ML19241A169
| ML19241A169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/22/2019 |
| From: | Maupin C Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs |
| To: | |
| Maupin C | |
| References | |
| NRC-0501, NRC-2017-0081 | |
| Download: ML19241A169 (99) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Public Webinar to Discuss the Draft Regulatory Basis for the Disposal of
Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC)
and Transuranic WasteDocket Number:NRC-2017-0081Location:Rockville, Maryland Date:August 22, 2019Work Order No.:NRC-0501Pages 1-98 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2+ + + + +3 PUBLIC WEBINAR TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT REGULATORY BASIS 4 FOR THE DISPOSAL OF GREATER-THAN-CLASS C (GTCC) AND 5 TRANSURANIC WASTE 6+ + + + +7 THURSDAY, 8 AUGUST 22, 2019 9+ + + + +10 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 11+ + + + +12 The Meeting convened via teleconference 13 and webinar at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Sarah 14 Lopas, Facilitator, presiding.
15 PRESENT 16 SARAH LOPAS, Facilitator 17 DAVID ESH 18 PATRICIA HOLAHAN 19 STEVE KOENICK 20 TIM MCCARTIN 21 CARDELIA MAUPIN 22 FRED SCHOFER 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 Welcome/Introduction..............3 3 Background and Overview: Draft Regulatory Basis for 4the Disposal of GTCC and Transuranic Waste...7 5 Discussion of Draft Regulatory Basis......31 6 Meeting Recap and Closure............98 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 1:03 p.m.2MS. LOPAS: Hi, good afternoon, everybody.
3 Welcome to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's public 4 webinar on the Draft Regulatory Basis for the disposal 5 of greater-than-Class C and transuranic waste.
6 My name is Sarah Lopas and I'll be 7facilitating today's webinar. In just a moment I'm 8 going to review our short agenda and the logistics of 9 today's webinar, but I do want to first hand the 10 meeting over to Patricia Holahan, or Trish Holahan, 11 who is the Director the Division of Decommissioning 12 Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs, for our welcome.
13 Trish.14 MS. HOLAHAN: Okay, thank you very much.
15 Good afternoon, I would like to thank you for 16participating in today's webinar. I'm Trish Holahan, 17 the recently appointed Division Director of the 18 Division of Decommissioning Uranium Recovery and Waste 19 Programs, as Sarah mentioned, in the Office of Nuclear 20 Material Safety and Safeguards.
21 This organization led the development of 22 the Draft Greater-Than-Class C Regulatory Basis, which 23 is a tool that the NRC uses to examine the technical, 24 legal, policy, and administrative components of a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4 regulatory issue, while considering whether enter the 1rulemaking stage. In addition, the information in the 2 Draft Regulatory Basis should be considered 3 preliminary.
4 With me in the room are various folks that 5support us. Steve Koenick, the Branch Chief of the 6Low Level Waste and Programs Branch. And speaking 7 will be Cardelia Maupin, the senior PM for the 8Regulatory Basis. And also Tim McCartin, a senior 9 level advisor for performance assessment.
10 Because various disciplines were needed to 11 examine the GTCC, greater-than-Class C waste disposal, 12the working group assigned this task consists of 13 representatives from various organizations within NMSF 14 and across the NRC, which include the Risk and 15 Technical Analysis Branch for performance assessment 16 and the decommissioning group. The NMSS Division of 17Rulemaking for cost analysis. And the senior PM, Gary 18 Comfort, was also instrumental.
19 The Division of Materials Safety, 20 Security, State and Tribal Programs, the Agreement 21State and tribal aspects. The Division of Spent Fuel 22 Management, performance assessment and criticality 23 safety analysis. The Office of Nuclear Security and 24 Incident Response for the security and safeguards 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5issues. And also the Office of General Counsel for 1 legal and policy issues.
2 In addition, contractual support was 3 provided from the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory 4 Analyses Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, 5 TX.6 As background information, in 2018, the NC 7 issued a Federal Register Notice and held two public 8 meetings seeking stakeholders' input relative to the 9 identification of potential issues associated with 10GTCC waste disposal. These activities, along with the 11 comment letters received in response to the Federal 12 Register Notice, helped to inform the Draft Reg Basis, 13 as well as other factors.
14 The NRC staff looks forward to discussing 15the Draft Regulatory Basis with you at today's 16webinar. And at that point, I'll turn the meeting 17 back over to our facilitator, Sarah Lopas.
18MS. LOPAS: All right, thanks, Trish. So 19 the purpose of today's meeting is, as Trish mentioned, 20is that we're here to answer your questions on the 21 preliminary findings and discuss Draft Regulatory 22 Basis for disposal of GTCC and transuranic waste.
23 I do want to point out that we are in the 24 middle of a 60-day public comment period on this Draft 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 6 Regulatory Basis document, and that public comment 1 period ends on September 20. But I want to be clear 2 that staff is not accepting comments today during this 3 meeting.
4 So Cardelia is going to discuss during her 5 presentation how you can submit your written comment.
6 So just to be clear, what you say today is not going 7to go on the record. The purpose of today is to 8 discuss and ask questions of the staff.
9 I will say that Cardelia and Tim are going 10 to walk us through their presentation, their slide set 11that we're going to go through on the webinar. And 12 then we'll be opening up the bridge line one by one to 13answer your questions. So you'll be able to answer 14 questions over the, or ask questions over the phone.
15 And you can also type your questions using 16the question function in the webinar. I'm happy to 17 read aloud your questions for the staff to answer.
18 And when we get to that point I'll explain a little 19 bit more, but that'll be after the staff presentation, 20 after Tim and Cardelia present.
21 And then before I hand it over to 22 Cardelia, the last thing I want to point out is that 23 if you're on webinar, I have attached a couple 24 handouts to the webinar that you can download.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 7 So I have attached a PDF copy of the 1slides, so you can download a copy of the slides. And 2 I've also attached a copy of the actual Draft 3 Regulatory Basis that you can download as well.
4 So with that, I think I'm going to hand it 5 over to Cardelia. And please send me a note via the 6webinar if you have issues hearing us. We did have to 7 make a last minute room switch, so the audio might not 8 be as great as we want, but we're going to try to make 9 sure that Tim and Cardelia speak up.
10MS. MAUPIN: Okay, thank you so much, 11Sarah. It's my pleasure to talk to you today about 12 our efforts regarding GTCC and transuranic waste.
13 If you've ever been at the NRC complex or 14 visit our website or been in one of our public 15 meetings, you might have heard of our concept of our 16principle of good regulation. And one of our 17 principles of good regulation is that nuclear 18 regulation is the public's business and it must be 19 transacted publicly and candidly.
20 So as you look at slide 2, and at the 21 purpose of this meeting, that is what we are walking 22 into today, one of NRC's principles of good 23regulation. We believe that the public must be 24 informed about and have the opportunity to participate 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 8 in the regulatory processes as required by law and in 1 good public interest.
2 Today we're going, you're going to have 3 the opportunity to participate and get involved as the 4NRC continues its efforts to develop a Regulatory 5 Basis for the disposal of greater-than-Class C waste.
6In moving forward, I will not be saying GTCC and 7 transuranic because what we've seen is that in many of 8 the GTCC waste streams that transuranic waste is a 9 subset of GTCC, too.
10 During today's meeting the NRC staff will 11 describe the background and considerations in the 12 Draft Regulatory Basis and give the public an 13 opportunity to ask questions about the document. We 14 believe that through these interactions, we should be 15 able to assist you in the submission of your comments 16 on the draft regulatory program -- on the Draft 17 Regulatory Basis.
18 Furthermore, today's meeting supports 19 NRC's openness strategy. As I said earlier, the NRC 20 is committed to public and other stakeholder 21participation in its decisionmaking processes. As 22 such, we are committed to transparency, participation, 23 and collaboration with the public and various other 24 regulatory -- and our various other stakeholders and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 9 regulatory partners.
1 Finally, today's meeting supports NRC's 2 cumulative effects of regulation initiative in that 3 the NRC encourages stakeholder participation early on 4 in any potential regulatory change in order to assess 5 the potential challenges that that change could have 6 on licensees, Agreement States, or other impacted 7 entities. Next slide please.
8Now we are on slide 3. On slide 3, we're 9 going to talk about low level waste as it is defined 10 by NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 61. We will begin 11 by defining the concept of GTCC under this framework.
12 Firstly, the Low Level Waste Policy 13 Amendments Act of 1980 defined low level waste as 14basically as what it is not. It is not classified as 15 high level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent 16 nuclear fuel, or by-product material, as defined in 17 Section 11(e)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act.
18 The first time ever that low level waste 19was defined in law was in this 1980 law. In addition, 20 after the law was passed, the NRC developed its 21 regulations for low level waste disposal in Part 61, 22 which is entitled the licensing requirements of land 23disposal of radioactive waste. In Part 61, in Section 24 61.55, it contains the first ever classification 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 10 system for low level waste. And that is as Class A, 1 B, or C.2 These groups are based on the radiological 3 hazards depending on the concentration of certain 4radionuclides. As switched, Class A would be your 5 least hazardous, B would be kind of in the middle, and 6 Class C would be the most hazardous of these three.
7 So basically Part 61 says that these 8 wastes, A, B, and C, are accessible for near surface 9 disposal under the requirements that are outlined 10there in Part 61. Also in 61.55 with this 11 classification system, it describes this other waste.
12 And this other waste that's beyond the 13 hazard of Class C, that waste that is not, the 14 regulations said that that is not generally acceptable 15 for near surface disposal and is for which the waste 16 form and disposal methods must be different and in 17 general more stringent that those described in Part 18 61.19 So the NRC put that regulation in effect.
20It was in 1982, it was implemented in 1983. And then 21subsequently in 1985, the Low Level Waste Policy 22 Amendments Act was passed, and it changed the 23 definition of low level waste.
24 In that practice of this new act, it no 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 11 longer said that transuranic waste should be excluded 1from low level waste. One of the things that this 2 group is going to consider is the addition of this, 3 the definition of transuranic waste to the NRC's 4regulatory definition in Part 61. And we will get to 5 that a little bit later. So next slide, please.
6 Currently, this slide, this figure shows 7 that there are four existing low level waste, low 8 level reactive waste disposal facilities that are 9 currently commercially licensed in the United States, 10all of which are in Agreements States. The first one 11 there being US Ecology in Washington, which takes 12 Classes A, B, and C.
13 Utah is a whole different one, the one in 14Clive. It only takes Class A. We have the Waste 15Control Specialists in Andrews, TX. It also receives 16A, B, and C. And Barnwell, and the last one's the 17 fourth one being the facility in Barnwell, at 18Barnwell, SC, which also takes A, B, and C. So 19 currently, all four of the operating low level waste 20 disposal facilities are licensed and located in 21 Agreement States. Next slide, please.
22 As I said earlier, this whole regulatory 23 framework for low level waste was only developed after 24 the NRC developed its regulations in 10 CFR Part 61 I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 12 1982. So as I said, Part 61 basically has said that 1 material waste that is greater than Class C is not 2 generally acceptable for near surface disposal. And 3 so that's what, a part of our mission with this group 4 is to look at that.
5 So, but the best report that we have in 6 terms of looking at the types, the quantities, the 7 different types of waste streams have been done by our 8 colleagues from the Department of Energy.
9MS. LOPAS: The audio is lost. Hey, 10 Lorraine, are you there, Lorraine, our operator?
11 Lorraine, our operator? Yeah, let us know where you 12 lost us here on slide, what I'm showing is Slide 5, 13three categories of GTCC waste. Can somebody give me 14some feedback here on slide 5? Back two slides, let's 15see. It was only gone for about a minute. Okay, 16maybe start over on slide 5 here. Yeah, the 17 activated, if you don't mind.
18 MS. MAUPIN: No worries, no worries.
19MS. LOPAS: Okay, thank you, everybody.
20I appreciate it. It was our colleagues at DOE, that's 21 where it was.
22 MS. MAUPIN: Okay, our colleagues at DOE 23 have, in their environmental impact has greater than-24 Class C has basically divided greater-than-Class C 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 13 into three categories, which are represented by the 1 images on this slide. The first one being activated 2 metals, the internal metal components of reactor 3vessels. The second one being field sources that are 4 used in industrial and medical applications.
5 And then we have this third, other waste, 6 which is a very broad category that can include a 7 number of things that might be generated during the 8 process of decommissioning a facility.
9 So I would like to go to the next slide.
10 Okay, now on slide 6 we're going to talk about GTCC 11 waste disposal has been assigned a federal 12responsibility. I mentioned to you earlier the Low 13 Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act of 1985.
14 In that legislation, it said a number of things about 15 greater-than-Class C.
16 Basically, it said that greater-than-Class 17 C disposal is a federal responsibility, in that the 18NRC is to license and determine that a facility is 19adequate to protect the public health and safety. In 20 addition, the law assigned requirements for DOE. In 21 that law, DOE was directed to develop recommendations 22 and options for the safe disposal of all greater-than-23 Class C waste, which they completed in February of 24 1987.25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 14 Basically, about 20 years have passed and 1 there has been, we have the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 2 which is basically designed to get some more traction 3 on this issue of greater-than-Class C and a facility 4where it can be disposed of. And in that law, some 20 5 years later, a number of actions were assigned to DOE.
6 Basically, the Congress said DOE, you're 7 responsible for completing activities needed to 8provide a GTCC waste disposal facility. And in 9 response, DOE in February of 2011 completed a draft 10 Environmental Impact Statement regarding what they 11 call GTCC low level radioactive waste and GTCC-like 12 waste. 13 And you might be asking what is GTCC 14 versus this GTCC-like that DOE was talking about in 15its EIS? Basically, GTCC that is licensed and 16generated by NRC and Agreement State licensees is 17 considered what we call GTCC in the DOE's report.
18 There's other ways that might be generated 19 under DOE's activities that has characteristics 20 similar to what we've described as greater-than-Class 21 C waste and is -- it's non-weapons or non-defense 22generated. That's probably one of the keys there, 23 non-defense generated, and it is generated by, under 24 DOE activity.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 15 Then in February of 2016, DOE finalized 1its EIS on greater-than-Class C disposal. And this 2 has come to be one of the most comprehensive 3information that we have in terms of, as I said, 4greater-than-Class C waste. And in addition, the 5 Energy Policy Act of 2005 told DOE that they are to 6 come up with a report and provide to Congress on 7 various disposal alternatives for greater-than-Class 8 C waste, which DOE completed in November of 2017.
9 And the last thing there, the Energy 10 Policy Act that, after submitting that report, they 11are to await congressional action. At present, no 12 congressional action has been taken, so we are still 13in that, at that level right now. Next slide, please.
14 So now let's get into what, how the NRC is 15in the issue. And then we'll get to why we developed 16the Draft Regulatory Basis. In January of 2015, Texas 17 submitted to the NRC a letter requesting clarification 18 on its authority as an Agreement State to license 19 disposal of greater-than-Class C waste.
20 Texas inquired because the Waste Control 21 Specialists, as I mentioned earlier, which are in 22 Andrews, TX, have petitioned Texas to remove its 23 prohibition on the disposal of greater-than-Class C 24 waste at its facility, and these prohibitions are 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 16 contained in Texas's regulatory program or laws and 1 regulations.
2 When we say an Agreement State, Agreement 3 State is a state that has entered into an agreement 4 with the NRC whereby we would relinquish portions of 5 our authority derived under the Atomic Energy Act and 6that states would exercise that authority. So that is 7 why Texas asked us that question.
8 In response to the letter from Texas, the 9 NRC staff developed, in July of 2015, SECY-15-0094, 10 which discussed the historical and current issues 11 relative to the disposal of greater-than-Class C.
12This was an effort to answer the letter from Texas.
13 The Commission then, in December of that year, of 14 2015, responded to the SECY paper and provided some 15 directions to the staff.
16 Basically, they said we want you to 17 prepare a regulat ory basis for the disposal of 18 greater-than-Class C waste through means other than a 19deep geologic disposal. And this was to be done after 20 the completion of the Part 61 rulemaking.
21 In addition, the Commission said, okay, 22 the Low Level Waste Policy Amendments Act no longer 23 excluded transuranic waste from the definition of low 24 level waste, so we want you to address the definition 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 17 of transuranic waste in your, in the Reg Basis and in 1 Part 61. So that's part of our effort as well.
2 Subsequently, in October of last year, of 3 2018, the Commission directed the staff to no longer 4 couple the effort of developing this Regulatory Basis 5 with Part 61. They said we want you to move forward 6 because we want to see if there any regulatory or 7 issues associated with this issue of greater-than-8Class C that we need to address, and we want to get 9early involvement. We want to get our stakeholders 10 involved in this issue as soon as possible.
11 So that's another reason why we are having 12this webinar today. Next slide, please. So that gets 13 us to our, in July of this year, July 22, we published 14that Draft Regulatory Basis, and we are inviting 15comments. Then we're, as I said, having this webinar 16 today. 17 In addition, we have a public meeting that 18is planned on August 27th in Austin, TX. As Sarah 19 reminded everyone, there is a 60-day comment period 20 for, on the Draft Regulatory Basis, and that ends on 21 September 20. So you want to keep that in mind.
22 We really welcome your comments in writing 23 and we look forward to your help on this issue. Now 24 I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Tim 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 18 McCartin.1MR. MCCARTIN: Hello, and I'll be starting 2on slide 9. And in the next few slides I hope to give 3 a summary of how we analyzed the near surface disposal 4 of greater-than-Class C waste and what our preliminary 5 findings were.
6 And as Cardelia mentioned, we got our 7 inventories from DOE's final Environmental Impact 8Statement for greater-than-Class C waste. As she 9 stated, in that EIS you'll see the three categories, 10 activated metals, sealed sources, and an other 11category. What you won't see is we took the 12 information in that report and we divided it into 13 seven very specific waste streams.
14 We did those 17 waste streams because they 15 identify very distinct streams of the greater-Class C 16 waste that have among very specific waste form and 17 inventories associated with them. And in looking at 18 the hazards of the disposal of the waste, it was 19 important to keep things separate in that way.
20 And you'll see that as I go through my 21 talk, but that's why there are 17 waste streams in our 22Regulatory Basis. You will not -- you'll see the 23 information related to those waste streams in the 24FEIS, but DOE did not break them out in that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 19 particular way.
1 We considered three alternatives for 2 implementation of disposal of greater-than-Class C 3 waste under 10 CFR Part 61. The first one is no 4regulatory change. And let me just explain that 5 briefly, what that means currently.
6 In Part 61, the Commission can decide on 7 a case-by-case basis whether to allow disposal of 8 greater-than-Class C waste in somewhere other than a 9geological depository. And so that would still remain 10 in effect, and that would mean someone would need to 11 come in and to ask the Commission to act on an 12 application.
13 The other would be we don't make 14 regulatory changes but we issue guidance on what would 15 be expected in any type of application for greater-16than-Class C waste disposal. And what types of 17 criteria and things we would be looking for accepting 18 such applications.
19 And the third is actually do a rulemaking, 20 which could also include guidance, like we actually 21 would changes Part 63 and put specific requirements in 22 10 CFR Part 61 for the disposal of greater-than-Class 23 C waste in the near surface.
24 I'll give the results up front and you'll 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 20 see how that plays out in the later slides, but we did 1 find the majority of the greater-than-Class C waste in 2 DOE's Environmental Impact Statement was potentially 3suitable for a near surface disposal and was 4 approximately 80% of the overall volume of waste.
5 Of that waste that we found potentially 6 suitable, most, approximately 95% of that volume, was 7 potentially suitable and could be regulated by an 8Agreement State. And in terms of the, if I go to 9 slide 10, you'll see there's a pie chart that is 10 approximately 12,000 cubic meters of greater-than-11 Class C waste.
12 And there's two particular categories of 13 it, greater-than-Class C and greater-than-Class C-14like, that Cardelia spoke. And then we also have, in 15 DOE's FEIS, they had a designation of category 1 and 16 2, which was existing, what we would call existing.
17 And it was waste that would be existed by 18 current licensed activities that are currently going 19on or going on in the future. But there's been a 20decision that these activities would occur. That's 21 what we would call existing waste, it either exists 22 today or will, we know it will be existing in the 23 future.24 The second is potential waste, and that's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 21 volcanism or activities that no decision has been made 1 to undertake these activities or license these 2facilities. But if they did go forward, it would 3develop these types of waste. And we can see it's 4approximately half and half. Half is approximately 5 existing, half is potential.
6 The best way to give some concrete example 7for this is I'll use commercial reactors. They 8 generate greater-than-Class C waste. It's activated 9 metal waste, the piping and the reactor internals.
10 That waste is generated when a reactor primarily is 11decommissioned. So there is a little bit that's 12 generated during the lifetime of the reactor due to 13 maintenance, but most of it is generated after the 14 reactor ends its operating license.
15 That's the existing waste would be for all 16 the licensed reactors today, most of which is going to 17be generated in the future. There also is the 18 potential for new reactors to be licensed in the 19future. There aren't any license facilities 20 applications there that are being approved, but this 21accounts for ones in that future that may be, an 22 application may be submitted and approved and 23eventually it would generate waste. That's potential.
24 If those facilities are never licensed or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 22an application is never received, well, that waste 1 would not be generated. But that's where the 12,000 2 cubic meters, the total is. And you can see there's 3 a combination of approximately 50% for each existing 4 and potential.
5 There also is the GTCC versus GTCC-like.
6 And you can see it's approximately there. It's more 7 a quarter of the waste is the greater-than-Class C-8 like waste versus approximately three-quarters is the 9 greater-than-Class C waste.
10 Going to the next slide, and this probably 11 shows the largest single reason for keeping our 17 12 waste streams, and it has to do with the amount of 13 transuranic radionuclides that are present in the 14waste. And there I have five bore charts. And you 15 can see at the high end it's greater than 10,000 16 nanocuries per gram, and at the lower end it's less 17 than 10 nanocuries per gram.
18 So there is a large spread in the amount 19 of transuranic radionuclides in these waste streams.
20 And there was a desire to keep that separate. Those 21 are very distinct quantities, and they have an impact 22on the hazard analysis. And so that is really 23 probably the best rationale I will say for explaining 24 why we developed these 17 waste streams.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 23Going to the next slide, that would be 1 slide 12, in terms of doing the analysis, there were 2 a couple things that need to be assumed for a 3technical analysis. In terms of the disposal facility 4 design, as we said, we were talking about near surface 5 disposal. This would be in the top 30 meters of the 6 land surface.
7 We also looked at, on average, a disposal 8thickness of one waste container. And I will say 9 where that's important is in the intruder analysis, 10 especially a drilling intruder where you've drilled 11through something. Well, if you drill through one 12container, you bring up so much waste. If you 13actually have two containers, twice as much. Three 14 containers -- so it is a, you can see the impact.
15 Things would get twice as, depending on 16the thickness of the waste. We chose on average one.
17 We did vary some things to get a sense of the impact.
18 But that is one of the assumptions that's important to 19 that analysis, especially for the analysis of the 20 intruder.21 In terms of the exposure assessment, we 22 did as we could account for the waste form. And the 23 best example there is the activated metal waste from 24commercial reactors. Generally, it's stainless steel.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 24 Well, stainless steel does not corrode very easily, it 1 doesn't, you know, it doesn't flake up in the air and 2 create things that, a release in the air. And so we 3 assumed a low degradation rate of stainless steel as 4 for the exposure assessments.
5 And then a number of the other assumptions 6 we made were consistent with the analyses that were 7done in the early 1980s that supported that 8 classification tables in 10 CFR Part 61, the Class A, 9B, and C that Cardelia talked about. We want to have 10 analyses that were somewhat comparable to what was 11 done back then.
12 Going to the next slide, 13, in terms of 13the hazards, what were the kinds of things we were 14looking at. And first there's, you have actually have 15 to receive the waste to the facility and you handle it 16 before you put it in some type of disposal unit.
17 Well, when you're handling these packages, certainly 18 for the workers, a large amount, I think approximately 19 at least a third maybe to a half of the waste in DOE's 20 FEIS, its Environmental Impact Statement, was what was 21 called remote handled.
22 Well, remote handled meant the direct 23 radiation on the waste package was high enough that 24 you had to handle the packages remotely. That's a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 25 worker hazard thing because they get close to the 1 packages. Offsite person, you're not, no one should 2 be getting close to these packages, and so that really 3 isn't an impact.
4 Now, the other part is there's a 5 consideration of actions. What happens if there's a 6 fire, and the fire has a potential to release certain 7 materials into the atmosphere, and that can get to an 8 offsite individual?
9 Now, having said that, there's something 10 where once again the activated metals from commercial 11reactors, well, stainless steel doesn't burn. And so 12 the impact of fire on some of the nuclides associated 13 with activated metals is greatly reduced because it 14 doesn't really burn.
15 Then there's offsite releases, and that's 16the eventually whatever you dispose of. There is 17 radioactive decay that occurs, but there will be some 18 releases from an underground facility over time.
19 There are some mobile long-lived radionuclides in this 20 waste, and eventually that could make it to a pathway 21that could be causing exposure to an offsite 22 individual.
23 For those familiar with technetium-99, 24 it's a very long-lived radionuclide in some of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 26 waste, and it actually is very mobile in the 1underground system. And it is, there is a lot of 2 retardation mechanisms that hold up radionuclides, a 3 large number of radionuclides, from moving quickly 4with water underground. Technetium is not one of 5 those radionuclides.
6 Plutonium is one that actually is, like 7one I call sticky. It sticks to the dirt, to the 8 ground and doesn't transport as quickly underground.
9 And so those are some of the things you account for in 10 the offsite releases.
11 And then there's the intruder exposure, 12 someone who actually -- and two scenarios were 13evaluated. One is an excavation scenario where we 14 we're talking many years on the future and someone 15 actually excavates for a home and actually doesn't 16 realize that they're digging into a waste trench. and 17 they have an exposure due to that.
18There's also a drilling scenario. Someone 19 puts in a drill and they're drilling down potentially 20 for groundwater for a family well or some other type 21of well, and they intercept waste that way. I will 22 say for the excavation scenario, essentially none of 23 the waste streams were potentially suitable.
24 And so you'll see in our Reg Basis a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 27 requirement that we believe Part 61 should be revised, 1 if it was to be revised, to require the depth at least 2 a minimum of five meters below the ground surface and 3 a 500-year intruder protection barrier.
4 Now, where that relates to the current 5 regulation, Class C waste is required to be either 6 five meters below the land surface or a 500-year 7 intruder barrier. We're requiring both for greater-8 than-Class C waste, but the excavation scenario we 9 looked at a little bit, and it was going to be an 10 extremely difficult thing to comply with, say a 500 11 millirem dose, which is the dose limit that was used 12 when 61 was first developed for the intruder.
13 The next is the drilling scenario, and 14that is drilling through a container. Brings up less 15 waste than excavation. And as I said, we did assume 16on average it was one package. If it was two 17 packages, it would be twice the impact, and so you can 18 get a sense of that.
19 In terms of going to the next slide, slide 20 14, what's the, what was the perspective that we got 21in going through these analyses? As I said, most 22 waste is potentially suitable for near surface 23 disposal.
24 I think the key phrase there is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 28potentially suitable. There would need to be analysis 1 done to look at the specific characteristics of the 2 site you're at, how much water is infiltrating the 3land. There are many aspects. The characteristics of 4 the geology.
5 And then, very importantly, the inventory.
6What exactly is being disposed of there? We evaluated 7 each of these waste streams individually. There are 817 of them. If they're all at one place, what does 9 that mean? And so, as I said, most were potentially 10 suitable, but an analysis would need to be done.
11 Secondly, the transuranic radionuclides 12presented issues. And there were concerns with 13release of plutonium from an operational fire that 14 will get offsite. Consideration of fissile material 15during operations. The NRC has certain limits for 16 when you have material like plutonium, how much you 17 can have there and whether there's potential for an 18 inadvertent criticality.
19 In terms of the intruder excavation 20 scenario I mentioned, the excavation scenario we said 21 if you go greater than five meters, the excavation 22 scenario was not deeper than five meters, so that was 23removed. And then the intruder driller scenario, 24 plutonium also, it was a primary aspect there.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 29 And if you remember back to my initial bar 1 chart, you can see the transuranic radionuclides 2 buried in these waste streams from greater than 10,000 3 nanocuries per gram to 10, less than 10 nanocuries.
4So this is widespread. Once again, folks, you need to 5 do the analysis, you know.
6 And most importantly, like I said, we rely 7 primarily on the inventories in DOE's Environmental 8Impact Statement. Any application, any licensee would 9 need to justify and explain and describe what 10inventory they would disposing.
And that's an 11 important part of the analysis that would be presented 12 in any application for near surface disposal of 13 greater-than-Class C waste.
14 With that, that gets through our technical 15analysis. I'll turn it back to Cardelia for 16 describing how you could provide comments, written 17 comments to the NRC.
18MS. MAUPIN: Okay, thank you so much, Tim.
19 Thank you for that great presentation.
20 On the next slide, you would see that it 21 references our docket and where you can go, and other 22 sites where you can go to get additional information 23on greater-than-Class C waste. In addition, I'm 24 providing my contact information, along with Tim's and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 30 our colleague Gary Comfort, who have been working on 1 this project intently.
2 The next slide is, talks about how to 3provide comments. And as I said earlier, all the 4information on this issue and nuclear regulation is 5not contained within the walls of NRC. That's why we 6 do public meetings and stakeholder outreaches like 7we're doing today. So I strongly encourage you to 8 submit all your comments in writing, in accordance 9 with the direction in our July 22 Federal Register 10 Notice. 11 And all of your written comments would be 12considered by us as well, you know, on this issue. So 13 we provide a number of ways that you can submit your 14 comments, and they're described here on this slide.
15 You can even hand carry them if you would like to come 16 visit us. Mail, email, fax. So we have a number of 17 ways that you can submit your information.
18 But when you submit your information, as 19 we'll turn to the next slide, please make sure that 20 when you're submitting your comments, that you include 21 the docket ID there, NRC-2017-0081 on all of your 22correspondence. And once again, I would like to 23 emphasize that our comment period ends on September 2420. And with that, I think we can open it up for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 31 questions.
1MS. LOPAS: All right, everybody, this is 2Sarah Lopas again. I'm going to facilitate us through 3the questions. So, a couple ways that you can ask 4 your questions. And I already do have some comments 5 and questions submitted by other webinars.
6 So I'll start by reading those, but if you 7 want to ask a question and get on the phone line, 8 you're just going to press star 1, and our operator's 9 name is Lorraine, and Lorraine's going to get some 10 info from you and she'll open up the bridge line for 11 you so you can ask a question that way.
12So go ahead and press star 1. I'm sure 13 you've already been through this drill a bunch of 14 times with NRC, star 1 to ask a question on the phone, 15 or just go ahead and type a question on the webinar.
16 I will say that if your question is really super duper 17 long on the webinar, you might just want to call it 18 in, because it gets tough for me to follow it on this 19 webinar.20 And I do want to point out that this call 21 is being transcribed by a court reporter. So again, 22 these are formal comments on the docket, but we wanted 23 to make sure that we got a good record of today's 24call. So please, start by introducing yourself. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 32 the same thing with the NRC staff, just when you start 1to answer a question just introduce yourself. And 2 then speak clearly so our court reporter can get it.
3 So while I wait for folks to go ahead and 4 get their questions on the line by pressing star 1, 5I'll start with my first question. And I think maybe 6Tim would answer this one, maybe. Tim was talking, 7 you were talking about that pie chart, it said, 8 Question on the, I guess this pie chart, are both 9 existing and potential GTCC in the pie chart included 10 in that 12,000 cubic liters total?
11 MR. MCCARTIN: Yes.
12 MS. LOPAS: Okay.
13MR. MCCARTIN: Yes, the 12,000 includes 14 both existing and potential.
15 MS. LOPAS: Okay.
16MR. MCCARTIN: And the percentages in the 17 pie chart are a percentage of that overall total, 18 which is approximately 12,000 if you actually do the 19 math. And I won't try to do it in my head, it's not 20 quite 12,000 but --
21 MS. LOPAS: Right.
22 MR. MCCARTIN: Yeah.
23 MS. LOPAS: Okay, excellent. And I just 24 want to remind folks it's not the handraising function 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 33 that you're pressing here on the webinar, it's the 1question function. So I can't do anything with the 2handraising, so you have to type your question in. I 3just want to make that clear on the webinar. Or press 4 star 1.5 So I want to go through this next comment 6here on the webinar. It says, this is from 7Pennsylvania, from Rich Janati in Pennsylvania. It 8would be highly desirable for the NRC to extend the 9 public comment period. So just note that.
10 And then the next question I have here is 11 a little bit of a long one, so I'm going to try to 12read it. It's from Jeff Burright. The DOE and NRC 13seem to be building off of each other's efforts on 14 this issue, given that the NRC Regulatory Basis uses 15 the GTCC EIS and considers DOE's GTCC-like waste.
16 How might this basis be affected by the 17 new high level waste definition interpretation by DOE, 18 which could result in a larger volume of GTCC-like 19 waste than was analyzed in the EIS?
20 For example, the high level blasts coming 21 from the Hanford waste treatment plant may be GTCC-22like instead of high level waste. Plus, the cesium 23 strontium capsules at Hanford, cesium ionic stage 24 columns associated with the TSCR system and the German 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 34 logs at Hanford.
1MR. MCCARTIN: Okay, yes, this is Tim 2McCartin. And I would maintain that our Reg Basis 3 has been developed in a way that's independent of any 4potential change of definition. And by that I mean 5 what we are trying to say in the Reg Basis is that 6 there's a number of things that are important.
7 But whatever application for near surface 8 disposal is submitted will have to describe the 9 inventory that they're going to dispose of and the 10 site characteristics of whatever, and facility design 11 they have and how that would comply with the 12 regulations.
13 And so I will say let's, for sake of 14 discussion, let's say there was a change in the 15 definition and there was another 4,000 cubic meters of 16 potential GTCC or GTCC-like that could be considered.
17I would say, well, it could be considered. But as we 18 did in our Reg Basis, when you analyze it, it may be 19 allowable, it may not be.
20You're going to have to, any site will 21have to analyze everything they're receiving. And 22 without knowing exactly waste form and the inventory, 23 we can't say whether something is potentially suitable 24or not. But you can see the kinds of analysis that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 35 would need to be done to demonstrate that it's safe.
1 And I think that -- our Reg Basis puts 2 forward an approach for analyzing waste streams that 3 isn't dependent on a particular definition, if that's 4 helpful.5MS. LOPAS: I want to, we have a number of 6 questions on the webinar, but Lorraine, I wanted to 7check on the phone. Did anybody press star 1?
8 Lorraine, are you there?
9We may have a missing operator. Lorraine, 10 are you on the line or any operator?
11 OPERATOR: Can you hear me?
12 MS. LOPAS: Yes, we can now, yeah.
13OPERATOR: Okay, I'm sorry, my bad, I was 14 here. We do have questions in the queue.
15 MS. LOPAS: Okay, great, go ahead, we'll 16 take those.
17OPERATOR: Barbara Warren, your line is 18 open.19MS. WARREN: Oh, okay, good afternoon. My 20 name's Barbara Warren, and I want to, I was trying to 21 follow that last description, but I'm sort of missing 22it. Are you applying a siting criteria and 23 regulations to this disposal facility design or not?
24 MR. MCCARTIN: Yes, this is Tim McCartin 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 36again. Well, currently, there are dose limits for the 1 offsite person. There was a 500 millirem dose limit 2 for, used for analyzing the protection for the 3intruders. And what I'm suggesting, that's how we 4 analyze the hazards.
5 Now, in addition there are other things 6 like operational accidents, handling accidents that 7 would have to meet the dose limits for worker safety, 8offsite exposure. So there's a variety of things, and 9--10MS. WARREN: No, I'm talking about things 11just pertaining to the location of the site. For 12 example, over an aquifer, a drinking water aquifer.
13 Or you know, a situation where you have a hillside 14 where there's no stability for the ground that you 15would be putting the landfill into. Things like that.
16MR. MCCARTIN: Okay, let me, Dave Esh will 17 talk to some of the requirements that are currently in 18 Part 61 for land disposal that I think you're 19 concerned with.
20MS. WARREN: Yes, yes, that's what I'm 21 concerned with.
22MR. ESH: Yeah, I think we better 23 understand your question now. It's a good question.
24 All the siting requirements that are in 10 CFR Part 61 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 37 would still also apply to greater-than-Class C waste 1disposal. And those include things like, that you 2 were just talking about. Like there's a requirement 3 that a site can't be in an area of high geotechnical 4 or geormorphic instability.
5 That'd be things like erosion and 6 landsliding and deformations. Or in areas with high 7seismicity or volcanism. And then there's a bunch of 8criteria associated with water. Some of those are 9 exclusionary type criteria, and then some of those 10 things that must apply for a disposal site.
11 So for instance, you can't dispose of 12 waste in the zone of water table fluctuations, for 13instance, just as an example. So all of those 14 criteria would also apply for GTCC waste disposal.
15 MS. WARREN: Okay, thank you.
16 MR. ESH: Yup.
17MS. LOPAS: All right, Lorraine, who do we 18 have next up on the phone?
19OPERATOR: Our next question comes from 20 John Greeves. Your line is open.
21 MR. GREEVES: Yes, this is John Greeves.
22 Take it back to slide 3. Can you hear me?
23 MS. LOPAS: Yup, we can.
24 MR. GREEVES: Okay. On slide 3, yeah.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 38MS. LOPAS: And this is, is this the Part 1 61 low level waste disposal slide with the circle?
2 MR. GREEVES: Yes.
3 MS. LOPAS: Okay.
4MR. GREEVES: And this relates to the 5definition of low level waste. I'm having trouble 6 understanding why you show transuranic inside and 7 outside the waste classification. As you stated and 8 you're aware, the Amendments Act wiped out the 9 exclusion of TRU.
10 My understanding, legislation trumps any 11legislation. And the question is why not just conform 12 to the Amendments Act and simply basically conform 13 with the Amendments Act? I'm having trouble why you 14 were, you know, I don't know what you're doing, but it 15 doesn't sound like you're conforming with the 16 Amendments Act. Do you understand the question?
17MS. MAUPIN: I absolutely, John, 18 understand your question. But the problem is, John, 19 that the regulations in Part 61 were never revised to 20 put transuranic waste into the definition of low level 21radioactive waste that is described in Part 61. We 22have, we're still hanging on to the Low Level Waste 23 Policy Act of 1980 definition.
24 So one of the things that the Commission 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 39 has charged us to do is to no longer exclude 1 transuranic waste from the definition of low level 2radioactive waste. Basically, you are absolutely 3 right, we need to update our regulations to conform 4 with the most recent law that was passed in 1985.
5 MR. GREEVES: I don't think you actually 6have a choice. And it's coming across like you're 7 weighing whether you should follow --
8 MS. MAUPIN: If that's what you heard, I 9 do apologize, but that was not the message I was 10trying to articulate. What I was saying, we're behind 11the times. We need to update our regulations to be in 12time with the last law.
And that's why I just, I'm 13 sorry the diagram was confusing.
14 But, and one other thing is that I did it, 15 that we did it that way because currently there are 16 some levels of transuranic radionuclides that are in 17 our table, you know, in Part 61.
18 But this overall concept of transuranic 19 waste needs to be updated in our definitions in Part 20 61.2 to clearly conform with the Low Level Waste 21Policy Amendments Act of 1985. You are right, we 22 should update it, and that's what we are, part of this 23 effort. I hope that helps.
24MR. GREEVES: Cardelia, your statement is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 40 very clear, the written product is not. So I'm glad 1 to hear your answer, and I look forward to 2 memorializing that. Thank you very much.
3 MS. MAUPIN: Thank you.
4MS. LOPAS: Okay. Just a reminder to 5press star 1. And I will say do the quick learnings.
6 I'm getting some feedback that somebody has pressed 7star 1 multiple times. So maybe we might have many 8people on the line. How many folks do we have on the 9 line waiting to ask a question, Lorraine? Can I ask 10 that?11 OPERATOR: We actually three.
12 MS. LOPAS: Okay.
13OPERATOR: But I called out to their line 14 and they're not responding. But I actually have one 15 person, Diane D'Arrigo. Her line is open.
16 MS. LOPAS: Okay.
17 MS. D'ARRIGO: Hi. So I am following --
18 the concentrations in the 10 CFR 61.55 tables have 19 transuranics in them, transuranics with half-lives 20longer than five years. The transuranic 21 concentrations are already embedded in the Class A, B 22 and C, well, actually A and C.
23 So I don't really get why you're saying 24that you don't have to comply with those. Do you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 41 really think that Congress knew what it was doing if 1 it was adjusting concentrations for plutonium isotopes 2 and transuranics?
3 MR. MCCARTIN: Well --
4 MS. D'ARRIGO: The problem that has been 5-- and I'll just say one more thing about -- as 6 someone who has been tracking this since 1980, the 7 public interest groups, including the Sierra Club, 8 have a position calling for redefining low level 9 waste, or waste that goes into 10 CFR 61 facilities to 10 not be hazardous longer than the institutional control 11 period. And the institutional control period is 100 12 years.13 So the analyses that are being done that 14 allow for longer lasting waste to go into these 15 facilities at higher and higher concentrations are 16putting the public at danger.
And I just strongly 17 oppose it.
18 And I would like to -- I mean, we've been 19 fighting this issue with the NRC for a long time with 20the depleting uranium issue. And we've got a similar 21 situation with really long lasting radionuclides that 22 you're saying are going to go into still what are 23considered unlined soil trenches legally. That's one 24 comment on that.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 42MR. MCCARTIN: Well, one quick thing I 1think that might have been misunderstood. There is no 2 suggestion that we are going to change the 3 concentration limits in the tables in Part 61.
4 So the fact that greater than Class C, if 5you're over 100 nanocuries per gram, you're greater 6than Class C. And so despite the definition, you 7 still now would have to comply with whatever approach 8 is taken for the nearest disposal of greater than 9 Class C.10 And as you saw in our analysis --
11MS. D'ARRIGO: How does your analysis 12 comply with an approach? I don't understand. Could 13 you describe that?
14MR. MCCARTIN: Well, for our reg basis --
15 MS. D'ARRIGO: Yes.
16MR. MCCARTIN: -- we have identified that 17 certain concentrations, the two waste streams that we 18 did not find potentially suitable were ones that were 19 over 10,000 nanocuries per gram.
20 The other ones -- regardless of how 21 transuranic waste is defined, once your above Class C, 22 which is 100 nanocuries per gram, you are now into 23 whatever approach we end up with for evaluating the 24 safety of greater than Class C disposal.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 43 And as I mentioned early on, there were 1three alternatives that were considered. One would be 2no action. And, currently, Part 61 allows someone to 3 come in and ask for the Commission to approve it on a 4 case-by-case basis.
5 So just the other was we might develop 6guidance or actually change the rule. Now in the 7right basis, we have, and it's preliminary, we're 8 waiting for -- well, we're seeking comment, but as I 9 noted there would require greater in Class C to be no 10 less than 5 meters below the surface and a 500 year 11 intruder barrier.
12 The analysis would still have to show that 13it would meet a 500 millirem dose for the intruder.
14 The offsite exposure -- there's a lot of other things.
15 Dave identified other aspects of Part 61 that all come 16 into play.
17So, you know, I wouldn't want -- I think 18 you were thinking it would change the definition of 19 transuranic waste, that it would automatically be 20allowed. And no, all the -- once you're above 100 21 nanocuries per gram for the transuranics, you are in 22the greater than Class C. And the analysis and the 23 evaluations would need to be done to show that it is 24 safe. That's what I meant by the process.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 44 MS. D'ARRIGO: If it's already requiring 1 a case-by-case analysis, then what you're wanting to 2 do now is make it more generic. I mean, you already 3 can put greater than C into these facilities if you do 4the analysis on a case-by-case basis. It's already 5 being --6MR. MCCARTIN: The Commission can approve 7 that, yes, on a case -- yes, and that's why that's one 8of the alternatives. We don't have to change 9 anything. We can still do this on a case-by-case.
10 Now some might argue that from a 11 regulatory stability and clarification standpoint, is 12it better that we actually change the rule and say 13these are the things that will be required for any 14 greater than Class C near surface disposal?
15 That's why we're out for public comment.
16That's why these different alternatives exist. We're 17interested in, like I said, it's preliminary. It's 18 giving comment and --
19MS. LOPAS: Great. I'm going to -- since 20 we've gone through three folks on the phone, I'm going 21 to go through -- because we've have a number of 22questions on the webinar. So I'm going to read 23 through a couple of the questions on the webinar.
24 The first one is from Melanie Snyder and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 45 it asks are all the GTCC activated metals stainless 1 steel?2MR. MCCARTIN: In terms for commercial 3 reactors, the vast, vast majority is stainless steel.
4And I have to go back and check. There is a little 5 activated metals associated with the West Valley 6Demonstration Project. And I'm not certain it is 7 stainless steel, but it obviously is metal.
8 We did not account for it being stainless 9steel in our analysis. But obviously that's something 10if someone had more information on that particular 11waste stream, it could be accounted for. But for the 12 reactors -- there's two parts to be aware of for the 13 activated metals.
14 There is surface contamination, and 15 there's contamination that goes throughout the metal.
16 For the reduced source term, it's the portion that's 17 throughout the metal because that requires the metal 18to completely corrode. There is some limited surface 19contamination. And that was available from the 20 beginning for release but.
21MS. LOPAS: Okay. All right. The next 22question we have here is a process question. This is 23from Phil Klevorick. What will be the process and 24 possible timeline after the close of the public 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 46 comment period on September 20?
1MS. MAUPIN: After we receive the 2 comments, generally we will bin the comments, sort the 3 comments and then look at developing responses to 4 those comments and to see how we need to, you know, 5 re-evaluate the Draft Regulatory Basis and make 6 changes to it.
7 As a number of people have alluded to, the 8 Draft Regulatory Basis has not received a review and 9 approval by the Commission so it's considered 10preliminary.
And so in terms of process, we would 11 also have to consider what the Commission would like 12 us to do.13MS. LOPAS: Okay. And so for folks on the 14phone, press star 1. I know those you that have 15pressed star 1 just hang tight for a minute more. I'm 16 going to go one more question here on the webinar.
17 But we'll get to you on the phone. I promise.
18 So here's the next question on the 19webinar. It's from Larry Camper. Given the direction 20 in SECY-15-0094 that if the staff determines that some 21 or all of the GTCC waste is potentially suitable for 22 near surface disposal, the staff should proceed with 23 rulemaking.
24 In view of the findings of the analysis, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 47 why did the staff not proceed with the rulemaking 1 rather than no recommendation?
2MR. MCCARTIN: This is the first step, the 3 reg basis.
4 MS. LOPAS: Yes.
5MR. MCCARTIN: A draft reg basis is the 6 first step in the rulemaking path. And so --
7MS. HOLAHAN: This is Trish. And it gets 8 into the cost analysis of the various options so.
9MS. LOPAS: All right. So star 1 if folks 10want to make a comment on the phone. Lorraine, do you 11 have folks that you're in touch with that want to make 12 a comment on the phone?
13 OPERATOR: Yes. Karen Hadden, your line 14 is open.15 MS. HADDEN: Hi, can you hear?
16 MS. LOPAS: Yes, we can.
17MS. HADDEN: Hi. Okay. This is Karen 18Hadden. I'm in Austin, Texas, and very concerned 19 because Texas is, in fact, being targeted for the 20 final disposal of the entire inventory of greater than 21 Class B waste and greater than Class C in transuranic 22 waste.23 This is clear from reading the 24 environmental assessment that followed the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 48Environmental Impact Statement. And what I learned is 1 that the curies, the 160 million curies, would be more 2 than 28 times what the pit is licensed for at WCS.
3 It's 41 times the curies of the adjacent contact waste 4 facility.5This is a vast increase. And somehow it's 6 expected that our state agency will just wave a wand 7and say that that's okay. We can just do a license 8 amendment for 28 times more than it's licensed for.
9 Our governor is opposing this, much to his 10credit. He opposes an increase in the amount of 11 concentration or radioactivity authorized for disposal 12 in Andrews County.
13 The canisters would weigh 100,000 pounds 14 each and would be 7 units deep in the federal waste 15facility starting from 120 feet deep. This is 16 basically shallow burial where the Environmental 17 Impact Statement specifically says on (i)(6) in the 18 introduction that this waste is generally not 19 acceptable for near surface disposal and for which the 20 waste form of disposal methods must be different and 21 in general more stringent than those of Class C.
22 So we're very, very concerned that this is 23not adequate. This waste should go into a deep 24 geologic repository, not any shallow waste burial 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 49anywhere. And I'd like for you to explain how it got 1changed from even considering to five meters deep 2 because the environmental assessment says one big 3 concern is volatilizing of radionuclides where they 4 could come up through the cover on top of the site and 5 get into the air and therefore the land, water and air 6 could all become contaminated.
7 How is it that 5 meters deep can all of a 8 sudden be considered viable when it started out being 9 not acceptable for near surface disposal?
10MR. MCCARTIN: Well, you raise a number of 11issues there. I will say first we did our analysis 12with no particular site in mind. We looked at a range 13 of conditions a range of inventories, and we did the 14 evaluation.
15 At the NRC, we are not promotional of any 16 particular application. We review an application if 17 someone wants to submit an application and review it 18 against our safety requirements.
19 And if a particular design site inventory 20 can meet the safety requirements, that is what our 21 review is about. I understand your concerns. And I 22 think all aspects of the releases and what could 23 potentially happen at a particular disposal site would 24 need to be evaluated.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 50 What we try to put forward in our reg 1 basis, and we certainly would appreciate any comments, 2 is have we missed certain things that should be done 3in terms of safety requirements? Are there any 4 recommendations that people have that feel that are 5 needed to ensure safety, we are certainly happy to 6 hear that.
7MS. HADDEN: So thank you for that answer.
8 I want to point out in terms of safety that this waste 9 would be going into disposal in an area that is prone 10to earthquakes. There was an earthquake, a 5 11magnitude earthquake, 19 miles away and even closer 12 epicenters for lesser earthquakes on the Richter 13 Scale. There's a lot of them.
14 And there seems to be no way that we could 15monitor what was happening underground. How would we 16 even know if something was banging around and started 17 to release radiation? How are we going to see? How 18 are we going to know what's going on?
19 I think this is a horrible plan, this 20reclassifying waste. I think it sneaks in waste that 21should not be coming to Texas. And we're going to 22 fight really hard to prevent this reclassification 23from happening. It doesn't make sense, and it will 24 create a disaster scenario.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 51MS. LOPAS: Thank you, Karen. I hope that 1 you submit those comments in writing and maybe you'll 2 see our folks at the meeting next week down in your 3 neck of the woods.
4 MS. HADDEN: We'll be there.
5 MS. LOPAS: Excellent. Okay. Lorraine, 6 do we have another person on the phone?
7OPERATOR: Our next question comes from 8 Tom (Smitty) Smith. Your line is open.
9 MR. SMITH: Hi. My name is Tom Smith or 10I'm better known as Smitty. And I'm representing 11public citizen. When this was first discussed, the 12 belief was it was going to go to repository.
13 And most recently, these wastes were 14target at WIPP. Although there was an unfortunate and 15 preventable accident at WIPP, that site is now open 16 again and accepting waste.
17 What's wrong with WIPP and why is that no 18longer being considered? And kind of along with that 19 is the only reason we're looking at it is because the 20 Commission under Rick Perry decided to send you all a 21letter? Is that what this is all really about, 22 because Secretary Perry, when he was governor was 23 trying to benefit a donor?
24MR. MCCARTIN: Well, a couple things. Let 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 52 me clarify that WIPP is for defense related waste, and 1 this is specifically not defense-related waste. And 2so, you know, this really isn't. You know, and I 3 guess that could change, and it could go to WIPP if it 4changed the law. But currently that would not be the 5 case.6 I can say in terms of the Commission asked 7us to look at this. And we have followed that 8direction, and we put this out for public comment. We 9 believe some of this waste is potentially suitable.
10 However, as Cardelia mentioned, we are 11looking for public comment. We believe we've 12described how we analyze things, how we've thought 13about this problem and why we think it's potentially 14 suitable. And we're waiting to get comments.
15 But the Commission has requested us to 16 look at this, and we are looking at it. I think, 17 certainly, there was the letter to Texas that came 18 into the Commission and was a part of that decision.
19 It wasn't the only part of that decision.
20MS. MAUPIN: And if I could just jump 21here. If you have an opportunity and access to the 22 internet, on DOE's site, there is that November the 23 17 th -- that 2017 report to Congress where they list 24 various alternatives in terms of GTCC disposal. One 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 53 of those is revising the law so it can go to WIPP.
1 So you might want to look at that report.
2 It would either go to WIPP or a commercial low level 3radioactive waste facility. So there are a number of 4 documents there on the DOE that could help you in 5 terms of information.
6 MR. SMITH: Thank you very much.
7MS. LOPAS: All right. Lorraine, how many 8 folks do we have on the line waiting to ask a 9 question?10OPERATOR: I currently have two questions 11on line. I've called out to their lines. They're not 12 responding.
13MS. LOPAS: Okay. All right. Well, we'll 14let them hang out there for longer. If you're on the 15 phone, you can be up soon but press star 1 if you want 16 to get us on the phone.
17 So we have a number of webinar questions.
18 So let's just work through these for a little bit.
19This one comes from Janet Schlueter. I 20might be pronouncing -- Schlueter. I apologize Janet.
21Janet Schlueter. What is the basis for the staff 22 assumption that potential volumes of both categories 23exceed existing volumes? So this is from those 24 slides, I guess, showing the -- Slides 10 and 11 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 54 showing kind of the pie charts and the bar charts.
1 So the basis for staff assumption that 2 potential volumes of both categories exceed existing 3 volumes. What's the staff basis for saying that?
4MR. MCCARTIN: The potential -- these are 5 just the volumes in the Department of Energy's FEIS.
6 And they gave volumes for a variety of waste streams, 7 and they categorized them as, I think it's one and 8 two.9 And one was their existing facilities that 10are licensed. Two are potential ones. And it's just 11the volumes they gave in the FEIS. We didn't generate 12 them. I can be a little more specific.
13 On some of the -- for example there's some 14 potential molybdenum-99 for medical isotopes that 15could happen in the future. There's no decision on 16doing that. There's other things such as their 17 decisions associated with the West Valley site, that 18 decisions might be made with some of the Commission 19waste there that -- but no decisions have been made 20 yet.21 Those are some of the categories of the 22 potential one in addition to the -- and I'll say it 23 was on the order of 35 new reactors or so to be built 24in the future that applications are not presently 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 55 there.1 We accepted the Department of Energy's 2numbers. We did not second guess these estimates.
3 But, you know, and it is what they turned out to be.
4MR. ESH: Janet, this is David. It 5 depends on the particular waste you might be looking 6at, too. So for instance, commercial reactors the 7 existing is about twice as much as the potential that 8 would come for commercial reactors.
9 So like what Tim said, depending on what 10 you do with West Valley, that could generate a whole 11bunch. But it depends on the particular waste stream, 12 how much is potential and how much is existing.
13MS. MAUPIN: I would just jump in there 14 and say if Janet, when she submits her comment, if you 15 have better information, better data because I know 16 that you represent the nuclear reactor arena, so if 17 there is better information than what we have, please 18 feel free to submit it as a part of your submission to 19our comments. We would greatly appreciate any 20 clarifying information you could provide us.
21MR. ESH: But I guess one thing I would 22 like to point back, and it gets to a couple of the 23 questions we've had. It was very deliberate that we 24 said potentially suitable because there is uncertainty 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 56 in the estimates of what exactly is the inventory for 1these waste streams. We are using primarily what deal 2was presented. What the volume is, how much volume 3 might be disposed of at a particular site of what 4 waste streams.
5 And so there are a variety of combinations 6 that one could come up, some are going to be more 7difficult than others. And that's why we said 8potentially suitable. The key is whoever would submit 9 an application, either to an Agreement State or to the 10 NRC, they would need to, I think, have a defendable 11 inventory of the peer accepting what the waste forms 12 are and to support an evaluation of whether it's safe 13 or not.14 MS. LOPAS: Okay. I just want to remind 15 NRC folks just introduce yourself before you chime in.
16 MS. MAUPIN: Okay.
17MS. LOPAS: So that leads into our next 18question pretty well. So this is from Rich Janati 19 from Pennsylvania again. How confident are you that 20 80 percent of GTCC waste is suitable for near surface 21 disposable and what is this conclusion based on?
22Also you pointed out that 95 percent of 23 the 80 percent GTCC that is suitable for near surface 24disposal can be regulated by the Agreement State.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 57 What's the 5 percent waste of the waste that is 1 suitable for near surface disposal that cannot be 2 regulated by the Agreement State?
3 MR. MCCARTIN: Okay. Right. And I think 4I answered some of that question. We have never said 5 it's suitable, potentially suitable. And that was a 6very deliberate choice. And it depends. Site 7conditions are different. Inventory is how much of 8 this?9And that's why we said 80 percent was 10potentially suitable. But that does not mean it is 11 safe everywhere or -- in terms of the 5 percent, where 12 that comes from there are certain limits on fissile 13 plutonium that we have security requirements for the 14 NRC, and it has to do with common defenses security.
15 And that's something that's reserved for 16 the NRC. And so that 5 percent that isn't there, it 17 has to do with a large amount of fissile material that 18 trips the threshold for requiring some security 19requirements that are reserved for the NRC. And so 20 that's what makes it problematic for that 5 percent.
21MS. LOPAS: Okay. And that's good. That 22 took care of the next question, asking that same 23question what's the 5 percent means so. And that was 24 from Ben Wishert.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 58 The next question we have on the webinar, 1 and just a reminder to press star 1. You don't have 2to type your questions into the webinar. You can 3speak on the phone. So star 1 or go ahead and type 4 your question in.
5 The next question here we have is from 6Jeff Burright. It says based on Figure B2 of the 7 regulatory basis, so Figure B2, the regulatory basis 8 document, it appears that GTCC disposal should only be 9 safe if the intruder barrier is also built to 10 withstand drilling equipment between 100 and 500 11 years.12 Is this part of the assumption behind the 13500 year barrier in the regulatory basis? The 14 analysis does not provide a basis for expecting such 15a barrier to be feasible. What about uncertainty 16analysis for early barrier failure? So let me know if 17 you need me to re-read that.
18MR. ESH: Hi, Jeff. This is Dave Esh.
19Thanks for the questions. So, yes, you're 20 interpreting that reasonably correctly. Because for 21 some that 100 to 500 year time frame for many of the 22 GTCC waste streams that we analyze, you do need to 23 prevent something like a drilling for occurring.
24 And that's why Tim said if we changed our 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 59 regulations, we would require the disposal depth and 1 a robust intruder barrier, which might take the form 2 of, you know, high strength reinforced concrete with 3 a lot of rebar in it, something like that. But we 4 usually don't get to that level of specificity in 5 terms of what the barrier might be.
6 We would say what the barrier may need to 7 achieve and then allow the licensee or applicant to 8 come with up with how they believe they could design 9 something to meet that requirement.
10 And then -- sorry, what was the second 11 part of the question?
12MS. LOPAS: Okay. So did you answer this 13 part of the assumption behind the 500 year barrier?
14 MR. ESH: Yes.
15 MS. LOPAS: Okay. The analysis is often 16waiting or expecting the barrier to be feasible. What 17 about uncertainty analysis in early barrier failure?
18MR. ESH: Yes. So what those figures show 19 is basically the uncertainty in if the barrier failed.
20 So if you had a barrier that was 5 percent effective, 21 then those curves would not start until 500 years or 22 whenever you think the barrier is going to be fail.
23And so that kind of shows the uncertainty if the 24 barrier doesn't work, what size of impact you would be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 60 looking at.
1 Now I would add that there's a lot that 2goes into that type of calculation. Many of those 3impacts to the driller are dominated by inhalation 4pathways. And so you're really concerned with how 5 much of the material ends up in the air, how long is 6 the person drilling, those sorts of things that go 7 into the calculation.
8 If you have site specific information for 9 those sorts of inputs that go into the calculation, it 10 may be possible that you could justify that the 11 impacts are not too large in that 100 to 500 year 12period. But as Tim has tried to stress, that's a very 13 site specific thing when you're looking at these 14 different engineered designs and different waste 15streams and different disposal sites. So that's what 16 we think is the right thing to do for these 17 situations.
18MS. LOPAS: Okay. Let me get one more 19 question here on the webinar and then we'll go back to 20the phones. It's star 1 or just hang tight if you 21 pressed star 1 and you're on the line. We'll get to 22 you.23So this is from Roger Seitz. And it's two 24questions. One is on Slide 12, it was stated that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 61Part 61 approach was followed. However, Part 61 1 classification tables included a factor of 10 2 multiplier that increases the Class C limits by a 3 factor of 10 to account for a variety of pessimistic 4 assumptions built into intrusion scenarios.
5 It does not appear that a similar factor 6would be used in the technical analysis. Are you 7 implying that limitations on GTCC receive more 8 restrictive than Class B by not including the similar 9 factor in this technical analysis.
10MR. ESH: Thanks for the question, Roger.
11 This is Dave Esh. We aren't implying that the 12requirements for GTCC would be more restrictive. But 13 that factor of 10, a large part of the basis for it, 14 was that the waste disposal facility would not be full 15 of waste all at the waste class limit.
16 So for instance for a normal facility, we 17 have a saying that only a small fraction of the waste 18 would be Class C and a fraction would be at the Class 19 C limits and a fraction would be at the Class A 20 limits.21 Basically, much of the waste would be 22under the class limits. For this analysis we were 23 looking at if the waste was all at a certain value, 24 for instance, waste in the barrel of a certain 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 62 concentration, what would be the impact?
1 This did not consider other waste that 2runs off of it. And so it wouldn't be appropriate to 3 add in that factor of 10 for this type of analysis 4 because it was really looking at wasting under the 5 limits as it was disposed in actuality whereas as the 6 regularity limits were kind of what's the allowable 7 limits for the different classes of waste.
8MS. LOPAS: Okay. And then here's his 9 second question, Roger Seitz's second question, and 10then we'll go to the phones. Also a mud pit was 11 assumed for drilling in the impacts update NUREG 12 supporting Part 51 from the mid-1980s.
13 It does not appear such a drilling 14 approach was considered by the technical analysis.
15 Mud pits are commonly used in a site specific analysis 16likely may be considered a drilling approach with 17intruder scenario. It seems that a mud pit should be 18 considered in a technical analysis.
19 MR. ESH: Right. So you're correct. We 20 didn't consider a mud pit because the doses associated 21 with a mud pit are much lower because of the mud being 22 wet and that plus, it's dispersible. But that there 23 are many drilling technologies today that do not use 24 a mud pit and the impacts are much larger.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 63 And so you asked if on a site specific 1 basis you could argue that the drilling technology 2would be a mud pit. You should factor that into your 3 analysis.4 But for this regulatory analysis, it 5 wouldn't be appropriate for us to ignore the much 6 higher risk scenarios which are used in practice with 7 some of the more modern drilling techniques.
8MS. LOPAS: Okay. All right, star 1 to 9get a question on the phone. Lorraine, do we have any 10 questions on the phone?
11OPERATOR: Yes. The name was not 12 recorded, but your line is open. You may go ahead.
13MS. LOPAS: Hi. Is somebody on the line?
14You just need to introduce yourself. If you wanted to 15talk on the phone, now is your chance so. You did not 16record you name. All right. Lorraine, we might need 17 to come back. Anybody else on the line?
18OPERATOR: Karen Hadden, your line is 19 open.20 MS. HADDEN: Hi. I was glad to hear the 21discussion about the drilling equipment. The site 22 that this would go to, and it's very clear from the 23 environmental assessment that this is the site that's 24 really being focused on.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 64 None of the others are really being 1 considered at this point although many communities 2 would be impacted by 33,000 truck shipments or 11,800 3 rail shipments.
4 But the drilling would be a possibility 5 because this is the heart of the Permian Basin, the 6largest producing oil fields in the country. It 7recently came up in the case about high level waste 8 going to this site that there has been a failure to 9 characterize over 600 abandoned wells that are already 10 in existence in the region.
11 So there are multiple pathways by which 12radioactive materials could, in fact, migrate. And I 13 don't think that there are too many barriers through 14which drilling could not be accomplished. So, again, 15 I think there needs to be a full blown site specific 16 Environmental Impact Statement for this to be an 17 environmental assessment and adopting the generic 18 Environmental Impact Statement is not enough.
19 There needs to be a full blown look at 20what would be the real impact of sending this stuff 21 for shallow burial inappropriately near the Ogallala 22 Aquifer, which lies under eight states. This is not 23 a good idea, and it needs to be researched thoroughly.
24MS. LOPAS: Okay. Thank you, Karen.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 65 Let's finish off some of these questions on the 1webinar and then we'll go back to the phones. So star 21 on the phone. It sounds like you are prompted by a 3recording to record your name. Just keep that in mind 4 when you press star 1.
5 So this next question on the webinar is 6from Ann Frisch. What kind of statistics will you use 7 to estimate the potential for highway accidents given 8 that there will likely be a lot of requests for 9parking this material in landfills? What amount of 10risk do you expect? Who will pay the costs? How many 11 new staff will you need to assure public and 12environmental safety? Will first responders be ready 13when a shipment is made? Will the public be informed 14 in advance?
15MR. MCCARTIN: Well, the reg basis is for 16disposal. And certainly environmentally -- the 17 Environmental Impact Statement could look at potential 18 transportation accidents, et cetera. Certainly, the 19shipment of radioactive waste would have to follow 20requirements that are already in existence by the 21 Department of Transportation and NRC's requirements so 22usually for the package, for the NRC. But that would 23be evaluated if a facility was going forward. This is 24 a reg basis for the disposal facility.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 66MS. LOPAS: Right. So you're saying some 1 of those transportation impacts, Tim, would be 2 evaluated for -- and he asked for a specific facility.
3 And that's not what we're looking at right here, 4 right?5 MR. MCCARTIN: Yes.
6MS. LOPAS: Right. Okay. The next 7question here is from Dan Shrum. It says question on 8 the PA. Does a package of GTCC waste consider other 9 waste Class A, B or C, being placed above the GTCC 10 package or was just the GTCC package evaluated?
11MR. MCCARTIN: Just the GTCC package.
12 And, remember, once again, that's why we say 13potentially suitable. There are different ways to 14 dispose of things. And what actually was the design 15 of the facility would need to be looked at and the 16 actual inventories for everything that's disposed of.
17 But given the very specific nature of 18 greater than Class C waste, you know, we felt that it 19 was appropriate that it probably be a particular 20disposal unit would be reserved for it. But, you 21 know, certainly from a drilling thing, if you have one 22 package or two packages, you're going to have twice as 23 much waste and so it would be more difficult.
24MR. ESH: This is Dave. If you're looking 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 67 at co-disposal of GTCC and other waste, Dan, those 1 other wastes would be much less concentrated than the 2GTCC. So, yes, they would have an additive effect for 3 the impacts, but it would be probably be a small 4fractional additive effect for the impact so. But 5 yes, a site specific analysis would have to consider 6 all the waste in a column not just one type of waste.
7 MS. LOPAS: Right.
8 MR. ESH: Whatever the disposal plan is.
9MS. LOPAS: And I think that answers Dan's 10 follow-up question where he says what additional waste 11 classifications would be acceptable to be placed next 12to or on top of GTCC? And it sounds like you guys 13 emphatic that it's site specific.
14 MR. MCCARTIN: Given it's analyzed, it's 15 certainly is potentially okay.
16MR. ESH: Dan, this is Dave. The one 17 thing we would consider is that the other waste have 18 some of deleterious impact on the GTCC waste. For 19 instance, if you needed to rely on a stainless 20 container for the GTCC waste, would the other waste 21and characteristics impact the GTCC waste. But other 22 than that, just like I described earlier, you just sum 23 all the activity and the analysis and the scenario.
24MS. LOPAS: Okay. All right. So I've got 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 68 one more kind of multipart question here on the 1 webinar. So submit your questions on the webinar if 2you have additional ones. And press star 1 if you 3 want to get on the phone line and talk over the phone 4 line.5 So this question is from Gordon Edwards, 6 who is from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear 7Responsibility. So he asks what independent checking 8will be done to verify waste inventories? He sees 9 three problems.
10 One, list of radionuclides is generally 11not complete. Two, activity levels can be 12 underestimated by orders of magnitude using mass 13 instead of actual measurement.
And three, it's 14 difficult to measure some radionuclides that are long 15 lived lives, such as using carbon-14, a six thousand 16 year half-life poses a long-term hazard.
17 So he's saying in part two of the 18 question, I should have emphasized some radionuclides 19 which are very difficult to detect because of much 20less penetrating radiation. No gamma. There is also 21potential for falsified documentation as well. So 22 he's wondering about independent checking to verify 23 waste inventories.
24MR. MCCARTIN: Well, certainly any 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 69 application has to have support for their inventory.
1 That would be reviewed by the regulator and is 2potentially inspectable. And there are limitations of 3 what one can look at, but there is uncertainty there.
4 It would need to be evaluated, just like any disposal 5site. That's true for Class A, B and C as well as 6 other waste forms.
7 MS. LOPAS: Okay. All right. Lorraine, 8 do we have any questions on the phone?
9OPERATOR: Yes. Diane D'Arrigo, your line 10 is open.11MS. D'ARRIGO: Thank you. I have two 12 here. One is having to do with the doses. Under 10 13 CFR 61, unless it's been changed, which I don't think 14it has. It's been considered changed. You're 15 supposed to meet 40 CFR 190, which is 25 millirems per 16 year.17 And so I know you're doing the long range 18 scenarios out to 500 and that seems to be a more 19limiting factor for some wastes going in. So I wanted 20 to hear about the dose calculations and the public 21 being allowed to be exposed to what levels from this 22 material.23 And then the other has to do with the 24economics. How much of this is being motivated by 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 70 decommissioning of reactors in other large facilities 1 and a need for a place for greater than C because it's 2 taking longer to get a place for high level waste?
3 So is this something to enable materials 4 to be moved in the absence of a high level repository?
5 And then I have one more on transport.
6MS. LOPAS: Okay. So do we want to tackle 7 the first one regarding questions about doses --
8MS. D'ARRIGO: Doses and then economics of 9 decommissioning (simultaneous speaking).
10MR. MCCARTIN: Well, let me raise the 11economics ones first. And I'll say -- this is Tim 12McCartin. As part of the working group, that never 13 once came into any discussion for us.
14The task we were asked was, is this 15 material potentially suitable for disposal in the near 16surface? And that's the only thing we looked at, 17 whether it's an economic advantage, whether it's 18 potentially suitable and meeting the 500 year intruder 19barrier. And meeting all -- you might have to have a 20 facility design that would be buried.
21 Our focus was on is it appropriate that 22this be considered for near surface disposal? And at 23 least I'm not aware of at any time any type of 24 economic where the nuclear industry was brought to us 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 71 or anyone on the working group.
1Now with respect to the dose -- well, 2 okay, go ahead.
3 MS. D'ARRIGO: Okay. I'm sorry. No, go 4 ahead, go ahead.
5MR. MCCARTIN: With respect to the dose 6 limit, certainly the 25 millirem dose limit for the 7 offsite individual in Part 61 it's still every bit in 8 play and what needs to be met. And maybe I should 9 have this clear.
10 When I talk of a 500 millirem dose, that 11 was for the intruder only protection and that is what 12was considered. In developing the classification 13 scheme for Part 61, they looked at a 500 millirem dose 14 to the intruder.
15 And so we would require the same level of 16 protection for the intruder that was considered in 17Part 61 when it was developed. But the 25 is for the 18 offsite individual. That would not change. There's 19 no suggestion whatsoever.
20 And I guess you have a third one on 21 transportation?
22MS. D'ARRIGO: Well, it has to do with 23since this is much hotter waste than the low level 24 waste that normally is moved, the A, B and C, would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 72 there be more notification of emergency responders 1along the route? Would there be -- there's that 2 general thing.
3 And then throughout your description of 4this, you talk about analysis that will be done. But 5 the analysis is not going to be done every time a 6shipment is made to a site. It's going to be made, 7 I'm guessing on a generic basis.
8 And then you're going to generically, 9 potentially, generically make this decision because 10 right now people can, generators can, on a case-by-11case basis do these analysis. It's just something 12 that would be potentially too expensive to do as much 13 under decommissioning.
14So I'm going back to my first question 15there. But also the other thing is that this is much 16 hotter and would there be more protection for 17 communities along routes?
18MR. MCCARTIN: Well, certainly there would 19 be no changes to the transportation regulations, 20 either Department of Transportation or NRC's package 21 requirements and then the restrictions that are there 22 for the dose that is within one meter of the package, 23 et cetera.
24 And so would that possibly change a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 73 particular package design that could be used for parts 1of the -- some of the waste streams? I guess it's 2possible. We did not look into the particular aspects 3 of transportation.
4 And that's also an important part that I 5 think the analysis, I was talking for a facility, 6 you're going to have to know how much you are going to 7put there and whether it's safe. And so I think there 8--9MS. D'ARRIGO: And when would you need to 10know that? Before or after you changed the 11 regulation? I mean (simultaneous speaking).
12MR. MCCARTIN: Well, you would have to 13 know that to approve an application.
14MS. D'ARRIGO: So then it would be, like, 15 WCS was given a license for a certain amount of curies 16and radioactivity. And then they just go back and 17 they get additional increases in what's allowed. So 18 you would give an increase for now taking greater than 19 C in transuranics and then if they needed more, they 20 would just go back and get amendments to allow it.
21MR. MCCARTIN: You're doing a lot of 22 speculation there that I'm not -- I guess, I mean, we 23don't give people an open ended license. There would 24 have to be both the inventory that you're going to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 74dispose of, how you're going to dispose of it, the 1 facility design, et cetera, needs to be evaluated.
2And could it be changed over time? It could be. But 3that's kind of a different process. Obviously people 4 can file for an amendment to a license.
5 But my understanding is we've got to know 6 what's going where and how is it going to be disposed 7of to determine whether it would be safe. And that 8 would be the total of --
9MS. D'ARRIGO: Why would you -- I guess 10 the problem is when would you or the regulator on the 11Agreement State do that? Are you going to do that at 12 the beginning of the changing this definition, 13 changing these rules or is it going to be done each 14 time greater than C is going to come to the sites?
15 And how many times is that done before you say, well, 16just let it all go? I'm just trying to -- I mean, we 17 as a public have to intervene every single time that 18we care about. So, you know, if it's done generically 19 or if it's done on a case-by-case basis.
20 MR. MCCARTIN: Well, okay, if it gets to 21 how might this be accomplished from a regulatory 22 standpoint, currently we have the three alternatives 23 that we're seeking comment on.
24 MS. D'ARRIGO: Mm-hmm.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 75MR. MCCARTIN: Ultimately, it will be a 1 Commission decision as to how they want to go forward, 2if at all. And so that would -- you know, you're 3 right if, you know, in the one case where we don't 4 change the regulation, and we do it on a case-by-case 5 basis.6 We wait for someone to come in and say I 7 would like to dispose of this amount of GTCC waste at 8 this site with this design, and they give something to 9 the Commission. Can I do that?
10MS. D'ARRIGO: And that's the current way 11 that it's done, right now.
12 MR. MCCARTIN: Correct.
13MS. D'ARRIGO: That's the normal way.
14 Okay.15MR. MCCARTIN: And I believe the first 16 step of that would be for the staff to do an 17 evaluation of whether it's appropriate for this amount 18 of waste to go to this facility. And --
19 MS. D'ARRIGO: Yes.
20MR. MCCARTIN: -- we would have to 21 document our basis for saying either yes or no or yes 22with requirements. And, you know, I think at present 23 the reg basis gives it some preliminary ideas of the 24 types of things we would look at it.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 76 But therein the negative of that 1 particular approach at a particular site, maybe there 2 would be some other things that were more significant, 3and we would look at in greater detail. We don't know 4 without an application.
5 And I guess I'm not willing to speculate, 6 but we would have to develop an evaluation and a basis 7for that. And the public would certainly be kept 8 informed of that. But --
9MS. D'ARRIGO: Well, what it sounds to me 10 like is going on here, and you know, correct me if I'm 11 wrong, is that this process that we've just discussed 12 is going to change, or would potentially change, if 13 approved by the Commission and those steps would no 14 longer be undertaken. It would --
15MR. MCCARTIN: Well, I didn't mean to 16imply that. There is different ways that there could 17 be a regulatory evaluation of the safety of greater 18 than Class C disposal.
19 MS. D'ARRIGO: Okay.
20MR. MCCARTIN: They might also say we want 21 to develop a rule and go through a rulemaking.
22MR. KOENICK: I think, this is Steve 23 Koenick. I think, Tim, what you're trying to say is 24 if we did proceed down rulemaking, would that replace 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 77the site specific case-by-case analysis? And that is 1 not the case.
2So whether we have rulemaking or we do 3 site specific without rulemaking, the rulemaking would 4 specify what the requirements are that the licensee 5would have to undergo. So it would add some formality 6 to what that review process looks like.
7 It would not, by no means, would it 8replace a licensee coming in for this analysis. As 9 Tim mentioned earlier, they still would have to do the 10 site specific analysis, and they would look at the 11 inventory.
12 So the hazard of the Draft Regulatory 13 Basis defines what types of hazards we would be 14 looking at and how that process would look like, but 15 it would not replace that evaluation.
16 MS. D'ARRIGO: Then what's the advantage 17of it? The advantage of doing it if you're not going 18 to reduce that regulatory burden?
19MR. KOENICK: This is Steve again. The 20 regulatory basis, if you add more formality, and you 21 have more institutional documentation of what that 22 process looks like, you codify what it looks like and 23 what you are going to be evaluating as opposed to just 24doing it on a case-by-case basis. So certain aspects 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 78 of these hazards would have been well vetted in a 1public forum as to what those considerations are. But 2 it doesn't replace the reviews.
3 MS. HOLAHAN: And this is Trish Holahan.
4I'm just going to clarify. It's not the Reg Basis, 5 but if we proceeded with rulemaking, that would codify 6 the, you know, requirements, but we still do a 7 case-by-case basis for each applicant that comes in.
8MR. SCHOFER: And finally, this is Fred 9Schofer. In the Reg Basis Section 7, we attempted to 10 outline each of the pros and cons of each alternative 11 and the process that the licensee would have to go 12 through.13 MS. HOLAHAN: Yes.
14MS. D'ARRIGO: Well, and isn't it true 15 though that it would be the Agreement State that would 16 be doing what you're saying would be done, not the 17 NRC?18 MR. SCHOFER: Actually, we considered it 19 both ways, whether an Agreement State would do the 20 licensing for the NRC.
21MS. D'ARRIGO: Okay, I didn't get that 22 far, I guess.
23MS. LOPAS: So, if you have comments on 24 that, Diane, that would be an important thing to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 79 submit comments on from the pros and cons of whether 1 a standard Agreement States should do this as well.
2I have two questions here. I have one 3follow-up here on the webinar. So star 1 if you have 4more questions on the phone, but I have a follow-up 5 from the inventory question on two checks from Gordon 6 Edwards.7 So I think the question is, you know, he 8 did not like your -- he did not find your first answer 9 reassuring, Tim.
10 So he says here, does the NRC -- does this 11 mean the NRC does no independent measuring of 12radionuclide inventory? Do they take the declared 13 inventory on space?
14MR. ESH: Hi, Gordon, this is Dave Esh.
15 All of our existing facilities are in Agreement 16States. And so the Agreement States fulfill that 17function. But I was recently on -- well, not exactly 18 recently, but it seems like recently on two of what we 19 call our IMPEP reviews, where we review through our 20 Agreement State programs, one in the state of 21 Washington and one in the state of Texas.
22 And when they receive waste, they do 23 independent inspections of the waste receipt process, 24which involves -- you know, there's waste manifests 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 80 that the generators have to put down what's in the 1waste that they're sending. And then the disposal 2 facility has their own requirements about acceptance 3 of the waste.
4 And there are exclusionary requirements 5 like, you know, if barrel's leaking and that sort of 6thing. They're pretty obvious, but then, the 7 questions you were asking about how do you determine 8actually what inventory is in there? That's a more 9 challenging question, especially, what the hard to 10 detects.11 It is something that we've worked on with 12 allowing people to use scaling factors for certain 13 types of ways, but they have to justify their methods 14 that they come up with for use of those scaling 15 factors.16 For some waste disposal programs, like I 17 know within the Department of Energy, when they do 18 waste acceptance from generators, they'll do some 19 independent measurement and verification of the waste.
20 And in some cases, like for waste that was sent to 21 WIPP, when they were too uncertain about what was in 22 the barrel, they went through a process of opening the 23 barrels and characterizing them and determining 24 exactly what was there.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 81 So the high-level answer is, yes, you have 1 to be confident in the inventory that goes in the 2 facility, and there's a variety of different methods 3 and approaches you could use to develop that 4confidence. And then the assessment ultimately should 5 reflect the uncertainty in that inventory because in 6 some cases, the uncertainty in the inventory may not 7be important. In other cases, it may be very 8 important.
9 So I hope that better answers your 10question about the inventory. For GTCC waste, because 11 it is more concentrated, and there could be high 12 concentrations of transuranics, the approaches to 13 characterize that waste and accept it may need to be 14 more rigorous.
15 But that would either come out in say if 16 we developed guidance, or if we did a rulemaking, we 17 would look at whether we need more robust criteria 18 associated with waste acceptance and characterization.
19MS. LOPAS: Okay. Let me get to this last 20 question on the webinar. Star one, for folks on the 21 phone, to get some questions in on the phone.
22 The conversation -- this is from Jeff 23Burright. He says, the conversation today seems to 24 stress the need for site-specific analysis, i.e., a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 82 model rather than prescriptive end states for disposal 1 based on waste longevity or concentration.
2 Am I understanding correctly that big 3picture when it comes to GTCC disposal model rule? If 4 you give up authority to the states for making a GTCC 5 decision, how will you verify that the models used are 6 good enough? Will NRC review a state's decision?
7MR. MCCARTIN: Well, regardless of any 8 model used, there has to be a basis for the validity 9of the models and the inputs, et cetera. And so, 10 you're correct in the assumption -- and the analysis 11has to be done. But it also has to be done right.
12 And that's part of the review process in terms of --
13 and this is where, I mean, if we're the regulator, we 14 would certainly do that review.
15 As Dave Esh talked about, there's an 16 impact process where we do go in and look at how 17 Agreement States are operating, and that's a way for 18us to look at their process. We would not -- as best 19 I understand it, but I leave it for others, I mean, we 20 don't go in and do a second regulatory review.
21 But if their program is appropriate, then 22 there is an understanding that the right decisions are 23 made.24MR. ESH: This is Dave. I'll add to that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 83 because I don't know if Tim's done an impact in a 1while. Whenever we do those, we'll do vertical and 2 horizontal slices of the technical work that the state 3has done. So we may ask to see their -- what they 4 reviewed and how they reviewed it, what guidance they 5 used, if they were looking at a particular model, you 6 know, computer files. We may look at those computer 7files. We may look at their spreadsheets that they 8used. All of that goes into the technical -- our 9 technical assessment of their licensing review.
10 And yeah, it's not as rigorous as if we 11 did the licensing review ourselves because this is a 12 shorter-term activity, it's trying to assess the 13program. But it isn't a matter of that we're just 14 putting checks on a checklist and saying, okay, you 15 see that they have a document, and we don't look at 16the details in the document. We do to the amount that 17we can in the scope of one of those reviews. We do 18 review their documents and how they made their 19 determination that the materials that submitted to 20 them were satisfactory or not satisfactory.
21MS. LOPAS: All right. I'm going to check 22 in on the phone. Lorraine, do we have any questions 23 on the phone?
24OPERATOR: There is some question. The 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 84name was not -- it was not recorded. But your line is 1 open.2MS. LOPAS: Hi, is somebody on the phone?
3All right, you may be on mute. Give it a 4 whirl. Maybe put yourself on mute one more time.
5 All right, Lorraine, you might have to 6 delete that one.
7OPERATOR: All right, I'll go ahead and 8 clear it.9 MS. LOPAS: Okay. So R1, if you want to 10 ask a question, I have one more question here in the 11webinar. So this question from is Karen Hadden again.
12 She says, please discuss what containers 13 would be used for shipping GTCC and GTCC-like waste?
14 And what doses to the public would be from routine 15 shipments and from stops during and from truck and 16 rail transport?
17MR. MCCARTIN: Well, it's Tim McCartin.
18 I'm not a transportation expert. And this Reg Basis 19 is about disposal, but there are approved containers 20 that limit the exposure that would be received by any 21 member of the public either while it's stopped in 22 traffic or at any other particular stop and during 23 transport.
24 We can get back to them if they want what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 85 the regulatory requirements are for the dose limits, 1 but those requirements -- there are different packages 2 out there up to and including packages that are used 3 for spent nuclear fuel that keep doses to a very -- so 4 there's not a -- I'm not aware of any constraint that 5 a package isn't available that could meet the 6 transportation requirements.
7 But what exact package that would be I --
8 we would have to talk to the transportation people.
9MS. LOPAS: All right, Karen, I'm sending 10you a message. If you want a specific response to 11 this, maybe from one of the transportation folks that 12 we know, send me your email here, and I'll get your 13 email. Maybe they can get in touch with you to help 14 you understand.
15MR. MCCARTIN: The one thing I can say, I 16 know in DOE's FEIS, I believe it is a Type B package 17 that they said the GTCC would be transported in.
18 Now, because I'm not a transportation 19 person, Type B has a very specific meaning in the 20transportation regulations and requirements. But, you 21 know, I'm not prepared to explain exactly what that 22 means.23MS. LOPAS: Okay. All right. So, Karen, 24just send a message here. If we end the webinar 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 86 before you end up sending me your email, you can also 1send an email to Cardelia and/or Kim. And their 2 contact information is in the presentation, and I'll 3 bring that up right now.
4 Okay. So let's do a final call here. I 5 don't have any other questions on the webinar. So 6 final call for webinar questions and final call here 7 for questions on the phone. So star 1 on the phone.
8 Lorraine, do we have anybody right now on 9 the phone?
10OPERATOR: I'm showing no questions at 11 this time.
12 MS. LOPAS: Okay. Why don't we -- while 13 we wait for those last couple questions to come in if 14 there are some, Cardelia or Tim or Trish, does anybody 15 have anything they want to follow up either on the 16 comment period or any other closing remarks?
17MS. HOLAHAN: Pennsylvania mentioned that 18 they wanted an extension, you know, put it in writing, 19 and, you know, we'll consider it.
20 MS. LOPAS: Okay.
21 MS. HOLAHAN: And this a fresh start.
22 MS. LOPAS: Yes.
23MS. HOLAHAN: And I would just say, you 24 know, we've had a very fervent conversation here 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 87today. We've had a lot of questions. Sometimes we 1 can't always get to the breadth or depth of answering 2 some of your questions during these kinds of 3encounters. I really want to go back and say, please, 4 put your comments in writing, and put the docket 5 number on there. That way your question does not --
6and comments do not get lost. And we will have a 7 better opportunity to review and evaluate your 8 comments and questions.
9 So in doing that, you're helping us, and 10 we are helping you, and we create a win-win for 11 everyone.12And this is Trish again. I'd like to 13 thank everybody for their participation, and the staff 14 here, especially to make it a meaningful dialogue.
15 MS. LOPAS: Okay. Let's see. Lorraine, 16 did we have anybody pop on the line during that time?
17OPERATOR: Yes, we did. Give me one 18 moment, please.
19 It looks like their name was not recorded.
20 But your line is open. Just go ahead and speak out.
21MR. CAMPER: Hello, can you hear me? This 22 is Larry Camper.
23 MS. LOPAS: Hi, Larry, yes.
24 MR. CAMPER: Can you hear me?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 88Hi, how are you? First of all, thank you, 1 staff, for your hard work today, very good job, thank 2 you.3 I'd like to make one comment and then ask 4a question. I think it's very important for everyone 5 listening in to understand that currently, TRU waste 6 in excess of 100 nanocuries per gram is in fact, 7orphan waste. If it's not cited within the tables, 8there's no place for it to go. There's a large 9 inventory of GTCC waste today, and it will be 10 increasing.
11 And I think what we should all do is look 12 carefully at the additional requirements that the 13 staff is citing that would be added to Part 61 to 14 address the disposal of GTCC waste if in fact a 15 rulemaking proceeds.
16 That's the comment. The question that I 17 have is I'd like you to refer to table 3-1, and then 18 in turn, table 3-4.
19 And the question is this, I know that most 20 of the remote-handled waste from West Valley has been 21 deemed to be suitable for near-surface disposal with 22 the exception of 540 cubic meters of waste identified 23 as West Valley decontamination of NPPB, which staff 24 included -- exceeded 10,000 nanocuries per gram.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 89 Can you speak a bit more as to the 1radionuclides and amounts that led you to that 2 conclusion and therefore the conclusion that it was 3 not suitable for near-surface disposal? Thank you.
4MR. MCCARTIN: Yes, in that particular 5 situation, decontamination activities that are going 6on at West Valley of the main plant processes, a 7processing building. And I will -- my understanding, 8 and I'm looking through to confirm, but it's americium 9 and plutonium.
10 MR. CAMPER: Americium-241, 41.
11MR. MCCARTIN: Yeah. Americium-241 is 41 12of the nanocuries. And I think the other approximate 13 half of the curie amount is plutonium.
14 And so, it's those two, but I think that's 15 what you're looking for.
16MR. CAMPER: Tim, thank you for that. Is 17 there a specific place where there's inventory amounts 18 are cited that I could turn to in the analysis? Or 19 better yet within the DOE FEIS?
20MS. LOPAS: Repeat that, Larry. Is there 21 a specific --
22MR. CAMPER: Is there a specific place 23 where one can look at the inventory -- the amount of 24 the americium and plutonium either within this impact 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 90 analysis or DOE FEIS?
1MR. MCCARTIN: Well, certainly -- well, 2 for the 17 waste streams, you won't -- you could get 3 it out of the FEIS, but it would be pretty difficult.
4 If you go to the document that's 5 referenced, the NRC 2019, there is an appendix that 6gives the inventory for each one of the 17 waste 7streams. And in there you will see -- and because of 8 the 17 -- I'm looking real quick -- I think, A-6.
9MR. CAMPER: Tim is that the technical 10 analysis document cited in Appendix B?
11 MR. MCCARTIN: Yes.
12 MR. CAMPER: Okay, very good.
13 MR. MCCARTIN: And there's an Appendix A 14 that has all of them. Yeah, and it's Table A-6.
15MR. CAMPER: Yeah, that's the document 16 entitled, technical analyses of the hazards and 17 disposal of greater-than-class C waste, NRC 2019 18 referenced on B-1 of Appendix D, is that correct?
19 MR. MCCARTIN: Correct.
20MR. CAMPER: And that's where you'll find 21 more detail as to the inventory that lists that 22 inclusion, right?
23 MR. MCCARTIN: Yes.
24 MR. CAMPER: Okay. Great. Thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 91MS. LOPAS: Okay. Lorraine, do we have 1 any other questions?
2OPERATOR: Yes, our next question. The 3name was recorded as Concerned Citizens for Nuclear 4 Safety. Your line is now open.
5 MS. ARENDS: Thank you. My name is Joni 6 Arends, and I'm with Concerned Citizens for Nuclear 7 Safety based in Santa Fe. I thought I heard earlier 8that this will be transcribed. And I wanted to 9 understand when the transcription would be available?
10MS. LOPAS: Cardelia, will the transcripts 11 be publicly available?
12MS. MAUPIN: Yes, we will give the 13 transcriber I think they it takes probably seven days 14to get it back to us. And we would -- we have a 15public website on GTCC, and we can post it there. And 16 we can also probably post it on our docket as well, so 17 it'll be easy access.
18 MS. ARENDS: Oh, thank you so much. And 19 then I have another question based on the previous 20 comment. Is it possible -- you described throughout 21the webinar about the 17 different waste streams. And 22 I'm concerned now that you're saying in answer to the 23 previous question, it's going to be really hard to 24 reconstruct that. I think it's really important for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 92 NRDC -- or NRC to provide references for each page or 1 a reference for the 17 different waste streams based 2 on the final EIS for GTCC.
3 MR. MCCARTIN: Well, okay. I'm not sure 4-- maybe I -- in terms of reconstructing, you would 5 have -- you know, the information is in the FEIS.
6 We're the ones that took that information and 7 distributed to 17 waste streams.
8 Those 17 waste streams are presented in 9the NRC 2019 document in an appendix. Each waste 10 stream has a full listing of the inventory et cetera.
11 Now, what I was saying is if you go to 12 DOE's FEIS, you are not going to be 17 waste streams.
13 I can go back and recreate exactly -- okay, this is 14 that one, this is this, and pull it out, but it's not 15 the easiest thing to do because it took me a while to 16 do that. But I mean it is possible.
17 Anyone who wants to know, I can show 18 exactly where I got that waste stream and how I did 19it. But for simplicity, if you want to know the 17 20 waste streams, they are every -- each one of them is 21 explained and described in the appendix of that 22 document.23MS. ARENDS: In the appendix of the NRC 24 2019 document?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 93 MR. MCCARTIN: Correct.
1 MS. ARENDS: Okay, great.
2MR. MCCARTIN: Appendix A. Each one of 3them is there. But I will say -- if there's one thing 4 I have to say is that w hat the 17 waste streams are 5 very good at, in my opinion, which having developed 6 it, I guess I'm biased, but you can see there is a 7 wide range of variability between each of these waste 8 streams.9 And so that's what we're trying to stress, 10 that if you're going to dispose of something, you're 11 going to have to describe what you -- I'm not saying 12 these are -- they're accurate with respect to what's 13 in DOE's FEIS, but some of these future waste streams 14 if they're different -- whatever GTCC waste is being 15 suggested for disposal, as has been discussed, you 16need to have a basis for the inventory and analyze 17 that inventory, and I think all we're trying to show 18 here is that variability is quite significant.
19 And some of it will be much easier to 20 demonstrate safety in an inner-surface disposal 21facility. Some will be more difficult. Some may not 22 be possible.
23 MS. LOPAS: I just want to clarify here, 24Tim. This document that lists the waste stream is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 94 this an appendix or is this a reference in our 1 appendix to the Reg Basis?
2 MR. MCCARTIN: It's a reference --
3 MS. LOPAS: Okay.
4 MR. MCCARTIN: -- in the Reg Basis.
5 MS. LOPAS: Okay. Is it the ML number?
6 Okay, so you'd have to go to ADAMS, folks.
7 And so that ML number, if you're interested, is 8ML19162A259. So if you are familiar -- sorry, go 9 ahead.10 Do you need me to repeat?
11MS. ARENDS: No, I appreciate the 12reference. As a state that is being targeted or being 13 from a state that's being targeted for this waste 14 disposal. I think the more specificity that you can 15 provide now with regard to the variability of the 16waste -- the 17 waste streams, and the volume that 17 you're anticipating will be very important, especially 18 if we move down this road.
19MR. MCCARTIN: Right, and like I said, 20 that reference is Appendix B reference list in the Reg 21Basis has this NRC 2019 document, but I would refer 22 you to table 3-3 in the Reg Basis, which does -- is a 23 table that gives each of the waste streams according 24 to the transuranics concentrations with half-lives 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 95 greater than 55 years.
1And the volume. And so, if you, you know 2-- as we have said the transuranic waste pose some 3 unique issues for the intruder, for operational 4hazards. And you can see there the kinds of volumes, 5and as you go up the table from bottom to up, the 6 concentrations of transuranics are increasing.
7 And that was one place where we're trying 8 to give people perspective of the variation that goes 9 from zero actually for large sealed sources, which is 10 just cesium-137, which is not a transuranic, which is 11 why it's zero, all the way up to 85,900 nanocuries per 12 gram.13 So you can see -- that to me is one of the 14 better tables in the Reg Basis that gives a sense of 15 the volumes and the hazards based on the 16 concentrations of transuranics.
17MS. LOPAS: Okay, I have one more comment 18 here that I'm just going to read from Karen Hadden.
19 And Karen I'm going to read it aloud, but I also -- I 20 think you know that you should submit this in writing.
21 So comment -- Karen says, geologic 22disposal is needed for GTCC and GTCC-like waste. SEED 23 Coalition, the organization I represent, does not 24 advocate for disposal of either the WIPP Site or Yucca 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 96 Mountain, but shallow burial up to 120 feet deep is 1not appropriate as laid out in the generic EIS. A 2 site-specific EIS is needed for the WCS site.
3 So thank you, Karen, for that comment, but 4 make sure that you get that comment in writing by the 5 September 20th deadline on nrc.gov or the rulemaking 6 email.7 Lorraine, do we have any other comments on 8 the phone?
9 Are you there, Lorraine?
10 We can't hear you, Lorraine.
11 OPERATOR: Diane, your line is open.
12 MS. D'ARRIGO: Thank you. I just wanted 13 to also support Pennsylvania's request for an 14extension on the comment period on this. There's 15 probably really not a need to rush it.
16It's been a long time. And I'm for a long 17 comment's extension.
18 MS. MAUPIN: Okay, thank you. And going 19 back to what you said earlier, if we could get those 20 kind of comments that you want to come -- extension 21 period extended in sooner rather than later because we 22 would have to basically do another Federal Register 23 Notice to extend it.
24 And we would have to discuss this with, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 97 you know, our management here. So the sooner we can 1 get those kind of comments in writing, we can, you 2 know, consider them and take the appropriate action as 3 soon as possible.
4MS. LOPAS: All right. Lorraine, are 5 there any other comments on the phone?
6OPERATOR: Yes, Larry Camper, your line is 7 open.8 MS. LOPAS: Hi, Larry.
9 MR. CAMPER: Yes, hi, can you hear me?
10 MS. LOPAS: We can.
11MR. CAMPER: Oh, good. Thank you. In 12 listening to some of the questions that are being 13 asked, particularly from concerned stakeholders in 14 Texas, I would draw to everyone's attention to the 15 fact that the NRC staff also did a prior analysis 16 around the questions for GTCC disposal. And I think 17 you can find a lot of very useful information in 18 Enclosure 2 to SECY-15-0094.
19 It's entitled, technical considerations 20 associated with greater than Class C low-level 21 radioactive waste disposal and qualitative examination 22of disposal challenges. And I think that that 23 information, which is rather extensive coupled with 24 the work that's done in the current Reg Basis document 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 98 can also serve to answer some of your questions about 1 the disposal of GTCC waste, and in turn, the kinds of 2 changes that the staff is proposing that if a 3 rulemaking were to proceed.
4 So I think that could be useful 5information for background reading as well. Thank 6 you.7 MS. LOPAS: Okay. Thank you.
8OPERATOR: There are no further questions 9 in queue at this time.
10MS. LOPAS: Okay. All right everybody, 11with that we are going to end the webinar. I do have 12 one follow-up that I will get from Karen Hadden to 13 Cardelia regarding transportation, but please give 14your comments in by September 20th. If you have a 15 request to extend the comment period, please get that 16 in ASAP. You can email that to the rulemaking email 17 real quickly.
18 And so with that, we will end today's 19webinar. Thanks, everybody for your participation, 20 and have a great day.
21 And court reporter, we're going to stay on 22 the line for you. So we will hang on.
23 (Whereupon, the abo ve-entitled matter went 24 off the record at 3:28 p.m.)
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433