there. There is a lot of activity there where EPA !
| |
| I 22 standards are being put forth for review that involve DOE..
| |
| ]
| |
| 23 Residual activity in soils, things like that. We hope that, I 24 remember, the NRC is not responsible for national policy in 25 this regard. We have this national committee, C1RRFC, to
| |
| ~
| |
| i llaritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4880 l i
| |
| | |
| 79 f
| |
| 1 coordinate it. What we're trying to do is take a lead of some 2 sort to trigger the development of a consensus.
| |
| 3 MR. CARTER: Bob Bernero'r closing comments I guess 4 reminded me I'm troub3cd by several things in this discussion, 5 I guess, and he just reminded me of that.
| |
| 6 One is the fact that-we tend.to deal with this 7 problem on an isolation bcsis or look at it in the abstract.
| |
| 8 I think you tend to give people the wrong impression, that we 9 really know the difference and can measure differences either 10 by instrumentation or by health effects between one millirem, 11 two millirem, four millirem, and so-forth. That bothers me 12 sr swhat. And like I say, we're kind of giving a false 13 impression that there are actual and real differences there, 14 and we know that. I think that's not trut.
| |
| 15 The other one is a concern for m:;n-made activity 16 versus natural activity and whether a person ought to be 17 concerned whether their desk is on the north side of a room 18 or the south side or in the middle of the room for that 19 matter.
| |
| 20 And the other one se seem to be equating real deaths 21 with statistical aeaths, and that bothers me to some extent.
| |
| 22 So I think there are a number of major things that-23 we're completely ignoring, yet we're honing in on minute 24 detail. I just wondered, Bob, if you had any comment on those 25 observations.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 80
| |
| (
| |
| l MR. BERNERO: I share many of them and I would go 2 once again to invite your specific attention to the number.
| |
| 3' Recall for a moment that this Commission some years 4 ago made an ALARA dec!31on in Appendix I for nuclear power 5 plants that shows I'll call it a nominal value of five 6 millirem per year. Admittedly that was an ALARA choice, but 7 that number carries with it some character threshold of 8 concern. If we pick one, is that a significant reduction?
| |
| 9 I jokingly referred earlier to few as being 10 precisely three to seven. I debated, and we argued 11 internally in this, rather than pick a number like one or pick 12 a number like five, or pick a number like four as' EPA does, or 13 ten, to put the word few in there because we cannot 14 distinguish, in fact it's not even one significant figure.
| |
| 15 It's a range, on the order of. Perhaps one, perhaps ten. We 16 are counting angels on the head of a pin because we're taking 17 cnly those radioactive materials over which we have regulatory 1 l
| |
| 18 control and we're getting awfully precise with it.
| |
| 19 Again, if you would look for the competing interests 20 of practical utility in a threshold standard, simplicity and 21 consensus support, it's a tough choice. We think one, with 22 the words that we have in the policy statement is a reasonable l 23 choice because it does open the door to fours and fives and '
| |
| 24 threes and sevens. It will move the door to recognizing the 25 lack of significant difference between those numbers I just Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| c; 81 1
| |
| 1 said. Yet at the same time, we think could enjoy consensus 2 support.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Let me offer a few comments and 4 then Martin will want to offer some too.
| |
| S. I found in reading the proposed policy statement and 6 the enclosures that I almost felt you were fencing _with me, 7 that you had some ideas you wanted to share with.me but either 8 wanted me to dig them out or to try to read between the lines 9 and figure out what you were saying.
| |
| 10 Havino said tF.at as an introduction, I don't know 11 what the committee will say. We'll find that out this 12 afternoon. But what I would have liked to have~seen, and I 13 know I'm biased, but what I still thin}- would meet your goals 14 is something along the following lines. Number one, say
| |
| ~
| |
| 15 you're to develop a pclicy statement on BRC and it should be 16 based on individual risk and give an annual and a lifetime 17 risk that you think is acceptable. That's the very beginning.
| |
| 18 Then you could give a comparable _duse rate for that. Then you -
| |
| 19 could cite your upper and lower categories, or as I say your 20 generic and case by case.
| |
| 21 You really have one policy, generically you'll 22 approve this application if it comes in, and if the dose rates 23 are higher than this you'll look at it very carefully and be 24 willing to listen and discuss and maybe approve cases that 25 involve higher dose rates. Then you could include your Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| :c. .
| |
| 82
| |
| (
| |
| 1 statement about frivolous uses that you have no intention of 2 approving them. Then lastly, I still would see no harm in 3 including a statement that'if and when this policy statement 4 is approved, you plan to systematically look-at all previous 5 exemptions granted by the NRC and across the board and see if 6 they fit within this policy. If they don't, you may make some 7 changes. To me, that would have been a good policy statement.
| |
| 8 But like today in Bill's slides, he'showed us the 9 upper and lower categorias and he summarized them. But if 10 they're, I could not find them like that in here. Now maybe I 11 didn't look, maybe I can't read. But I really wanted to see 12 exactly what you're doing, and I couldn't tell.
| |
| ; 13 Marty, do you have anything?
| |
| 14 MR. STEINDLER: Yes, I have a couple of comments.
| |
| 15 Before I address the same kind of generalities that 16 Dade was mentioning, let me ask where you have addressed what 17 I guess is Commissioner Roberts' and Bernthal's questions 18 dealing with the carbon 14 and tritium issue. l l
| |
| 19 MR. LAHS: That's Enclosure 5.
| |
| 20 MR. STEINDLER: I've looked at Enclosure 5 and I 21 read the paragraph on pages zero and one, and my conclusion is 22 that it's not particularly responsive to the question that was 23 asked.
| |
| 24 For example, what calculations of societal or
| |
| ; 25 individual risks were employed in determination of these Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| l
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ___ _________________________._________i
| |
| | |
| . . . .. . ~ . . . . . . . . , ,,
| |
| 4 i
| |
| 83-t
| |
| (
| |
| l- exempted levels? I don't see anything in here that I can put 2 my teeth into.
| |
| 3 Could you amplify a little bit in relation to what I 4 thought Bernthal was asking?
| |
| 5 .MR. LAHS: Certainly.
| |
| 6 MR. STEINDLER: If you mean that that 500 millirem 7 represented the bases for that calculation, then I think my 8 nexc question is how does that jive with the current BRC 9 levels which ought to be down by about a factor of 5007 10 (Pause) 11 MR. STEINDLER: You're silent on that?
| |
| 12 MR. LAHS: I was waiting to see if Dick was going to l 13 answer.
| |
| 14 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I'm trying to read this answer 15 quite quickly. I haven't reviewed it since it's gone through 16 the typewriter again. I can tell you what was done on the 17 biomedical waste rule though.
| |
| 18 The first thing, we di.d some upper bound 19 calculations for individual dose to get an idea of the range.
| |
| 20 If you use extremely conservative assumptions, which we did, 21 very conservative. A person downwind from the NIF facility 22 that incinerates, could dispose of the largest amount of these 23 things per year. Getting all the water off the site, growing 24 his own garden there, and everything else, his does would be, J 1
| |
| 25 and staying there 24 hours a day. His dose would be within j i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation- l (202) 628-4888 l l
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| 84
| |
| -(
| |
| 1 the 500 millirem per year which is consistent with 10 CFR '
| |
| 2 Part 20 and the revision which would be 100 millirem with some 3 opportunity to go above that. That was the bounding dose-4 calculation.
| |
| 5 Then we did average dose calculations. . We got 6 information from suppliers around the country that supplies 7 the vials, and we got information from typical hospital 8 consumption of the vials, and we did some. release 9 calculations, some individual critical group calculations 10 using average values, various pathways, air, water, food, and 11 so forth. Those were down in the, I don't recall the number 12 exactly, but it was about a millirem, maybe a few millirem 13 depending on the assumptions that we used.
| |
| 14 Then we did a collective dose assessment using 15 again, a number of assumptions, how these are used, patterns 16 of use through the United States. Then we assigned $1000 per 17 manrem to that collective dose assessment. That was on one ,
| |
| 18 side.
| |
| 19 Then on the other side of the picture we looked at 20 the cost of disposing of this material through licensed 21 radioactive land disposal sites as opposed to incinerating 22 these files.
| |
| 23 We also did some calculations on the dose 24 associated, that might be associated with packaging and i 25 transporting these materials to disposal sites. All the i
| |
| lieritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 ;
| |
| 1 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 85
| |
| (
| |
| 1 handling packaging involved in those. Who added that into 1 2 the cost of disposal at $1000 per manrem.
| |
| 3 Then we did a cost benefit balance between the 4 collective does to people using unregulated methods'of 5 disposal, principally incineration is what we projected, and 6 compared that to the cost of regulated disposal. The cost 7 benefit ratio turned out to be a. savings of almout $13 million.
| |
| 8 per year when the calculation was done, in favor of non-9 regulation. Those-calculations constituted the basis for the ,
| |
| 10 exemption. In other words there were upper bounding 11 calculations, other calculations using various pathways that 12 would identify typical doses in the critical groups, not 13 average doses across the population. Individuc1 doses in 14 critical groups,. collective dose assessment with cost benefit 15 analysis and it can't provide the basis for the exemption.
| |
| 16 MR. STEINDLER: What sort of a conclusion should I 17 draw from the $13 million? Is that a number-that's high? Is j 18 it low? Is it useful for evaluation?
| |
| 19 MR. CUNNINGHAM: If you assign monetary values per 20 manrem on both sides of the picture, you come out with a $13 21 million advantage for letting it go out into the unregulated ,
| |
| l 22 disposal. You also know that you are dealing with doses that I 23 are very small for individuals within the~ population, and 24 relatively small collective doses, too.
| |
| 25 MR. STEINDLER: $13 million is equivalent to one Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 9 86
| |
| ('
| |
| 1- death then?
| |
| 2 'MR. LAHS: Point four is, out.of the statement of 3- ' considerations.
| |
| 4 MR..STEINDLER: I'm sorry? t 5 MR. LAHS: Point four health effects was~what was 6 calculated in the statement of considerations which were dated 7 September 1, 1982. So essentially what Dick did'is 8 essentially what this policy would call for.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And that would be under the upper 10 category. This would have been analyzed under the upper 11 category.
| |
| 12 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Fine. That's all right.
| |
| 14 Any other questions or comments?
| |
| 15 MR. FOSTER: I looked a little blt hard at this 16 policy on frivolous uses, if you will. I wondered whether the 17 language which you have in there really can be the subject of 18 some mischief later on. Certainly the intent here would be to 19 exclude practices which deliberately introduce radioactive 20 material into these products such as toys, foods, and what 21 not. l 22 I wondered whether the words as you have written 23 them here could be misconstrued to include non-deliberately 24 added materials. For example, a toy manufacturer happens to 25 buy metal which has been contaminated but released and Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| d i
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 87 l
| |
| 1 incorporates that material, where he~ falls into the category.
| |
| 2 I think if I were on your side of the table I would 3 say that under such circumstances we don't have to face the 4 issue because he isn't coming in for an application for any 5 kind of license and the problem goes away. But I'll break it 6 up here as to whether or not you think you may need to add 7 some extra words to that to make it very clear that the 8 addition was delivered.
| |
| 9 MR. LAlIS : We'could put that right in front of that, 10 excluded practices would include but not be limited to 11 deliberate introduction of radioactive material into blank, 12 blank, blank. So yes, what you say is correct.
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any other questions or comments?.
| |
| 14 (No response) 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Let me thank the staff and Bill 16 particularly for coming down and spending the time with us.
| |
| 17 We will deliberate this this afternoon and try to get to you 18 some written comments through the chairman. ;
| |
| l 19 One final question, I'm trying to remember the 1 20 timing. We had submitted the memo a month or two ago, Mr.
| |
| 21 Fraley did, on BRC.
| |
| 22 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN HOELLER: And you gave us a response. Did 24 you have that memo in hand when you had your retreat, or was ,
| |
| 25 our memo -- l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| 88 1
| |
| 1 MR. LAHS: Yes.
| |
| 2 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You did have it.in hand.- Okay.
| |
| 3 Thank you.
| |
| 4 With that then, we'll take a one hour recess for 5- lunch.
| |
| 6 (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the hearing was recessed, 7 to reconvene at 1:40 p.m. this same day, Thursday, July 21, 8 1988.)
| |
| 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 89
| |
| (
| |
| l AFTERNOON SESSION 2 1:40 p.m.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The meeting will come to order.
| |
| 4 The next item on our agenda is~a report on DOE's dry 5 cast storage study, and we will hear for the next couple ~of 6 hours a report on that. It will be led by Keith Klein who 7 will handle the introductions, and I understand that Charles 8 Head will make the principle presentation.
| |
| 9 Let me say it's a pleasure to have you with us, and 10 if in your presentation, we know that Congress has mandated-11 this and you could tell us about that, but would you also 12 include in your presentation why you want this particular 13 committee to comnient or to hear about it.
| |
| ' i 14 MR. KLEIN: Very well.
| |
| 15 My name is Keith Klein. I'm Deputy Associate 16 Director for Systems Integration and Regulations. We are 17 pleased, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management !
| |
| 18 is of course very pleased to meet here with you again.
| |
| 19 Let me just show you again a chart you've seen l i
| |
| 1 20 before, just so I can explain the key actors. !
| |
| l 21 I'm here wearing two hats today from this office, !
| |
| 22 and we have responsibility for licensing as well as various l 23 other activities leading to the implementation of a geologic j 24 disposal system. There are two divisions in that office. One 25 is Systems Integration and Transportation. I am serving as I
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation i
| |
| (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| _ . . . . I
| |
| | |
| 90
| |
| -(
| |
| ) the Director of that division pending the filling of that.
| |
| 2 position. And there are three branches in that division, one 3 of which is a Technology Development branch. It was under 4 that branch that this report has been prepared..
| |
| 5 The other division is the Licensing Compliance 6 Division. Ed. Rengier is the Acting Chief of the Licensing 7 Branch within that division, and you've been seeing him in the 8 past meetings as our official liaison with the NRC and the 9 ACITW .
| |
| 10 The principal presenter today will be Charlie Head.
| |
| 11 Charlie has recently assumed the responsibilities of the i 12 Acting Chief of the Storage Technology Development Branch, 13 Systems Development Branch, excuse me, responsible for this 14 study. Prior to that time Dwight Shelor was the Acting Chief 15 of that branch an'd has been principally involved in the 16 preparation of this report. I'd like for Dwight to raise his 17 hand.
| |
| 18 Dwight is detailed as a deputy to Lake Barrett who ,
| |
| 19 has been detailed to, in the QA Office that has been recently 20 staffed up through a number of detailees to help get our QA 21 program further implemented.
| |
| 22 I'd also like to recognize Greg Hartkofpt as a 23 principal staff member responsible for putting together this 24 report. I'm expecting that in response to questions that both 25 Greg and Dwight and myself will be assisting Charlie Head, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| - . . .~
| |
| 91
| |
| (
| |
| 1 again who will be the principal presenter.
| |
| 2 As far as the reason.we're here, let me ask Ed 3 Rengier if, I'm not clear on the details leading up to this
| |
| , 4 particular presentation other than it's a report that's 5 mandated by Congress. It's --
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Let me'ask a couple of questions.
| |
| 7 We reviewed at our first meeting the NRC's regulations for dry 8 cask storage. Are you going to comply with NRC's regulations 9 on this?
| |
| 10 MR. HEAD: Oh yes.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: So that would be an important 12 point. Then I presume the NRC staff will comment upon your 13 report, and if they do then we need to help them with that.
| |
| 14 MR. HEAD: I don't know if they'll be formally 15 commenting on it or not, but --
| |
| 16 MR. KLEIN: Yes, let me answer that, Ed.
| |
| 17 Part of our mandate from Congress which Charlie will 18 be reviewing specifically says that we should include the 19 views of the NRC, of the Commission, in this final report to 20 Congress. So I am presuming then that as part of the 21 Commission's determination of their views and their wanting 22 the ACNW to have an opportunity to indicate to them, but I 23 think the NRC staff may, I see affirmative nods, so that is 24 the specific reason.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: That's very helpful, and l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 1
| |
| | |
| 92
| |
| (
| |
| 1- particularly to have it on the record. It's not that we were 2 questioning this. We're delighted to have you here, but 3 others had asked the question and it's helpful to have it 4 clearly specified.
| |
| 5 MR. KLEIN: Very good. Without further ado then, 6 let me ask Charlie Head to hobble on up here. He has one leg 7 up on the situation.
| |
| 8 MR. STEINDLER: Let me ask one question before you 9 leave.
| |
| 10 There are 15 or more, without my glasses I'm not 11 sure, but acting or vacant slots in that table of organization 12 which is a fairly broad outline of the RW portion of DOE.
| |
| 13 From your current information base, when would you expect this 14 organization to become more permanently organized? Or is that 15 an unfair question to ask?
| |
| 16 MR. KLEIN: I think it's a fair question. Typically 17 whenever major reorganizations occur there is an abundance of 18 paperwork that'is required before things are final. There are 19 position descriptions that have to be revised, other forms 20 that have to be filled out, and with an organization of 150 21 people it just takes time. But there is no reason for any of 22 us to believe that there are any substantive issues involved 23 in removing the acting titles. It's strictly an 24 administrative, it just takes time.
| |
| 25 MR. STEINDLER: So you're telling me that the notion Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808
| |
| | |
| 93
| |
| (
| |
| 1 of the word acting behind somebody's name should not prevent 2 action? -
| |
| 3 MR. KLEIN: No. And in fact eve yone is on an 4 interim basis, if you will,' assigned the responsibilities of 5 that position. 'So the fact that it is acting does not mean 6 they don't have the full authorities and responsibilities 7 until these other administrative actions are implemented.
| |
| 8 MR. KATHRENs Except like Barrett who you said had 9 moved into the office of QA? !
| |
| i 10 MR. KLEIN: Lake Barrett has been detailed to that 11 office, but is serving as if he were the Director, and with 12 the responsibilities that ge along with that. Now that is one 13 position where it is not clear that he will be the final 14 director, but this term of detail was of the order, the last I
| |
| * 15 heard, four to six months. So it is not just a few days sort 16 of position.
| |
| 17 With that, I'll introduce Charlie Head.
| |
| 18 CHAIRNAN MOELLER: And we might ask what happened to 19 your leg.
| |
| 20 MR. HEAD: I'll tell you. I was teaching my two
| |
| ; 21 year old how to hike. I'm hoping he wasn't paying attention.
| |
| 22 It only takes me twice as long to do anything because of this, 23 but I can eventually get through it. j j 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Would you like to sit down at the 4
| |
| 25 table? Would that help you?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| , ,-,-aw, - - -
| |
| | |
| F 94 4
| |
| 1 MR. HEAD: That would help. It would be one less 2 thing for me to try to-remember, keep standing up.
| |
| 3 I guess we all know why ae're here,but this was the 4 first viewgraph in the package so let me use it.
| |
| 5 We're making vast progress in getting this study 6 together. The objectives of the study are specifically called 7 out in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments act. We've been 8 tasked to conduct a study and evaluation of the use of dry 9 cask storage technologies for temporary storage of spent fuel 10 at reactor sites until the repository has been licensed and is 11 accepting the spent fuel. We have been told to report on the 12 costs of the dry cask storage technologies, the extent to 13 which the dry cas,k storage et reactor sites would affect human J
| |
| 14 health and the environment, and the extent to which that i
| |
| 15 storage would affect cost and risk of transporting spent 16 nuclear fuel to a central facility.
| |
| 17 We've been asked to consider the extent to which the 18 funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund could or should be used to 19 provide the funds for the at reactor storage. We have been 20 told to consult with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to 21 include comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the j i
| |
| 22 report to Congress. And we've been told to solicit the views '
| |
| 23 of state and local governments and the public.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: In this regard, is the dry cask j 25 storage being viewed as perhaps a replacement of MRS?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation !
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 95 i
| |
| 1 MR. HEAD: Because of other considerctions about.
| |
| 2 Congress having to act on whether there'should be an MRS or 3 not, we are taking pains to make this study a very factual 4 document that is neutral on MRS. So we are not, intentionally 5 not addressing that.
| |
| 6 Do-you want to add something Keith?
| |
| 7 MR. KLEIN: In fact part of the legislative 8 background behind this is that question, but the guidance to 9 us in preparing the report which is verbatim basically in 10 there, does not ask us to make any comparisons with this as a 11 substitute for an MRS. So we've been fairly narrowly focused 12 on this, just the implications of dry cask storage at reactor 13 sites.
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Did you see the letter this 15 committee wrote o.n the NRC's Title 10 Part 72, whatever it is, 16 last month? I can quickly mention we made two statements.
| |
| 17 One was in their proposed regulations they said that the waste 18 stored at a particular site could only be the spent fuel from 19 reactors on that site, and we thought a utility might want to 20 set up a common, a utility that operated multiple power plants 21 might want to consolidate or concentrate all their material at 22 one site.
| |
| 23 The second thing we said was we were concerned about 24 the transfer of this fuel. He recognized that the storage 25 casks could not meet shipping transportation requirements, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
| |
| - ,, .- -. - , , . 4--
| |
| | |
| 96 I therefore the fuel is going to have to be taken out of the 2 storage cask, put in a transportation one, and back and forth 3 and so forth, and we just called for attention to be given to 4 that subject. This is a letter issued on July 1, 1988. We 5 can certainly'make copies. Why don't you give them to them 6 now.
| |
| 7 MR. FOSTER: Did DOE have a program in dry cask 8 storage before this was mandated by the legislation?
| |
| 9 MR. HEAD: Yes we did. There was work going on even 10 before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, but the Nuclear Waste ;
| |
| i 11 Policy Act itself mandated work in the dry cask storage area.
| |
| a 12 MR. CARTER: I had a question, is there an inherent 13 assumption now that the transportation will be different for ,
| |
| 14 materials stored in dry cask as opposed to those stored 15 underwater at reactor sites?
| |
| 16 MR. HEAD: No, as a matter of fact I've got a i 17 viewgraph on that later on in this presentation that makes the ;
| |
| 18 point that we're assuming quite the opposite, that there would 19 be no difference in transportation. Nothing inherent that 20 would require it in any case. l 21 Just to give you an idea of what our status is, we 22 have in the process of getting started on this study, i
| |
| 23 attempted to determine the views of those parties who would 24 have a heavy concern about the study itself. We've attended a 25 meeting that was held by EPRI, EEI, and several of the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| _____-_-_______l
| |
| | |
| 97
| |
| (
| |
| l utilities to get their perspective. We have solicited the 2 views of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission up front so that we 3 could-attempt to work in that perspective from the beginning. ,
| |
| 4 In preparation for the public review period we have posted 5 announcements both'in the Federal Register and in our own ACNW 6 Bulletin announcing that we would have a public review period 7 and requesting that interested parties inform us of their 8 names and addresses so we could include them on our mailing 9 list as soon as the initial version of the document is 10 available.
| |
| 11 We have held informal meetings with the'NRC staff 32 and an initial version of the report is undergoing what could ,
| |
| 13 be said final review in DOE at this time in preparation for 14 the public review. We've received approximately 70 requests 15 for this initial version at this time, i
| |
| 16 This might be a point also to explain why I'm giving '
| |
| 17 this presentation that I'll admit to you I didn't prepare.
| |
| 18 Because of some staffing considerations within the Office of 19 Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the two individuals on 20 our staff who have done an excellent job in bringing the study 21 to the point it is, in Dwight's case he has moved to a new job l 22 already, and in the case of Greg Hartkofpt he will.be moving 23 very shortly. So we had no choice but to find somebody else l
| |
| 24 to finish it up, and we felt that this might be a good time, 25 since I'm going to be the one who has to carry it through, to a
| |
| Horitage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| -. -. - . ~ . . . . - . . . _ . - ..., _ .. - . - . . - .
| |
| O i
| |
| 98
| |
| ('
| |
| 1 get me on the spot.
| |
| 2 Our proposed sequence of-' activities for finishing 3 the report is first to issue that-initial _ version-for public ;
| |
| 4 comment, to hold a public comment' period"sufficient for a !
| |
| 5 substantive response, modify the initial version as necessary 6 based on the comments we receive, submit the final report to j 7- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Even though the NRC will' 8 review and comment on the initial version we want-them to see 9 the fi al words that are going to Congress, and the final 10 repcit that'is submitted to Congress will be the final report 11 and the NRC comments that we have received on that final l 12 report.
| |
| 13 MR. KATHREN: Would you put a date'on some of these?
| |
| t 14 MR. HEAD: The dates were left off intentionally 15 because we're still working through.the process of figuring 16 out just what time frames will be involved.
| |
| 17 The initial version should be coming out soon, early 18 August is what 'it looks like right now. ;
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: How long is it?
| |
| 20 MR. HEAD: The report itself?
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes. 1 I
| |
| 22 MR. HEAD: It's about three-eights of an inch thick. ,
| |
| , 23 Do you know a page count? i l
| |
| 24 MR. HARTKOFPT: Probably about 120 to 150 pages.
| |
| ! 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: That's helpful. And of course l l
| |
| 4 J
| |
| ) Heritage Reporting Corporation 3 (202) 628-4888 j
| |
| | |
| 99
| |
| (
| |
| l your deadline to Congress is October?
| |
| t'
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 MR. HEAD:' 'That is the date specified in the Nuclear 3 Waste Policy Amendments Act.
| |
| 4 I want to go through'in a couple of viewgraphs an 5 overview of the contents of the study. I'm in essence going 6 to talk through the table of contents in a manner of speaking, 7 and I'll come back and revisit all of these topics in more ,
| |
| 8 detail after these next two viewgraphs. So first I just want
| |
| .9 to give you a scoping of the contents of.the study.
| |
| I 10 The study itself is a general review of at-reactor
| |
| . 11 storage as specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments
| |
| {
| |
| 12 Act. It will specify-that we are assuming the utilities will 13 re-rack to the maximum extent to maximize their pool capacity, j 14 That they will tlien use dry storage to provide any additional 15 at-reactor storage that's necessary. And in-pool 16 consolidation would be used to supplement these other two !
| |
| 17 technologies.
| |
| 18 The report includes a general review of the role of 19 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in regulating the at-reactor t
| |
| 20 storage, and reviews the applicable regulations.
| |
| 21 The report includes a detailed summary of the at-22 reactor storage expansion options including metal storage ;
| |
| 23 casks. concrete storage casks, concrete modules, concrete 24 vaults, dual purposes casks meaning casks that could be used i
| |
| 25 for both storage and transportation, and in-pool Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4000
| |
| | |
| -l i
| |
| 10b l'
| |
| 1 . consolidation. For each of these storage expansion options we T
| |
| 2 describe the equipment and operations involved in using the-3 equipment, its implementation experience, status, and plans, 4 certification and licensing issues, and estimated cost ranges 5 and uncertainties.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Again, the in-pool consolidation 7 is where you actually open the rod and --
| |
| , f 8 MR. HEAD: You don't open the rod. What you do is' l
| |
| ! 9 disassemble the fuel assemblies so that the rods can be moved 10 closer together.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: All right, so you don't open the 12 rod.
| |
| : i 13 MR. STEINDLER: The implication of the first bullet q 14 on your viewgraph is that you're viewing.the process as an i
| |
| 15 add-on to existing pool storage. Do you any place in your ;
| |
| 16 study address thd question of substituting dry storage for 17 existing fuel stored in pools?
| |
| 18 MR. HEAD: We are not assuming that the utilities !
| |
| i .
| |
| 5 19 would attempt to empty their pools. We are assuming that they I J
| |
| 20 would first fill their pools to capacity with the exception of ;
| |
| i 21 leaving space for one core load. Then start using dry cask t 22 storage.
| |
| 23 MR. STEINDLER: So even'if you found some enormous 24 advantage, which may not exist, to dry storage, which might ;
| |
| ; 25 drive utilities to emptying out their pools and converting 3I Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
| |
| I (202) 628-4888 !
| |
| i f
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| 101
| |
| (
| |
| 1 their pools to something that will only store temporarily on a 1
| |
| 2 very short time, that's an issue that you're sinaply not going 3 to address, is that right?
| |
| 4 MR. HEAD: That's correct. As far as the +
| |
| 5 information that we have available, we have not identified any 6 advantage to moving fuel from the pools into dry cask storage.
| |
| 7 There's certainly nothing in the technology that would 8 r*a-1 'e a utility from doing that if they wished, but we 9 he . identified any reason why they would want to.
| |
| 10 MR. STEINDLER: That may very well bring up some 31 new issues.
| |
| 12 MR. SHEWMON: There's real cooling problems if'it's 13 too fresh.
| |
| 14 MR. STEINDLER: I understand that.
| |
| 15 MR. SHEWMJN: So I'm not sure how the regulations 16 handle this, but t re has to be some temperature limit, some wet cooling or pretty vociferous air cooling, forced air 18 cooling early. You don't want to get it too young.
| |
| 19 MR. STEINDLER: I don't know at what point 20 convt.uion cooling in a design that addresses that issue could 21 be made to work, and I'm not proposing to work the problem 22 here. All I guess I'm asking is where you're starting, and 23 you apparently are starting with a full pool and moving 24 beyond.
| |
| 25 MR. HEAD: Kolth?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Y _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
| |
| | |
| 102
| |
| (
| |
| 1 MR. KLEIN: Just a little perspective. The driver 2 on this is not t'..at there are any problems with pool storage..
| |
| 3 It's simp 1; a reflection that pools' were built when reactors 4 were built. At that time reprocessing was assumed, and the 5 pools are just a finite size and they're jost running out of 6 space And as you'll see later on, we're just at the tip of 7 the curve there in terms of number of reactors, amot tet of fuel 8 that's requiring this excess storage. But this is just a 9 review of the options given that we are stuffing the pools 10 basically, is as much as they can be filled.
| |
| 11 MR. IIEAD: To go on with this overview of the 12 contents of the study, the report will include a review of 13 factors that may affect the utilities' dry storage decisions.
| |
| t 14 In other words, which concepts are mature enough to be likely
| |
| .5 to be used? Ilow does that maturity affect scheduling, 16 op erating philosophy, publJ c perception, costing, etc?
| |
| 17 We have assessments of the quantity of spent fuel 18 requiring additional storage, and based on that and 19 assessments of the cost of the various alternative 20 technologies that are available for storage, we have 21 assessments of the overall utility system cost. All of th!;
| |
| 22 is given in ranges due to uncertainties in both the amount of .
| |
| 1 1
| |
| 23 fuel to be stored and the cost of the technical options. l I
| |
| 24 As required in the Amendments Act, we have 1 25 dit ossions of the human health and environmental impacts.
| |
| 4 IIeritage Reporting Jorporation (202) 628-4880 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 103
| |
| (.
| |
| 1 The transportation impacts, and we have separate discussion 2 answering two specific questions in the Amendmento Act, can 3 the Nuclear Waste Fund be used to pay for this storage? And 4 should the Nuclear Waste Fund ima useo.
| |
| 5 Now I'd like to get into an overview --
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Wait a second. In other words, 7 Congress is asking you, _the DOE, to tell them whether the 8 Waste Fund can be used?
| |
| 9 MR. HEAD: That's correct.
| |
| 10 MR. FOSTER: I'm not quite sure why DOE is doing 11 some of these things. Is this related to dry cask storage 12 that the individual' utilities are already doing by themselves, 13 or is this in preparation for DOE to, as a government entity, 14 to be doing this as a federal agency?
| |
| 15 MR. HEAD: The reason we're doing the study is 16 because Congress told us to. The study is based on the 17 assumption that these additional storage capabilities would be 18 added by the utilities, not by the federal government. Keith 19 is flagging again that he wants tc add-onto this.
| |
| 20 MR. KLEIN: Let me add, yes, it's more the former 21 than the .atter. It's a recognition that the Federal Waste i
| |
| 22 Management System, the repository basically, will not be !
| |
| 1 1
| |
| 23 svailable until 2003 is our current reference schedale. 1 1
| |
| I Between now and 2003 there is, storage pools are going to L begin to run out of space and I think Thomas wanted insight as i
| |
| p lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| _ , , - ._, _ ,_ , ~ . _ _, . . _ . ._,
| |
| | |
| 104 1
| |
| 1 to what are the trends? What are utilities doing to deal with 2 this? And then wanting to know can and she2id the monies 3 we're collecting for the disposal system, entire system,.can 4 and should those funds be used in some way to; help; solve some 5 of the storage probleme?
| |
| 6 MR. FOSTER: But s a basic strategy the utilities 7 have already recognized the problems and at least one side 8 here already has started it.
| |
| 9 MR. KLEIN: And they're already starting.to do 10 things --
| |
| 11 MR. FOSTER: On their own?
| |
| 12 MR. KLEIN: So thic is more a forecast of those 13 trends and analysis of them, and-describing the implications, 14 predicting how much more that's going to occur.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And-in essence, too, if the Waste 16 Fund, if Congress or whoever it is declares that the Waste 17 Fund can be used,you'll be' transferring back to the utilities 18 money they've given to you.
| |
| 19 MR. KLEIN: to utilities with storage prob'emr, but 20 not necessarily to all utilities. That's a point we'll get 21 into a little bit later.
| |
| 22 MR. STEINDLER: One last question. are you using 23 the current DOE reposimary schedule as the target date?
| |
| 24 liR . HEAD: Yes, we're using the reference schedule 25 which has the repository starting operation in 2003.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 105
| |
| ('
| |
| 1 Much of the discussion in the report builds up to 2 answering the question that we were asked in the Amendments 3 Act which is to estimate the cost impacts to the utilities of 4 providing this additional storage. The concept behind doing 5 the calculation is not particularly complicated. It more gets 6 complicated in the actual doing of.it. The first. thing you 7 need to know is how much. fuel do'you have to provide storage 8 for? The next thing you need to know is how much' fits in the 9 pools and how much do you~have to put into the additional at-10 reactor storage. Then you ask yourself the question what.does 11 that additional storage cost? Then you can do the 12 calculation.
| |
| 13 There are a series of viewgraphs here which will 14 bu. up or walk through that process.
| |
| 15 MR. SHEWMON: A minute ago you said this assumed 16 that the reposito,ry starts. accepting fuel in 2003.
| |
| 17 MR. HEAD: That's correct.
| |
| 18 MR. SHEWMON: That there seemed to be no changes in 19 slope of anything between 2000 and 2005 there. Will you get 20 to that point?
| |
| 21 MR. HEAD: Yes, this particular viewgraph is just 22 the cumulative spent fuel discharge without any reference to l
| |
| 23 where it goes. ,
| |
| 24 MR. SHEWMON: Well I'll ask the same question when I 25 get ta the next curve. Go ahead.
| |
| l Heritage Reporting-Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| | |
| . 106
| |
| (~
| |
| 1 M
| |
| .R.. HEAD: The point of this curve'is to show the 2 sources of.information which we are using in'this study. We 3 have used as our upper limit. essentially the reports we have 4 19ceived from the utilities on DOE's Form RS-859. That 5 datak'.se tends to be higher because the utilities take a 6 relatively aggressive position, relative to estimating their 7 capacity factors.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Excuse me. Why does "no new 9 orders" why is that line below the lower reference? I would 10 think the lower reference'would be no new orders.
| |
| 11 MR. HEAD: I don't know the answer to that one.
| |
| 12 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: When you say no new orders, are 13 you assuming, you mean no new plants being built -- <
| |
| 14 MR. HEAD: That's correct.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You're assuming that if new 16 plants are built they will not. provide adequate spent fuel 17 pool storage capacity?
| |
| 18 MR. HEAD: Dwight, would you help me out on that 19 one?
| |
| 20 Mr. SHELOR: The no new orders case is precisely 21 that. No new orders are placed and no new plans are 22 implemented. However those plans that are on line will 23 continue to discharge spent fuel. So it goes on and 24 increases.
| |
| 25 The upper reference --
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-48R8
| |
| | |
| 107
| |
| (-
| |
| 1 MR. KLEIN: This is not with any reference to 2 storage requirements outside.of pools. This is.'just total 3 amount of fuel discharged. So with more_ plants on line you're 4 getting more fuel discharge is all.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Could you give us your name?
| |
| 6 MR. SHELOR: My name is Dwight Shelor.
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thanks, go ahead.
| |
| 8 MR. SHELOR: On the upper reference case and then 9 new orders case, are simply differences in EIA projections on 10 the fraction of total electricity generated'from nuclear 11 plants.
| |
| 12 CHAIRMAN MOELI Thank you. And the RW-859?
| |
| 13 MR. SHELOR: Tne RW-859 is the approved OMB form i
| |
| 14 that DOE uses or has been using through the. energy information 15 administration of DOE to collect information on the actual 16 discharges and projected performance of the plants so we can 17 track the requirements for the standard disposal contract.
| |
| 18 MR. HEAD: Okay, we worked our way through that one.
| |
| 19 Now let's go to.the next step.
| |
| 20 What we are showing on this viewgraph is the range 21 of cumulative, additional, at-reactor storage requirements.
| |
| 2'.; Another way of saying this is that this is a measure of how 23 many dry storage casks do we have to add. It doesn't go down 24 when the repository starts operating because the storage cask 25 has already been bought and it's there. We're trying to work Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 108 t
| |
| 1 up to estimating how much money do we have~to spend buying 2 those storage casks.
| |
| 3 MR. SHEWMON: But it doesn't change slope-for five 4 years.after the new repository comes in either,.and it'seems 5 to me if the repository is accepting things then it should 6 decrease -the cumulative demand, shouldn't it?
| |
| 7 MR. HEAD: Our requirement is to accept oldest fuel 8 first, and that oldest fuel is more than likely in storage-9 pools.
| |
| 10 MR. KLEIN: The answer to that also is that the 11 repository acceptance rates are relatively small in the 12 beginning years. I believe it's 400 tons per year for the 13 first three years. That goes up to 900 tons, eventually going 14 up to about 3000 tons per year.
| |
| 15 MR. SHEWMON: So'the effectiveness or the 16 repository going full scale then is reflected back out around 17 2010 when that levels out, is that right?
| |
| 18 MR. KLEIN: Yes, exactly. ,
| |
| 19 MR. HEAD: That's right. -)
| |
| 20 MR. KLEIN: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. When the curve 21 starts --
| |
| 22 CHAIF09d1 MOELLER: Back to something Charles you 23 said, mayoe I'm taking it out of context. But I thought the 24 oldest fuel is the fuel most likely to be in dry cask storage 25 and the freshest fuel will be that likely to be in the spent i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| 109-
| |
| -- (
| |
| 1 . fuel pool.
| |
| 2 MR. HEAD: It would depend on how it's racked.and 3 hou the utility wants to move its fuel.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: What is the earliest or the 5 youngest, the least aged fuel that you see being pl' aced in dry 6 cask storage?
| |
| 7 MR. HEAD:' I don't know the answer to that either.
| |
| 8 There's a temperature limit on it.
| |
| 9 MR. SHELOR: There are several answers to it, but 10 the obvious answer, it would be between five and ten years 11 old. The youngest fuel would probably be representative of ar.
| |
| 12 individual storage pool that has been re-racked to its maximum 13 capacity which would probably take care of at least a five 14 year storage period before you.would have to move it to 15 additional storag'e.
| |
| MR. ROBERTS:
| |
| 16 I think that basically answers'the 17 question.
| |
| 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: What is your name?
| |
| 19 MR. ROBERTS: John Roberts with the NRC, NMSS.
| |
| 20 Basically five to ten years is what we're seeing now.
| |
| l 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: .Thank you.
| |
| 22 MR. FOSTER: If memory serves me correctly, 23 Amendment to Series License says five year minimum.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 25 MR. HEAD: Juct to summarize in tabular form what we Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l 1
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| -110 1 .showed on that last viewgraph,-the cumulative storage 2 requirements, the high estimate is about 20,000 metric tons.
| |
| 3 The low estimate is a little over 12,000 metric tons. High-4 estimate affects over 100 reactors at 67 different sites. 'The 5 low estimate,-83 reactors at 54 different sites.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Maybe you'll cover it later, but 7 isn't a typical assembly half ton?
| |
| 8 MR. HEAD: I don't know the weight of it.
| |
| 9 MR. KLEIN: For a PWR assembly. A BWR, I believe is 10 .2 approximately.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: How many assemblies per cask?
| |
| 12 MR. SHELOR: It varies. Twenty, twenty-one --
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: But it's up in.the ten's?
| |
| 14 MR. KLEIN: .Yes. About ten tons per cask. If you 15 store consolidated fuel, you can almost double that in some 16 cases. But it has to be older fuel and so forth.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: That's helpful. Thank you.
| |
| 18 MR. HEAD: To put into perspective the distribution 19 of storage across the country, the report also shows what the 20 peak storage in various locations would be. This peak-storage 21 doesn't all occur at the same time, but it's still appropriate 22 to note just what the peak would be for any locale.
| |
| 23 At this point I want to show some viewgraphs that 24 are not in the handout. We didn't put them in the handout 25 because they're photographs that wouldn't have reproduced fleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 111
| |
| (
| |
| 1 well. They would give you an idea of the technical summary.of 2 the storage options that we have.
| |
| 3 This is just a schematic of a typical metal dry 4 storage cask. It's basically a raetal cylinder with cooling S fins on the outside and a structure inside called the basket-6 'which both supports the fuel assemblies and maintains their 7 spacing.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: What is the neutron shield?
| |
| 9 What's it composed of?
| |
| 10 MR. HEAD: I don't know that either.
| |
| 11 MR. KLEIN: Various materials. The NRC staff can 12 tell you specifically. Some of them are typically, it might 13 be a bore rated polyethylene type substance. I oon't think 14 any of the dry cask storage casks are planning on using water 15 as the nautron shielding to the best of my ability.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 17 MR. CARTER: Is this passive cooling in there?
| |
| 18 MR. HEAD: Yes, there's passive. cooling in all of 19 these examples that I'm going to show you.
| |
| 20 MR. KATHREN: Is this neutron shield for criticality :
| |
| I 21 control? l 22 MR. HEAD: No, it's to control the neutron doses 23 outside the cash.
| |
| 24 MR. KATHREN: Well spent fuel shouldn't have a lot 25 of -- should it? Am I showing my ignorance here? I thought I
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 112
| |
| -(
| |
| 1 once you take it out --
| |
| 2 MR.~ HEAD: The primary radiation --
| |
| 3 MR. KATHREN: I don't understand why you need a 4 neutron shield.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yeah, all of the fission-6 products that emit neutrons are very short lived.
| |
| 7 MR. ROUSE: My name is Lee Rouse, NRC. You do have 8 a neutron flux in each spent fuel. Some of our higher TRU, 9 Alpha-In reactions, there is a definite neutron flux-and a 10 definite need for those neutron shields considcring, and we 11 explained to you just a couple of weeks ago, we're very 12 interested in keeping the dose rates for these storage casks 13 at quite low levels. Quite a bit lower than would be 14 permissible under transportation regulations, simply because 15 you're going to see large arrays of these on a site.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 17 MR. HEAD: To try to give you a flavor that these 18 metal casks are not just schematic drawings. we've got a few 19 photographs here of actual casks. These three casks were part 20 of testing conducted in , cooperative agreement between the 21 Department of Energy and Virginia Power. The testirg was done 22 at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory at their Test 23 Area North. The cask in the upper letu is a Westinghouse MC-24 10. The cash on the upper right is a Castor 5, and the cask on 2.5 the bottom is a trans-nuclear 24-P.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4880
| |
| | |
| 113
| |
| (
| |
| 1 CHAIRMAN MGoLLER: Excuse me,-all of these are 2 storage casks? They're not transportation casks?
| |
| 3 MR. HEAD: That's correct.
| |
| 4 MR. KLEIN: But many of them and maybe in fact all 5 of them are designed to be capable in the designer's 6 viewpoints, of meeting Part 71 requirements for transport. I I
| |
| 7 believe only one has actually, or none have so far actually 8 submitted an application for that.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We were told when we were 10 reviewing a related subject with-the NRC staff that the cost l
| |
| 11 of a cask that meets the transportation requirements is much 12 higher than the cost of a cask that would meet minimum storage 1
| |
| 13 requirements. Can you tell us the differenca in costs, or the t
| |
| 14 ratio?
| |
| 15 MR. KLEIN: We in fact get into that in the report.
| |
| I 16 If you would go to the concrete cask for example, there can be 17 a significant difference.
| |
| For a metal cask, particularly with 1
| |
| 18 something like a nodular cast iron, if it is in fact capable i I
| |
| 19 of meeting Part 71 requirements as.the decigner claims, on 20 this one there would not be much of a cost difference. But j l
| |
| 21 there are, in concrete casks, other ways of dry storage.that 22 would be different, or would be less. !
| |
| 23 MR. HEAD: As a second phase in that cooperative 24 agreement between DOE and Virginia Power, Virginia Power 25 installed a number of Castor 5 casks at their Surrey plant.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 214
| |
| (
| |
| 1 This photograph s~ hows the first of those Castor 5's on the pad 2 at Surrey.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Now they seem to have no fins for 4 dissipating heat.
| |
| 5 MR. HEAD: If you look very carefully, do they?
| |
| 6 MR. KLEIN: They have horizontal or circumferential 7 fins actually.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOCLLER: I see them now, or at least I can 9 imagine I see.them.
| |
| 10 MR. HEAD: I'm not sure the' resolution of the 11 photograph is fine enough to let you really see them.
| |
| 12 You have a couple of viewgraphs here showing 13 concepts for concrete dry storage tasks. This is for an 14 unventilated dry storage cask. Basically a concrete cylinder 15 with a basket inside it so that in concept the only difference 16 is you replace the metal of the metal cask with concrete. Due 17 to thermal stresses on the concrete, the concrete is 1
| |
| 18 relatively thick. 1 19 This is a concept for a ventilated concrete dry ,
| |
| 20 storage cask. The spent fuel is contained in a canister .
| |
| ]
| |
| 21 which seals it hermetically and then ambient air can circulate 22 by natural convection around the canister.
| |
| 23 These two concepts are part of a cooperative l
| |
| 24 agreement that the department is currently negotiating. We l 25 expect to be able to test both of these concepts at Idaho l
| |
| t a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ?
| |
| I I1
| |
| | |
| 115 i
| |
| 1 within the next couple of years.
| |
| 2 MR. SHEWMON: You're working only with concrete 3 casks? You're not doing any work on metal casks outside of 4 wondering about perhaps licensability of foreign built ones or 5 what?
| |
| 6 MR. HEAD:' No, the cooperative agreement with 7 Virginia Power was an example of work that we are doing on 8 metal dry storage casks.
| |
| 9 MR. SHEWMON: But there you're the user, and I have 10 the impression that here you are funding the design as well as 11 the construction, or am I in error here?
| |
| 12 MR. HEAD: We are, in the case of the concrete dry 13 storage casks we are funding the testing, and there's a 14 consortium formed of utilities and the cask manufacturer who 15 is providing the cask.
| |
| 16 MR. SHEWMON: Fine.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Are any of the manufacturers 18 looking at the third item, not only a cask to store and to 19 transport, but one which would then go directly into the 20 repository.
| |
| 21 MR. KLEIN: None are so far. One of the problems l 22 with that, it's a very good theoretical idea. The truth of ,
| |
| i 23 the matter is, we do not yet know what is required of the 1
| |
| 24 waste package in terms of waste packago design, and in fact 1 25 some of that will depend on further site characterization ~and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| l 1
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 116
| |
| (
| |
| 1 eventually NRC approval of the repository including the waste 2 package design. So if you're to try to design a common-3 denominator sort of package now, it would be very risky-not 4 knowing what materials would eventually be acceptable, of 5 thickness required for corrosion. Basically the waste 6 package, 300 to 1000 year containment requirement. That's a 7 much more severe requirement than 1 sort of container required 8 just for interim storage.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 10 MR. HEAD: This viewgraph shows an artist's 11 rendition of the concept of using a modular storage vault.
| |
| .12 This particular design was worked up by New Tech and they call 13 it their NUHOMS system.
| |
| , l 14 Just to talk through the viewgraph for a moment, l 15 what we see here sitting outside the concrete vault,'this is 16 the concrete vaul't. This is a transfer cask. The fuel would 17 be loaded into a relatively light wall canister, transported 18 in a transfer c'ask, and then moved into the concrete vault.
| |
| 19 You could then close the door and move the transfer cask away.
| |
| I 20 MR. CARTER: What are the design lives of these '
| |
| 21 various storage methods?
| |
| 22 MR. HEAD: I do not know, the design life is 23 sufficient to get past the time when the fuel would be 24 transferred to the repository. Whether there is --
| |
| 25 MR. CARTER: Do you know the answer to that one?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 117
| |
| ('
| |
| 1 MR. SHEWMON: 2003.
| |
| 2 MR. KLEIN: Basically I think they all'are designed 3 for typically at least 20 yeare. Part 72 I think will allow 4 them to store 20 years, and there's' provisions if not 5 expectations for applications to renew then those certificates 6 for an additional time period. Is that correct, Lee?
| |
| 7 MR. HEAD: Lee is vigorously nodding his head yes, 8 and the rocks didn't rattle so the recorder didn't get it.
| |
| 9 This viewgraph shows a. photograph of a NUHOMS 10 system being built at the H.P. Robinson plant. The photograph 11 was taken some time ago. Unfortunately, we don't have a more 12 recent one. At this point construccion on this system has 13 been completed and they're in the testing process.
| |
| 14 MR. KLEIN: A point asked before about i 15 transportation casks, Part 71 requirements, certifications for 16 transport are typically good for five years and then have to i
| |
| 17 be renewed. That gets to one of the issues of a dual purpose 18 cask that is addressed in the report.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: How much money are we talking 20 about in that last photograph? ,
| |
| 1 21 MR. HEAD: I'm going to get to cost estimates for )
| |
| I 22 all of these in a couple of viewgraphs if I can beg to hold 23 off.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Fine.
| |
| 25 MR. HEAD: This viewgraph is a schematic of a-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4080
| |
| ____.____m.____ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
| |
| | |
| 118
| |
| (
| |
| 1 modular vault storage system. It's a large concrete building, 2 incorporating considerably more fuel handling facilities into 3 it. The fuel is stored in vertical storage bins.
| |
| 4 Finally, we talked earlier about rod consolidation.
| |
| 5 The basic scheme is that you take the fuel essemblies, remove 6 the end fittings and the spacers. The fuel rods can then be 7 loaded into a canister such that one consolidated canister can 8 hold the fuel rods from two intact fuel assemblies. However, 9 you also have to dispose of the end fittings and the spacers, 10 the non-fuel bearing components. That will fill up a fraction 11 of, a quarter to a third, of another canister, so you don't 12 get a two for one reduction quite.
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And those, the ends and spacers t
| |
| 14 and all are clascified as high level waste and must be 15 disposed of in the same manner.
| |
| 16 MR. HEAD) I don't believe it's classified as high 17 lavel waste. 1 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well it would be induced 19 activity, I presume, l l
| |
| 20 MR. KLCIN: It's typically pretty high activity. In 21 fact it can be higher gama activity from the end fittings and 22 hardware, particularly if it's compacted, than from a fuel 1
| |
| 23 assembly itself.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And some if it's long lived, as I 25 recall.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 119
| |
| (
| |
| 1 MR. KLEIN: Yes, cobalt. That's only.five' years.
| |
| 2 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: No,'it's melibdium-or'something.
| |
| 3 MR. KLEIN: I think one maybe one particular isotope 4 of cobalt, melibdium and maybe'some others. . We have a report
| |
| 'S on it actually. If you're interested we'll be glad to provide 6 it.
| |
| 7 MR. HEAD: The intention is to dispose of those non-8 fuel bearing components along with the fuel rods.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Are they put into the same type 10 of a cask or are they put into something different?
| |
| 11 MR. HEAD: I think the true answer to that is our 12 rod consolidation activities have really been carried out only 13 on pilot scale and the final design is not established.
| |
| 14 This photograph is once again an attempt to show you 15 that rod conselidation equipment has been carried beyond just 16 artist's concepts. There have been actual demonstration rod 17 consolidation projects carried out by NUSCO in a cooperative 18 agreement with DOE, and DOE has a program to develop-a 19 production scale rod / dry rod consolidation system that we are l
| |
| 20 proceeding with as well, our current plans are to take it 21 through consolidating of dummy fuel rods. We are currently 22 reviewing whether or not we should also actually demonstrate 23 it with actual fuel assemblies.
| |
| 24 MR. KLEIN: A point of clarification. The latter i
| |
| 25 program that Charlie talked about, the dry rod, is for use of j j
| |
| Heritage Report'ng Corporation l (202) 628-4888 {
| |
| i i
| |
| | |
| 120
| |
| (
| |
| 1 consolidation at repository or MRS facilities in a hot cell 2 complex, not for use at reactor sites.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We've heard several times, and 4 maybe Charles told us just now and I' missed it, well-he 5 pointed out that this equipment has been designed, but has any 6 utility actually consolidated some fuel?
| |
| 7 MR. SHELOR: Yes. At the Northeast Utilities 8 Millstone II, last September they consolideted six fuel 9 assemblied in the pool in that demonstration. Also it's been 10 reported that Northern States Power at Cray Island last fall 11 consolidated 36 fuel assemblies in a demonstration using 12 Westinghouse equipment, which I might add was, DOE was not 13 involved in that activity at all.
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: When you in the pool, am I to 15 understand this was done under water?
| |
| 16 MR. SHELOR: It's underwater. Typically it's done 17 in the cask lay-down area. The equipment is. installed in the 18 cask lay-down area, fuel assemblies transferred in, 19 consolidated, and then if they're stored back in-the pool then l 20 they move them back to the rock.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 22 MR. FOSTER: Isn't your cost consideration in q l
| |
| 23 balance here between the cost of consolidation and tne cost of I 24 additional dry storage casks?
| |
| 25 MR. SHELOR: It certainly'is.
| |
| e i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 4 121 1
| |
| 1 MR. FOSTER: It seems to me I recall that the 2 balance at this point was not in favor of consolidating, it 3 was in favor of finding more casks.
| |
| 4 MR. SHELOR: I think it depends on each individual 5 utility's analysis. The economics of in-pool, wet rod 6 consolidation and storage may not be as certain as for 7 example, the dry cask metal storage at Virginia Power because 8 it hasn't been done on a sufficient scale to give them that 9 confidence.
| |
| 10 The projections would indicate that in-pool rock 11 consolidation may be more' economical, but one has to point out 12 it depends on the total quantity of additional storage 13 required. If you consolidated all of the spent fuel-in a 1
| |
| 14 pool, in some cases it would not solve the problem. It would-15 still require additional storage at some pools.
| |
| 16 MR. HEAD: In fact, that leads us into this next 17 viewgraph rather nicely. You asked a minute ago for cost 18 estimates for one of the additional storage options. This 19 table gives cost estimates for each one of the options that 20 we've discussed. However, as Dwight pointed out, you have to 21 be aware of the fact that there are differing levels of 22 confidence in these various cost estimates. Cost estimates 23 for the metal casks at the upper end of the cost range are 24 based on achieved costs, and at the lower end, with the 25 difference in the range being site-specific differences. In lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 122
| |
| (
| |
| 1 the case of the other estimates here, .in some' cases you have 2 estimates that were derived only from pilot scale 3 demonstrations and in some cases only from cost estimates 4 based on conceptual designs.
| |
| 5 These costs are.given for each of the different 6 alternative technologies that could be used. For the purposes 7 of this study, the department doesn't have any way of 8 predicting precisely what option would be chosen by the 9 individual utilities, so to enable us to get.to the final ,
| |
| 10 calculation, we had to consolidate our costs in some way.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAll MOELLER: Excuse me, before you take that 12 down, I don't understand it. You have three columns on the 13 right. Is this 100 what per ton of heavy metal?
| |
| 14 MR. HEAD: The numbers in the table are in dollars 15 per kilogram of heavy metal, and the reason for the three 16 columns is to give a feel for the economics of scale. The 17 larger the amount of additional storage you buy, the more the 18 price goes down'.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAIJ MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 20 MR. CARTER: And those are all for at-reactor 21 storage?
| |
| 22 MR. HEAD: That's correct.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And you're assuming what burn up ;
| |
| 24 in all of this?
| |
| 25 MR. HEAD: I don't know the answer to that-cither.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800 l i
| |
| | |
| B 123
| |
| (
| |
| l MR. SHELOR: Is your question relative to the design 2 of the storage facility or in the projections of the spent 3 fuel discharged from_the reactor?
| |
| 4 CHAIREAN MOELLER: A little bit of everything. Like 5 the cost here, I presume the more the burn up, the higher the 6 dose rates, but the less the fuel, so maybe it all balances.
| |
| 7 MR. SHELOR: That's right. It's the integrated 8 total heat stored. It does tend to balance out. But in the 9 projections of the spent-fuel discharged, the EIA assumptions 10 do include a ramp up of burn up levels from the utilities over 11 the next few years to some level approaching 45,000 --
| |
| 12 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: That answers my question.
| |
| 13 MR. HEAD: This viewgraph shows our unit cost ranges 14 which we developed. What we have attempted to do here is 15 develop cost ranges that reflect the various maturity of the 16 different technologies. The upper bound and lower bound one 17 are based on the cost for storage in metal casks, and-the 18 difference between the upper bound and the lower bound are 19 related to site-specific coots. l 20 Luwer bound two rep [ resents the improvements in unit 21 costs that we would anticipate as being achieved if we can 22 make improvements to the metal casks and it also covers 23 roughly the middle of the range of costs for the concrete 24 storage options. So the attempt is to say this is a 25 relatively high confidence that either through making Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 124
| |
| (
| |
| 1 improvements to metal casks or using concrete storage options 2 you could achieve this type of cost.cange.
| |
| 3 The lower curve is based oa two different 4 considerations. Let me refer specifically to the break in the 5 curve. At the low end, what we are attempting to show'are the 6 effects of using in-pool consolidation. However, due to the 7 finite capacity of the pools, even when you consolidate 8 everything in the pool, you get to a point where you can't use 9 that technology any more, and.then the curve jumps up to being 10 the costs at the low end of the range for the concrete storage 11 options.
| |
| 12 What we have done then is to take our earlier 13 estimat.es for what the additional storage requirements would 14 be and combine it with these unit cost ranges and develop cost 15 estimates for the aggregate costs to the utilities storing the ,
| |
| i 16 spent fuel. We won't spend much time on this. You can read )
| |
| l 17 it as well as I can. The upper -- j l
| |
| 18 MR. KATHREN: Could we go back to that previous 19 slide for a minute? l i
| |
| 20 MR. HEAD: Certainly. , l 21 MR. KATHREN: In the bottom curve, the one with the 22 discontinuity, you said you took into account the point at 23 which you run out of spent fuel pool capability.
| |
| 24 MR. HEAD: That's right.
| |
| 25 MR. KATHREN: Did you do that in the other curves?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 125 1 MR. KLEIN: Let me help out on that'one a little 2 bit. The blip is a reflection of the fact that in order to 3 create say 300 tons or 350 tons worth of storage space in a 4 pool, you have to consolidate approximately 1000 tons of fuel.
| |
| 5 MR. KATHREN: I understand that. But the same, at 6 least I don't understand why there should be any difference 7 for lower bound two, for example 8 MR. HEAD: Isn't the answer to this one that what 9 we're trying to show in these bounds are different 10 technologies based on different levels of confidence and 11 whether we know what the costs would be.
| |
| 12 MR. KLEIN: What happens, the very lowest one is rod 13 consolidation, but it's only good up to a point. Then you 14 have to use a different technology.
| |
| 15 MR. KATHREN: So rod consolidation is not used in 16 the curve that's lower bound two, is that correct?
| |
| 17 MR. KLEIN: That's correct.
| |
| 18 MR. KATHREN: And it's not used in lower bound one?
| |
| 19 MR. KLEIN: That's correct.
| |
| 20 MR. KATHREN: Okay. That's what I needed to know.
| |
| 21 That's all I was asking.
| |
| 22 MR. KLEIN: It's a complicated situation because the 23 shaded portion is that which we feel is demonstrated. The 24 oths- are more speculative, increasingly more speculative.
| |
| 25 We struggled with how to try to show that.
| |
| t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| _ _ _ _, - _ ..~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _
| |
| | |
| 126
| |
| (
| |
| 1 MR. FOSTER: Are your costs for the metal casks 2 based on European technology or U.S. technology?
| |
| 3 MR. HEAD: I believe it's'U.S. technology.
| |
| 4 MR. SHELOR: It's a combination of both, really.
| |
| 5 The one cask being used at Virginia Power Surrey Plant is:a 6 Caster 521. That was a GNS design. As a matter of fact it was 7 fabricated in West Germany. However, GNSI as their licensee 8 did submit that topical report to the NRC and was approved for 9 use at that installation. Many other casks, for example the 10 NAC, Nuclear Assurance Corporation, Westinghouse, and others I
| |
| 11 either have or are in the process of submitting applications 12 to NRC for approval of their topical reports for use at-the ,
| |
| 13 installations.
| |
| 14 MR. FOSTER: They've got the f abricatior, technology l
| |
| 15 available.
| |
| 16 MR. SHELOR: I don't want to speak in general, but I 17 know that some of these, the design will be a combination or a l
| |
| 18 U.S. design. A good many of these casks are fabricated l l
| |
| 19 outside the U.S. l 1
| |
| 20 MR. KLEIN: A nodular cast iron, for example, my '
| |
| 21 understanding is there is no one in the U.S. at this point in i
| |
| 22 time capable of pouring nodular cast iron on this -- l 23 MR. SHELOR: Not capable, but have not been licensed 24 by GNS.
| |
| 25 MR. KLEIN: I'm not even sure anyone is doing it.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
| |
| (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 127 I i
| |
| 1 It's kind of an art. It used to be done in the U.S. but I 2 don't think it's being done anywhere now.
| |
| 3 MR. SHEWMON: You almost completed that by saying on 4 this scale. It's certainly used in a lot of engineering .
| |
| 5 structures now. I 6 MR. KLEIN: Yeah, big pours, I'm talking 100 ton 7 pour basically. )
| |
| I 8 MR. SHEWMON: That maybe. I don't know. I l
| |
| 9 MR. HEAD: Just to hit the high points of thic.
| |
| 10 This gets dosin sort of to the bottom line on our cost ostimate 11 in the report. It shows an upper limit of about $2 billion i 12 for the high storage requirement and the high cost range, and l 13 a minimum of about half a billion dollars based on the low 14 storage requirement and the low end of the cost range. You 15 can pick your place in between depending on your amount of 16 confidence in your estimates.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: To help us once again, what's the 18 repository's cost estimated to be, and what is the MRS 19 estimated cost?
| |
| 20 MR. KLEIN: The MRS construction costs were 21 estimated in the original proposal at $700 million. Operating 22 costs approximately S70 million per year. .But again, that's 23 doing waste packaging for t 'le repository. The incremental 24 storage costs at the MRS were very, very small.
| |
| 25 Repository costs, and I'll ask Dave Seefkin, is he Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| 128 1
| |
| 1 still here? Ha just walked in fortuitously. Repository 2 costs, Dave, I believe the Yuca. Mountain costs'for 3 construction are on the order of $2 to $3 billion? The 4 repository and then operating costs Dave, do you know?
| |
| 5 Let me ask if there is anyone from the audience from 6 DOE or its contractor family that is familiar with the latest-7 total system life cycle cost estimates?
| |
| 8 (No response) 9 MR. KLEIN: Let us get back to you on that.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 11 MR. STEINDLER: Do you believe your cost estimates 12 to three significant figures?
| |
| 13 MR. HEAD: No, not to three significant figures.
| |
| 14 MR. STEINDLER: Are they good within a factor of 15 two?
| |
| 16 MR. HEAD: Given the uncertainties in our estimates 17 on how much fuel is going to be stored and the technologies 18 that would be u' sed, it's maybe .x)t appropriate to try to hone 19 in on great precision at this point.
| |
| 20 MR. SHEWMON: Some of it has been done on a couple 21 of sites. These aren't as speculative as what the Nevada 22 costs would be for some assemblies.
| |
| 23 MR. STEINDLER: Oh , I agree.
| |
| 24 MR. HEAD: But recognize that even in the cases 25 where it's been done, we're talking about scali.ig up from say Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 129 b (
| |
| 1 five casks that have been done to thousands of casks that 2 would be required.
| |
| 3 MR. STEINDLER: I appreciate that. Yes.
| |
| 4 MR. HEAD: To give a little bit more perspective on 5 the results of the study we also ran some sensitivit: ccses to n 6 show what the difference in the at-reactor storage
| |
| - 7 requirements would be. If we did assume that an MRS was
| |
| [ 8 c; erational and if we a.'sumed dif ferent dates fer the MRS and 9 the reposi ory to begin oporation. Fo. example, the 10 aifference in the 2003 acceptance case, if you assume an MR5 it in addition to a repository, the total storage requirement 12 drops from 2000 MTU to about 1600.
| |
| 13 We then carried that on to cost estimates.
| |
| E 14 Est.; mated ranges of aggregate costs for the storage 15 capacity --
| |
| 16 MR. KLEIN: Charlie, I'm corry. You'd better go L
| |
| 17 back. I think you said 2000 and you meant 20,000.
| |
| le MR. HEAD: Yes, I dropped a zero in there. It drops 19 from 20,000 to about 16,000.
| |
| , 20 MR. KLEIN: The :otal fuel disc!.arge to date is 21 ao )ro) sately 15.000 tons, that's 15,000 tons of fuel now at p 22 reacte . It ir is to around 40,000 or between 40,000 and 23 50,000 'd ^he t the century. i h 24 - +'
| |
| s viewgraph .111 give you estimated 4
| |
| 1 ?5 rangas e- .
| |
| sts for the dif+erent start up dater, 1
| |
| g ,1).tage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5
| |
| | |
| _a -- ..... .. -. ._. . . -
| |
| , u .
| |
| 2 130 1 assuming both an MRS and a repository in operation.
| |
| 2 Now let me go on to summarize what at least the 3 initial version of the report says about human environmental 4 impacts. Specifically it says we do not expect any.
| |
| 5 significant health and safety impacts. The public ccmmitment 6 from at-reactor s,torage is estimated to be two-hundredths of a 7 percent of the annual dose from natural background radiation, 8 and only about six percent of the dose from normal reactor 9 operations.
| |
| 10 I'm sorry, I forgot to put up my viewgraph.
| |
| 11 As far as transportation system impacts, the report 12 says that since we are comparing sending the fuel directly 13 from a reactor to a repository with a caso where it would be s
| |
| 14 sent from dry cask storage at the reactor to a repository, as 15 far as the transportation system is concerned, there is really 16 no difference at all with the two exceptions of cases where 17 the tuel might be consolidated or if dual purpose casks are 18 used.
| |
| 19 If the fuel is consolidated and if the 20 transportation casks are not weight lilaited, then there would 21 be an opportunity for a reduction in the number of shipments 21 te be achieved. And the reduction in the number of shipments 23 would result in lower transportation system impacts. However, 24 it would depend on just how much consolidation was done.
| |
| 25 In the case of dual purpose casks, the 1.umbr : of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 131-(
| |
| 1 transportation casks would'be reduced, and once again there 2 would be a reduction in impact on the. transportation system.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: . Excuse.me. On the previous slide 4 you gave the doses to the public in the second stetement.
| |
| 5 Those are not occupational exposures. You're talking about 6 general public exposures?
| |
| 7 MR. HEAD: That's correct.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And these storage casks are at 9 th) nuclear power plant, and you're telling me they raise the 10 dose to the off-site public by six percent?
| |
| i 21 MR. HEAD: No, relative to normal reactor j 12 operations. !
| |
| l 13 MR. KLEIN: Which is already very low, obviously. l 14 So it's six percent of a very low number.
| |
| 15 CHA1RMAN MOELLER: I see. I guess it would have 16 helped me for you to have given three microrem or whatever it 17 was.
| |
| 18 MR. HEAD: It might be a good point for us to keep j 19 in mind relative to the report. I I
| |
| 20 MR. FOSTER: On your transportation system, I assume 21 that the age of the fuel when it's transferred from the P
| |
| 22 reactor. site to a repository is the same for whether or not 23 you're using the casks. You're not taking any credit here 24 for --
| |
| 25 MR. HEAD: For the older fuel.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 132 i ~
| |
| 1 MR. FOSTER: For aging in the casks if-you use them.
| |
| 2 MR. HEAD: I don't know what the basis in the study 3 is.
| |
| 4 MR. KLEIN: Our contractc with the utilities say 5 we'll take the oldest fuel first. As someone has correctly 6 and astutely observed', utilities might be most inclined to use 7 the supplemental storage with the oldest fuel. They would 8 probably think twice if that n.ennt they could not then, the 9 fuel that goes into dry cask storage or other means, for 10 example though, would on the other hand not be the first 11 they'd want to move out. They'd want to create more space in 12 the pool first.
| |
| 13 There are a number of interpretation insues that 14 need to be resolved relative to the oldest fuel first 15 criteria. That can be construed to mean that just governs the 16 acceptance rights. It's an allocation scheme for saying how l 17 much fuel you'll take, but it shouldn't be interpreted 18 literally to the very oldest assembly is the first one we 19 ship. We are working with utilities and internally to try to 20 clarify end interpret that. It does mean equity icsues for a 21 number of utilities. Obviously the eldest utilities benefit j 22 by this oldest fuel first criterie in terms of 12 you assign a 23 value to the removal of fuel from thair site by DOE. I l
| |
| 24 MR. FOSTER: Is that something that NRC might need )
| |
| 25 to keep in mind about, in ground rules of shipment in order to I fleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
| |
| | |
| 133 1 keep public. dose at a minimum? That they had a requirement 2 that the oldest fuel be the one that's shipped first, rather-3' than the newest?
| |
| 4 MR._ KLEIN: 'Probably not,' because the Part 71 5 requirements specify e.he dose allowed at surface of the
| |
| ~
| |
| 6 transport casks. That can be independent. You can ship a lot 7 of older fuel or some younger fuel and still have that same-8 external --
| |
| 9 MR. FOSTER: It would meet the regulations, but it 10 would not necessarily be ALAR.
| |
| 11 MR. KLEIN: That's true.
| |
| 12 13 4
| |
| 14 ,
| |
| 1 15 16 l 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I
| |
| 24 l l
| |
| 25 i I
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation 'j (202)'628-4888 l
| |
| D,
| |
| | |
| 134 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Go back and don't show it
| |
| ( 2 again, but on the six per cent of normal' operations you also 3 say two-hundredths. Or, you say .02 per cent.
| |
| 4 I don't know whether you mean two per cent cn 5 actually .02 per cent -- .02 per cent is .0002 as a decimal.
| |
| 6 Now, be sure of which you mean. But let's assume 7 it is .0002 of the annual dose received from natural 8 bacxground Well, please be sure that people know what you 9 mean by natural background.
| |
| 10 We have been through that on some other things.
| |
| 11 If you include radon, it is 300 millirem a year for the ,
| |
| 12 average member of the public. What this s ommittee is 13 proposing i.s that you say, "natural background (exclusive of 14 radon)." And then say 100 millirem a year. But always put ,
| |
| i 15 in there, parenthesis exclusive of radon, 16 MR. CARTER: Dade, I think that total number is 17 360 rather than 300.
| |
| 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: It is 360 including artificial 19 sources.
| |
| 20 MR. CARTER: Yes.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Everything is 360. Right.
| |
| 22 Sixty from -- I hesitate to say man-made, human made -- '
| |
| 23 MR. Shewmon Is my friendly dentist an artificial 24 source, as the word source is used?
| |
| 25 CHAIRMA., MOELLER: Yes. Your friendl ..ntist is ,
| |
| i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 135 ,
| |
| 1 in that 60. Everything is in that 60. Two hundred is. radon
| |
| ( 2 and 100 is cosmic, terrestrial, plus K-40. Principally K-40 3 in here.
| |
| 4 But if it is .0002 times 100, that is what -- .02 5 millirem, 20 microrem. So, it is very low.
| |
| 6 MR. HEAD: Our final:two questions that we address 7 in the report are:
| |
| 8 Can and.should the Waste Fund be used? The 9 Nuclear Waste Policy Act specifies fairly emphatically that 10 it is the responsibility of the owners and generators of 11 spent fuel to store that fuel and absorb the costs of 12 storage until the fuel is accepted by the Department.
| |
| 13 And so the Department is concluding that we are 14 not authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to use funds 15 from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for this storage.
| |
| 16 MR. CARTER: May I ask you a hypothetical 17 question? Could DOE accept fuel at the site itself and 18 leave it there in storage?
| |
| 19 I mean, is technically or politically, is that 20 possible? i 21 MR. HEAD: Politically, who knowe? And we have l
| |
| 22 discussed that question within the Department for years. Do 23 you know an answer?
| |
| 24 MR. KLEIN: Yes, we keep coming down to is what 25 real benefit would be achie ed by that? And we are hard .
| |
| l
| |
| 'I
| |
| ; Heritage' Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l i
| |
| l 1
| |
| | |
| 136 1 pressed to come up with any substantive ~ benefit. The
| |
| ( 2 utility would still have to nave responsibility because it 3 is at its site unless we were to actually physically get in 4 there, and that gets into licensing problems. Os being 5- liable for something at someone else's site.
| |
| 6 So'we saw a lot-of potential problems with it in 7 terms of adding to the protection of the public, or being 8 able to do it any better than utilities. There is no reason 9 we could, 10 And so, in terms of real benefits, physical 11 benefits, we are at a loss to find.any.
| |
| 12 MR. CARTER: Have you asked the utilities for the 13 answer to that question? You might get a different answer.
| |
| 14 MR. HEAD: That's right.
| |
| 15 MR. KLEIN: I think they are certainly interested, 16 would be interested in DOE assuming financial responsibility 17 at a minimum, and I think they would most welcome for us to 18 remove it from their sites.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Paul.
| |
| 20 MR. .ewmon: I am not sure what it is-like in a 21 dry rock site, but at least when you are talking about in a 22 salt medium or crystalline rock, if the heat load In the 23 high level waste went down, it sure took away most of the 24 ways people could think of for corroding or degrading the 25 waste package.
| |
| Heritage Reporting- Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| | |
| 137 1 And DOE, at least some parts of.them on some days
| |
| ( 2 of the week, would assume'a very high loading level which 3 made the design e lot more difficult, if indeed this stuff 4 ends 12p 10, 15, 30 years old when they decommission it. _
| |
| It 5 gets very difficult to see how that waste package is going 6 to degrade.
| |
| 7 MR. KLEIN: Well, of course, you have to take into 8 account the integrated heat output over what would amount to 9 several thousand years. And in a longer period of time, it 10 is really the actinide decay and the longer lived isotopes 11 that are contributing to the heat load.
| |
| 12 So there is both near term and near filled reasons 13 for temperature limits. But in terms of the longer term and 14 restrictions in terms of the intergraded heat output, 15 whether you put the fuel in the ground at 20 years or 50 16 years doesn't mean a whole lot of difference in terms of the 17 integrated heat output over, you know, 1,000, 10,000.
| |
| 18 MR. Shewmon: Integrated heat output doesn't 19 bother me at all. What I am interested in is temperature.-
| |
| 20 And, indeed, if you are in a salt brine, the short term 21 temperature and what t.iigrated brine particles droplets up 22 was really what hung you a lot.
| |
| 23 MR. KLEIN: Most utilities, when all this is done 24 and said, will probably have the capability of storing at 25 least 20 years worth of fuel on th91r sites. And depending Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 138 1 on how much storage capacities in the DOE system, there may
| |
| , 2 not be any reason or incentive to dispose of anything that 3 is even less than 25 or 30 years old.
| |
| -4 MR. Shewmon: Their charges for getting rid of 5 that are now in this Waste Fund. It is not as if they can 6- put off being billed for something if_it is 20 years.or 10 7 years down the road. Is_that right?
| |
| 8 MR. KLEIN: That is correct. They_are paying now.
| |
| 9 MR. Shewmont Okay.
| |
| 10 MR. KLEIN: But the difference between the heat 11 per MTU of 25 year old fuel and 40 year old fuel is not very 12 great. I mean, it might be about a 10 or 20 per cent 13 difference, I believe. ,
| |
| 14 MR. Shewmon: Yes. But between two and 20, there 15 is a lot.
| |
| 16 MR. KLEIN: Between two and 20, is yes, indeed.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any other questions?
| |
| 18 (No verbal response) 19 MR. HEAD: Okay. The final point in the report is 20 addressing the question of show the Waste Fund be used. 1 21 The report points.out that if we did so what we 22 would really be doing would be to redistribute the cost of 23 that reactor storage among the utilities, raising equity i
| |
| 24 issues among the utilities. 1 25 Those who didn't require the additional storago, l
| |
| i Heritago Heporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 139 l 1 and those that did. And would,.in fact, add administrative g 2 costs necessary to conduct the transfer.
| |
| 3 So, the report concludes that unless some other 4 benefits are derived, use of.the Waste Fund for reactor 5 storage does not seem to be appropriate.
| |
| 6 On the other hand, the repert.does note that it is 7 possible that some of 'the mechanisms use d for reactor 8 storage could result in benefits to the overall waste 9 management system, reducing the cost of.the overall waste 10 management system, and the current contract that DOE has 11 with the. owners and generators of the spent fuel allows us 12 to reduce their fees or for us to provide incentives for 13 them to take actions that would reduce the overall cost of 14 the waste disposal system.
| |
| 15 However, we have not developed any concrete 16 designs for mechanisms that would result in an overall-17 system cost at this point. And the resulting conclusion is
| |
| * 18 that it is premature for us to attempt to identify any such 19 incentives.
| |
| 20 That comes to the conclusion of the report. Now, 21 those of us who have been involved or are involved in the 22 report will be happy to entertain additional questions, if I 23 you have them.
| |
| 24 Ye5, sir?
| |
| )
| |
| 25 MR. STEINDLER: In the course of your-looking at i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 140 1 the economic issues, those last viewgraphs that you brought
| |
| ( 2 up, did you dig into the legislative history and rationale 3 behind the whole subject of DOE accepting responsibility for 4 the fuel.and the. utilities being essentially taxed? Or the 5 people being taxed for this exercise?
| |
| 6 .In other words, how did you arrive at the 7 conclusions that you have shown up here in summary form?
| |
| 8 Was it a relatively simple, straight forward look at the 9 existing words of the law?
| |
| 10 MR. HEAD: No. It went beyond just the words of 11 the law. We did go into the legislative history.
| |
| 12 MR. STCINDLER: Were you able to take-advantage of 13 the notion that -- in fact, I think that Paul was driving at t 14 -- that the utilities are currently being taxed for an '
| |
| I 15 exercise of the federal government that the federal 16 government has already shown it incapable of completing on a 17 schedule originally set?
| |
| 18 And that the future schedule for the repository, 19 if history is any guide, may slip further thereby giving :
| |
| 20 additional expense unless recompensed to the utility for 21 doing a job that they thought, by virtue of paying this tax, 22 was going to be done some time back? l 23 The conclusion I come to from your last two i 24 viewgraphs is that you, in effect, dismissed that issue out 25 of hand. And perhaps you do so correctly, but it isn't very i 4
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation !
| |
| 4 (202) ~628-4888 l
| |
| \ l
| |
| | |
| 141 1 clear to me that you have looked at the system at large.
| |
| # 2 MR. HEAD: I wouldn't want-to accept the 3 connotation that we dismiss it out of hand, but I think that 4 had we addressed it, we wouldn't have put it to rest _and you 5 can ask what real benefit in the context of the purpose of 6 this study would be served by raising a painful issue.
| |
| 7 MR. KLEIN . Charley, let me --
| |
| 8 MR. STEINDLER: That is an excellent point, and I 9 would say that that is probably from your vantage. point, 10 certainly, a determining point.
| |
| 11 I would guess that you will find comments from the 12 utilities when you finally do ship it out for comment.
| |
| 13 However, will it raise some of those points for you?
| |
| 14 I don't'know that they will, but I would guess :
| |
| 15 that they will raise those points for you whether you like 16 it or not. ,
| |
| s 17 And then you are in fact stuck with the notion of ,
| |
| 18 having to deal with them. It might be advantageous to at 19 least think about them in advance. ,
| |
| 20 MR. HEAD: Keith, do yvu want to add --
| |
| 21 MR. KLEIN: We have thought, and the lawyers have 22 reviewed this, and a lot of it comes down to contracts 23 issues. Where the deadlines and coals prescribed in our 24 legislation, basically, are not clear as to, well, what 25 happens if you don't meet these deadlines.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _
| |
| | |
| 142 1 And in fact, the requirements in the Act are as
| |
| ( 2 much process oriented as they are scheduled oriented. 'In 3 fact, maybe even more process oriented.
| |
| 4 Or , these are the steps you go through -- you 5 know, if it means sacrificing schedule in order to do the ,
| |
| 6 process right, to have long enough comment periods and so 7 forth, we have been coming out on the side of taking the 8 extra time.
| |
| 9 The issue you point out, I think, is very much a 10 key issue in the debate on what the MRS -- it is a stimulant l 11 in part behind the requirements for us doing the study.
| |
| 12 What is the magnitude of the problem, or the~ consequences of 13 schedule and acceptance rates on the part of DOE? l 14 And it will be an issue. It is an issue.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Richard.
| |
| 16 MR. FOSTER: A minor technical aspect. Early on, 17 when you were describing the cask and talking about neutron 18 shielding and water was mentioned, can you tell me whether 19 these casks are water filled or inert gas filled?
| |
| 20 MR. KLEIN: They are all gas filled for storage.
| |
| 21 During the loading of these casks, they will be in most 22 cases filled with water. But then they will be dr'ained and 23 back filled with an inert gas, is the reference concept.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, let me ask the 25 consultants and Committee member, I gather that DOE would !
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 143 1 like' comments and we have certainly tried to offer a few
| |
| ( 2 comments, as you have made your presentation.
| |
| 3 It seems to me off-hand that what you are doing is 4 a rather straight- forward piece of work.
| |
| 5 Marty has raised some questions, and we have 6 raised some on a few little, small items. But I am not 7 really -- I really do not think we can come up with some 8 dramatic piece of good advice to you. Because,.as I say, it 9 is so straight forward.
| |
| 10 NR. KLEIN: As Charlie said in the beginning, we 11 hope in about two weeks to h:ve the report itself available 12 and provide a comment period. I think it is a case of the 13 Commissiin wanting your views, and perhaps that would 14 suffice in terms of --
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, what we could do is read 16 that and then if we can work it into our next meeting -- or, 17 we would have to get back to you in time.
| |
| 18 I Is there anyone from the NRC staff -- good -- that ,
| |
| 19 could give us some guidance on what we might do to help?
| |
| 4 20 Lee.
| |
| 21 MR. ROUSE: Yes, Dr. Moeller. Lee Rouse. Just l 22 before my Director, Mr. Cunningham, left ha sort of ;
| |
| 23 anticipated your question. And Bob Bernero and Nick 24 Cunningham and I and Hugh Thompson in the office have 25 discussed this.
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l 144 1 We recognized from the. start that, as DOE has t 2 indicated, NRC was ruled to consult with' DOE on this study 3 and DOE is to conclude the views of the Commission'with the 4
| |
| 4 report to Cont, tress.
| |
| 5 Bob Bernero asked me personally to ask DOE to get 6 on your schedule and give you this outline and their 7 approach. When we come to comment on it, the staff would 8 expect that its comments would be forwarded to the ACNW to=
| |
| 9 see if you have any additional views and then to the 10 Commission. We feel relatively confident that the comments 11 and views would go over to DOE over the Chairman's 12 signature.
| |
| 13 So it is kind of staff to you. You have pulled in 14 what you have got, and then on to the Commission.
| |
| 1S CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, now, will there be any 16 chance that by the time of the next -- let's say, what, the 17 fourth ACNW meeting. Is that the one that will be in 18 September? Okay.
| |
| 19 Is there chance that by the time of our September i 20 meeting, you will have received the report and the staff can 21 give us at least a preliminary draft copy of what you plan 22 to say so that we can respond and comment?
| |
| 23 MR. ROUSE: I think that is entirely possible. I 1
| |
| 24 was a little bit unsure of that until I came down here. I 25 wasn't quite sure of Keith's, and the DOE's schedule, but i f 1
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _...___.-________.___.___.______._.________._.____________m._._____mm__ .-
| |
| | |
| 145 1 indeed the earliest version of the report is out for_public g 2 comment in early August, I think that gives the staff time 3 to take a look at it, indicate to you -- cn maybe perhaps 4 discuss our views at your next meeting -- so I.have already, 5 I think, put in motion tentatively at least for us to be on-6 your agenda.for that~ session.
| |
| 7 I don't know whether that has come down to you yet 8 or not.
| |
| ; 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes. Owen?
| |
| 10 MR. MERRILL: Owen Merrill. If I might comment, I 11 understood from my contact with DOE that they would be going 12 to press by, you know, early or mid-September and that any 13 comment we might provide from this Committee by the middle
| |
| / 14 of September vould be too late.
| |
| t 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Could you respond on that?
| |
| 16 MR. KLEIN: Yes. We are revisiting that schedule 17 and we are basically expecting to provide a 60-day comment 18 period. Which would allow time for, I think, the process 19 that you outlined.
| |
| 20 MR. ROUSE: Could I add one more comment, Dr.
| |
| 21 Moeller, on this?
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes.
| |
| 23 MR. ROUSE: For the staff, at least in ACNW. I 24 personally kind of agree with your observation.
| |
| 25 This report basically looks like to us a fairly Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i 146 1 straight-forward thing. I would expect that once, if we can
| |
| ( 2 discuss our possible comments, views, with you at that 3 meeting, the next time around,-as Keith as mentioned, the 4 time fuse is going to be extremely short'for the NRC to get ,
| |
| 5 that final report -- get its views back to DOE -- for it to 6 go to Congress.
| |
| 7 I would hope that by that time we had the views 8 basically of the ACNW and would go right on to the 9 Commission at that time. Because I know it happened with 10 the MRS proposal.
| |
| 11 We had early versions and looks, b,it when it came 12 at Christmas weekend and they wanted to get it to Congress 13 in January, there wasn't a lot of time to run around and get 14 a lot of other people involved.
| |
| 15 Thank you.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, thank you, Lee. Yes, 17 Owen?
| |
| 18 MR. MERRILL: One followup question for Keith, 19 then.
| |
| 20 Is it possible or likely that you will not deliver .
| |
| 21 this to Congress on the first of October if you have a 60- ,
| |
| e2 day period of comment and it is only coming out in August? l 23 (Laughter) 24 MR. KLEIN: We are revisiting the schedule and i 25 talking to appropriate people and seeing how we can i
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| , - t 147 1 reconcile some of-these considerations.
| |
| 2 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, okay. I think it is
| |
| (
| |
| 3 fairly clear what we are to do. Marty?
| |
| 4 MR. STEINDLER: Ar, I look at the words that I 5 have, somebody copied for me out of the Act, and the first 6 one of your viewgraphs, this is a technical report whose 7 conclusions are only at the bottom end.
| |
| 8 It is a source paper, in effect, except for the 9 issues of whether or not and if so, how much, and the 10 funding. And I would think that-the Department has loads of 11 information stacked away in the files in previous studies 7 d
| |
| 12 which ought to make this a cut-cnd-dry issue. Although, you 13 know, it is going to take some work putting it together.
| |
| 14 I don't see that we will have anything of any 15 great substance. Because I think it wi.11 be effectively 16 non-controversial.,
| |
| Except for those last two issues that we 17 are not really very well equipped to handle.
| |
| 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Correct. I agree.
| |
| 19 MR. STEIND7 "R : How much are we going to be short?
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I think, theu, with that we can 21 wind up this unless, Keith, you have ada tional questions.
| |
| ; 22 Now I notice on the agenda that we also have a 24 presentation by D.ilght on your QA division.
| |
| 24 MR. HEAD: I think that was 4 ist part of the 25 confusion of who was going to give thie presentation.
| |
| Heri'. age Reporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 148 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay. Well, I am delighted.
| |
| ( 2 (Laughter) -
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLE<t Following a long-established 4 tradition of this new Committee, we are right on time. In 5 fact, ahead.
| |
| 6 Well, let's take a recess. Let me thank the DOE 7 people. A very interesting presentation. Thank you, again.
| |
| 8 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The meeting will come to order.
| |
| 10 The last technical subject that we are going to be covering 11 this afternoon is che rulemaking on anticipated and 12 unanticipated events. And this is a generic' technical 13 position which is being developed by the NRC staff, and I r
| |
| 14 understand that the subject will be . introduced by Phil 15 Justus. Phil?
| |
| 16 MR. JUSTUS: Thank you, Dr. Moeller. I am Phil 17 Justus, Geology, Geophysics Section Leader in the Technical 18 Review Branch in ,the High Level Waste Management Division.
| |
| 19 Our senior geologist today will be introducing 20 everyone to the topic of anticipated processes and events 21 and unanticipated processes events which is a subject for 22 potential rulemaking.
| |
| 23 In its present state, however, we have issued a 24 generic technical position on the subject of anticipated 25 processes and events and unanticipated processes and events.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| E 149 1 It is in the Federal Register and this presentation, being a
| |
| ( 2 prelude to a potential rulemaking will dwell on the aspects 3 of the position itself that may lead to rulemakings.
| |
| 4 And with that, I would like to present John Trapp.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: .Okay. I think, John, as you 6 present.this if you could really lay it out clearly for us, 7 it would be help. To be specific, I gather that NRC's 8 regulations discuss one aspect and an EPA addresses another 9 aspect, and the requirements are different.
| |
| 10 And then there is the subject of natural events, 11 and then artificial Ond man made events, which sort of blend 12 in here somewhere.
| |
| 13 MR. TRAPP: Those are a whole series of subjects 14 that, yes, I am going to be going through as Phil has 15 started to talk about.
| |
| 16 On February 29th of this year, there was a notice 17 in the Federal Register that the NRC was putting out a draft 18 generic technical position and guidance for determination of 19 anticipated processes events and unanticipated processes and 20 events.
| |
| 21 Since that time, two things have basically 22 happened. We have gotten public comments coming in on this 23 position, draft position, and I have been working mainly 24 trying to put together a comment resolution document dealing 25 with these public comments.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4809
| |
| | |
| m i
| |
| 150 1 In addition, the Division of High Level Waste I
| |
| 2 Management has been looking into the option of rulemaking,
| |
| (
| |
| 3 so we have been going along kind of two different paths 4 simultaneously. Taking a look and trying to figure out what 5 type of rulemaking can be done to help reduce some of the 6 regulatory uncertainty, possibly the technical uncertainty.
| |
| 7 The main difference that wo are really dealing 8 with in the two types of approaches -- with the generic 9 technical position, we were really trying to force ourselves 10 to stay totally within the constraints of the rule.
| |
| 11 As far as going to rulemaking, there are certain 12 areas where there are uncertainties. Certain areas that are 13 unclear, and there are certain areas that, very honestly, I 14 feel don't state what we are really trying to get across in
| |
| ( 15 the basic definitions. And these are areas which may be 16 potential rulemaking candidates.
| |
| 17 We are very early in the process, so what I am 18 giving you is really a snapshot. l 19 What I would like to do today is go through the 20 rule a little bit as to where these different terms come 21 out. How they are used. Kind of go through the philosophy 1
| |
| 22 that underlaid the position that was published, the draft i 23 position that was published. Discuss the major public j 1
| |
| 24 comments that we have gotten so far, and from those kind of )
| |
| 1 25 focus off on areas where rulemaking may be of benefit.
| |
| 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 151 1 After that is done, if there is time, we could go
| |
| {
| |
| 2 through the very specific points in the GTP, which we hope 3 will serve as the basis for the rulemaking, and answer any 4 questions.
| |
| 5 As defined within 10 CFR 60, specifically in 60.2, 6 anticipated processes and events means basically those 7 natural processes and events that are reasonably likely.
| |
| 8 Two points right off the bat. It seems to be 9 restricting things to natural processes and events. It also 10 is putting the term in here, reasonably likely, which is 11 open to a tremendous amount of interpretation.
| |
| 12 Howevet if you go further in the definition, 13 there are some key words which show up here. They also 14 showed up in the Statement of Consideration. It is
| |
| : 15 basically talking about the processes that were operating in 16 the geologic study during the quaternary period.
| |
| 17 But then you also have to worry about the 18 perturbations that radioactive vaste or the whole waste 19 management system will have on them.
| |
| 20 Then if we contrast this with unanticipated 21 processes and events, a couple of things come up. The 22 things that do come up is instead of reasonably likely, wo 1
| |
| 23 have got the phrase, not reasonably likely but sufficiently I
| |
| 24 credible to warrant consideration, in there which again 25 requires interpretation.
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888 !
| |
| | |
| 152 1 And we have got the statement here about either f 2 natural processes and events or processes and events initiated by human activities. This human activities part~
| |
| 3 4 is something I am going to be going back and forth on quite 5 a bit today. Because it is an area which, while I think we ,
| |
| 6 have got some flexibility in'the rule, it is an area where I 7 think we are really going to have to concentrate and talk 0 about this rulemaking.
| |
| 9 This isn't the entire definition for_ anticipated 10 processes and events, by the way. There are some other ,
| |
| 11 stipulations below it which basically deal with the 12 requirement for monuments to be in place. Require retention 13 of records for a certain amount - the option that records 14 that records be retained. Require knowledge of mineral 15 resources, this type of thing.
| |
| 16 Okay, if we have got the basic definition why do 17 we even need the things?
| |
| J 18 Well, if you go to 60.21, we will find out that 19 when DOE submits their Safety Analysis Report, it is going 20 to be necessary that they give an evaluation of the
| |
| ~
| |
| 21 performance of the geologic repository for the period after 22 permanent enclosure assuming anticipated processes and 23 events and unanticipated processes and events. l f
| |
| 24 Okay, we are definitely dealing with post-closure 25 type phenomena here and we are saying that there has to be ;
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation 3 (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 153 l' some type of evaluation. ,
| |
| 2 Now, what type of evaluation are we talking about?
| |
| 4 3 If we take a look at the overall performance objectives, 4 which are found in 60.12, you get 'his phraseology. .
| |
| 5 "Geologic siting shall-be selected and barrels and casks and G their seals shall conform to environmental standards 7 established by the EPA with respect to both anticipated !
| |
| 8 processes and events and unanticipated processes and 9 events."
| |
| 10 Therefore, what it is saying in this-part is that 11 while we are doing the analysis of the system, according to 12 the EPA standard that anticipated processes and events and 13 unanticipated processes and events have to be considered.
| |
| 14 CRAIRMAN MOELLER: Now the last two slides have 15 both said that in consideration of these -- or-in doing the 16 evaluation of these two particular aspects -- you have to 17 consider anticipated and unanticipated events.
| |
| 18 MR. TRAPP: Yes.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAM MOELLER: So -- and I have read the e i
| |
| 20 material, but I am obviously confused. Why therefore is it 21 necessary for me to know the difference in anticipated and ;
| |
| 22 unanticipated?
| |
| 23 MR. TRAPP I could say you are a great straight ,
| |
| 24 man because you are coming straight up to my next slide 1 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Very good. I l
| |
| l l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
| |
| \
| |
| | |
| 154 1 MR. TRAPP: If you take a look in 60.13, where it l 2 is talking about ,the engineered barrier system and the waste 3 package, what it says in here is that these shall be 4 designed assuming anticipated processes and-events. So the 5 performance objectives dealing with the waste package 6 lifetime and the containment -- not the containment -- but 7 the isolation in the engineered barrier system not to exceed 8 this ten to the minus fifth released period, must be 9 designed assuming the anticipated processes and events.
| |
| 10 Now there is a kicker on that whole thing. And 11 the kicker -- and it is one which I think gives tremendous 12 flexibility but rassibly also creates some confusion, is the 13 part that is listed in 60.13, 60.13(c).
| |
| 14 Which basically is saying that, okay, we have got, 15 these anticipated processes and events. We have got the 16 design, etc., but there may be additional requirements put 17 on this thing. You know, we don't really feel too 18 confident. The Commission doesn't have a feeling of 19 reasonable assurance that it is going to meet the overall 20 performance objectives.
| |
| 21 The simplest form, I use it colloquially and 22 sometimes Jim Wolfe who is sitting up winces every tin.e I do 23 it, but I personally normally woulo call anticipated 24 processes and events, the design processes and events, for 25 the post-closure. With the understanding that these may be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 155 1 modified.
| |
| 2 And~when you combine the two together, yes, these
| |
| [
| |
| 3 are the types of things which the staff expects to see in 4 the analysis for the overall performance of the system, 5- MR. Shewmon: To pick an event at random, or not 6 quite, what happens if one could say that in the quaternary 7 period there had been vulcanism in the neighborhood? That 8 is not the things that engineers usually design to cope 9 with, so it is not one of your anticipated events, 10 presumably. But it is not totally unanticipated.
| |
| 11 And, am I your straight man now? You will get to 12 that if I keep waiting?
| |
| 13 MR. TRAPP: I could say that, yes.
| |
| 14 MR. Shewmon: Okay.
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP: To carry it a little bit further ahead 16 on that whole statement, if you start dealing with the 17 geologic setting and if there is vulcanism in the geologic 18 setting, one of the basic positions that this whole thing is 19 laying out is that we are dealing with the quaternary.
| |
| 20 And that an anticipated process and event would 21 basically be a recurrence of -- I mean, an anticipated event 22 would be a recurrence of this event that occurred in the 23 quaternary at the point it occurred.
| |
| 24 So if we take different examples, for instance, 25 the example of vulcanism at Nevada. Now there he. been Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| __...._..w,__ . .
| |
| 156 1 several episodes of vulcanism at Nevada. The most recent
| |
| '( 2 near Lathrop Wells.
| |
| 3 But the position basically is coming across that 4 at Lathrop Welle or along the causative feature which is 5 controlling this vulcanism, an anticipated event would be 6 recurrence of that process, that event.
| |
| 7 MR. Shewmon: But if you don't dump the waste fuel 8 in the middle of it, you don't have to assume -- or if you 9 put your repository away from that artifact, or whatever you 10 call it -- then you don't have to assume it. Is that --
| |
| 11 MR. TRAPP: No, you would still have to assume that 12 it occurs.
| |
| 13 MR. Shewmon: But it is over there.
| |
| 14 MR. TRAPP: It is over there, yes. Now while it 15 is occurring over there, you may be able to do analysis.that 16 showed that over at the site itself, there is no effect.
| |
| 17 Now in that case, you can sit and say, okay, there 18 is no significant effect so I really don't have to factor it 19 in because I have shown by analysis, etc., that it is really 20 not going to do anything to the waste package. It_is not 21 going to do anything to the EPA standard.
| |
| 22 But, if you got this vulcanism and there is, if we 23 go into some of the other ones, is there something like 24 associated hydrothermal ,;tivity with this? Is there a l
| |
| 25 potential increase in the geothermal gradient? fi Heritage Report.ing Corporation (302) 628-4898 :
| |
| i I
| |
| | |
| - - - = -
| |
| 157 1 It is these types'of things which are associated 2 with vulcanism which need to be factored in. If we take
| |
| (
| |
| 3 just the geothermal gradient, what we may be doing is 4 raising it a couple of degrees in the area of the 5 repository.
| |
| 6 Okay, then when we do our design and analysis, 7 instead of doing the design analysis for what is the present 8 ambient temperature, we have to do the design analysis 9 assuming thac the vulcanism occurred and assuming the 10 perturbation that the heat from the waste package would 11 cause.
| |
| 12 So you sum these two together to come up with the 13 resultant heat that you would have to design and analyze 14 for.
| |
| 15 MR. Shewmon: Okay.
| |
| 16 MR. STEINDLERs Let me ask a simplistic question.
| |
| 17 In the paat, I thought we had tended to assume 18 that what we know about the past allows us to predict what ,
| |
| 19 might happen in the future.
| |
| 20 Sounds like what you are doing is you are saying 21 what we know about the past will happen in the future. That 22 distinction, if it is correct, I think is substantive and 23 what I would like to know is'whether or not, number one, you l 24 believe that distinction is present, and number two, if it 25 is present, how do you justify it?
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 :
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| . . . - 2. - . . . . . . - . -
| |
| 158
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 MR. TRAPP: Okay. Basically, there are several ,
| |
| / 2 places within the GTP where there is a phraseology. Which 3 goes something like, without geologic evidence.to the 4 difference.
| |
| 5 The assumption that we are going under here is 6 that the quaternary is our best record that we have got.
| |
| 7 The quaternary is our best means of projecting forward.
| |
| 8 We will sit and take a look at the quaternary.and 9 use this as the projection. Use it as a direct basis.
| |
| 10 Unless there is some geologic evidence that can be presented 11 which shows something different.
| |
| 12 So it is putting the onus on DOE to show that 13 these type of processes and events will net occur. I think 14 it is putting some conservatism into this whole thing which 15 basically is required. And I think it is also totally in 16 line with the requirements of 122(a).
| |
| 17 MR. STEINDLER: It is the business of showing that 18 something will not occur is precisely, I guess, what I am 19 getting at. ;
| |
| 20 It strikes me that that is a requirement that has 21 not been put on anybody at least in the regulatory business 22 for quite some time.
| |
| 23 Nor do I think it is necessarily even possible to i 24 do. Which then I think forces the applicant into the 25 position of setting aside any attempt to show that something l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| l 159 1 can't happen, especially if there is evidence that it has g
| |
| 2 happened in the past'at some time in the last two millicn s
| |
| 3 years.
| |
| 4 Aren't you in effect going back to Dade's point?
| |
| 5 Namely, it really doesn't made a whole heck of a lot of 6 difference whether he knows the difference between 7 anticipated and unanticipated events?
| |
| 8 They have got to consider everything, period. And 9 so that this somewhat long-winded distinction that you are 10 making may be quite academic.
| |
| 11 MR. KLEIN: It is an artificial distinction.
| |
| 12 MR. TRAPP: It may be artificial. I really don't 13 know until we go through the analysis.
| |
| 14 There is the distinction, but I don't know how 15 great the distinction is. I don't have the site 16 characterization data to give you that answer.
| |
| i 17 MR. FOSTER: Are you making this site specific to 18 Yucca Mountain, and it not, why not?
| |
| 19 MR. TRAPPt First off, when this thing was 20 originally put together and the background work going into l
| |
| 21 it, it was still at the time we had three sites going. 1 22 Therefore, it was put together as a draft generic 23 technical position, not a site specific technical position.
| |
| 24 Now we can go ahead and make this, quote, "specific to Yucca 25 Mountain." However, there are a couple of reasons why I am i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| i l
| |
| l
| |
| . - . . . . ,_. , .- -. - . . - . . , .- I
| |
| | |
| 160 i
| |
| 1 not -- at least at this point, I really' don't think that is
| |
| ( 2 that great an idea.
| |
| 3 Number one, we don't know if Yucca Mountain 4 actually will survive the-licensing process. If 'e are 5 talking about changes in the rule, we want a rule that 6 basically is such that it could take any site that happens 7 to come in.
| |
| 8 MR. FOSTER: But wouldn't life be a lot easier for 9 you if you were focusing on Yucca at this point? It seems 10 to me, it would really focus this thing.
| |
| 11 And secondarily, if they change away from that, a 12 lot of things are going to have to be modified. It seems to 13 me this is the one of them that you could worry about at a 14 later date.
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP: I don't see where you can not worry 16 about it right now because of several reasons. They are 17 going on with their site characterization program. They are 18 trying to decide what they have to look at through their 19 site characterization program.
| |
| 20 They are also going through an awful lot of 21 preliminary design.
| |
| 22 Now is they are going through the preliminary 23 design and site characterization, they need to have some 24 idea what the staff at least figures they are going to have 25 to design for, what they are going to have to look for.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808
| |
| | |
| - ~.
| |
| /
| |
| 161 1 MR. FOSTER: Yes, but that seems to me an 2 argument in_ favor of making it site specific at this point.
| |
| 3 MR. TRAPP I can't totally argue with most of 4 your points, if you are talking about a technical position.
| |
| 5 I can argue that if you are talking rulemaking.
| |
| 6 And, yes, if we talk a straight reg guide or a 7 technical position or whatever you want to call it, there 8 are a lot of benefits for taking out the generic data and
| |
| : 9. going, you know, specifically.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: John Linehan has a comment.
| |
| 11 MR. LINEHAN: As John Trapp was saying, a lot of 12 these positions we have were aeveloped as generic technical 13 positions prior to Congress narrowing down and tocusing in 14 on the Yucca Mountain site.
| |
| 15 We are in the process right now of relooking at a 16 lot of that work we have done. And what we are going to be t
| |
| 17 doing is, in the future, developing technical positions, 18 rulemakings, that focus in on the Yucca Mountain site.
| |
| 19 Focus in on the conditions at that particular site.
| |
| 20 And we are going to be doing that across the board 21 in our technical positions and in our various rulemakings.
| |
| 22 What John Trapp is talking about today, though, is 23 really focused on what was developed prior to that narrowing 24 down on one site, and he is going through the position and 25 going to talk about the comments that were made on that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 162 1 particular generic position.
| |
| f 2 CHAIRMAN MCELL$R: Okay.
| |
| 3 MR. TRAPP: Actually, some of this we have already 4 . talked about in discussions leading up to it.
| |
| 5 But what I was trying to put together on this 6 slide was basically kind of the philosophy that_was 7 underlying the whole position.
| |
| 8 The philosophy that I was trying to put together 9 underlying the whole position was basically that che 10 selection of these processes and events should be primarily ,
| |
| 11 a deterministic process and not a probabilistic process.
| |
| 12 In addition, the philosophy'should allow you to 13 use analogs, laboratory data, modeling, etc., all this other 14 kind of information to help you decide how you are going to 15 be working with these processes and events.
| |
| 16 The position that I was trying to put together was 17 talking, and was trying to recognize, that there are spacial 18 and temporal vari' ability in all these processes and events. ,
| |
| 19 And the better this is understood, the better we can project 20 towards the future.
| |
| 21 And then, of course, this waste perturbations is 22 one that needs to be factored in. ,
| |
| l 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Excuse me a second. We are i l
| |
| 24 talking here where you are covering similarities, and then l l
| |
| 25 you are going to cover distinctions.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 163 1 Now, a.re the similarities between anticipated and 2 unanticipated events. Is that what the --
| |
| (
| |
| 3 MR. TRAPP The similarity is between the things 4 that need to be consilered in picking these processes and 5 events, and categorizing these processes and events. Yes, 6- sir.
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I still don't understand. The 8 column, Similarities, refers to similarities in what?
| |
| 9 MR. TRAPP: Similaritias !.n considerations that 10 need to be factored in'o the determination of which 11 processes and events are anticipated and which ones are 12 unanticipated.
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay. All right.
| |
| 14 MR. TRAPP Now if I move this up a little bit
| |
| , 15 here.
| |
| 16 When we talk about distinction, some of this like 17 I said has gone before. But one of the main distinctions 18 that we are talking about, etc., through anticipated model 19 anticipated was the distinction that we would take a look at 20 the geologic setting. Take a look at which processes and 21 events have occurred, and the structures that are there, the 22 physical features that are there, and assume that'there
| |
| . 23 would be a recurrence of this type of process and event 24 without geologic evidence to the contrary.
| |
| 25 In the case of unanticipated, we would take a look j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| , n. . - , . . . . .
| |
| e
| |
| ' 164 ,
| |
| 1 at the features, at the geologic setting and determine -- or
| |
| ( 2 try to ietermine -- if there are other areas that this 3 process or event could actually occur. And for some reason 4 it hasn't occurred, or at least there is not a record of it.
| |
| 5 And then assume for analysis that this process or 6 event could be transposed to these locations to see what the 7 overall effect on waste isolation was. ,
| |
| 8 One of the basics and it goes right into the 9 definition is that for anticipated processes and events, you 10 would take a look at the quaternary processes and events.
| |
| 11 We would use this as our yardstick, etc., to base our 12 projections.
| |
| 13 MR. STEINDLER: Can you give me a layman's example 14 of what event one might have excluded by selection of the 15 quaternary rather than selection of all geologic history?
| |
| 16 MR. TRAPPt In many cases there, it is getting 17 down to a very site specific question.
| |
| 18 If you take a look -- well, here, let's get away 19 from Nevada and take a look at Texas. In Texas, etc., I 20 definitely wouldn't be talking about volcanic events if I am 21 looking at the quaternary.
| |
| 22 Now in taking a look at all geologic history, I 23 definitely would be looking c volcanism in Texas.
| |
| 24 MR. STEINDLER: Okay.
| |
| 25 MR. Shewmon: One other simple translation for the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 165 1 layman. When did the quaternary start in terms of the life g
| |
| 2 of Christ, or some more traditional indicator of time?
| |
| 3 MR. TRAPP Do you want Bishop Usher's definition?
| |
| , 4 (Laughter) 5 MR. Shewmon:i1 would rather not.
| |
| 6 MR. TRAPP: - Actually, in some ways,.that is not 7 quite as easy a question to answer as you might think.
| |
| 8 The best reference, etc., that I can come up with 9 at the present time is a reference which is in Dr. Getty's.
| |
| 10 A USGS series of people have put it together, an 11 international climatological study. It is 1.65'million 12 years.
| |
| 13 MR. Shewmon: Okay. I was going to say 10,000 or i
| |
| 14 100,000. You are saying it is more a million years.
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP Yes. ,
| |
| 16 MR. Shewmon: Okay, fine.
| |
| 17 MR. TRAPP So the 10,000 that you are talking ;
| |
| 18 about is the normal quote date that is put on the holicy. j I
| |
| 19 MR. Shewmon: Put on what?
| |
| 20 MR. TRAPP The holicy.
| |
| 21 MR. Shewmon: Okay. l 22 MR. KATHREN: Is there a range of values for l
| |
| 23 quaternary?
| |
| 24 MR. TRAPP The range normally goes from something 25 like 1.6 to 2.5 million years.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888 a
| |
| 7 - - - - - -
| |
| -n g-, , - - - .r---- ,=-m, . e., e, .g ,
| |
| .--?.,,,-+-ee y. nr,-.--+-w- ,pw. e,,----. -
| |
| | |
| 7 166 1 MR. KATHREN: Very narrow log scale.
| |
| 2 MR. TRAPP: .Yes. On a log scale, it is.
| |
| (
| |
| 3 The distinction going through here that the 4 philosophy of this thing was trying to put together is that 5 when you are looking at processes and you got to recognize 6 an event raally is simply a manifestation of the process.
| |
| 7 That for an anticipated process, we would be taking a Jook 8 at, quote, "the average rate."
| |
| 9 And I have got a plus in there simply, again, to 10 take into consideration things like 60.l?2(a) which is 11 talking about analyses which don't underestima.e 12 underestimate the effects. So we are saying, oh, okay, 13 let's make sure it is a little bit more than average, but 14 approximately in that range.
| |
| 15 Now, unanticipated, the idea was that we would 16 take a look through the quaterna ;. Take a look at 17 Intervals here, segments of time, and look at maximum 18 sus'.ained rates which were characteristic of various 19 segments. And use that as our unanticipated process.
| |
| 20 This last one, I am going to get in trouble, and I 21 got into trouble in some of the comments - . human effects.
| |
| 22 Now, it is very specific in the definition of une'ticipated 23 processes and events that it says that on DOE land, or in 24 other vards, wi' hin the centrol area e- on other lands that I 25 DOE can control that human intrusion -- and this is really 1
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| ^
| |
| a l
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 167 1 what the rule maybe was focusing on -- is an unanticipated
| |
| (
| |
| 2 process and event.
| |
| 3 Among the comments that came in and also the way l 4 the GTP was written, were trying to allow human processes 5 and events that weren't under DOE's control to be considered 1 6 as anticipated. Therefore, be designed for.
| |
| 7 Now, a good example would be anthropological 8 ef fects that you have got due to the CO2 in the atmosph(:re.
| |
| 9 We know very well that this is going to have an effort on ,
| |
| 10 our climate during the next 10,000 years or at least during 11 the next 100 or whatever time it take. But it is going to 12 have some type of effect. It needs to be factored in.
| |
| 13 .There are several people that say the way the rule 14 is written, even with 60.113(c) that you can't do this.
| |
| 15 That you can't havc this human effects included into 16 anticipated processes and events.
| |
| 17 I am not going to argue about whether it is 18 regulatory possible or not right now. I am going to say 19 that if it isn'.t possible to put them in here under 20 anticipated, that the rule needs to be changed to allow it 21 to be.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And, actually too, I see these 23 two categories as sort of being best estimate and very 24 conservative estimate.
| |
| 25 MR. TRAPP: In some ways, yes, except that you are i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| | |
| 168 j 1 talking in the case of events -- in the case of events, you-( 2 are really talkin'g the maximum event in all cases. Now the 3 reason for this is because of the cyclicity that we were 4 talking about before.
| |
| 5 We don't know where we are in the cycle and it is 6 awful hard to tell. If they can demonstrate somehow where 7 they are in the cycle, and make sure that this gets across 8 to the licensing board, then this should be allowed-to be 9 factored in.
| |
| 10 If they can't demonstrate it, then let's make sure 11 that the maximum event is considered.
| |
| 12 MR. STEINDLER: So can I get back to my 13 interpretation here?
| |
| 14 If two million years ago, a major but describable 15 volcanic action took place somewhere within the proposed 16 repository site and nothing subsequently happened to the 17 present, your current rule apparently says in spite of a two ,
| |
| i 18 million year quiet, I will assume for an anticipated event 19 that within the next 10,000 years there will be one of that 20 same magnitude on the average, and'-- f 21 MR. TRAPP: You are forgetting the one point.
| |
| s 22 MR. STEINDLER: Beg pardon?
| |
| 23 MR. TRAPP You are forgetting the one point. And i I
| |
| 24 it is point that may not be coming across clear. It is a i
| |
| 25 point that may need to come across a let more clear in both l 1
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| 1 1
| |
| I l
| |
| ~ , , _ - , . . - . , -- - , . _
| |
| | |
| ~ ._. .
| |
| 169-1 potential rulemakings and in the GTP. -But it is the point
| |
| ( 2 about without geologic evidence to the contrary.
| |
| 3- Now within the GTP,-there are several places and 4 there is also is 'one of the -- now, here let me go ahead 5 just a second.
| |
| 6 MR. STEINDLER: My problem with this, I guess, is 7- that issue. That is, that geologic evidence to the 8 contrary. What you have said, I think, is that you are 9 going to ask the applicant to prove that something can't 10 happen.
| |
| 11 But it has happened two million years ago, within 12 the quaternary, and I would guess that any applicant is 13 going to be hard pressed to demonstrate in any scientific 14 way that it cannot happen again.
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP: This is basically -- to cover your 16 question, your concern, it is really why this part of the !
| |
| 17 position was put in. Any changes in the processes and 18 events which are evident in the quaternary record.
| |
| 19 Now if there has been a change so that this 20 volcanism can't occur there any more, if there has been a 1
| |
| 21 fundamental change in the processes. No. It shouldn't be 22 considered at all.
| |
| i 23 But, yes, we requiring them to show it, i
| |
| 24 MR. STEINDLER: I guess my view is that that 25 requires an understanding of the system and its fundamental 4
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
| |
| a i
| |
| | |
| 170 1 mechanism beyond the capability of a modest 10-year full- ;
| |
| ( 2 blown $3 billion research program.
| |
| 3 And so, I think, haven't you really relegated that 4 out of contention for a licensing action if the schedule for 5 the repository is to be meet?-
| |
| 6 MR. TRA'PP Not necessarily. If you get something 7 there which cannot be proven. If you get this assumption 8 here on the geologic task. And I don't care what period you 9 talk about.
| |
| 10 You could talk about the quaternary. You could 11 talk about half the quaternary. You could talk about Yucca 12 Mountain. You could talk about 20,000 years, if that is 13 wnst ycu are really worried about. And you still have the 14 same problem. That you still got volcanism, which has ;
| |
| 15 occurred. .
| |
| 16 When do you draw this time boundary? When do you 17 make your projections? What data base do you use?
| |
| 18 It may be arbitrary that it was selected and 19 stated in the rule that we are going to use the quaternary i
| |
| 20 as a data base. But some decision has to be made, and that ,
| |
| a 21 was e decleion that was made when the rule was written and I 22 think it was a good one myself, s 23 MR. STEINDLER: Well, I recognize the problem you 24 have. I guess what I ain saying is that I wonder whether you 25 haven't compounded it by incisting on a deterministic f
| |
| 4 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 j i
| |
| i t
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 9 171 ,
| |
| 1 approach?
| |
| 2 MR. TRAPP: Well, let's try a probabilistic 3 approach. Let's take the quaternary and let's say it 4 happened once. What value do I have?
| |
| 5 I basically got a value, with the dates we got now
| |
| . 6 of the quaternary, of six times ten to the minus seven.
| |
| 7 That one process and event,-no matter how you talk-about it, 8 is now probabilistically stated as being required in the 9 analysis even if you are using nothing but the EPA standard.
| |
| 10 I have got the same thing.
| |
| 11 The deterministic phase still ends up, if you take 12 a look at the dates that we have got, with processes and 13 events that are going to be about in the same order and 14 magnitude that you would come up with in a probabilistic 15 evaluation.
| |
| 16 And this, I think, is right because if you are 17 doing these types of analysis, both deterministic and 18 probabilistic should come up fairly close to the same 19 answer. !
| |
| l 20 The difference is if you take a look at the data {
| |
| \
| |
| 21 we have got and the very limited data base that we have got 22 at the present time and I think we will have all the way j 23 through, that in all the probability you will be dealing
| |
| )
| |
| 24 with an extremely subjective judgment.
| |
| 25 This was recognized when 60 was promulgated. It 1
| |
| l i
| |
| ; lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 172 1 was put together in a Statement of Considerations, and very- 7 l
| |
| 2 honestly I think it was best demonstrated not too long ago 3 during the Challenger.
| |
| ; 4 Most of the engineering' judgments that were made 5 in the Challenger were subjective probability judgments. '
| |
| 6 Now, I don't know if we are being too conservative 7 or not. I don't think so. I think there is a very good ;
| |
| 8 reason for doing it. I think it is putting, yes, some onus 9 on DOE and I guess I am also stating that if what we have l
| |
| 10 got here is such that it causes a site to fail that doesn't l 11 bother me.
| |
| 12 MR. STEINDLER: But that's not it. That is not 13 the thrust of my point.
| |
| 14 The thrust of my point is, can you get any site to ;
| |
| i 1
| |
| 15 quality? l l
| |
| 16 MR. TRAPP I think so.
| |
| I 17 MR. STEINDLER: It is not totally obvious to me a
| |
| ! 18 that you can. But you know, we will see, I assume, in a few 19 years.
| |
| l
| |
| ; 23 MR. TRAPP: If you take what you know about Nevada l l l 21 right now -- let'e use the same volcanism argument. I 22 We are talking about volcanism somo place in the 23 geologic setting, probably in the general area of Lathrop 4
| |
| 24 Wells. This would be an anticipated process and event, i 25 What perturbations is this going to give to the Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| ; i202) 628-4888 I
| |
| i l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 173 1 system? I don't know, you can come up with a whole series !
| |
| ( 2 of things which may come up, i 3 But at present, and now I am stretching things a 4 tremendous distance, but at present-it doesn't look like you 5 would have anything except a random occurrence that would 6 justify putting it in the site.
| |
| 7 Okay, if you go through the random number game and 8 go through the EPA type thing, you end up with a value there 9 that is right on the borderline.
| |
| 10 It is one which has to be considered, but if there 11 aren't a whole bunch of other things that come out of it 12 according to the EPA standard, the way it was written 13 previously, the site would still survive. !
| |
| 14 It would still be licensable. It would be
| |
| : 15 recognized that you are doing it with a certain amount or 16 risk, but it wouldn't blow it out of the water, no. .
| |
| 17 MR. JUSTUS: Before you go on, if I may, may I 18 enhance some of the discussion concerning Dr. Steindler's 19 points?
| |
| 20 You are concerned about the conservatism 21 introduced by the distinction between the quaternary cutoff 22 of about 1.6 to 2.5 million, as being some key period or 4
| |
| 23 interval -- these c.att say, two million years, roughly --
| |
| , 24 that has to be intensely, fairly intensely, understood by 25 DOE with regard to the site under consideration.
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| f 174 1 And it appears as if your concern is that this is 2 a difficult at best challenge to meet and to achieve a level
| |
| (
| |
| 3 of understanding that appears to be needed to make a 4 detailed performance analysis.
| |
| 5 There is an analogy with reactor siting that bears i 6 on this matter, and that has to do with the relevance of 7 Appendix A to Part 100 criteria with regard to capable 8 faulting. The interval of time of faulting that needs to be .
| |
| " l 9 understood by an applicant to effect a seismic design i 10 analysis is on the order of 350,000 to 500,000 years for a 11 40-year lifetime facility.
| |
| 12 The design lifetime, if you will, of the 13 repository is 10,000 years, and we are looking at merely a l l
| |
| 14 -- let's say -- a four-fold increase in time, not orders of 15 magnitude increase. l
| |
| -l 16 With an analogy like that, the quaternary may not 17 be sufficiently conservative. But I don't want to open that 18 kind of an argument, j 19 We do agree that in this position, in the basic 20 tenet of Part 60, that there is a justifiable rationale for 21 the beginning of the quaternary being a cutoff that seems to j 22 be workable. )
| |
| 23 We don't think that it is an impossible assignment l
| |
| j 24 or task for DOE to use and develop a defensible safety 25 analysis of. )
| |
| 1 i
| |
| lieritage Reporting Corporation l . (202) 628-4880
| |
| | |
| t 175 l 1 CHAIRMAN .0ELLER: How many public comments did
| |
| ( 2 you have?
| |
| 3 MR. TRAPP Thus far?
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes.
| |
| 5 MR. TRAPP Number of commentaries or number of !
| |
| 6 comments?
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, both.
| |
| 8 MR. TRAPP: At the present time, there are roughly l 9 135 comments that have been raised.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And do these include, or were 11 any of these from other government agencies? USGS, or some j 12 ene like that?
| |
| i 13 MR. TRAPP The USGS said they were going to ,
| |
| 14 comment. I haven't received a word. The DOE said they were 15 going to comment. I haven't received a word. ,
| |
| 16 'The EPA said they were going to comment. I i 17 haven't received a word.
| |
| 18 The comment period was over basically the first of i
| |
| 19 May.
| |
| 20 MR. STEINDLER: The first of when?
| |
| i 21 CHAIRMAN M0ELLERt The first of May. j l
| |
| , 22 Then do you have a specific contact in most other i 23 governmental agencies? Like, did EPA comment?
| |
| 24 MR. TRAPP No. EPA did not ccmment.
| |
| l 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: They did not.
| |
| 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation 4
| |
| . (202) 628-4888 l l
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| 176 1 MR. TRAPP They did talk to Dan Egan, who said he
| |
| ( 2 was going to comment, but I received nothing. ,
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And you do_have that telephone 4 pal, so to speak, at each agelsey and they all say, "Oh, yes, 5 we are going to comment." Sut they haven't.
| |
| 6 MR. TRAPP: I have been told they were going to 7 comment. I am not sure exactly why they haven't. I haven't 8 dealt directly with the people in DOE. If you want to ask 9 that question, John Linehan would be better.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, is this a typical ;
| |
| 11 pattern? Do they just not comment? I mean, should this be
| |
| -12 brought up? Should we as a committee bring this up to Zech, 13 and Chairman Zech then contact the Administrators or whoever 14 it is over there and get these people on the ball?
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP: Well, very honestly, I feel that this ,
| |
| 16 subject is one that is going to be very important.
| |
| i 17 Especially, for DOE and them not to comment. The only 18 assumption I can make is that they have got no problems and 19 we should go straight ahead. ;
| |
| )
| |
| 20 (Laughter) 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I like your enthusiasm.
| |
| 22 MR. LINEHAN: I think it is an important point.
| |
| 23 One of the things 4e are trying to do by going out with 24 these GTPs is to get ideas from different people. I mean, 25 some of the comments that have been made here today -- a lot l
| |
| l i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 177 1 of these things we don't know how well they are going to _
| |
| ( 2 work. If they are going to work.
| |
| 3 And we need comments from a, you know, broad 4 spectrum of parties. Particularly those involved in the.
| |
| ! 5 program.
| |
| 6 I am not'sure exactly what the position is on this 7 particular GTP, but there has been a number in the past 8 where we have raised the issue wich DOE and other agencies 9 where they have taken six to nine months to get us comments.
| |
| 10 And I think it would help to stress that, you i
| |
| ?
| |
| > 11 know. th ere should be some priority given to giving us
| |
| ; 12 feedback on th,nn things so we can factor in all this input, i
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay. Well, we will certainly
| |
| ]
| |
| 14 flag that.
| |
| . 15 MR. TRAPP I would like to say that there were 16 very extensive comments by tht State of Nevada. On the 17 whole, approving of the general position. However, they 18 raised a whole bunch of other questions which are going to 19 require a little bit of word engineering and thinking to get 20 around.
| |
| ; 21 I was very pleased with the response from Nevada r 22 because they really put a lot of effort into it and showed a 23 very good understanding of not only the alte but the rule.
| |
| 1
| |
| , 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Very good. Okay. ;
| |
| 25 MR. FOSTER: A question.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| 1
| |
| ' l
| |
| | |
| 'u ,. _
| |
| 4 178 l
| |
| 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes.
| |
| ( 2 MR. FOSTER: I am not real clear as to where this 3 fits into the real overall big picture of getting the .
| |
| 4 repository licensed. My impression is that it tells DOE l 5 some additional things that they need to do or perhaps how 6 they should approach the situation.
| |
| I am not sure whether it fits at all into this 7
| |
| 8 concept of negotiated rulemaking which the NRC has talked a a
| |
| 9 lot about as far as aiding the final licensing process to 10 keep various things out of the hearings. Perhaps that is an r 11 unfair characterization. But I will say to get a number of 12 things settled so they don't have to go to the hearing board .
| |
| 13 process. $
| |
| 14 If there is a flavor in your rulemaking that this ;
| |
| i 15 does spill over into the -- I will call it the negotiated l 16 rulemaking to aid in the licensing process.-- it seems to me 17 that you really need a lot more comment from potential f'
| |
| 18 intervenor groups.
| |
| 19 MR. TRAPP Now there we got comments from people '
| |
| l 20 like EEI and USCEA and that. )
| |
| i 21 MR. FOSTER: Is there anything in here which tends 22 to confine the scope to the extent that if later a 23 contention comes in and says, "Gee, we don't really need to I
| |
| I i 24 accept that contention because this was settled in this j 25 particular rulemaking."
| |
| i 4
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 179 1 MR. TRAPP At the present time, there is nothing ;
| |
| ( 2 that is set up like that. Now, there are some potential
| |
| : 3. areas where this could be brought in and to clarify it.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 By the same token, a lot of what we are talking
| |
| * 5 about, the design process and events, etc., this type of 6 thing bear again a remarkable similarity to some of the 7 things that Phil was talking about, Appendix A.
| |
| 8 Appendix A is extremely prescriptive. Appendix A, 4
| |
| 9 however, really didn't speed up any licensing process that I 10 know of. It just maybe narrowed some of the things that you ,
| |
| 11 argued about.
| |
| 12 If I can jump ahead a little bit -- if I go back i I 13 to some of the comments that we have had. Jump down to f e
| |
| 14 this.
| |
| ' 15 There were several comments on procedures, 16 specifically by the State of Nevada, which were talking -
| |
| 17 about when does de facto licensing begin, etc. How do you 18 take care of all these different type of agreements that are 19 reached between DOE and NRC.
| |
| 20 Do they have any weight in the court?
| |
| 21 One of the things which I am suggesting that might j I
| |
| 22 be applicable for rulemaking is to take a look at the 23 Statement of Consideratione and see that there was a I i 24 statement in there that was talking about interlocutory f
| |
| 25 review of anticipated processes and events as basically the l
| |
| 1 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| b 180 1 first thing in the licensing process. So let's get this out d
| |
| 2 of the way quick, decide what they are, lock them in, and
| |
| (
| |
| 3 then we will go from there. l 4 I think that is really needed. In some ways, I 5 would kind of almost suggest that we might want to consider 6 putting this as the very starting point, and the licensing process really dobsn't start until we have nailed that down.
| |
| 7 8 I don't know if we can. Jim Wolf is sitting 9 there. I am not sure if he is grimacing or not. But it is
| |
| 't 10 an idea which I think is worth considering.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: So, as I hear it, too, in terms ,
| |
| 12 of Dick Foster's question, you cannot say this has been 13 brought to closure. I mean, some group could come in later 14 and say, oh, we didn't know sbout it.
| |
| Or, so forth.
| |
| l 15 John?
| |
| 1 16 MR. LINEHAN: What we are trying to do on this
| |
| , i i
| |
| 17 particular topic that we are going to rulemaking on and a 18 number of others -- what we are trying to deal with is what I 19 we call regulatory uncertainties. Where we want to clarify 20 any ambiguities there may be in the rule, or more clearly 21 state what the elements are, proof are, that DOE is going to 22 have to demonstrate jn order to show compliance with that l
| |
| ?3 portion of the regu.'ations.
| |
| 24 As far a'. how they go about doing it, a lot of 25 that is going to depend on the types of information they i
| |
| i
| |
| ; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 3 181 1 gain during site characterization. The different 2 methodologies that are developed.
| |
| (
| |
| 3 These rulemakings, though, are to just look at 4 that first portion to clearly define what is required by the 5 rule, and hopefully resolve them. You know, once and 6 forever, right now, up front.
| |
| 7 They are things we do not think would be changed 8 once you get a better understanding af the site or as 9 technology, different tools, deveJoe different 10 methodologies develop.
| |
| 11 We would not expect them to change because they 12 deal with what the regulation itself requires.
| |
| 13 MR. BROWNING: If I could just amplify, too, en 14 Dr. Foster's question.
| |
| 15 I think, if I understood his question correctly, 16 he was questioning whether we wanted to go to negotiated 17 rulemaking or not. And that is a very good question.
| |
| 18 We haven't decided that, yet.. What we have 19 decided is that the only way to put something to bed so it 20 doesn't become a discussion point and a prolonged debate 21 within the licensing hearing is rulemaking. Unless 22 everybody agrees on it up front, then you wouldn't have to 23 go to rulemaking.
| |
| 24 But since you don't know that, the forcing 25 function is the rulemaking effort because as we define Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 182 1 something more crisply, we are basically removing some
| |
| ( 2 flexibility from the process.
| |
| 3 And the more we remove that flexibility, when it 4 comes to the licensing' hearing, our theory-is that would be 5 a more efficient process. Then you.are arg'uing about what 6 the results are, not the underlying regulatory requirement.
| |
| 7 That you are talking about the results in that connection.
| |
| . 8 So the first step is to clear up the regulatory 9 arena, and we think we have got time to do that before we 10 get to the licensing process. If.the truth be told, we 11 should have done this a long time ago.. Because DOE needs it 12 right now.
| |
| 13 As they characterize'the site, they really should 14 have this right now. But the fact of the matter is, we are 15 late in doing it, but now is tne time to start the process 16 so that as they start characterization they get this input 17 as early as possible.
| |
| 18 The fact of whether we do it in negotiated
| |
| . 19 rulemaking or not, doesn't I don't thint, change the end 20 result as far as the hearing is concerned.
| |
| 21 I think the only thing it might buy us is the 22 avoidance of scme kind of a legal action in connection with 23 the rule itself.
| |
| 24 >, we may very well want to take -- we have never 25 taken a te_hnical aspect to the rule, to negotiated Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| _ _ . -_ ,_ __ _-. ~ . . _ _
| |
| | |
| 183 1 rulemaking. We are doing the licensing support system in a
| |
| (, 2 negotiated rulemaking format, and depending on how 3 successful or unsuccessful that ultimately is, we may decide 4 to try some of the technical aspects, too. That is a very 5 good point.
| |
| 6 But I think the end result, if it ends up being a 7 rule, you get the benefit of that not being a big time 8 eater, if you will, in the licensing hearing, the licensing 9 process itself.
| |
| 10 MR. FOSTER: It just occurs to me that this is the 11 first step toward focusing what is in and what is out.
| |
| 12 MR. BROWNING: That's right. That is the intent.
| |
| l 13 That is why we aro going through this process. Not to say we 14 are late. It is important.
| |
| 15 MR. FOSTER: To me, what is.out is as important as 16 what is in.
| |
| 17 MR. STEINDLER: If you are planning to go to a --
| |
| i 18 if you are looking at this as a precursor to rulemaking, I 19 would hope that somewhere along the line in the contents of 20 that rulemaking petition, it would become a little clearer 21 than your technical position. Which is, at the moment, 22 awfully broad. ,
| |
| l 23 And it is hard to determine where 10 CFR 60 parts j 24 stop, a technical position starts, and a rulemaking issue l 1
| |
| 25 might be focused.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l 1
| |
| 184 l
| |
| 1 MR. BROWNING: Hearing comments in the process l
| |
| ( 2 like these public comments will allow us to take all:of that j l
| |
| 3 into account and hopefully come out with a very good i 4 proposed rule.
| |
| -5 MR. TRAPP: Well, what you are talking about in !
| |
| 6 this last part of the discussiel is, you know, really where 7 we are right now.
| |
| 8 What can we do with the technical position? What' ,
| |
| 1 9 can we do.-- just carry this to fruition?
| |
| 10 What would be worthwhile going through in 11 rulemaking and even if we go to rulemaking, does all of it q 12 need to go to rulemaking or would we keep some of it as a l
| |
| 13 technical position or possibly just keep a part of it into )
| |
| i 14 the Statement of Considerations so that the changes in the l 15 rule, etc., and t}1e rest of this is all in one package? ,
| |
| 1 16 If you take a look at the comments we have gotten, 17 some of them have already been raised around this table.
| |
| 'l 18 And the comments are deterministic versus probabilistic. j 19 There are some people that have said that !
| |
| I 20 deterministic is definitely not the way to go. You got )
| |
| 21 other people that say it is the best way to go. j 22 Along this line, again as I have stated, I think 1
| |
| 23 the original intent of the ru.e was quite clear. That it- l 24 should have been a deterministic process for selection of l
| |
| 25 these processes and events and I also take.a look at a lot Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ^
| |
| 185 1 of the work that is bei.7 done in-the Europdan community.
| |
| 2 And the first process, the original selection,
| |
| (
| |
| 3 etc., that they are doing there seems to be also following a 4 mainly deterministic process.
| |
| 5 Now, they go into a whole bunch of'other 6 probabilistic games and we are not saying that probability 7 doesn't have a point. It has a got a very big point in 8 here. It is something that should be used to help make the 9 decision.
| |
| 10 We are just saying that the main decision should 11 be the deterministic point.
| |
| 12 In going into this, there were a lot of comments 13 which were discussing the relationship of anticipated and 14 unanticipated processes to the EPA standard.
| |
| ( 15 Some of them said that you had to go probabilistic 16 because the EPA standard was probabilistic. Well, there are 17 two points to be brought out there.
| |
| 18 Number one, when the rule was originally written, 19 it was recognized that the containment part.of the EPA 20 standard was going to be probabilistic.
| |
| 21 If you take a look at the Statement of !
| |
| l 22 Considerations, there was a very specific statement that 23 bound the Commission at that time, which says, "That the 24 Commission views the proposed EPA standard as being directed 25 to the valuation of releases arising out of categories that Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| . (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 186 1 we have divined as anticipated processes and events and
| |
| ( 2 unanticipated processes and events. As the EPA itself 3 recognizes, there can only be estimates rather than rigorous 4 demonstrations of probabilities of occurrence." It goes on 5 with some more stuff there.
| |
| 6 What we are saying is not that you don't use 7 probability in analyzing the EPA standard if it continues in 8 its present form. And from I understand, you should have a 9 better understanding of where it is going tomorrow, 10 according to one of the presentations you have got.
| |
| 11 We are saying that these anticipated and 12 unanticipated processes and events need to be factored into 13 this analysis with the appropriate probabilities, but we 14 want to make sure that these processes and events are in
| |
| ' 15 there.
| |
| 16 There were some questions -- well, here. The 1 17 first one, if we are talking about rulemaking, we could 18 possibly clear up something. But if we are talking 19 rulemaking by that, it really isn't worth it to go to 20 rulemaking.
| |
| 21 The second one, when we are talking about the ;
| |
| l 22 relationship of anticipated and unanticipated processes and j i
| |
| 23 events to the EPA standard, yeah, that is going to be needed l l
| |
| 24 for rulemaking except now really isn't the time.
| |
| 25 It is almost impossible to do it unless we have l Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 187 1 got the final EPA standards sitting in front of us, and I
| |
| ( 2 would suspect that this is going to be a year and a half to 3 two years down the line.
| |
| 4 Therefore, this part'of the comments that have 5 been brought in, and any possible rulemaking dealing with it 6 really has to wait until EPA gets their standard out in the 7 street.
| |
| 8 There are a bunch of comments about the implied 9 probability of terms. A lot of people have called in, wrote 10 in, that I have read the dictionary and I know what 11 anticipated says. I know what unanticipated means. And I 12 don't think what you are saying means the same thing.
| |
| 13 In simplest form, these aren't dictionary
| |
| '4 definitions. These are regulatory definitions which -- you 15 have got to use the whole phrase -- anticipated process and 16 event. You have got to define it within the rule. You 17 don't define it by a dictionary.
| |
| 18 And I think what we are trying to do is get a much 19 clear, better definition. Some people may' disagree.
| |
| 20 A lot of people have suggested that it might help-21 to give a list of processes and events that need to be 22 considered. There is a lot of merit to this.
| |
| 23 The question is, do we want to put this in a rule?
| |
| 24 Or do we want to put this in some type of technical position 25 or some other type of guidance. .
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation i
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i I
| |
| 188 1 In addition, should'we be doing it totally while
| |
| ( 2 we are working with anticipated processes and events, or 3 because of the very strong relationship of these' processes 4 and events to the EPA standard? Should it be something that 5 is done in relationship to the rulemaking done when we 6 conformed to the EPA standard?
| |
| 7 Right now, I don't have a good answer for you. I.
| |
| 8 would tend to suggest right off the top of my head that this 9 is something that needs to be worked on. It probably could 10 be considered in some type of position or Statement of 11 Considerations when we get around to confirming with the EPA
| |
| '2 amendment.
| |
| 13 There were questions that talked about the use of 14 the quatornary. Several brought up the same thing that was 15 raised in several of the discussion points before. Saying 16 it is either too long a period or it is too short a period.
| |
| 17 I am not sure I can add any more to what we have 18 cliscussed before. I think, myself, it is the right time 19 period to consider and I think it makes good scientific 20 vense.
| |
| 21 This next one as I have discussed is an area where 22 I think we got problems. The rule and the EPA standard 23 really were focusing mainly on human intrusion. They 24 weren't really focusing on stuff like anthropological i 25 effects.
| |
| 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 189 1 I think the rule gives us a flexibility that we
| |
| ( 2 can do it, but it may be challenged. This is an area which 3 I would definitely suggest be opened up,for rulemaking and 4 get it to the point where we can make sure that anticipated 5 processes and events, or anyway the stuff that we are doing, 6 for the waste package and-the engineered barrier system, 7 that the design basically factors these types of things in.
| |
| 8 There were several comments that were very adamant 9 that this had to be done. And I agree totally with them.
| |
| 10 MR. Shewmon: Now this is your human intrusion 11 p'ocesses, or where?
| |
| 12 MR. TRAPP: Yes.
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And this is greenhouse?
| |
| 14 MR. TRAPP: This would be stuff like greenhouse 15 effect, this type,of thing.
| |
| 16 MR. Shewmon: But it is not somebody who says, 17 "Radioactivity is for the birds," and goes down there and 18 starts trying to dig it up for the stainless steel.
| |
| 19 MR. TRAPP: No, there is enough provisions within 20 the rule right now to handle actual intrusion into the 1
| |
| 21 repository. I don't have any problem. I think that is l 22 written quite well. 1 1
| |
| 23 MR. Shewmon: Okay.
| |
| 24 MR. TRAPP: But I do have a problem when you are 25 talking these things that aren't under DOE's control. And Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| 190 t
| |
| l' a lot'of the other people who have commented on the GTP and.
| |
| 2 some of them out of house, some of them within the NRC 3 itself. They basically say that if we are going to consider 4 anthropological effects, we have to change the rule.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And does this include things as 6 far reaching as developing a cure for cancer?
| |
| 7 MR. TRAPP: No.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: It doesn't go that far. And it 9 wouldn't go so far if someone, obviously we don't know how 10 they would do it, but if someone discovered a way to 11 neutralize radioactive materials. I mean, to make them 12 suddenly stable.
| |
| 13 MR. TRAPP: No. If you take a look at the way the 14 rule is written right now, it basically states that if a 15 person wants to go in there, there is nothing we can do to 16 stop them.
| |
| 17 We are assuming that they have got enough sense to 1
| |
| 18 know what is down there. We are assuming they have got :a i 19 scientific knowledge that allows them to work with us, if 20 they are willing to know the risks and take those risks.
| |
| I 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: But I guess I don't see-then l
| |
| 22 where you stop and start. ,
| |
| 23 You are saying that the impact of a process such 1
| |
| 24 as the greenhouse effect could be either anticipated or 25 unanticipated and should be taken into account. But you are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 191
| |
| ( 1 telling me that if we could project ahead that someone'might 2 discover a cure for cancer, that.would not lxa included.
| |
| 3 Well, to me a cure for cancer would make be forget 4 or care less whether the radioactive materials are released 5 from this repository or not.
| |
| 6 MR. TRAPP: I think what you are getting into ir 7 something was intended as the rule was originally written.
| |
| 8 In addition to the human intrusion concern, one of the 9 things that brought out the rule written exactly the wcy it 10 was, was that there was an awful lot of this what-if stuff 11 that they wanted to keep out of discussion.
| |
| 12 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay.
| |
| 13 MR. TRAPP: And I would tend to think that the-14 discussion that you are focusing on, or aiming, would be 15 some of these things that would fall in this what-if 16 category.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay.
| |
| 18 MR. TRAPP: There were comments about, quote, 19 "driving / resultant processes and events." Basically, if you 20 take a look at the philosophy that was laid.out in this 21 whole thing, you can kind of simplify what you are looking 22 at to say that really all you have to look at are human 23 induced processes and events, climatology, and the l 24 tectonics.
| |
| 25 The basic reason is that all the other processes 1
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| .a 192' 1 and events that you are really dealing with are_ simply a
| |
| (
| |
| 2 result of these, and they are going to continue along unless 3 they are disturbed by some of these other. processes and-4 events.
| |
| 5 I could go on on-this whole subject for quite a 6 long time. I am not going to bore you about-it, but it is 7 one that I think deserves a tremendous amount more work,.
| |
| 8 especially dealing with scenario selection.
| |
| 9 It is one that I don't think really fits directly 10 into rulemaking, but it is one which as a GTP, or possibly 11 some type of technical paper, I think does o'ffer some 12 promise.
| |
| 13 MR KATHREN: Are you thinking in terms of a set, 14 if you want to call them, of standard scenarios?
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP: In many ways, yes. A set of standard 16 scenarios which have to be considered.
| |
| 17 Now it doesn't - give you delimits .cn1 these 18 scenarios. In other words, a magnitude of each process and 19 event, but something which is at least narrowing down the 20 number of scenarios that you have to look at while still 21 covering the things that are considered significan't. Yes.
| |
| 22 Now there is a lot of work that is being done 23 along this line by, for instance, Sandia has a contract, 24 etc. There is still an avful lot of work that needs to be 25 done.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 193
| |
| {
| |
| l But it is an area that 1.think that deserves 2 additional effort.
| |
| 3 There is another one coming on down here which I 4 really haven't talked about. But I think also needs to be 5 clarified.
| |
| 6 Definition of geological setting. Now, within the 7 definition of anticipated, we talk about geologic setting 8 through and through the rule, a tremendous number of times.
| |
| 9 And if I understand correctly -- and it seems to be the way 10 the whole rule was put together -- that the idea was that 11 you would take a look at the various systemc, the hydrologic 12 systems, the tectonic systems, etc., overlay these on one 13 another and then when you got done with this total overlay, 14 the total package would be what you were talking about as i
| |
| 15 your geologic setting.
| |
| 16 Well, if this is really what was intended and it l 1
| |
| 17 seems to be what is intended there is a problem here because )
| |
| 1 18 if you start dealing with climate, for instance, what is a 19 geologic system that you are worried about?
| |
| 20 Well, you can say it is either the Northern 21 Hemisphere, or possibly the whole global system. Do we have 22 to consider the whole global system for tectonics, therefore l 23 to be able to understand what is going on?
| |
| -24 This never was intended by anybody who wrote the 25 rule and it is again an area where I think we ;eed to l Heritage Reporting Corporatjon (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 194
| |
| ~
| |
| .( 1 sharpen up our definitions to make sure that we don't imply 2 something that never was intended and doesn't make sense.
| |
| 3 MR. KATHREN: Wouldn't that be a part of your "go 4 back to the standard-scenurio" kind of thing. That that'is-5 where you would do this sort of thing?
| |
| 6 MR. TRAPP: You could possibly do it there. You 7 could possibly do it all as an individual part of this 8 rulemaking.
| |
| 9 There are several spots of these where you could 10 do it.
| |
| 11 I am not saying exactly where they fit. All I am 12 doing is offering some thoughts off the top. That based on l
| |
| 13 the comments that we have gotten on this whole thing, offer 14 sugg- ' ions in areas that we might want to consider some 15 rulemaking.
| |
| 16 We talked about procedures a little bit before.
| |
| 17 Definitionis really is going back into some of the others. j 18 And there were quite a few comments about the use of jargon /
| |
| 19 examples, etc. The main problem that people were having ,
| |
| l 20 was, it wasn't written for somebody who was' straight off the !
| |
| -l 21 street, and too many people took the examples as being, !
| |
| 22 quote, "NRC positions."
| |
| 23 As far as the first one, it never was written for 4
| |
| 24 somebody straight off the street. It was written to be read 25 by people who are knowledgeable about the whole of waste t
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 195 g 1 management. I don't think I could write the subject, so it 2 can be written by people straight off the street.
| |
| 3 The examples -- there was a phrase right at the 4 beginning of the.section on examples which said-these are 5 for illustrative purposes. They don't represent positions 6 of the staff, however many of them were taken as positions 7 of the staff.
| |
| 8 I am not sure how much I can clarify tha+. except 9 maybe say it each page.
| |
| 10 MR. STEINDLER: Let me add a comment. H b a r. you 11 tell me that yot* are not going to allow people to uce 12 dictionary definitions of the words that you are using, and 13 you are going to define your own, I think you are in 14 dangerous ground.
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP: No, what I am saying - -
| |
| 16 MR. STEINDLER: I think you are, in fact, in an 17 indefensible ground. I would caution you not to use that as 18 a ground rule in writing something that you are going to 19 have come before a licensing board.
| |
| 20 MR. TRAPP: What I am saying is not the words 21 themselves, but I am talking about the specific phrase, 22 anticipated process and event.
| |
| 23 MR. STEINDLER: Yes.
| |
| 24 MR. TRAPP: The only way you can understand that 25 specific phrase is to go back at the definition. You can't v
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 196 i
| |
| [ 1 break it out into its individual components.
| |
| 2 Now when you get into the rule, the term 3 anticipated is used all-by itself and I am wil.iing to grant 4 that that is exactly what it means is anticipated.
| |
| 5 MR. STEINDLER: All I guess I am running up for 6 you is caution.
| |
| 7 MR. TRAPP: Yes. ,
| |
| l 8 MR. STEINDLER: Because people will-read English 9 according to the book they were brought up with and that is !
| |
| 10 Webster's Dictionary, not yours.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Paul. ;
| |
| 12 MR. SHEWMON: To what extent -- or did anybody I
| |
| 13 bring up the probability that the water level may rise up 1 14 enough to engulf the level where the fuel goes into. j l
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP: No. Nobody. brought up specific <
| |
| 16 scenarios, which they --
| |
| 17 MR. SHEWMON: Do you call that an unanticipated 18 event?
| |
| 19 MR. TRAPP: I don't know. It is referring 20 specifically to Gerry Szymanski's theory, etc., and the work 21 that he has been doing and there isn't enough )
| |
| 22 characterization data for the Nevada site right now where I 23 could really say if that is anticipated, unanticipated, i
| |
| 24 incredible, or total absurd.
| |
| 1 25 I am not going to make a guess on that right now, j 4
| |
| l I
| |
| Heritaqe Reporting Corporation !
| |
| (202) 628-4888 )
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| - . = - . .-
| |
| 197 g i because I don't have the data.
| |
| .2 MR. SHEWMON: Okay. And you feel that for most of
| |
| -3 the things you have talked about, you do have the data or 4 can get it to say whether it goes into the anticipated,.or 5 unanticipated category?
| |
| 6 MR. TRAPP I think so. Yes, I do.
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Dr. Steindler has just raised a 8 point. Was Szymanski -- he has already anticipated the 9 event, the rise in the water table. And you are saying that 10 is unanticipated.
| |
| 11 MR. T? SAPP: No, I am saying I don't know what it 12 is. I am saying I don't know what the data will allow us to 13 project.
| |
| 14 Gerry is making a bunch of --
| |
| 15 MR. STEINDLER: The point I am making-is -- a guy 16 who reads the word anticipated, or unanticipated, is going 17 to say, "What do you mean, it could be an unanticipated 18 event? A guy wrote a 400-page paper on it. So, how.could 19 it possibly be unanticipated?"
| |
| 20 MR. TRAPP: I wa.:t to say something --
| |
| 21 MR. STEINDLER: I know that doesn't fall into your 22 definition that is neat and clean and it may in fact not ;
| |
| 23 make a whole lot of sense geologically, but that is not the l 24 issue that I am raising.
| |
| 25 MR. TRAPP I know.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| c .u - -
| |
| I 1
| |
| 198
| |
| ] 1 MR. STEINDLER: If you are going to go into 2 rulemaking, I think -- you know -- it has got to be clear 3 enough so that it will pass a board that looks at it in the 4 real world.
| |
| 5 MR. TRAPP: And I am going to be very honest. I 6 think the choice of the terms, anticipated processes and 7 events and unanticipated processes and events, was an 8 extremely bad choice when the rule was originally written.
| |
| 9 MR. STETNDLER: I agree with you entirely.
| |
| 10 MR. TRAPP: It is causing confusion and if we are 11 going through this whole thing, I would just'at least change 12 that term myself. Maybe use the EPA terms. I don't care.
| |
| 13 But these terms are extremely -- well, they are confusing.
| |
| 14 MR. SHEWMON: What are the EPA terms?
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP: Well, basically they have got the 16 terms, undisturbed performance. Now, undisturbed 17 performance basically is in the absence of unlikely 18 processes and events.
| |
| 19 Now we basically interpret that to be the same as 20 an anticipated process and event. So we would say 21 undisturbed performance.
| |
| 22 And then they have got basically all significant 23 ,rocesses and events. They really don't have anything in- l 24 between, but we basically interpret as the rule was written 25 before it got vacated.
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation '
| |
| (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| aL 8 + *h -J - -
| |
| l 199
| |
| (
| |
| 1 That term would be equivalent to the summation of 2 all anticipated processes and events and all unanticipated 3 processes and events.
| |
| 4 Now if they come out with the rule not really 5 changed, those would be kind of the terminology that it 6 might be worthwhile going into when we get to the EPA 7 conforming amendment.
| |
| 8 It wouldn't have changed the philosophy of what we 9 are talking about. It would maybe things so that we are 10 dealing with one set of terminology instead of two, and 11 possibly getting away from a couple of terms which, as has 12 been pointed out several times, allow people at least 13 mentally to know exactly what it means without having read 14 the same book.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: In terms of this subject, Owen 16 Merrill has brought to my attention that under potentially 17 adverse conditions in 60.122, 10 CFR, item 22 is, quote, 10 "potential for the water table to rise sufficiently so as to 19 cause saturation of an underground facility located in the-20 unsaturated zone," unquote.
| |
| 21 So that makes it certainly an anticipated --
| |
| 22 MR. TRAPP: No. It makes it a process or event 23 which needs to be evaluatcJ and it may be either anticipated '
| |
| l 24 or unanticipated depending on whether it occurred in the 25 quaternary at the location or -- at least the way we are 1
| |
| I l
| |
| i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| 1 -
| |
| 200
| |
| , 1 going through right now -- whether it occurred at the 2 quaternary at that location, it would be anticipated, or if.
| |
| 3 you can project it to occur there based on the geological 4 processes that could happen at that thing, it could be 5 unanticipated.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay. I hear-you. It is a 7 situation which needs to be considered.
| |
| 8 MR. TRAPP: Yes.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And then you can rule for a 10 particular site.
| |
| 11 MR. TRAPP: Yes.
| |
| 12 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Whether it is anticipated or 13 unanticipated. Very good. I think you have made your 14 point.
| |
| 15 MR. FOSTER: Is this possibly a carry over from 16 the reactor operating situation where you have got 17 anticipated transients without scram?
| |
| l 18 MR. TRAPP: No. There are some other terms-within 1 19 the -- well, for instance, anticipated operational 20 occurrence is a term that is also found in Part 60.
| |
| 21 We interpret this to mean exactly the same thing 22 when it is used as it does when you are dealing with the l
| |
| 23 reactor rig.
| |
| 24 I really don't know why the terms were picked out
| |
| :l 25 like that. I am not going to speculate.
| |
| l t
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 201
| |
| (
| |
| l CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay. Are you going to go 2 through these various examples, or --
| |
| 3 MR. TRAPP: Well, this is basically totally up to 4 your discretion.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, I think'in view of the 6 time that -- well, I should have called them various 7 positions, and the examples of your positions. I think in 8 view of the time, we certainly can read them.
| |
| 9 Let me ask -- well, particularly Dr. Steindler, 10 what do you see as a committee coming to in the way of a 11 conclusion on this?
| |
| 12 MR. STEINDLER: Well, you know, I have a minority 13 conclusion and one that says it is never too late to change 14 the English. On the other hand, that is not very 15 constructive because I don't have an alternative for'you. '
| |
| 16 But I think has been a troublesome subject 17 probably not because of the concept, once you get the thing 18 adjudicated in philosophy, but I think the English will kill 19 you very time. And it still does. I have. trouble getting i 20 over it. l l
| |
| 21 But once I get over that hump, I don't have any 22 contribution I can make to you.
| |
| l 23 I think it is a fairly clear cut issue. The one {
| |
| 1 24 thing that I haven't yet uncovered is what aspects of the l 25 technical position one would want to take to a rulemaking 11eritage Reporting Corporation ;
| |
| (202) 628-4888 .
| |
| l I
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 202
| |
| ( 1 process. The definitions are already in place. So that is 2 not the issue.
| |
| 3 MR. TRAPP: Well, we'could change the term.
| |
| 4 MR. STEINDLER: You can, yes.
| |
| 5 MR. TRAPP: We can add something in the definition 6 which allows us, for instance in anticipated, to consider 7 these anthropological effects. So there_are some things 8 that could be changed there if we are very careful on how we 9 tweak it.
| |
| 10 -MR. STEINDLER: Well, you go out of your way to 11 make sure that the people understand that the events you are 12 talking about are geologic. I must confess I have not 13 thought my way through, not am I clear that I could whether 14 or not moving this out of the relatively narrow geologic 15 domain into all other possible impacts is a wise idea in the 16 same rule. I don't know.
| |
| 17 MR. LINEHAN: Dr. Steindler?
| |
| 18 DR. STEINDLER: Yes.
| |
| 19 MR. LINEHAN: The process we are going through on 20 these potential rulemakings is, we are just starting to 21 consider what the options are. What we might want to 22 address in a rulemaking. And that is why, as I mentioned 23 before, we need to get comments from a wide spectrum of 24 people to help us do that.
| |
| 25 But we had indicated in the last meeting we had Heritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 203 1 with the committee that we had 10 topics under i
| |
| 2 consideration.
| |
| 3 MR. STEINDLER: Yes.
| |
| 4 MR. LINEHAN: And we are presently repairing a 5 papet- for the Commission where we are trying to scope out at 6 an early stage what would be covered in those rulemakings.
| |
| 7 But we indicate in that paper to the Commission, that it is 8 going to take us a number of months on each topic to really 9 cecide what are the things that need to be clarified. What 10 we should address in the rulemaking.
| |
| 11 MR. STEINDLER: Yes. I think the only issue that 12 I would raise is one it has already been raised and I think 13 we ought to convince the Commission to prod USGS, EPA, and 14 DOE to even at this late date get comments back to you in 15 order to see whether or not what you have is functional in ,
| |
| 16 their eyes.
| |
| 17 MR. TRAPP: We would appreciate it.
| |
| 18 MR. STEINDLER: That, I think, would be an 19 important issue. We may be able to do that. Whether or not 20 that is going to get the results, you know, is kind of up l 21 for grabs.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, I fully concur.
| |
| 23 MR. STEINDLER: Beyond that, I don't really know 24 wi.at I can do.
| |
| 25 MR. TRAPP: I tell you, I.have got all kinds of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 204 1 comments here, but they gradually -- the more you talked, 2 they disappeared, which I think is great, 3 s CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, I would reinforce that.
| |
| 4 I think the Committee could write'a letter'and call this 5 problem to the attention of the Commission. Not that they 6 don't already know about it, and point out to them that you 7 people -- you are crying out for help. You don't want to 8 work in a vacuum, but you are in a vacuum if none of these 9 other agencies officially will respond when.you call out.
| |
| 10 And to me, that is very important. What good is 11 it for you to list in items to bring to rulemaking and what 12 aspects of each of them to concentrate on, if one is 13 going to get in there and help you?
| |
| 14 So I think that is our message.
| |
| 15 MR. STEINDLER: I would agree.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay.
| |
| 17 MR. STEINDTER: I would look to DOE to either 18 reinforce my notion that you have set up the process so it 19 is not doable, or put it down. I am not in this business, 20 you know, with any kind of expertise. And I don't know 21 whether you have set up a situation which they can't meet by 22 both the approach that you are using and the fact that you 23 are requiring a look at what appears to me to be a look at 24 all geological events in the last two million years and 25 extrapolate them to if they happen again in the next 10,000.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| 205 i 1 ?'.aybe this is all right. I don't know. But the
| |
| (
| |
| 2 thing + hat ran up the flag in my case was when you asked the !
| |
| 3 arglicant to show that something can't happen. I have a 4 conceptual problem in that area. It may be easier in a 5 geologic field.
| |
| 6 So that is why I am looking for a response out of 7 the guys in DOE who may want to address this issue, or have 8 addressed the issue. And then I could react in some 9 fashion.
| |
| 10 But in the meantime, I would say other than what 11 Dade has pointed out, I don't know what else we can do or 12 what else we can tell you.
| |
| 13 CHAIPMAN MOELLER: Bob.
| |
| 14 MR. BROWNING: One other area that might be helpful 15 -- if you or the staff know of any particular experts that 16 we could specifically go talk to, specifically target to ask 17 for comments on this -- we obviously want to get something 18 out of USGS, but if there are any other people in the 19 academic community or that you might think of that might be 20 useful, we might to figure out some way to specifically send 21 it to them, ask them to comment. You know, we will do it in ,
| |
| 22 their spare time.
| |
| 23 I don't have a big budget. But at least make sure 24 they are more specifically aware than just putting something l 25 in the Federal Register notice. Because we do want to get Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
| |
| 1 1
| |
| | |
| 206 1 knowledgeable technical people commenting on this so that we 2 can get technical consensus. .
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And I think we can help on 4 that.
| |
| 5 MR.'STEINDLER: Yes.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We will certainly look over our 7 consultant list and send this out. Owen, make a note of 8 that. Send it out, certainly to two or three people, and 9 specifically ask them to spend a day, read it, and write 10 down their comments and submit them. For good, high powered 11 technical review.
| |
| 12 MR. TRAPP: If I could make a suggestion along 13 that line. You have got people like Maxwell, who is around.
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Sure.
| |
| 15 MR. TRAPP: You have got people like Trafunik who 16 is around.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Right. Well, Joe Donahue may 18 be able to help. George Thompson. Trafunik. Conny Crosco.
| |
| 19 Okay.
| |
| 20 MR. TRAPP: And other extremely sharp individuals 21 whose contribution will be appreciated.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay. We will do that. All 23 right.
| |
| 24 Ed, did you want to comment at this time on this?
| |
| 25 This Ed Rengier from the DOE.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 207 1 MR. RENGIER: I will respond to that. We are in 2 fact working on a response and comments on the GTP and 3 expect to have a package prepared within a week or two.
| |
| 4 I hate to disappoint John Trapp, but the reason 5 you haven't heard anything isn't because we think it is 6 good. In fact, we think it is unworkable. We have major 7 concerns with it and we not believe that it is consistent 8 with the regulation. We will be having comments come in and 9 soon.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: All right. Fine. That is good 11 to hear.
| |
| 12 Any other comments or questions for John Trapp on 13 this topic. !
| |
| 14 (No verbal response) l l
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, let me thank John for his !
| |
| 1 16 presentation. Certainly, you responded to our questions.
| |
| 17 You organized it. It was well organized and I thank you for i
| |
| 18 that.
| |
| 19 MR. TRAPP: It is always a pleasure.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: With that, i believe we will 21 call our formal interactive session to a close.
| |
| 22 Let me mention for the people in the staff who is 23 here as well as the members of the public, what we plan to 24 do is the following. We are going to go into Executive 25 Session, and I think you have heard what our comments and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 208 1 responses are going to be on this last topic. We will also 2 try to begin to formulate some comments on-the earlier' topic 3 that we covered today, nawely, the' proposed Commission 4 policy statement on below regulatory concern.
| |
| 5 Another thing we are going to do in the Executive 6 session is to preview a 15 minute television tape which is 7 on the Barnwell facility. The committee in two weeks will 8 be in South Carolina, spending a day at the Barnwell Low 9 Level Rad Waste Disposal Facility. Spending a day at 10 Savannah River Plant on the high level waste solidification, 11 and so forth, processing facility there. And then we are )
| |
| 12 spending a third day in which will go to Columbia, South 13 Carolina, and meet with the state personnel who are l
| |
| 14 overseeing the Barnwell -- you know, the regulatory aspects 15 of the Barnwell Low Level Facility. l 16 And in anticipation of that trip, we are having !
| |
| 17 tomorrow formal presentations by people from down there, and !
| |
| 18 this afternoon we are going to see this 5 minute television 19 tape. .
| |
| 20 So with that, then, I will call this portion of 21 the meeting adjourned.
| |
| 22 (Whereupon, at 5:12 p.m., the meeting was 23 adjourned.)
| |
| 24 1
| |
| 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800
| |
| | |
| l 1 , CERTIFICATE 2
| |
| i This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
| |
| ( 3 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: !
| |
| 5 Name: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Second Meeting j 7 Docket Number:
| |
| l 8 Place Washington, D.C. l l
| |
| 9 Date: July 21, 1988 l 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear j 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript.is a )
| |
| 15 true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
| |
| 16 /S/ b k, 6 m, --
| |
| \ l 17 (Signature typed): Alan K. Friedman 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation l 20 l l
| |
| 21 l
| |
| 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 26694 Tcderal Register / Vol. 53, No.135 / Thursday, July 14, 1989 / Notices
| |
| =
| |
| D4ted at RocN1le, Maryland. this Bih day With regard to potential non. 1988. Room 1048,1717 H Street, NW.,
| |
| i of luty.1968 . radiological impac.ts, the proposed Washington, DC.The meeting will statt For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. cha.,ges to the Technical Specifications at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 21 and Flinor G. Adensam, it)volve systams located within the continue until close of business at 5.30 clor. Project D rectorote //-l. Dmsion of restricted area a: defined in 10 CFR Part p m. It will resume a t 8.30 a.m. on
| |
| (,,a tor Projects ////. 20. It does r.ot affe .t non. radiological Friday, July 22 and continue until the p: ant effluents and has no other close of business at 5.30 p.m.
| |
| IFR Doc. 68-1586i Filed 7-13-48. 8 45 am)
| |
| ,w,,, con, ,- environmental impact. Therefore, the Thursday, July 21,1968 Commission concludes that there are no significant non.tadnological 10.30 a.m.-1045 a m.: Comments by (Cocket No. 50-2t9) environmentalimpacts associated with ACNWChairman(Open)-The ACNW the proposed amendment. Chairman will report briefly regarding CPU Nuclear Corp. and Jersey Central The Notice of Consideration of items of current interest.
| |
| P:wer & Light Co., Oyster Creek issuance of Amendment and 10..t5 a.m.-12:15p.m.: Belo w Nuclear Generating Station; Opportunity for He tring in connection Regulatory Concern (Open)-The NRC invironmentel Assessment and with this Etion was published in the Staff will present their proposed policy Finding of No Significant impact Federal Register on June 3,1988 ($3 FR statement to the ACNW.
| |
| The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 20396). No request for hearing or petition 1:15p.m.-3:30p.m. Dry Cash Storage Commission (the Commissio.1) is for leave to invervene was filed Study (Open)-The DOE Staff will brief consideringissuance of an amendment following this notice. the ACNW on their Dry Cask Storage to Prosisional Operating License DPR- Alternative to the Proposed Action Study.This study is required by the 16 issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (GPUN. the licens(e), for operation of it has been determined that there is n of 1987 to be submitted to Congress in measurable irapact associated with the the C) ster Creek Nuclear Generating October 1988.
| |
| Station. located in Ocean County New at a es gsed,,d ame dmen a 9 J 30p.m.-4.30p.m.:RulemaAing on W Anticipated and Unanticipated Evente environmental impact or greater Ensironmental Assessment environmentalimpact. (Open)-The NRC Staff will discuss the proposed rulemaking on this topic.
| |
| Identificolion of Picposed Action A/ternative Use of Resources 4:30 p m.-5:30p.m : A CNW Activities The proposed amendment would This action does not involve the use of ond Preparation of ACNW Reports revise Technical Specification Sections any resources beyond the scope of (Open)-The ACNW will discuss 3.2 C. 4.2 E, and 6 9.3 to reflect the use of resources used during normal operation. ACNW activities, future meeting an enriched sodium pentaborate agendas, and organizational matters, solution in the Standby Liquid Control Finding of No Sigalficant impact System (SLCS). Based upon the foregoing Nay, juh 22,1988 rhe proposed action is in accordar'ce ensironmental assessment the E30 0 m.-9 JC o m.: En vironmento/
| |
| i the licensee's application for Commisssicn concluded that the Monitoring of Low. level Waste amendment dated May 10,1968. preposed action will not have a facilities (Open)-The NRC Staff will significant effect on the quality of the discuss the NRC Draft Technical The Needfor the Proposed Actiot, human environment. Accordingly the Position on this topic.
| |
| De proposed change to the Technical Ccmmission has determined not to 9:30 o m.-11:30 o m.: Centerfor
| |
| . Specifications is required in order for prepare an environmental impact Nuclear Woste Regulatory Analyses the licensee to comply with ATM S Rule statement for the poposed amendment. (Open)-The NRC Staff and (10 CFR 50 C). and Generic Letter 85-03 For further details with respect to this representatives from the Center will
| |
| , Clarification of Equivalent Control action, see the request for amendment brief the ACNW on the status of this Capacity for Standby Liquid Control dated May 10.1968. Copies of the S> stems." dated January 28,1985 request for amendment
| |
| ' are available,*for Etof; J 30 o m.-JJ:30p ramStandards m.: EPA Enyironmental/mpacts of the Picrosed
| |
| ^ # ##
| |
| P
| |
| *lk' NW, Washington. DC and at the Ocean
| |
| 'f** for HLW Geologic Repository (Open)-
| |
| The EPA will provide a briefing on the j
| |
| j "Ihe Comm:ssion has completed its status of this topic. I County Library, Reference Department, evaluation of the proposed revision to 101 Washington Street. Toms Ris er, 1:30 p m.-4S0 p m.: Briefing on the ,
| |
| the Technical Specifications ne New lersey 08753. Bornwe///Scrannoh River / Chem- (
| |
| reposec. .svision would allow the Nuclear andLN Technologies facilities l
| |
| ' ated at R c e aqland, this es day (Open)-The NRC Staff and,if possible. '
| |
| icensee to use an entithed sodium C7 pentaborate solution in the Standby representatives of the above l For se Nuctor Pegulaton Comminion. organizations and of the state of South Liquid Control System. The use of an i enriched sodium pentaborate solution John F. Stola. Carolina will brief the members of the 1 Director. Project Directorcte I-4. Division of ACNW to prepare them for their I would not increase the probability or
| |
| . consequence of accidents, no changes R'Od8W'M pmposed visit to these facilities in early are being made lo the types cf any (FR Doc. 88-1589 Filed Mb88 e 45 am] August.The Office cf S, ate Program will cffluents that may be released offsite, ***cm w w also describe the Agreement States and there is no significant increas4 in program in general and their recent the allowable individual or cumulative interacti n with the state of South ;
| |
| Advisory Committee on Nuciese am a n pardcular.
| |
| occupahonal radiation exposure. Wasta; Revision 1 Accordingly. the Commission concludes 4 00p m.-4.45 p m.: NRC Stof/ Actions ,
| |
| that this action would result in no The Advisory Committee on Nuclear on ACNW Recommendations (Open)- l nificant environmentalIsipart Westa will hold a meeting on luly 21-22. The ACNW will discuss with the NRC I
| |
| | |
| u Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.135 / Thursday. July 14. 1988 / Notices 36695
| |
| )' .
| |
| St.iff the actions that the NRC Staff has For the Nuclear Regulatory Comm'ssion.
| |
| r notice of hearing or an appropriate ken on ACNW recommendations Rajender Auluck, order.
| |
| ( I n p m.-530p m.: A CNLY Actinties Actig Assistant D.rectorfor Projects. TVA As required by 10 CVR 2.714. a and Preparation of A CNW Reports Prc ects Dmsion. Ofpce ofSpecialProjects. petition for leave to intervene shall ett (Op n)-The ACNW wMi discuss forth with particularity the interest of (FR Doc BM5859 Fded 7-13-88. 8 45'am)
| |
| ACNW activities. future meetin8 mo coos mm the petitioner in the proceeding and how ageridas, and organizational matters. that interest may be affected by the Procedures for the conduct of and results of the proceeding.The petition should specifically explain the reasons participation in ACNW meetings were iDockets Nos 50-315 and 50-316]
| |
| pubbsbed in the Federal Register on why intervention should be permitted June 6.198, ,53 TR 20699). In accordance Indiana Michigan Power Co.: with particular referen:e to the with these procedures. ora! or written Consideration of issuance of following factors:(1)The nature of the statemerts may be presented by Amendments to Facility Operating petitioner's right under the Act to be members of the pubhc. recordings will Licenses and Opportunity for Hearing made a party to the proceeding:(2) the be permitted only during those portions nature and extent of the petitior.er's i rf the meeting when a transcript is being The United Pates Nuclear Regulatory property, fmancial. or other interest in h pt. and questions may be asked on!> Commission (the Commiss.on) is the proceeding; and (3) the poss;ble
| |
| ! by members of the Committee.iis considereg issuance of amendrnents to effect of any order which may be consuhants. and Staff Persons deurmg Facility 0;erating Licenses Nos. DPR-58 entered in the proceeding on tne I to make oral statements should notify and DPR-74 issued to the Indiana petitioner's interest. The petition should
| |
| ; the Executise Director of the Office of M;chigan Power Company (the also identify the specific aspect (s) of the the ACRS as farin advance as hcensee). for operation of Donald C. subject matter of the proceeding as to practicable so that appropriate Ccok Nuclear Plant. Unit Nos.1 and 2, which petitioner wishes to intervene.
| |
| arrangements can be made to s!!cw the located m Berrien County, Michigan. Any person who has filed a petition for necesary time durmg the rneetmg for In accordance with the licensee's leas e to intervene or who has been such statements. Use of stdl motion apphention for amendments dated admitted as a party may amend the picture and telesision cameras durm? Februar> 1.1988. the amendments w ould petition without requesting leave of the this meeting may be hmited to selected resise tb? Technical Specifications Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the portions of the meetmp as detumined (TS's) to make them more consistent first prehearing conference scheduled in by the Chairman Information regardm8 with NRC guidthnes concernin8 the proceedmg. but such an amended the time to be set aside for this purpose obtaining milk samples for analysis. In petition must satisfy the specificity rnay be obtained by a prepaid telephone addmon. the TS bases concernin8 requirements described above, call to the Executis e Director of the radioactive gaseous effluents would be Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to office of the ACRS Mr Raymond f.. cnanged to be more consistent with the the first prehearing conference dey, prior to the meeting in uew of Westinghouse Standard TS's with scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner me possibiht) th.t the schulule for regard to the thyroid dose rate release shall fde a supplement to the petition to ACNW meetings may be adjusted by, the pathwa> for a child. and an editorial intenene, which must include a list of Chairman as necessary to facihtate the error w ould be corrected. the contentions that are sought to be conduct of the meetirg persons Prior to issuance of the proposed litigated in the matter, and the bases for planning to attend should check with the license amendments, the Commission each contention set forth with ACRS Executne Dtrector if such wdl hase made f ndmgs required by the reasonable specificity. Contentions shall reschedulmg would result in major Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended be limited to matters within the scope of
| |
| *C " " "C' tihe Act) and the Commission's the amendments under consideration. A U*It Id) 16.1%8 regulations. petitioner who fails to file such a luhn C Ho>le- By August 15.1968. the hcensee may supplement which satisfies these M. m o Coww Mmp wr Od a ide a request for a hearing with respect requirements with respect to at least one IFK Dx. c 15655 Fhd r-1Ma 8 45 aml to issuance of the amendments to the contention will not be permitted to em coot m-= subject facihty operating licenses and participate as a party.
| |
| - any person whose interest may be Those permitted to inten er.e become affected by this proceeding and who parties to the proceeding subject to any (DocNet Nos 50-259.10-260.50 295) wishes to participate as a party in the hmitations in the order granting leave to proceedmg must fue a written request intervene, and have the opportunity to f Biweekly Notice Applications and 5 Amend.nents to Operating Licenses for hearing and a petition for leas e to participate fully in the conduct of the including No Significant Hazards intenene Requests for a hearing and hearing including the opportunity to Conside;ations; Tennessee Valley petitions fut lease to inten ene shall be present evidence and cross.examm, e Authority; Correction ided in acccrdance with the witnesses.
| |
| Commission's "Rules of Practice for A request for a, hearing or a petition -
| |
| On June 1.1988. the Federal Register Domestic Licensing Prcceedit ts"in 10 for lease to inten ene must be fHed with pubbshed the Bi weekly Notice of CFR Part 2.lf a request for a hearing or the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
| |
| Issuance of Amendment to Faciht) pet; tion for leave to intervene is ided by Nuclear Regulatory Comr..ission, Operating License. On page 20052, for the above date the Commission or an Washington,DC 20555. Attention:
| |
| Browns Ferry, Units 1. 2 and 3 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Docketing and Service Branch, or may
| |
| ] (opplication dated lanuary 14.1988 TS- designated by the Commission or by the be delis ered to the Commission's Public j 2r) the effective date read. "May 4. Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Document Room.1717 H Street. NW.,
| |
| 1999." The correct effective date is May Licensing Board Panel. will rule on the Washington. DC. by the above date.
| |
| i 1988 request and/or petition. and the Where petitions are fded during the last j Dated at Rockutte. Maryland. this rib det Secretary or the designated Atomic ten (10) days of the notice period. It is a ofJul>19aa Safety and Licensing Board willissue a requested that the petitioner promptly so h
| |
| | |
| e NRC STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE ACNW
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| P/20 PO S E D PO L/C Y O H EVEM i'i oWJ f"Reon arcox n roxy to arto t-DATE: J~vW A / < /986 kJ /'' ' A " 2- AAHS PRESENTER:
| |
| cNetr, era ve,t rio 4/ o e v a.o r a c e r-PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH DIV.: BMWc N, DtW510 M oF 2dcr om ro tty
| |
| )%PPL tt A rio off, RCS 4
| |
| PRESENTER'S NRC TEL NO.:
| |
| (Jo /) 2/9 2 - J 7 7 4l SUBCOMMITTEE:
| |
| Ao vaoie y commi r-rre sit d u n cnit w s.cr e l
| |
| l l
| |
| TO BE USED ALL PRESENTATIONS TO THE ACNW BY NRC EM
| |
| }
| |
| | |
| l .
| |
| 1 .
| |
| l i .
| |
| 1 l ACNW BRIEFING -
| |
| JULY 21, 1988 i
| |
| i l
| |
| PROPOSED POLICY ON EXEMPTIONS FROM i REGULATORY CONTROL i
| |
| i l FOR PRACTICES WHOSE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY j i, SIGNIFICANCE IS BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN i i
| |
| ! I i
| |
| i s
| |
| 4 i
| |
| | |
| 4 l
| |
| i CONTENTS OF COMMISSION PAPER ii i
| |
| , 1 l
| |
| , ' o SRM OF MARCH 30, 1988 I !
| |
| I o PROPOSED POL 3CY STATEMENT o OPTIONS FOR NUMERICAL VALUES WITHIN l
| |
| THE PROPOSED EXEMPTION POLICY j o MAJOR POLICY CONSIDERATIONS i
| |
| ! c RESPONSE TO COMMISSION QUESTIONS REGARDING
| |
| ! BASIS FOR PRIOR BRC ACTIONS AND UNCERTANTIES 1
| |
| i IN DOSE - RESPONSE COEFFICIENTS l
| |
| l I
| |
| i
| |
| ^
| |
| 2 k_ _ _ - _ _ - ____ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| . t l
| |
| i PURPOSE OF COMMISSION PAPER
| |
| ]
| |
| l l
| |
| i
| |
| ; o RESPotJD TO COMMISSION DIRECTION IN MARCH 30,1988 SRM ;
| |
| -SUBMIT POLI.CY, WITH OPTIONS, ESTABLISHING GENERIC NUMBER l
| |
| I FOR EXPOSURES THAT ARE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN l
| |
| -IMPLEMENT NUMBER FOR MULTIPLE SOURCES WHICH DOES NOT
| |
| ! REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION BY INDIVIDUAL LICENSEE $
| |
| ) -RESPOND TO OTHER QUESTIONS RAISED BY COMMISSION l-o PROVIDE PROPOSED POLICY FOR DISCUSSION WITH l
| |
| INTERNATIONAL GROUPS i
| |
| * i
| |
| ; e L.
| |
| | |
| n J
| |
| i I REGULATORY EXEMPTION POLICY PERSPECTIVE ON ANNUAL INDIVIDUAL EXPOSURE LEVELS i
| |
| o BACKGROUND EXPOSURE EXCLUDING RADON 100 mrom o PROPOSED 10 CFR PART 20 DOSE LIMIT j UNRESTRICTED AREA FROM LICENSEE PRACTICES 100 mrom I
| |
| o VARIATION IN COSMIC RADIATION .
| |
| i WASHINGTON, DC. VS DENVER, COLORADO - 25 mrom o EPA GENERALLY APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD ( FUEL CYCLE ) 25 mrom
| |
| ! o CLEAN AIR ACT ( under reconalderation) 25 mrem l 0 PROPOSED EPA BRC LEVEL- WASTE DISPOSAL 4 mrom
| |
| ) o COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT (8/25/86)
| |
| : MAX. DOSE CRITERIA- EXPEDITED HANDLING a few mrsm l WASTE DISPOSAL PETITIONS o 10 CFR PART 50 APP. I- REACTOR EFFLUENTS 3 mrom IIquid l
| |
| ) 10 mrad air l
| |
| l _. 3
| |
| | |
| 1 i l l
| |
| l l
| |
| j REGULATORY EXEMPTION POLICY i PERSPECTIVE ON EXPECTED EXEMPTED PRACTICES i
| |
| l l o PRACTICES INVOLVING WIDESPREAD DISTRIBUTION & USE
| |
| ! OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL BY THE PUBLIC J
| |
| - CONSUMER PRODUCTS
| |
| ! - RECYCLE OF SLIGHTLY CONTAMINATED ECUIPMENT & MATERIAL l
| |
| i, o PRACTICES ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ONLY LIMITED j INTERACTIONS WITH THE PUBLIC
| |
| - LAND DISPOSAL OF LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
| |
| - RELEASE OF SLIGHTLY CONTAMINATED LANDS & STRUCTURES FOR UNRESTRICTED USE '
| |
| - RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASES
| |
| }
| |
| e
| |
| ! I _ __ __. _ _ -
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| a l
| |
| i i'
| |
| l I
| |
| l l CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO EXEMPTION DECISIONS i l i I j o THE APPLICATION OR CONTINUATION OF REGULATORY CONTROLS l DOES NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE
| |
| : INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE DOSE RECEIVED, OR l o THE COSTS OF REGULATORY CONTROLS TO REDUCE DOSE i ARE NOT BALANCED BY THE BENEFITS OF DOSE REDUCTION i
| |
| )
| |
| i j '
| |
| ; s .
| |
| i i a 5 l,._ -
| |
| | |
| 1 .
| |
| I i
| |
| 1 i,
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF PROPOSED POLICY 1
| |
| i
| |
| ! o PROVIDES FOR TWO GENERAL EXEMPTION CATEGORIES ,
| |
| t i
| |
| 1
| |
| -BOTH BASED ON JUSTIFICATION OF PRACTICE & COST / BENEFIT ANALYSES (LINEAR DOSE-EFFECT MODEL)
| |
| -BOTH ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL DOSE CUTOFF IN COLLECTIVE DOSE ASSESSMENTS 1
| |
| i o INCLUDES GUIDANCE ON FRIVOLOUS PRACTICES l
| |
| I I
| |
| i i
| |
| l I L
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| l t
| |
| THE UPPER CATEGORY IN THE EXEM PTION POLICY I
| |
| i I
| |
| l o ALLOWS POSSIBLE EXEMPTIONS IF INDIVIDUAL DOSES KEPT I
| |
| BELOW 100 mram/ year - MOST EXEMPTIONS EXPECTED TO INVOLVE l DOSES BELOW 10-15 mrom/ year 1
| |
| i i o REQUIRES EXEMPTION TO BE BASED ON SUPPORTING QUANTITATIVE I
| |
| COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES o ALLOWS DEGREE OF RIGOR IN C/B ANALYSIS TO BE A FUNCTION OF INDIVIDUAL & COLLECTIVE DOSE
| |
| (
| |
| i i
| |
| l 7
| |
| 1 _.
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| i .
| |
| - t l
| |
| i THE LOWER CATEGORY IN THE EXEMPTION POLICY 1
| |
| l 1
| |
| o PROVIDES BASIS FOR EXEMPTING PRACTICES INVOLVING SMALL RADIOLOGICAL RISK
| |
| - INDIVIDUAL DOCS TARGET OF .
| |
| 1 mrem / year COLLECTIVE DOSE TARGET OF i
| |
| 1000 person-rem
| |
| : o PROVIDES FOR SIMPLE ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT l EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION
| |
| )
| |
| l
| |
| ! s 8-i
| |
| | |
| - 1 NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL P5CTURE o CANADIAN ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD- PROPOSED h
| |
| 5 mrem / year DOSE LIMIT FOR DISPOSAL OF WASTE o U.K. NATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BOARD- DE MINIMIS 5 mrem / year ALL SOURCES COMBINED O.5 mrem / year INDIVIDUAL SOURCES o NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR RADIATION PROTECTION 1 mrem /ye ar NEGLIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL RISK LEVEL CUTOFF FOR COLLECTIVE DOSE o INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY 1 mrem / year DE MINIMIS TO INDIVIDUAL ,
| |
| O.1 mrem / year PER PRACTICE 100 PERSON-REM COLLECTIVE w*
| |
| | |
| 1 l MAJOR POLICY CONSIDERATIONS i
| |
| i o JUSTIFICATION OF PRACTICE PRINCIPLE i '
| |
| I i
| |
| o EXCLUSIONS FROM EXEMPTION POLICY l
| |
| CALCULATION AND USE OF COLLECTIVE 1
| |
| l o t
| |
| DOSE ASSESSMENTS l
| |
| 4
| |
| - 10
| |
| | |
| i t
| |
| l j JUSTIFICATION OF PRACTICE l
| |
| l i
| |
| 1 i
| |
| A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF RADIATION PROTECTION
| |
| ,' BOTH NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY l
| |
| 1 RETAINED IN PROPOSED EXEMPTION POLICY ~
| |
| o AT LOWER RADIOLOGICAL RISKS, JUSTIFICATION DETERMINATION !
| |
| CAN BE MADE ON SIMPLE BASES 3
| |
| i o PRECLUDES PLETHORA OF UNCONTROLLED PRACTICES l CAUSING MULTIPLE SOURCE PROBLEM ll.
| |
| i -
| |
| CLOSELY TIED TO OTHER POLICY DECISIONS 1
| |
| l o INDIVIDUAL DOSE CUTOFF FOR COLLECTIVE DOSE ASSESSMENTS l o EXCLUSIONS FROM EXEMPTION POLICY
| |
| - WITHOUT THIS PRINCIPLE, COMMISSION WOULD BE OPTING -
| |
| 1 FOR DEFINITION OF DE MINIMIS OR NEGLIGIBLE RISK POLICY l .
| |
| - 1r l
| |
| | |
| t .
| |
| l .
| |
| 1 i
| |
| i l- PRACTICES EXCLUDED FROM EXEMPTION POLICY i
| |
| i o STAFF BELIEF THAT CERTAIN PRACTICES ARE l
| |
| ! SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE REGARDLESS OF RISK
| |
| ! (DOSE) INVOLVED i
| |
| i
| |
| ! o INCLUDED AS GUIDANCE (IF JUSTIFICATION OF l PRACTICE REMAINS INTEGRAL PART OF EXEMPTION POLICY) i l
| |
| i l
| |
| 1
| |
| - 12 l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| *
| |
| * f INDIVIDUAL DOSE CUTOFF IN COLLECTIVE DOSE CALCULATIONS i
| |
| i i o 0.1 mrom VALUE REPRESENTS 1 JN A MILLION LIFETIME RISK TO INDIVIDUAL a j
| |
| LEVEL AT WHICH ACTION NOT TYPICALLY TAKEN BY FEDERAL i AND STATE AGENCIES IN CLEANUP OF CHEMICAL CARCINOGENS LEVEL USED BY FDA IN RESIDUAL FOOD CONTAMINATION o INITIALLY PROPOSED IN REVISION TO 10 CFR PART 20 1
| |
| l o COLLECTIVE DOSE REALISTICALLY LIMITED TO j -VALUE FOR WHICH SOCIETAL HEALTH EFFECT UNLIKELY h -VALUE COMPARABLE TO 1000 PERSON-REM TARGET l
| |
| ]
| |
| i
| |
| - 13
| |
| | |
| l VLT 80JT' 2 EPA Offers OMptions on hen./--8t* zene
| |
| ( -
| |
| Agency Seeks Guidance on Dealing With kic Air Pbilutant spe .e and the number ci people most exposed Bv Cass Peterson all I F-"e wa,% wwm
| |
| * je 5 ,,
| |
| The Environmental Protection Agency tossed sanction a given number of cancer deaths from ben.
| |
| c zene exposure each year. The agency proposed con-3' one of its knottieM regulatory problems into the sidering one cancer f atahty a year
| |
| * acceptable." The
| |
| (
| |
| g <0 hands of the public yesterday, hoping to resolve a bewa bitter dispute over the cancer causing chemical EPA estimates that three people now die benzene and at the same time estabbsh guidelines from cancer %ced by exposure to b sions.
| |
| for deahng w,th other touc air pollutants, s A "one in 10,000 risk" approach that would as-In a proposal that EPA Administrator Lee M. sure that no one exposed to benzene emissions Thomas said wdl determme what level of risk the faces a cancer risk any higher than that.
| |
| nation is wdhng to accept from toxic chemical emis- a A "one-in a million risk" approach, identical to sions, the agency offered not one but four options the third approach but 100 times more swingent.
| |
| for controlhng benzene, a widely used chemical that The costs of complying with each c.! the ap-can cause leukemia and other blood disorders. proaches vary widely Some speciahred chemical k "Today's proposal deals with regulating benzene, and fiber plants would not be required to take ad-but the imphcations of this decision are far broad.
| |
| ditional control measurcs to meet the first three cr," Thnmas said. standards, for example, but the EPA said that re-By EPA's estimate, abnut 90 million Americans ducing risks to one in a million could force more are exposed to benzene emissions from refineries, than half the plants to close.
| |
| chemical plants and the iron and steel industries, By contrast, the EPA said, scores of plants that makmg it one of the mv.st pervasive toxic pollutants Q in the nation.
| |
| But past etfort* tn curb cmissions have been em.
| |
| use benzene in other industrial processes could be forced out of business if they were required to meet even the less stringent one-in 10,000 risk standard.
| |
| broded m court challenges and controsersy. The agency said that benzene leaks in some equip-In a nuishell, the 1.PA argues that following the ment are so difficult to control that 100 of 131 fa-letter of the Ckan Air Act and prmithng "an ade, cihties usmg the equipment would go cut of busi-L quate margm of safety'for every American exposed neu if f reed to meet that standard, coviag 30,000 in bennne wouki mean closing scores of industrial plant and throwing tens of thousands of people out d N Ceil en' De vid D. Doniger, who led the legal battle against Ensirnnmental groups diugree and have accused EPA s benzene rules, said the agency had,"grossly the agenes of illegally appipng a cost benefit anal- exaggerated the impact on industry. Domger said ysis to regulations that are aimed at protecting hu- the agency had assumed that plants usmg benzene man health-a practice that is expressly forbidden w uld have to reduce emissions equally, although under the Clean Air Act, '0** E ^ ""I# I''
| |
| * cleaner, than others.
| |
| Ye>terday's propoul came in response to a De- He ako complai ned that EPA has ignored the cember ruhng by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hkehhood that industries would fmd technologies to here that oserturned the EPA s regulations for an- clean up en.issions if they had to. "The benzene-other touc air pollutant, y nyl vhloride. The deci- emitting industries have never made a scrivus at-sion ordered the EPA to set "acceptable" levels of tempt to reduce their emissions to the levels nec- l exposure wahou, regard for the cost of controls, estary to protect pubhe health," he said, "How can but said the agency eculd consider costs when de- EPA be so.ure industry will fail, when it has yet to cidmg what controls were needed to meet those lev
| |
| * try?"
| |
| eIx Doniger uiticized the EPA for includmg eptions The EPA agreed to rewrite its benzene rules in that he said would leave some Americans facing a hght of the decision. Instead. Thomas said yester- one-in 170 chance of contracting cancer from ben-rene. But he praised the agency for includmg alter-day that he decided to offer a range of options in the hope of generating a "thorough pubhe debate" and natives that are "far more consistent with histori 1: han kept dozens of similar standards of pubhc health protection."
| |
| endmg the dispe !
| |
| rules bottled @ m the age r
| |
| ., u. ;he courto.
| |
| The American Petroleum Institute also ap- '
| |
| The agency offered P.ese four approaches: pkuded the EPA approach, except for the one in-a A "case by-case" standard that would consider a milhon risk approach that environmentahsts have I
| |
| '' the circumstances of each plant, including nearby advocated.
| |
| population densities. Thomas said he would prefer API %ce President William F. O'Keefe called C that alternative "neither scientifically justified nor I to see individual risks hmited to no more than one economically feasible" and said he hopes the EPA l chance in 10.000 of developing leukemia, but the agency said higher individual risks might be toler- would *' resist the unreasonable demands of enviro mental goups."
| |
| ated "if the exposed population were extremely W
| |
| .w ;
| |
| -s.
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| I l
| |
| j DRY CASK STORAGE STUDY
| |
| ,! BRIEFING PACKAGE - STATUS AND CONTENT NRC-ACNW MEETING 4
| |
| JULY 21, 1988 1
| |
| I -
| |
| ! i t JJ
| |
| | |
| i t
| |
| I
| |
| ) OBJECTIVES OF STUDY CONDUCT A STUDY AND EVALUATION OF THE USE OF DRY CASK STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES AT REACTOR SITES FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A REPOSITORY HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED, LICENSED, AND IS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING SPENT FUEL.
| |
| i 1. CONSIDER THE COSTS OF DRY CASK STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, THE EXTENT TO WHICH i DRY CASK STORAGE AT REACTOR SITES WILL AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE l ENVIRONMENT, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE STORAGE AT REACTOR SITES AFFECTS j THE COSTS AND RISK OF TRANSPORTING SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 10 A CENTRAL I FACILITY SUCH AS THE MRS, AND ANY OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE CONSIDERED 1
| |
| i APPROPRIATE.
| |
| I
| |
| : 2. CONSIDER THE EXTENT TO WHICH AMOUNTS IN THE NUCLEAR WASTE. FUND CAN BE li USED, AND SHOULD BE USED, TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, 3 MAINTAIN, AND SAFEGUARD SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN DRY CASK STORAGE AT l REACTOR SITES.
| |
| i i
| |
| : 3. CONSULT WITH THE NRC AND INCLUDE THEIR VIEWS IN THE REPORT.
| |
| i 4. SOLICIT THE VIEWS OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE PUBLIC.
| |
| l 1
| |
| l i .
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| ! STATUS -
| |
| : f. .
| |
| i 3-29 ATTENDED MEETING HELD BY EPRI, EEI AND SEVERAL UTILITIES 3
| |
| r 4-6 LETTER SOLICITING VIEWS SENT TO THE NRC I 4-26 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE POSTED ANNOUNCING PLANS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
| |
| )
| |
| 4-29 NOTICE ANNOUNCING PLANS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW POSTED IN OCRWM BULLETIN i
| |
| ! 5-13 INFORMAL MEETING H' ELD WITH NRC STAFF i
| |
| j 6-30 "INITIAL VERSION" 0F REPORT UNDERGOING DOE REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE I '
| |
| i '
| |
| APPROXIMATELY 70 REQUESTS FOR THE "INITIAL YERSION" HAVE BEEN RECEIVED i
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| j
| |
| [
| |
| l PROPOSED SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES "INITIAL YERSION" PRINTED AND RELEASED TO PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD MODIFICATION OF "INITIAL VERSION" BASED UPON COMMENTS TO PRODUCE "FINAL REPORT" i
| |
| ! DOE REVIEW AND CONCURRE*0 ON "FINAL REPORT" AND 4
| |
| TRANSMITTAL TO THE NRC i
| |
| l "FINAL REPORY" (WITH NRC COMMENTS ATTACHED)
| |
| I SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS i
| |
| i l
| |
| 1 i . .
| |
| i I
| |
| l i
| |
| | |
| CONTENTS OF STUDY
| |
| - A GENERAL REVIEW OF AT-REACTOR STORAGE, INCLUDING:
| |
| 6
| |
| ! RERACKING COMW.ETED FOR MAXIMIZING POOL CAPACITY :
| |
| l DRY STORAGE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STORAGE j IN-POOL CONSOLIDATION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STORAGE +
| |
| , - A GENERAL REVIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE NRC AND THE ' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 4
| |
| - A DETAILED REVIEW OF REACTOR STORAGE EXPANSION OPTIONS, INCLUDING:
| |
| i NETAL STORAGE CASKS l CONCRETE STORAGE CASKS
| |
| ! CONCRETE MODULES l CONCRETE VAULTS l DUAL PURPOSE CASKS (STORAGE / TRANSPORT) l IN-POOL CONSOLIDATION J
| |
| ; FOR EACM STORAGE EXPANSION OPTION:
| |
| l -
| |
| l DESCRIPTION OF THE EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE, STATUS, AND PLANS CERTIFICATION / LICENSING ISSUES AND STATUS ESTIMATED UNIT COST RANGE AND UNCERTAINTIES ,
| |
| i I
| |
| j I
| |
| | |
| A l
| |
| }
| |
| : CONTENTS OF STUDY (CONTINUED):
| |
| -A REVIEW OF THE FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT UTILITIES' DRY STORAGE j DECISIONS (I.E., CONCEPT MATURITY, SCHEDULING CONSIDERATIONS, OPERATING PHILOSOPHY, PUBLIC PERCEPTION, ETC.)
| |
| I j - ~
| |
| AN ASSESSMENT OF THE QUANTITY OF SPENT FUEL REQUIRING ADDITIONAL i STORAGE.
| |
| i, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE OVERALL UTILITY SYSTEM COST RANGES FOR PROVIDING
| |
| ! ADDITIONAL AT-REACTOR STORAGE. -
| |
| J A DISCUSSION OF THE HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROVIDING j ADDITIONAL AT-REACTOR STORAGE.
| |
| i A DISCUSSION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COST AND RISK IMPACTS OF l PROVIDING AT-REACTOR STORAGE.
| |
| } -
| |
| SEPARATE DISCUSSIONS FOR "CAN THE WASTE FUND BE USED", AND "$HOULD THE WASTE FUND BE USED" .
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| m a+m--.uma- .m-+ a e e n-w--au a e--- A e - m a A -- =aM,- -, _.--.AAa - 4maA a-=a h-nm J- ,-2-----, * --zE --
| |
| S 1
| |
| H '
| |
| Z W
| |
| : H Z
| |
| O U
| |
| >=
| |
| , in 1
| |
| "3
| |
| ! b--
| |
| LA LL.
| |
| o -
| |
| 3 i W 1 >-4 1
| |
| .i gg
| |
| ; -W 4
| |
| i g
| |
| I i
| |
| I l
| |
| ; a i
| |
| l 4
| |
| j i
| |
| | |
| 1 10o.o00 -
| |
| No new orders so.soo - . . ..
| |
| - - - - i upp.,r s.rene.
| |
| , r.e c.
| |
| ,*h
| |
| - e l
| |
| g Os.089 - - 4 ,gr.o.e. n w-ass g-f' y ie.See - j/
| |
| i / -v*
| |
| e0.000 -
| |
| / ,-
| |
| g es..
| |
| /..****........-
| |
| L
| |
| : 0. - ,ef
| |
| = so.seo-
| |
| /
| |
| 2o.0e0-Io.see -
| |
| e . . . . . . .
| |
| 1985 199o 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2929 Year i
| |
| i Projections of cumulative spent-fuel l discharges.
| |
| | |
| 0
| |
| ~ 2 0
| |
| 2 s
| |
| t n
| |
| e -
| |
| m 5 e 1 i
| |
| r 2 0 -
| |
| ue qc b -
| |
| en Ra ep t M _
| |
| ge ac S 0 1
| |
| 0 rc 2 to A )3 Sm0 e0
| |
| . rt os 2 _
| |
| t yn 5 cS i 0 a g el 0 2
| |
| 9 -
| |
| Ra
| |
| - si n N -
| |
| tot Apr 4 -
| |
| r a
| |
| e s ta W Y li aD S N.
| |
| 0 n
| |
| oey .
| |
| 0 0 -
| |
| r 2 -
| |
| it t s to ia dW is d _
| |
| Aec op _
| |
| en e i
| |
| v e (R . T 9
| |
| ir 1 t e -
| |
| af l e uR m
| |
| ur Co 0
| |
| f 9 .
| |
| f 9 _
| |
| .. o -
| |
| 1
| |
| _ e g
| |
| n -
| |
| a _
| |
| R -
| |
| 5 0 - 0 -
| |
| 0 0 < 9 _
| |
| 0 0 o1 _
| |
| 0 0 _
| |
| 2 5 _
| |
| E _
| |
| ! : li ' ;' j -
| |
| J
| |
| | |
| 4 I
| |
| Suassary of Additional Spent fuel Storage Requiremer.ts for .
| |
| Reference Waste Acceptance Schedule (Repository Starting in 2003) .
| |
| Low High l
| |
| Estimate Estimate Cumulative Additional Storage Requirements (MTU) 12,220 20,000 Mumber of Reactors 83 107 Number of Sites 54 67 i
| |
| I 1
| |
| i i
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| em 0
| |
| U _
| |
| EE '
| |
| sr?
| |
| Q .
| |
| .58 85 '
| |
| i .3-
| |
| ~
| |
| . <,$h s ,2t bh 1a v M N3k.
| |
| 2 \\. '
| |
| u v6 9-u 3e U s
| |
| iw i !
| |
| u .
| |
| {
| |
| oe ab w
| |
| .t _s
| |
| -? t I ;, l b i I eEh I
| |
| - .N -
| |
| g 0"4 rN i-
| |
| | |
| Range of unit-cost estimates
| |
| ; . for additional-storage requirements (Costs in dollars per kilogram of heavy metal) l Unit-cost range for capacity increase of-
| |
| { Storage technology 100 MTHM 300 MTHM 1000 MTHM Consolidated fuel stored in reactor pool 42-73 31-51 NA Metal cask 62-113 57-103 99 Concrete cask 52-105 47-92 45-87 Horizontal concrete modutes 47-63 42-56 40-53 Modular vault 105-157 72-107 47-70 i
| |
| 1 l
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| g,44 y -n.44 -- - - - - , , - , - - --
| |
| 9 0
| |
| N M L. ) JJ .g
| |
| = .
| |
| , e
| |
| "$ i y , i .
| |
| .g.
| |
| 2 5
| |
| g5 g .
| |
| l f ,E h ! . !
| |
| i e
| |
| log1r! s a Egg g; ' ~
| |
| E 133 g -85 '
| |
| l :: ,
| |
| e ills ~ ?
| |
| E fili m
| |
| s/ .
| |
| 00X/$
| |
| -- . - . - ---.. ~-.-. - --.-.-. - -. - ...- -. . .-.- --
| |
| | |
| e Low High storage ;_ ,___ _..._ _t storage requirement ,
| |
| .f 2.0 Billion 2050 Upper bound
| |
| ~l 1540 Lower %ound 1 1270 1140 Lower bound 2 ,
| |
| - 91.0_Bmi_on 950 ,
| |
| 790 Lower bound 3 700 470 I
| |
| Estimated aggregate costs (in billions of dollars) of increasing at-reactor storage capacity with the reference spent-fuel-acceptance schedule (repository startup in ,
| |
| 2003). The cost estimates are given for the upper bound and for lower bounds 1,2, and 3 for the low estimate of storage requirements (left) and tiie high estimate of l storage requirements (right).
| |
| i -
| |
| )
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| \
| |
| l Irnpact on Cumulative Additional At-Reactor Storage Requirements of Alternative Waste Disposal System Acceptance (Based on MRS ramp-up rates and startup dates noted) 50000 50000 45000-
| |
| -45000 i
| |
| 40000-
| |
| ~40000
| |
| , h- % Acceptancep 5 ~35000 30000-
| |
| -30000 l
| |
| s h25000- ..
| |
| :25000 *2
| |
| \
| |
| % 8 AcceDtance
| |
| ~
| |
| 20000-
| |
| -20000 J
| |
| 15000: ~~
| |
| ! 7, Song 200 Acceptene, 20000: l## 710000 l
| |
| s000: 1998 Acceptance
| |
| \
| |
| i 75000 i 985 2d90 1N95 20'00 20'05 2010 N15 2020 20'25 2030 2035 Year I
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| j 4
| |
| ~
| |
| _ Coet range for proven technology Cost range for imely technology Improvemente in the future 3 -
| |
| P.y of lowest costo considered ,j
| |
| _ 1
| |
| 'o be achievable in the future
| |
| $ ~
| |
| : b. 5 L.t o -
| |
| :q:
| |
| i g 2 - <
| |
| 63 o
| |
| f.V
| |
| , g -
| |
| Q
| |
| \ u - +. , . ,
| |
| +
| |
| ~
| |
| l
| |
| ~ ,
| |
| l
| |
| .4.;i j -
| |
| . . . ; j.c.
| |
| - a .: . - - -
| |
| ; 1 -
| |
| 2 r -
| |
| 0 I I I
| |
| +
| |
| 1998 2003 N MRs startup dele Figure 5-3. Estimated ranges of the aggregate costs J
| |
| ; increasing at-reactor storage capacity for three alternative i
| |
| spent-fuel-acceptance schedules (i.e., three different MRS startup dates). The overlap of ranges is derived from - >
| |
| the high and low ranges in storage requirements.
| |
| 1 4
| |
| | |
| l l HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS i
| |
| i THE REPORT CITES DEMONSTRATIONS, NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORTS, AND l EXPERIENCE, AND CONCLUDES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT HEALTH-AND-SAFETY IMPACTS l ARE EXPECTED FOR ANY OF THE AT-REACTOR STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED IN
| |
| ; THIS STUDY.
| |
| l THE REPORT INDICATES THAT THE RADIATION-EXPOSURE RISK FOR THE PUBLIC IS f NEGLIGIBLE: THE PUBLIC COMMITMENT FROM AT-REACTOR STORAGE IS ONLY 0.02
| |
| ] PERCENT OF THE ANNUAL DOSE RECEIVED FROM NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION AND
| |
| ! ABOUT 6 PERCENT OF THE DOSE FROM NORMAL REACTOR OPERATIONS.
| |
| i i
| |
| i i
| |
| i i
| |
| I i
| |
| | |
| il I -
| |
| 1 i 4 I TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPACTS i
| |
| ! THE REPORT INDICATES THAT NONE OF THE EVALUATED DRY-STORAGE OPTIONS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT TRANSPORTATION UNLESS THE SPENT FUEL IS I l CONSOLIDATED.
| |
| i
| |
| ! IF THE SPENT FUEL IS CONSOLIDATED, SOME REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF i SHIPMENTS MAY BE ACHIEVED, DEPENDING UPON THE DESIGN OF THE I
| |
| TRANSPORTATION CASKS.
| |
| ! THE USE OF DUAL-PURPOSE CASKS FOR STORING AND SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSPORTING '
| |
| l THE SPENT FUEL MAY DECREASE THE NUMBER OF TRANSPORT-ONLY CASKS THAT ARE REQUIRED, HOWEVER THE OVERALL TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WOULD BE MINIMAL.
| |
| l 1
| |
| i i
| |
| i i
| |
| i i
| |
| | |
| 1 e
| |
| CAN THE WASTE FUND BE USED?
| |
| l THE REPORT CITES THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE NWPA AND CONCLUDES
| |
| ! THAT THE NWPA DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE DOE TO USE THE WASTE FUND FOR l AT-REACTOR STORAGE AND THAT THE NWPA INDICATES THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UTILITIES TO STORE SPENT FUEL UNTIL IT IS '
| |
| ACCEPTED BY THE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
| |
| 4 l
| |
| 1 4
| |
| i i
| |
| i 1
| |
| l l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| ,O
| |
| )
| |
| SHOULD THE WASTE FUND BE USED?
| |
| e i :
| |
| l THE REPORT POINTS OUT THAT, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, USE OF THE WASTE FUND WILL ONLY REDTSTRIBUTE THE COST OF AT-REACTOR STORAGE AMONGST UTILITIES, RAISING EQUITY ISSUES, AND THAT THE OVERALL COSTS FOR AT-REACTOR STORAGE j WILL BE INCREASED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.
| |
| 1 i
| |
| THE REPORT CONCLUDES THAT UNLESS SOME OTHER BENEFITS COULD BE DERIVED,
| |
| ' USE OF THE WASTE FUND FOR ' AT-REACTOR STORAGE WOULD NOT APPEAR TO-BE AN l APPROPRIATE ACTION. '
| |
| i THE REPORT NOTES THAT THERE MAY BE SOME AT-REACTOR STORAGE ACTIVITIES OR
| |
| ! OPTIONS THAT PROVIDE BENEFITS TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. IT CONCLUDES THAT IT WOULD SEEM APPROPRIATE TO OFFER INCENTIVES TO UTILITIES l TO CHOOSE AT-REACTOR STORAGE OPTIONS THAT PROVIDE "DOWNSTREAM" BENEFITS.
| |
| l THE INCENTIVES WOULD BE BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF "DOWNSTREAM" BENEFIT.
| |
| : THE REPORT ALSO POINTS OUT THAT DUE TO THE CURRENT UNCERTAINTIES IN 4
| |
| CONFIGURATION OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS WELL AS UTILITIES'
| |
| ! STORAGE PLANS, IT IS NOT PRACTICAL AT THIS TIME FOR THE DOE TO IMPLEMENT
| |
| ! AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| .$ .- . ..b . . .$ . .
| |
| : g. as cw w \
| |
| < % UNIT 50 STATES N
| |
| ~['t c. i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON kUc.LE AR WASTE k,.",!
| |
| l ,. E
| |
| - W ASHINGToN. D C. 20565
| |
| ...../
| |
| y July 1.1988 .
| |
| /
| |
| e The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
| |
| Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.-ission Washint; ton, D. C. 20555
| |
| | |
| ==Dear Chairncr Zech:==
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| PROPOSED RULE ON STCRAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN CASKS AT NUCLEAR POW'EF RE ACTOR SITES During the first meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, June 27-29, 1988, we tret with the NRC Staff to discuss the proposed rule on "Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites'' (referenced) . 1 Overall, we endorse the development of this rule. Fornulation of regulations
| |
| ( desigrtd to address this subject on a generic basis will be constructive. We [
| |
| offer the following specific comments- l l
| |
| : 1. The portion of the rule that restricts the storage of spent fuel at a given site to or.ly fuel that was produced at that site should be re-examined. Since a utility with multiple nuclear power plant sites may I
| |
| desire to centrali:e its storage of spent fuel at one location, it l appears useful to include in the rule guidance for obtaining approval of such an approach.
| |
| : 2. Since the above approach would require that the fuel be transported and ultimately all such fuel will need to be shipped to a site for final disposal, it would appear useful to design the casks with the safety of, and doses associated with, subsequent operations in mind.
| |
| 1
| |
| : 3. Finally, since several NRC offices will be responsible for implementing this rule, we urge thet careful attention be addressed to' the division of responsibilities within the NRC.
| |
| incerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairinan
| |
| | |
| ==Reference:==
| |
| 6, 1988 U. 5. huclear Regulatory Comission , Proposed Rule dated June (7590-01),
| |
| * Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear hwer Reactor Sites" h- Y1 7
| |
| | |
| ~0 ~-
| |
| sRC S~A 3 R ES E s A~ O s E ACsW
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| STATUS OF GTP/ COMMENTS /RULEMAKING ON GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINATION OF 1
| |
| ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS AND UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS l 1
| |
| l DATE: JULY 21, 1988 1
| |
| PRESENTER: JOHN S. TRAPP PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV.: SR GEOLOGIST TECHNICAL REVIEW BRANCH /DHLWW PRESENTER'S NRC TEL NO.: X20509 J0
| |
| * 5.
| |
| | |
| . 1
| |
| .c ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS I- 10 CFR 660.2
| |
| "'' ANTICIPATED; PROCESSES AND EVENTS MEANS" THOSE NATURAL PROCESSES AND EVENTS THAT ARE REASONABLY LIKELY TO OCCUR DURING-THE PERIOD T;!E INTENDED PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE MUST BE ACHIEVED. TO THE EXTENT REASONABLE IN THE I
| |
| I LIGHT OF THE GEOLOGIC RECORD, IT SHALL BE ASSUMED THAT THOSE PROCESSES OPERATING IN THE GE0 LOGIC SETTING DURING THE QUATERNARY PERIOD CONTINUE TO OPERATE BUT WITH THE PERTURBATIONS CAUSED BY THE PRESENCE OF EMPLACED RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE SUPERIMPOSED THEREON."
| |
| l l
| |
| 1
| |
| -- -- . .-v-+. g -. , , --
| |
| y -e ,, .- - -,r.-,, ,-w--. ~ ,y-<a - , -.,-- -w ,-
| |
| | |
| .. 2 0
| |
| UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS k 10'CFR 660.2
| |
| ""UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS MEANS" THOSE PROCESSES AND EVENTS AFFECTING THE GEOLOGIC SETTING THAT ARE JUDGED NOT TO BE REASONABLY LIKELY TO OCCl!R DURING THE PERIOD THE INTENDED PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE MUST BE ACHIEVED, BUT WHICH ARE NEVERTHELESS SUFFICIENTLY CREDIBLE TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION. UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS MAY BE EITHER NATURAL PROCESSES AND EVENTS OR PROCESSES AND EVENTS INITIATED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN THOSE ^",'IVITIES LICENSED UNDER THIS PART........"
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l t
| |
| l l
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| . 3 660.21(c)(1)(C) 1 THE' SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SHALL INCLUDE: "AN EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED GE0 LOGIC REPOSITORY FOR THE PERIOD AFTER PERMANENT CLOSURE, ASSUMING ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS,...... AND UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS."
| |
| l l
| |
| l i
| |
| l 4
| |
| ~v r - -+-s ~ - . w .-n < __n-, _ _
| |
| | |
| . 4 10 CFR 660.112 k,-
| |
| "THE GE0 LOGIC SETTING SHALL BE SELECTED AND THE ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM AND THE SHAFTS, BOREHOLES AND THEIR SEALS SHALL ........ CONFORM TO ......
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ......... ESTABLISHED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITH RESPECT TO BOTH ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS AND UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS."
| |
| l i
| |
| l 1
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| . 5 I
| |
| l 10 CFR 660.113(a) ;
| |
| i
| |
| ( l l
| |
| "THE ENGINEERED BARRIER SHALL BE DESIGNED S0 THAT ASSUMING ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS: (A) CONTAINMENT OF HLW WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPETE ,
| |
| DURING PERIOD WHEN RADIATION AND THERMAL CONDITIONS ARE DOMINATED BY i
| |
| FISSION PRODUCT DECAY; AND (B) ANY RELEASE SHALL BE A GRADUAL PROCESSES i
| |
| ...... CONTAINMENT OF HLW WITHIN THE WASTE PACKAGE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY l COMPLETE FOR A PERIOD ....... NOT LESS THAN 300 NOR MORE THAN 1000 I
| |
| \
| |
| YEARS...... THE RELEASE RATE ...... FOLLOWING THE CONTAINMENT PERIOD SHALL l NOT TO EXCEED ONE PART IN 100,000 PER YEAR OF THE INVENTORY ....... 1 I
| |
| \
| |
| l i
| |
| i l
| |
| I l
| |
| 1 l
| |
| 1 1
| |
| g < - - .,. +- - .-. . - - - , ., -, s .. y 3 e-v e,
| |
| | |
| 6 i
| |
| 10 CFR 660,113(c)
| |
| (
| |
| I
| |
| " ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE FOUND.TO BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE ,
| |
| 1 OVERALL. SYSTEMS P.ERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES.AS IT RELATES TO UNANTICIPATED 1 PROCESSES AND EVENTS ."
| |
| I I
| |
| 5 e
| |
| .. , -____ _ _ . . _ . . , . . . _ . , ._ _ . . . ..._,..._,..___,_2_,. ,...;.,_,___,_._....,,-_._.._...._._.-,.
| |
| | |
| 7 PHILOSOPHY
| |
| (
| |
| SIMILARITIES DETERMINISTIC SAME ANALOGUES SAME SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIABILITY SAME !
| |
| l l
| |
| WASTE PERTURBATIONS SAME :
| |
| l I
| |
| DISTINCTIONS ANTICIPATED UNANTICIPATED l
| |
| SAME LOCATION TRANSPOSED TO ANY CREDIBLE LOCATION' QUATERNARY QUATERNARY PLUS AVERAGE RATE (PLUS) MAXIMUM SUSTAINED RATE HUMAN EFFECTS NON-DOE CONTROL HUMAN EFFECTS CONTROL AND NON CONTROL i
| |
| P-- et+ --- - - -
| |
| -- -- - . - y.ma + , , . m , - , g.-- - = - - y-, 9- - - - , m -,.%-,-r- v-
| |
| | |
| 8 ,
| |
| 4 ItAIN PUBLIC C0ftMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED
| |
| : k. 1 DETERMINISTIC VERSUS PROBABILISTIC METHODS RELATIONSHIP OF APE AND UPE TO EPA STANDARD IMPLIED PROBABILITY OF TERMS l
| |
| LIST OF PROCESSES AND EVENTS USE OF QUATERNARY HUMAN-INDUCED PROCESSES AND EVENTS l
| |
| 4 DRIVING / RESULTANT PROCESSES AND EVENTS GEOLOGIC SETTING l
| |
| PROCEDURES DEFINITIONS j USE OF JARGON / EXAMPLES i
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 4 g4 ,&Je am + e MA 4 A&w &S--- + N + &
| |
| 9 THE FOLLOWING PRESEllTS THE DRAFT POSITI0ti. EXAMPLES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED FCP ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. THESE EXAMPLES ARE BASED Oli INTERPRETATIONS OF PRESENT GEOLOGIC DATA. FINAL DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS AND UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS MUST AWAIT INFORMATION FR0ft SITE CHARACTERIZATION.
| |
| i P
| |
| ,,,,_,___.,_...____..._..___-,.__....c. . . _ _ ... . . . . _ _
| |
| | |
| 10 POSITION
| |
| (
| |
| AH "ANTICIPATED EVENT" AND A NATURAL "UNANTICIPATED EVENT" SHOULD CONSIDER THE MAXIMUM EVEhr WHICH HAS OCCURRED WITHIN THE GEOLOGIC SETTING DURING THE QUATERNARY PERIOD. THE "ANTICIPATED EVENT" SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO OCCUP AT THE LOCATION, OR ALONG THE CONTROLLING GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE, WHERE THIS EVENT OCCURRED DURING THE QUATERNARY PERIOD. AN "UNANTICIPATED EVENT" SHOULD BE TRANSPOSED WITHIN THE GE0 LOGIC SETTING TO ANY CREDIBLE LOCATION AT WHICH IT COULD OCCUR, TO DETERMINE ITS EFFECT ON WASTE ISOLATION.
| |
| EXAMPLE VOLCANIC ERUPTION AT THE LATHROP WELLS CONE, OR ALONG THE CONTROLLING CAUSATIVE FEATURE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ANTICIPATED EVENT.
| |
| 1 IF THE CONTROLLING CAUSATIVE FEATURE DOES NOT GO THROUGH YUCCA MT., BUT IT l
| |
| I APPEARS THAT A SIMILAR FEATURE IS OR COULD BE PRESENT AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, EVEN THOUGH ERUPTION HAS NOT OCCURRED ALONG THIS FEATURE YOLCANIC ERUPTION AT YUCCA MT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN UNANTICIPATED EVENT.
| |
| NOTE:
| |
| THE ABILITY TO DEFINE THE PRESENCE OF FEATURES WHICH COULD BE THE FOCUS FOR FUTURE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, AND TO ANALYZE FOR THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MUST FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF 660,122(a).
| |
| | |
| 11 POSITION
| |
| , s AN "ANT.'IPATED PROCESS" SHOULD CONSIDER A REASONABLE AND CONSERVATIVE PROJECTION OF THE RATE.0F THE PROCESS THAT IS OCCURRING OR THAT HAS OCCURRED, WITHIN THE GEOLOGIC SETTING DURING THE QUATERNARY PERIOD. THE VARIATION AROUND THE AVERAGE RATES OF THE PROCESS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE RATE OF THIS PROCESS DURING THE LATE QUATERNARY. A NATURAL "UNANTICIPATED PROCESS" SHOULD CONSIDER THE MAXIMUM SUSTAlhED RATE OF THIS PROCESS DURING THE QUATERNARY PERIOD. AS WITH ANTICIPATED AND UNANTICIPATEP EVENTS, AN ANTICIPATED PROCESS SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO OCCUR AT THE LOCATION WHERE THE PROCESS IS OCCURRING OR HAS OCCURRED. AN UNANTICIPATED PROCESS SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO OCCUR AT ANY CREDIBLE LOCATION WITHIN THE GE0 LOGIC SETTING, TO DETERMINE ITS EFFECT ON WASTE ISOLATION.
| |
| EXAMPLE ANTICIPATED RATES OF EROSION AT YUCCA MT SHOULD BE BASED ON EVALUATION OF RATES OF QUATERNARY EROSION AT YUCCA MT OR AT LOCATIONS WHICH PROVIDE A REASONABLE ANALOGUE. THE RATES MUST CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE ANTICIPATED CLIMATIC REGIME.
| |
| l UNANTICIPATED RATES OF EROSION WOULD BE MAXIMUM RATES OF EROSION OBSERVED ANYWHERE WITHIN THE GE0 LOGIC SETTING IN WHICH THE GEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS ARE l 1
| |
| SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR SUCH THAT THE TRANSPOSITION OF THE RATES TO YUCCA MT IS CREDIBLE. THE UNANTICIPATED RATES OF EROSION MUST BC SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE ASSUMING THE UNANTICIPATED CLIMATIC REGIME.
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| 1 12 POSITION k
| |
| BOTH THE "ANTICIPATED" AND "UNANTICIPATED" PROCESSES AND EVENTS MUST CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SUCH PROCESSES AND EVENTS CAUSED BY PAST, ONG0ING OR PROJECTED HUMAN-INDUCED PROCESSES AND EVENTS THAT WILL NOT BE UNDER DOE'S CCNTROL.
| |
| EXAMPLE BOTH THE ANTICIPATED CLIMATIC REGIME AND THE UNANTICIPATED CLIMATIC REGIME MUST CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF SUCH HUMAN-INDUCED ACTIVITIES AS THE ADDITION OF POLLUTANTS TO THE ATMOSPHERE.
| |
| | |
| I 13 POSITION i
| |
| ( l HUMAN-INDUCED PROCESSES AND EVENTS THAT MAY OCCUR ON LANDS UNDER DOE's JURISDICTION, EITHER WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE CONTROLLED AREA, ARE CONSIDERED UNANTICIPATED.
| |
| EXAMPLE DRILLING FOR NATURAL RESOURCE EXPLORATION IS CONSIDERED AN UNANTICIPATED EVENT WITHIN THE CONTROLLED AREA IF DRILLING OUTSIDE THE CONTROLLED AREA COULD AFFECT WASTE ISOLATION, DOE MUST IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONTROLS ON THESE LANDS. IN ADDITION, THE NRC MAY IMPOSE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON THE DOE TO COMPENSATE FOR SUCH POTENTIAL EFFECTS.
| |
| DRILLING IS SUCH CASES IS STILL CONS'.DERED AN UNANTICIPATED EVENT.
| |
| i l
| |
| l l
| |
| l 1
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| 14 l POSITION k
| |
| NATURAL PROCESSES AND EVENTS THAT ARE GENERALLY TREATED AS "RAND 0M" FROCESSES AND EVENTS WILL NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED AS ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS, EXAMPLE IF, AT THE SITE IN QUESTION, IT WCULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL EARTHQUAKE CAUSATIVE MECHANIShS, A RANDOM EVENT COULD BE ASSUMED FOR THE ANTICIPATED EVENT, BASED ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TECTONIC PROCESSES IN THE GE0 LOGIC SETTING. THE STAFF CONSIDERS THAT SUCH CONSIDERATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE AT THE DEAF SMITH SITE, HOWEVER, AS THERE ARE MANY POTENTIAL CAUSATIVE STRUCTURAL FEATURES AT YUCCA MT, THIS EXAMPLE MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE AT YUCCA MT.
| |
| I l
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 15 POSITION
| |
| (.
| |
| THE PROCESSES AND EVENTS USED IN THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND IN DESIGN MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, AND BE ADJUSTED TO CONSIDER, MODIFICATIONS TO THESE PROCESSES AND EVENTS THAT COULD OCCUR DUE TO THE PERTURBATIONS FROM THE EFFECTS OF VASTE EMPLACEMENT AND THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE VARIOUS PROJECTIONS.
| |
| EXAMPLE BOTH THE "ANTICIPATED" AND "UNANTICIPATED" THERMAL LOADING MUST CONSIDER THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE GE0 THERMAL REGIME OF THE GE0 LOGIC SETTING AND THE HEAT OUTPUT FROM THE WASTE PACKAGES IN DETERMINING THE RESULTANT THERMAL LOADING.
| |
| THE WASTE PACKAGE MUST CONSIDER THE NATURAL ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS, SUCH AS THE GE0 CHEMICAL CONDITIONS, IN THE DESIGN AND ANALYSIS. CORROSION OF THE WASTE PACKAGE MAY OCCUR UNDER THESE CONDITIONS AND IN TURN IS A PERTURBATION WHICH MAY MODIFY THE "ANTICIPATED" GEOCHEMICAL CONDITIONS.
| |
| CORROSION IS, THEREFORE, NOT AN ANTICIPATED PROCESS OR EVENT, BUT MAY BE A CONSEQUENCE OF ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS. IN ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF CORROSION, THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT, UNDER THE ANTICIPATED PROCESSES l AND EVENTS, THE AMOUNT AND TYPE OF CORROSION WILL NOT PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM MAKING A FINDING OF REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT THE WASTE PACKAGE CAN MEET I
| |
| THE REQUIRED PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES.
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 16 POSITION k
| |
| THE STAFF WILL NOT SIMPLY USE AVERAGE OR MAXIMUM VALUES, BUT WILL CONSIDER THE NATURAL GE0 LOGIC VARIABILITY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED T0:
| |
| A. THE SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF THE PROCESSES AND EVENTS B. THE PERIODICITY OF THE PROCESSES AND EVENTS EXAMPLE MOST CLIMATIC MODELS WHICH ARE USED FOR PROJECTION CONTAIN BOTH SHORT AND LONG VARIATIONS. THESE MUST BE FACTORED INTO THE ASSESSMENT. IN ADDITION, THE EFFECTS OF THE CLIMATIC PROCESSES WOULD BE EXPRESSED DIFFERENTLY AT THE CREST OF YUCCA MT THAN WITHIN CRATER FLAT.
| |
| 1 .
| |
| | |
| 17 POSITION
| |
| (
| |
| ALTHOUGH THE QUATERNARY RdCORD FOR THE REGION OF THE GEOLOGIC SETTING -
| |
| ESPECIALLY THE LATE QUATERNARY RECORD - IS THE MAIN BASIS FOR PROVIDING THE EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS PROCESSES AND EVENTS, THE STAFF WILL ALSO CONSIDER:
| |
| : 1. THE PRE-QUATERNARY RECORD FOR THOSE PROCESSES AND EVENTS WHICH HAVE A i CYCLE WHICH MAY NOT BE ADEQUATELY REFLECTED IN THE QUATERNARY RECORD.
| |
| : 2. ANY CHANGES IN THE PROCESSES AND EVENTS WHICH ARE EVIDENT IN THE QUATERNARY RECORD,
| |
| : 3. EVIDENCE FROM ANA'.0GUES IN OTHER GEOL 0ulCAL SETTINGS, EXPERIMENTAL DATA, OR RESULTS OF MODELING AND SENSITIVITY EXERCISES.
| |
| EXAMPLE THE INITIATION OF BASALTIC VOLCANISM STARTED PRIOR TO THE QUATERNARY PERIOD IN THE GEOLOGIC SETTING OF YUCCA MT AND THE CONDITIONS FOR IT OCCURRING APPEAR TO HAVE CONTINUED INTO THE PRESENT. IN ORDER TO FULLY EVALUATE THIS PROCESS IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE HOW THIS PROCESS HAS VARIED THROUGHOUT ITS ENTIRE CYCLE. THE STAFF WOULD CONSIDER BOTH THE CHANGES IN THE PROCESS DURING THE QUATERNARY AND DURING THE PRE-QUATERNARY, AND WOULD COMPARE THE VARIOUS PROJElf!ONS WITH EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN OTHER AREAS WHICH HAVE ALSO G0NE THROUGH A PERIOD OF SILICIC VOLCANISM, FOLLOWED BY A PERIOD OF BASALTIC "STROMBOLIAN" VOLCANISM.
| |
| i
| |
| - - ---.,y- , .-
| |
| | |
| 18 POSITION
| |
| (
| |
| -WHEN EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF HUMAN-INDUCED PROCESSES AND EVENTS:
| |
| A.. IF POTENTIALLY ADVERSE CONDITION 660,122(c)(17)ISPRESENT,THE PROGRAM 0F EXPLORATION, ASSUMED IN THE ANALYSIS, SHOULD BE BASED ON A COMPARISON OF DRILLING HISTORIES OF SIMILAR DEPOSITS.
| |
| B. IF POTENTIALLY ADVERSE CONDITION 960.122(c)(17)ISNOTPRESENT,THE GUIDANCE THAT HAD BEEN PRESEPTED IN APPENDIX B TO 40 CFR PART 191 (SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED), ON "FREQUENCY AND SDVERITY OF INADVERTENT HUMAN l
| |
| INTRUSION INTO GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES," SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.
| |
| C. THE EVAL'JATIONS SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE EXPRESS ASSUMPTIONS LONTAINED l IN THE DEFINITION OF "UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS" IN $60.2.
| |
| l 660.122(c)(17) STATES:
| |
| THE PRESENCE OF NATURALLY OCCURRlNG MATERIALS, WHETHER IDENTIFIED OR i
| |
| UNDISCOVERED, WITHIN THE SITE, IN SUCH FORM THAT: (i)ECONOMICEXTRACTIONIS CURRENTLY FEASIBLE OR POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE DURING THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE; OR (ii)SUCHMATERIALSHAVEGREATERGROSSVALUETHANTHEAVERAGEFOROTHERAREAS l OF SIMILAR SIZE THAT ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF AND LOCATED WITHIN THE GEOLOGIC SETTING. ;
| |
| i r , --g.-e r m g-e- - - as y. --}}
| |