ML20127P171
| ML20127P171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/09/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 8505230714 | |
| Download: ML20127P171 (50) | |
Text
.
.s ORIGIPGb Uh11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION =
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
COMMISSION MEETING
( '
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES:
1-46 DATE. THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1985 iL AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l Official Reporters \
444 North Capitcl Street Bgg 5230 g B50509 Washington, D.C. 20001 PT9.7 PDR (202) 347-3700
e Rap 20:n/rs t -
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
~
4 PERIODI'C MEETING WITH 5 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 6
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
9 Washington, D.C.
10 Friday, May 10, 1985 11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m.
12 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
13 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission
( THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner 14 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner
- FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner 15 LANDO ZECH, Commissioner 16 ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
17 W. KERR M. CARBON 18 D. OKRENT D. WARD 19 W. MOELLER J. MARK 20 J. EBERSOLE H. ETH3RINGTON 21 C. SIESS M. MICHELSON 22 H. LEWIS F. REMICK
-[
23 C. WYLIE R. AXTMANN 24 G. REED Ace-Federtl Reporters, Inc.
25
c Q I DISCLAIMER
.' This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 10, 1985 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. The meeting was open'to public attendance and observation. This
' transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may_contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informa-tional purposes. As provided by_10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. ,
k
, , - . , . . - . . - . . . , - , , , - - , . . . . - . , - - - - . . - , - . - . ,-n.. -, - - , .-
e 2
I EESSEEE1EES 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen.
/~ 4 We have with us this morning members of the ACRS 5 to brief the Commission on two subjects: The ACRS role in 6 the civilian radioactive waste management program and, second, 7 ACRS activities related to consideration of seismic events in 8 emergency planning. The discussion regarding waste management 9 had originally been scheduled for a previous meeting, but we 10 did not get to it at.that time.
11 Regarding the civilian radioactive waste management 12 program, the ACRS has been interacting with the staff 13 Primarily through the Waste Management Subcommittee on various t
14 matters pertaining to licensing the DOE high level waste ,
15 repository. I understand that at today's meeting we will 16 discuss the extent in depth of' the ACRS/ staff interaction.
j7 With respect to considering seismic events in 18 emergency planning, the Commission issued a proposed rule on 19 this subject on December 18, 1984. The proposed rule offered 20 the opportunity for comment on the position of the majority 21 of the Commission that earthquakes need not be considered in 22 emergency planning.
23 We look forward to the ACRS views on this subject.
24 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any additional remarks Ace-Fedsrol Reporters, Inc.
25 at this time?
3 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No.
2 COMMISSIONER ZECH: No.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right, then we will proceed.
4 Let me say, Commissioner Bernthal will be joining us in a 5 few minutes, he asked us to proceed.
6 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Do you think the meeting 7 will last beyond eleven, or do you have any idea?
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I.think we had scheduled it 9 until 11:30, but I will be delighted if we finish up earlier.
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I have to leave at 11:30, I'm 10 11 sorry.
12 MR. WARD: My impression was, it was scheduled just 13 for an hour.
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: That's what the schedule 15 says.
16 MR. WARD: Until eleven.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Excuse me, I am wrong. It 17 18 is scheduled for an hour.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I suspect that will be 20 enough for these two issues.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let me turn the meeting 22 over to Mr. Ward.
23 MR. WARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
24 Thank you for the opportunity to come up again this morning.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 We would like to confine the discussion today to
O 4
o 1 the first tcpic which is the ACRS role in the civilian radio-2 active waste management program. We have had this on the 3 agenda for discussion with you, I think, twice before and we 4 didn't get to it. So, we would like to -- we think it's an 5 important topic and would like to spend the time we have 6 concentrating on this issue.
7 The second one, the consideration of seismic events 8 in emergency planning is one that the Committee is considering 9 at this week's meeting. We are planning, we are scheduled to 10 write a letter to you but we really haven't coalesced on it 11 and we haven't had much discussion yet on the Committee 12 position. So, we are really not in a position to discuss it 13 this morning.
(
- 14 So, for the first topic, the radioactive waste 15 management, I'll ask Dr. Dade Moeller to take the lead.
16 MR. MOELLER: Thank you.
17 In recent months, the ACRS has become increasingly 18 involved in the review of the application, proposed or 19 anticipated application, from the Department of Energy for 20 the construction of a high level waste repository.
21 As we have moved along with these reviews and 22 discussion, several members of the ACRS have from time to time 23 asked if we shouldn't step back and see where we are and 24 evaluate just how best the Committee could approach this Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 subject and handle it.
5 1 In fact, we wrote a letter on September 11, 1984 2 to the EDO -- to Mr. William Dircks -- saying that we would 3 like to work out with the NRC staff some specific guidelines 4 on how we would interact in handling our review.
5 And indeed, we then met with the staff and on 6 October 12, 1984 we summarized our agreement with them on our 7 procedures, and at that time we anticipated the environmental 8 assessments for nine different potential repository sites 9 and the ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee tentatively planned 10 to assign these cites to individual consultants who would 11 follow along and keep up with tham.
12 But we agreed with the NRC staff that we would await 13 the selection of the final three sites before we went into 14 real in-depth review and discussion of them. We also agreed 15 with the staff that as they developed what they call their 16 site technical positions, we would try to review those 17 individually and offer comments on them.
18 We also agreed, obviously, to meet with the NRC staff 19 periodically and to meet, indeed, with the DOE staff to 20 discuss various aspects of the subject. We also agreed that 21 we would try, to the extent possible, to join or attend other l 1
22 briefings provided by particularly the NRC staff so that we l
23 didn't make unusual demands upon them in terms of time.
24 We also mention, one of the subjects that came up Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 was the mastter of transportation of waste to an MRS and then
6 1 to a high level site, or moving it from place to place, and 2 the staff, I think, was of the opinion that they might want us 3 to review some of those considerations. We have discussed
~
4 that among the ACRS Committee members and they urge that the 5 subcommittee, before we get into transportation, that we come 6 back and discuss that with them and get their approval to move 7 ahead in that particular area.
8 I just mention that as an example of some of the 9 considerations that were under way.
10 The NRC staff also said that they were tackling 11 the problem of the definition of what is high level waste.
12 So, at the time we did formulate some opinions and sent those 13 forward to the staff.
+
14 This having been done, we felt in many respects we 15 were on a pretty good path. However, certain questions began 16 to develop, for example, the NRC staff had set up a Waste 17 Management Oversight Committee and we reviewed their comments 18 and conclusions. And they put forth the concept that the 19 ACRS would probably be requested to concur in the granting of 20 both a CP and an OL for the waste repository.
21 So, the question came up, will the Committee and do 22 the Commissioners desire for the Committee to write a letter 23 ultimately that would say, "We believe that the proposed 24 high level repository can be constructed and ultimately Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the
7 1 public.
2 Well, if you want such a letter from us, if that is 3 in your plans, of course that causes us to look at it in a way 4 perhaps differently than we would otherwise.
5 The Oversight Committee in saying that indeed they 6 wanted such a letter said that they felt that the ACRS should 7 have on its membership, on the full Committee membership, 8 people expert, one or more members who are expert in the field 9 of radioactive waste management, and particularly, as I 10 recall at least in oral discussions with them, they talked 11 about people expert.in the field of soil mechanics and in 12 hydrology.
13 If that were not the approach to be taken, the 14 Oversight Committee, as I recall, stated or suggested that 15 perhaps some separate committee or group could be constituted 16 to offer them, and perhaps you, advice on the subject of high 17 level waste management.
18 And I believe in mentioning those other groups they 19 were looking at someone like a committee that might be 20 established by the National Academy of Sciences or the National 21 Academy of Engineering, that could be perhaps almost a total l 22 committee composed of members who are experts in the field of 23 high level waste management.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Would this be instead of "the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 ACRS or analogous to the ACRS?
w ..
. , 8 k
~
1 MR. MOELLER: I think that would need some 2 clarification. It could be either instead or it could be 3 complementary to the work of the ACRS.
4 Well, we immediately moved, having read the Oversight 5 Committee's report and having met with the staff on these 6 matters, we.immediately moved to strengthen our consulting 7 staff, particularly the staff and consultants who met 8 regularly with our subcommittee, and we have added people there 9 who are covering, as far as we can tell, the essential areas 10 that we would need.
11 Among the committee members, amoncj the-ACRSimembnrf:r --
12 abd we will certainly give them an opportunity to respond --
13 I_think there has been a general reluctance to say, "Well, i
14 .we'll commit one, two, or three future vacancies on the .
15 Committee to this area," and as you well know, there have 16 been many others who have been clamoring for more people with 17 operating experience and so forth.
18 So, we have gone a little slow there. We have also, 19 as a Committee, worked out an arrangement where the Committee 20 is placing a lot of faith and placing a lot of responsibility 21 on its Waste Management Subcommittee, and in order to 22 expedite our comments and move them along rapidly for the 23 utilization of the NRC staff, for several months -- along 24 about December, January and February, December of '84 and Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 January and February of '85 -- the full Committee agreed to
9 I simply make our subcommittee comments a part of the minutes of 2 the full Committee meeting of that month, and therefore they 3 could be moved ahead very rapidly.
4 The full Committee though, I think, still wants to 5 follow the path that they would only address the major issues 6 and not becore too involved in the details.
7 So, I think for purposes of the discussion today, 8 the key points as far as I am concerned -- speaking for 9 myself and hopefully representing the thoughts of the 10 Committee -- would be the following:
11 One, do the Committees foresee the desire for an 12 ACRS letter that would say a repository could be constructed 13 and Ehen one could ultimately be operated without undue risk 14 to health and safety of the public. And if your answer is 15 "yes," then do you believe that we can move along on a path 16 where we depend heavily upon our Waste Management Sdbcommittee 17 and depend heavily upon consultants to provide the expertise 18 to review in depth the rarious issues that are here. .
19 If "yes," or if "no," or if either way, do you 20 believe that it would be of help to have some outside group 21 that would support or complement this effort.
22 I think in saying that, we would all have to 23 recognize that any academy committee could be very slow -- I 24 mean, traditionally they are somewhat delayed in terms of Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 getting information to you.
I
+ 10-1 And another aspect would be, how will we handle or 2 how would you suggest the full Committee handle this in 3 terms of subcommittee financing the budget for, essentially, an 4 increased number of subcommittee meetings.
5 We.were moving along at one time at about one 6 Waste Management Subcommittee meeting of one or two days 7 .every month. Looking longer range, we thought, well, we 8 will'need about eight such subcommittee meetings per year.
9 At the moment, we are projecting about three per year in view 10 of the budgetary constraints.
11 I think those are the main comments that I would 12 have to make, and we will certainly listen now to your 13 questions or comments, and to the other members of the ACRS.
- 14 (Commissioner Bernthal joins meeting.)
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let me ask you one 16 question. You seem to be placing more emphasis on the sub-t 17 committee than usual -- and maybe I haven't caught the full 18 impact of that. Usually, you have a subcommittee, they make I
19 site visits; they hold preliminary meetings; they distill 20 the issues, and sometimes they even make recommendations to '
21 the main committee.
22 Now, would you see this being handled differently?
23 I'm not clear.
24 MR. MOELLER: I think we would see it be handled Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 differently and, indeed, we have been handling it differently. ;
11 1 I believe here the number of items to be covered, 2 .the workload, is tremendous.. I would see it as, yes, it would 3 represent somewhat a shift in the normal operations of the 4 full Committee. And yet, I don't see it as a bad shift. Many 5 members of the Committee have said frequently this is the 6 way'it should be done, the Committee should be placing more 7 faith and allowing the subcommittees to take more actions on 8 their own and forwarding their reports directly.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I agree.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I thought that the 11 subcommittees worked effectively on reactors, and I wasn't 12 sure exactly what we are doing here.
13 MR. MOELLER: This is somewhat different, yes.
V 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But now, if a subcommittee 15 sends its reports directly to the Commission, then I think we 16 are in trouble because --
17 MR. MOELLER: No, they would not. They would be 18 reported -- we would report in detail but very briefly at each 19 full Committee meeting and then, if there were no objections, 20 our written report which would have been provided to all the 21 members of the Committee would simply be made a part of the 22 minutes of that meeting, and that gives us an avenue for 23 moving them ahead to the NRC staff promptly.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You said that you would picture Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 the ACRS writing letters only on major issues. Do you have
12 n.
1 any idea of what major issues you might?
2 MR. MOELLER: I don't'really. I'm not prepared to 3 respond to that. I think we probably would reach a decision
( 4 on which are the major issues'in consultation with the full 5 Committee and in consultation with the staff.
6 Thus far, though, the review of the technical 7 positions, technical staff positions, we have considered 8 mainly a case of commenting on these -- and there have been 9 a number of those -- and the full Committee has been content 10 simply to have us forward those.
11 MR. MARK: A construction permit letter would be a 12 very clear item of that sort.
13 MR. MOELLER: Oh, yes.
i 14 MR. MARK: And another imaginable one ,would be if 15 the group were asked for an opinion, how do you rank the 16 three sites for the choice of the first one. That would be a 17 kind of an item, if it came up that way, which would certainly 18 fall in the range that the full Committee would want to sit 19 and argue about.
20 MR. MOELLER: Another example would be if there l 21 was a point of disagreement between the DOE staff and the l
22 NRC staff and we were helping to offer arbitration. That .
I 23 would certainly come to the full Committee.
l 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm sorry I got in on the l l !
Ac Fw waingan m.lu.
25 tail end of this, and I apologize for being late. But for ,
l I
I l
13 1 my part, I would like to see more of the background that goes 2 into these discussions and final full Committee resolution of 3 these issues.
4 I do not believe there is a problem in our seeing
'{~
5 and hearing -- seeing material that comes from subcommittees 6 and hearing from members of those subcommittees while the work 7 is in progress. It amounts to taking that small risk that 8 they might be misused or might later be amended. It's a 9 trade-off between that and really influencing Commission 10 decision and being part of the process here.
11 I would opt for the latter, quite frankly.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: There is a problem, though --
13 I don't think there is anything wrong in the minutes being 14 a part of the record of the Committee. But if the subcommittee 15 were to make direct recommendations to the Commission, then 16 you would run afoul of the Advisory Committee Act in that 17 the subcommittee then would have to follow all the rules that 18 the main Committee has to follow.
19 MR. MOELLER: Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, I'm not talking about a 21 formalized process. In fact, I'd like to deformalize this 22 whole process as much as possible.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now, wait a minute, the ACRS 23 24 is supposed to make its recommendations on the public record.
Ace Fedel Reporters, Inc.
25 So, eventually that's --
14 9
1
' COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL,: Its final recommendations, I 2 agree. But it's much like, you know, our oversight committees 3 on the Hill often have communications -- sometimes it doesn't
( 4 make us happy, but in' fairness that's one of the ways that 5 they do get some feeling and flavor of the flavor for what went 6 into a decision. I think it's good for us to see some of that 7 as far as the ACRS is concerned.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I certainly welcome and 9 encourage our getting information along the way, but all I 10 was trying to point out is, that we have this other problem.
11 , Personally, it's subject to further consideration. I think it 12 would be, highly desirable to have main Committee letters on 13 major issues along the way.
f 14 But now I don't speak for the whole Commission, so -- ,
15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Is it appropriate for us to 16 rank -- you, us -- to rank the sites? Isn't that just getting 17 into a minefield?
18 MR. MOELLER: Right, the staff has said, and I believe 19 it's official Commission policy that you will not rank the 20 sites.
'21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think the kinds of things --
22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I think we ought to stay 23 away from that.
i I
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think the kinds of things I ke Federal Reporters, Inc.
l 25 would be thinking of, is the site okay.
15 I MR. MOELLER: Yes, and if we followed your agreed-upon 2 policy -- or what - do you call them, you know, the joint DOE /NRC --
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The guidelines?
4 MR. MOELLER: Guidelines, if they have been 5 properly followed, yes.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is the data sufficient to reach 7 the conclusion reached.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, I think we should shy 9 away from -- I agree with Tom -- for us to sort of do a 10 balancing and say, "Well, it looks to us like it's one, two, 11 three this way" is not really appropriate.
12 On the other hand, if we find, if you find, if the 13 ACRS finds a significant technical deficiency, it may in the j 14 end turn out to be ineffectual ranking, but it should be a 15 ranking based on -- that would be obvious to the reader 16 based on a technical judgment rather than --
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I wouldn't call it a " ranking."
18 I would say, this one is okay and here is one that --
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: A de facto ranking is what 20 I mean, only if by clear weight of technical evidence the 21 reader can't help but rank in his own mind. I agree with Tom, l 22 we should not get into the business here of seeking to rank l
23 the sites.
24 MR. WARD: Okay. Well, I think Carson just gave Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 this as an example.
l l
i
16 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me fill in, Fred,-that the 2 ACRS was asking, do we want them to submit letters on major 3 issues associated with waste management, and I was responding 4 to that.and they are seeking others to respond.
5 Now, I still say subject to maybe a little further 6 consideration --
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I'd like to raise a 8 broader question and get your reaction, Dave, and the reaction 9 of the other Committee members.
10 Let me start by saying that I don't want to mis-11 understood on why I raise this. I think that the efforts that 12 the Committee has had over the past few years in the waste 13 management area and a repository program have all been good i
14 and I think the Committee has been actively involved and, 15 Dade, I know you in particular put a lot of time and effort 16 into this.
17 But some of the things that you said raised the 18 question in my mind about whether we ought to consider a 19 separate Advisory Committee on the waste management program.
20 I know that there is a good deal of expertise both in the 21 Committee members and in your consultants in a number of areas 22 that I think are directly relevant to the repository program --
23 health physics, material sciences, str uctures, those kinds of 24 things. Many of you are experts in those areas.
Ac. P.d.r.1 n.porem inc.
25 But there are other areas that I think are directly 0
17 I relevant where that expertise is not necessarily reflected en 2 the Committee now and, Dade, you have highlighted some of 3 those, hydrology, rock and soil mechanics, minino engineering,
~'
4 geology, those things.
5 When I look ahead alen at the work load in this 6 area, I agree with what you said, Dade, I think this is going 7 to be a monumental effort. And for my part, I would certainly 8 agrce with what the Chairman said, that we want advice and 0 comments, and recommendations not only on the kinds of major 10 things that we were just talking about, but when I look ahead 11 at the detailed steps and the process that we have put up in 12 the repository program, I'd like a lot of input along the way.
13 This whole program is premised on the notion that 14 during this early informal stage things will be done right 15 and they have to be done right, otherwise by the time we get 16 to a license application several years down the road, if the 17 application isn't any good, then we are all in deep trouble.
18 So, what we need to make sure is all of these 19 preliminary s teps, the selection of sites; the development of 20 plans to characterize those sites; the conduct of the site 21 characterization work; the validity of the data; the adequacy 22 of the research programs on waste form and packaging that DOE 23 will be doing over the next several years. All those things
- 24 are the fundamental underpinnings for the license application, ke-Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 Now, I think that we need a group that will look in
~
! 18
(- .
I detail at all'those steps as they are being proposed and as l
! 2 they are.being conducted to make sure that DOE and the staff I ~3 are on the right' track and that we'are moving towards getting- l
- l. 4 a high quality application beca'use I think the Commission has E 5 said repeatedly, "We have to have a high quality application,
_6 _'otherwise-we can't meet our responsibilities to make a.' timely 7 license. decision."
8 And this is going to be a challenge, the kind of 9 questions that are going to be raised in this proceeding, and the ability to be able.to say,~"We think that there is.reasonab: .e
- 10
'11 assurance that this thing is going to perform for the long ,
.12 periods of time that are necessary." That's going to be'a 13 major undertaking.
t ?-
l 14 So, I think we-need advice, and views, ,and comments l 15 along the way. That raises in my mind the question of, should ,
t 16 we have -- as we have in a couple of other areas, I guess 17 medical uses of radio-isotopes comes to mind - -should we 18 have an-Advisory Committee that will focus explicitly on .
t
~19 this area, apart from the ACRS. .
20 And there may be overlapping _ memberships. I know {
t 21 that Dade, for example, has put a lot of time and effort in l
22 this over the years and has developed a great deal of :
l
- 23 knowledge and expertise, and I suspect perhaps other members l 24 of the Committee have as well.
Ace Federal Repeders, Inc.
25 One of the questions I have is, would it be better t 1
i l
19 I rather than trying to either add members to the ACRS with 2 expertise in this area, or having to rely heavily on the use 3 of consultants in this area, to have a separate Advisory 4 Committee that would focus on this program with the kind of 5 expertise that we want to cover that particular area and that 6 could devote the time and attention needed to follow all of 7 these various steps, and function much like the ACRS does in 8 the reactor area.
. 9 And'are there benefits also from the standpoint of 10 the workload of the ACRS? I know that you all are beginning 11 to undertake an effort to think about what the ACRS should be 12 doing over the next several years, the kinds of areas that 13 you ought to put your emphasis on. I know many of you and many 14 of us have talked about the benefits to be gained by having 15 the ACRS focus on operations at plants and what's going on 16 in the plants, and what does that tell us in terms of the 17 areas that we ough t to be working on and focusing our attention 18 on.
19 You know, is there a benefit to be gained there by 20 having a separate Advisory Committee, or is there another 21 possibility which is to have two. Have the ACRS look at 22 the major questions just as I think you proposed, but perhaps i 23 have another Advisory Committee that would look in detail at i
! 24 the program and follow it along.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
r 25 I'd be real interested in hearing your reactions,
20 1
Dada, and those of the other Committee members on which of 2 those' options you think have benefits or draw-backs, and 3 particularly the separate Advisory Committee.
4 MR. MOELLER: Well, my response would be that within 5 .the ACRS's structure, and particularly within our Subcommittee 6 on Waste Management, we do have a base upon which you could 7 rapidly build almost anything that you want.
8 I believe that our Waste Management Subcommittee 9 can do the job if given the funds to do it. I also believe 10 that perhaps we could -- or undoubtedly -- we could do it 11 more efficiently than setting up a completely separate group.
12 I mean, we have had no problem in the ACRS staffing, you know, 13 to provide this staff engineer support and so forth. It's 14 been very good for this. .
15 So, I think I would almost like to have the chance 16 to see or to show you what we can do through a properly 17 supported Waste Management Subcommittee in concert with the 18 full Committee.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: How many people do you have on 20 the subcommittee?
21 MR. MOELLER: We have generally about four people.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: On this one?
MR. MOELLER: On this one, it's probably five or six.
23 24 And we do have, Dr. Okrent was pointing out this morning in Ae-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 our preliminary discussion before coming up here, that we do
21 I have among the members of our full Committee a number of people
'2 who have a lot to contribute, as Commissioner Asselstine has 3 already said, Like Paul Shewmon who is certainly quite expert 4 in materials and in the containers for high level waste. Dr.
5 Okrent has worked not only with us but with the EPA group that 6 was setting the risk-based approach for the high level waste 7 repositories. -So, we do have people that are helpful.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I would just suggest that 9 if you set up a separate advisory panel, what you are really
-10 doing in effect is the very thing that we talked about a few 11 minutes ago, you would be setting up a kind of subcommittee 12 that reports directly to the Commission, and that may or may 13 not be a good idea.
14 That is what in effect you have done, I think, if 15 you do that.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, except that what 17 you would have is a group that would devote all of their 18 attention to this issue. You know, it's not unprecedented, we 19 do have advisory committees that look at other areas.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I understand.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And this is the Advisory 21 22 Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, but it probably ought 24 to have a different title.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 (Laughter)
22 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, that's another problert.
2 I guess my only concern is, when I look at the work-3 load ---
Y. 4 MR. MOELLER: Right.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: --
I think the workload 6 has been growing. I think it is about to grow exponentially 7 and what I think the Commission needs is a group of people who 8 can really keep on top of what's going on. And when site 9 characterization starts going on at these sites, I daink that's 10 ' going to be a fairly big workload.
11 If the subcommittee can do it, fine. 'But I would -
12 expect you are going to need a lot of consultants to keep 13 track of what is going on. Certainly, you look at the staff
- 14 effort and the level of effort that they anticipate having to 15 put into keeping on top of what's happening in the' field. It 16 begins to grow rather substantially very quickly.
17 And I think this is one of the most important programs 18 over the next decade or so.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I agree with a lot of what 20 Jim has said. I agree with the need to get reports on things 21 in progress because the great service, I think, that you can 22 render not just to the Commission but to the country in this 23 whole business is not to let the process go on so far if i l
24 there are serious disagreements with what's happening, you know, l
e ,howd ag.mn.ix.
25 as things are developing and not at the tail end in the form of
23 I a letter that throws everything into a hat.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It really has to be done 3 right.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me make a comment. With 5 regard to resources, it's not going to cost any less by 6 putting on another Advisory Committee. I think if it takes 7 resources, we have to face up to the resource need --
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Sure.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -- and do it the way we think is 10 best.
II COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right, yes. What 12 you may get by a separate Advisory Committee is involvement 13 and attention by the Committee membars themselves as opposed 14 to having to rely heavily on consultants in the ACRS sub-15 committee.
I6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The consultants can provide 17 background; they can provide evaluations. But what you look 18 for in the end is the judgment of a group.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's exactly right.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And I think the subcommittee 21 can begin to jell that thinking and eventually we would 22 expect, I would expect, the scrutiny of the entire Committee 23 on key issues.
24 And incidentally, I think we ought to suggest some AwFederal Reporters, Inc.
25 of those key issues. I think I will poll the Commission for
24 I suggestions.and"if we go.this way, it might be well for the 2 Commission ~to write a letter to the Committee, saying we would 3 like you to do it and here are some of the areas where you i; 4 might' want to consider sending us letters at the appropriate 5 time. Not tie your hands but give you some sense of what 6 our expectations are and where we think it would be useful to 7 hear from you.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: This whole thing really a
9 should have a very high priority, I think, wita ACRS. It may 10 not in fact be the very highest priority but certainly in 11 terins of public confidence and acceptance of this whole 12 business it's terribly important. In my judgment it's the 10 most important thing outside, perhaps, that huge weapons-14 related component over at DOE. It's the most impor, tant thing 15 that is going on at DOE for the foreseeable future.
I 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So, it should have very 18 high priority there as well.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me ask a follow-up question 20 on Commissioner Asselstine's, or maybe it's the same question 21 he expressed. Does the ACRS feel a) this is an appropriate 22 thing to be doing and b) do you want to do it?
23 MR. MOELLER: Why don't we ask for responses?
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Or don't you want to do it?
AcePederol Reporters, Inc.
25 I'm just trying to get a feel for whetber you are telling us --
l L
s 25 1 I got the cense you think it's appropriate and would sort of 2 like to do it. I just want to' make sure that that's the right 3 message.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: If I could add in just 5 a third which is, do any of you have reservations about your j 6 ability to do this and put a high priority on this as compared 7 to the other things that you think the ACRS ought to be worrying 8 about?
9 ' MR. WARD: Glenn Reed.
! . 10 MR. REED: Well, I have reservations. I see the 11 workload and am surprised by it as a new member, and I see 12 the pulling and hauling in different directions, perhaps 13 fortifying the operations expertise.
14 I don't think we are out of the design needs, 15 systems design needs either with respect to reactor safeguards 16 issues -- reactor design issues, reactor operations issues, 17 and I for one recognize that we ought to sit and have 18 contributory judgment with respect to issues. I think when 19 we sit on issues, reactor issues and safety issues, we have, 20 all of us, contributory judgment that is beneficial for the 21 Commissioners.
22 In this area, I for one would feel not able to 23 judge subcommittee work at all or contribute. It is a very 24 foreign and different field. And I have the feeling there oca-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 are some other members of the subcommittee that feel it is
. 26 1 very foreign to our ability to express good judgment.
2 MR. WARD: Dr. Axtmann?
3 MR. AXTMANN: Well, I feel that this new activity 4 is important enough that we ought to have real experts. We 5 ought to have a geologist, several hydrologists, earth 6 scientists in-those areas not being common in the activities 7 we have had so far.
8 The alternative of getting a stable of consultants, 9 I think, doesn't add up to the same kind of responsibility 10 that a dedicated Committee has. For those reasons, I think 11 we ought to move very, very' carefully.
12 We do not have any peole on the Committee now that 13 have not sort of picked these things up. Dade's expertise 14 in the radiation safety aspects of the respository is an 15 important component and I'm glad we have him. But we don't 16 have the other people close in, 17 I think I agree quite a bit with Commissioner 18 Asselstine.
19 MR. WARD: Jesse?
20 MR. EBERSOLE: I think this area of work has a 21 certain quality of homogeneity which is inconsistent with the 22 homogeneity of the other work we do with ACRS, you know, the 23 matter of considering sudden and abrupt catastrophe and trouble 24 in reactors, where this is a slow-moving, highly politicized
' Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 process that I'm quite certain some of us don't even agree with
27 1 the notion of permanent retrievability.
2 I take a much more personal interest in.the monitored 3 retrievable systems that are coming forth a lot faster. I 4 can't personally envision at what point in time they will be 5 declared to be inadequate. I value the prerogative of saying 6 that 1 made a mistake and going back and fixing it to the 7 Point I hardly if ever agree to the notion of absolutely 8 irretrievable lodging.
9 I think that's the basis of the public concern and 10 the general political heaviness of this issue.
11 I think I would endorse a focused committee of the 12 type of people that we have been talking about here, carrying 13 the primary burden with a substantial interface with this 14 Committee just on a consulting basis.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I didn't hear the last part.
16 MR. EBERSOLE: I would like to see an integral group, 17 an integral committee in its own right handling this issue, but 18 not totally dissociated from this group. We certainly would 19 lue coupled to them to scme extent but not in carrying the 20 Primary workload and making these urgent decisions if in 21 fact they are going to have to be that way.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I can capture the idea of a 23 Separate group.
24 MR. EBERSOLE: Right. I am endorsing a separate Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 group.
28 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Dovetailing them means 2 that we get two sets of opinions?
3 MR. EBERSOLE: I wouldn't want to totally dis-
<- 4 sociate ACRS from this group, but I'd like to see it operate in 5 toto by itself.
6 MR. WARD: Bill Kerr.
7 MR. KERR: There is certainly something attractive 8 about having a dedicated group of experts available to advise 9 one on a topic so important and so thorny.
10 And if one could suddenly wave a magic wand and 11 have such a group come into existence overnight, I for one 12 would endorse it.
13 My own experience on this Committee would seem to 14 indicate it takes one, even when one is being integrated into 15 an existing cor.mittee, three or four years to become a productive 16 individual with some broad knowledge of what the problems 17 are, how the staff works, and how the Commission operates.
I would think it would be likely that it would take 18 19 about that start-up time for a committee that one would begin 20 from scratch, in effect -- even assuming that you could find the people who have available the time to put on this. You 21 22 know, I think, from looking for people to serve on this 23 committee that that is not an easy task.
24 It seems to me that the current subcommittee Ace-Federtl Reporters, Inc.
25 organization which Dade has proposed is working reasonably
29 1 well.and I believe that'since I don't think this issue is 2 going to be settled overnight, that this may well work and 3 in terms of resources and practical considerations I would thin) 4 it might be better.
5 But, of course, those of us on the Committee can't 6 be perhaps as objective as outsiders.
7 MR. WARD: Dr. Siess.
8 MR. SIESS: Do you mind if I stand up? I want 9 to see who I am talking to.
10 There are two benefits, I think, to the Commission 11 from having a separate committee. For one thing, you would 12 be appointing the members of the committee rather than the ACRS chairman or the subcommittee chairman. They would be, 13 14 then,- responsible to you and you would certainly have no 15 Problem with that committee writing letters to the Commission 16 as opposed to giving advice to the staff.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
17 MR. SIESS: On the other hand, the Commission is 18 19 finding it difficult now to finance the current activities 20 of ACRS. I don't know what you would do to find the money 21 to finance another Advisory Committee.
22 So, you will get certain benefits out of the sub-23 committee operation probably a lot cheaper than if you set
, 24 up another Advisory Committee, so we would opt for Dade heefederal Reporters, Inc.
25 to operate eight or ten meetings a year unless we cut back on w _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .
. 30' 1 .something else.
2 Now, the question you didn't ask and I don't know 3 how to answer'it is why the ACRS has been satisfied with this 4 arrangement which Joe identified quite early as being different 5 of the subcommittee having a certain level of autonomy and 6 reports'that are being sent from the subcommittee to the staff 7 by various advisors.
8 Why has the ACRS accepted this or recommended it?
1p Is it lack of - ido the members feel they don't have the 10 expertise to review what the subcommittee is doing and write 11 letters every month like we do on other subjects? Is it 12 lack of interest, lack of time? I suspect with various 13 members it is various things, but I think that's a legitimate 14 question to consider. ,
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Chet, on the resource 16 question, you are absolutely right about the difficulty in 17 finding resources now to fund activities -- it's not just the 18 ACRS, it's a number of other things as well. Although I 19 would say that th e waste area is at least one area where we 20 have a potential for easing that burden.
21 Both the Commission and some of the congressional 22 committees are looking at ways to fund our regulatory efforts 23 in the waste program from the Waste Fund, either directly or 24 indirectly.
l Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 It may well be that a separate Advisory Committee
31 I would make that even easier because then you could say, that is
.. 2 clearly part of the agency's regulatory activities on the 3 respository program and therefore would have to be part of 4 the funding scheme.that draws from the Waste Fund, either 5 directly or indirectly.
6 So, I don't know whether it helps much or not, but 7 that's a good point on the resources and it's one that cuts 8 .across a lot of things.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, that's right. In fact, 10 it will, our activities on the Waste Fund will in fact be 11 funded out of the Nuclear Waste --
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTIIS: One way or the other, yes.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: One way or the other that 14 will come out of that pot of money, it just depends on how.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: When will that be dttermined, 17 do we know?
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: As soon as we get a paper 19 from the staff that gives us the options, and we can vote on 20 them and tell the Congress what it is we want.
i 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But it won't necessarily come 22 out -- it won't come out unless the Congress agrees.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right. But two 24 committees at least have already done that initially. They Ace Federol Reporters, Inc.
! 25 have backed off as a result of some concerns and have agreed to
. 32 1 hold hearings on the issue. But the fact that two committees 2 were ready to act and that they are going to hold hearings 3 on it and act on it, leads me to believe that we'll get a 4 resolution fairly soon.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The only question we might 6 counter is, if it had a significant price tag attached to it 7 and if we were forming a new entity, there might be some 8 complaint about our taking too big a cut of the Waste Fund.
9 But other than that, it's --
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. But ours is such a 11 small piece anyway. If you add up all of the regulatory efforto ,
12 it pales in comparison with the DOE expenditures.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Not everyone shares that view.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Why don't we see what other 15 comments the Committee members have because we are going to 16 have to make a judgment eventually.
j7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
jg MR. WARD: Dr. Mark has something.
19 MR. MARK: I have heard the comments you have heard 20 already. Mine, I think, will be more or less orthogonal.
21 It really depends on what you think the ACRS should be doing 22 for y u, or you wish it were doing for you or, contrarywise, 23 what do the ACRS members think of themselves as doing.
24 My own view of that is that this Advisory Committee, Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 in spite of its name, is an Advisory Committee to the Commissior
33 I with respect to the problems which we think the Commission has 2 or the Commission asks us to help them think about. And in 3 the past, and I expect in the future, this is going to be a 4 rather wide spectrum of things. It will include some things 5 having to do with seismology. We don't have any seismologists 6 on board either.
7 It will include things having to do with human 8 factors. And I don't think any of the members were chosen 9 because of their psychiatric background or whatever --
10 (Laughter) 11 MR. MARK: -- it takes uo juggle human factors. And, 12 God help us, we have even found ourselves talking about QA, 13 and I don't think there is anybody here who set out in early 14 life to be a QA expert.
15 My own feeling agrees with yours that this waste 16 management is the moct prominent -- I don't really think it 17 is the most important technically, but politically it is 18 very important -- item in the field and will be very prominent 19 for some years, and the progress of the nuclear enterprise 20 depends on that going well or being explained properly.
21 It doesn't really need to be as complicated as it 22 is if it were explained that it isn't that complicated.
23 Now, you could have for this very easily a number of 24 Advisory Committees, and you casily could already have had Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 them in five or six fields, as I could imagine it. At present
r 34 1 it is being thought that a good background in reactor operations ,
2 perhaps most of the Committee members should be chosen from 3 that basket. Then, of course, I don't think you would find 4 the group that would talk to you about waste management, nor 5 combustible gases or seismological problems.
6 What you have now is a group of people who have their 7 feet in the technical background which wasn't in most cases 8 frightfully narrow and, thinking of my colleagues, at least, 9 you have chosen people who were prepared to think of things 10 which weren't in their Ph.D. theses. And it's lucky that 11 you do because next week it will be another different thing.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
13 MR. MARK: If you want a committee which has those
. 14 characteristics, you've got it and it can put its attention 15 with different weights on different things.
16 If you want a group of exoerts, then you really are 17 going to need it in a number of different fields because your 18 Waste Management Advisory Committee and your Medical Advisory 19 Committee cannot be called on with respect to the Commission's 20 program and problems as they develop and change from today's 21 list to tomorrow's list.
22 I think you would want to give it really serious 23 thought because it is rather fundamental if you are going to 24 attempt to cover, within the membership of the Committee, 4.-P.d.,.i n. pen.,i, ix.
25 expertise in the fields in which you expect you will have
35 I problems because, as you well know, once you've got a member 2 in this Committee he gets so fascinated with the problems that 3 he.never wants to leave.
4 (Laughter) 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, one thing I don't think we 6 want is a committee that is made up of experts who think only 7 of their expert field.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.
9 MR. EBERSOLE: But.that was --
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I know, I'm building on your 11 comments, I wasn't trying to detract from them.
12 As a matter of fact, what we want is the collective 13 judgment. We don't want this thing overemphasized by the 14 geologists or the hydrologists to the point where we don't 15 get a balanced approach to the evaluation.
16 MR. MARK: These are fields in which you do want 17 expertise and in which this subcommittee has a first-class 18 group of people who can tell you about the ionization of states 19 and acidic soils versus some other kinds of soils and other 20 kinds of rock.
21 I don't really want to know those things, but I 22 can recognize -- I have come to be abic to recognize -- that 23 they do need to be known to somebody.
24 But you have a rather unique instrument, I would ko Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 say as not viewing the Committee 'from the outside, looking at
36 I my colleagues. You have a really unique and very fine 2 instrument here for responding to a new question, whatever it 3 may be, that's got straight-forward or comprehensible technical 4 content.
5 MR. WARD: One comment I'd like to make, Joe, in 6 just a minute. I think that some of the pressures for increase <1 7 activity on the part -- at least some of them -- on the part 8
of the ACRS on the radwaste question are coming trcm the 9 Commission's staff, and part of that is the need they seem to L 10 have for a peer review of their activities perhaps more at 11 the working level than at the policy development level.
12 Some of that may be related to the resources you 13 have on the staff and in particular the way those resources are j4 organized. With regard to the reactor safety issues, , I think 15 the staff is organized se there are a number of different .
16 9roups, a number of different branches looking at the same j7 questions, and you sort of have more internal peer review.
18 I think maybe that doesn't exist, and I'm not sure that an 39 Advisory Committee -- whether this one or another one -- is the 20 appropriate way to fill that gap.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think you are right, 22 the waste management staff is not structured that way.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do other Commissioners havo 24 comments?
COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes, I would just like to say
37 1 first.of all, I think this whole discussion is very helpful.
2 I don't know that we -- at least in my mind, I haven't come to 3 any conclusions, frankly.
4 I do think that we are involved in quite a different 5 field, with all due respect to the Advisory Committee of 6 Reactor Safeguards and the tremendous contribution you have 7 made over the years, and I really do respect that.
8 I think there is lots to do still in your area of 9 expertise. We are bringing more plants on the line all the 10 time. I think it's important to focus on the safety of the 11 plants in operation and the plants coming on line. So, there 12 is still plenty to do in my judgment in the' field that you all 13 have and are still making such a contribution in.
14 I would hate to see any effort that would perhaps 15 detract in any way at all from what I see as a continuing need 16 for your thoughtful contribution.
17 Also, it is such a new field we are talking about, 18 and in the endeavor we are into, as mentioned earlier by 19 others here, my colleagues, the informal process that we are 20 going through, trying to solve the problems as we go along is 21 quite important and I think preter. Whoever gets involved in 22 this business couldn't wait until the very end to make a big 23 judgment. I think they have to be involved in the whole 24 process as it goes along.
Ace-P.d.,al Report.rs. inc.
25 I think that is taking place now. Our staff and
38 l 1 the DOE folks are working together. .Our staff does have 2 considerable capability, and I understand that there has been 3 some -- even between our staff and DOE -- there has been a bit 4 of a competition to find outside experts and to tap those I
5 that are expert because it is a limited number of people we 6 are talking about with very special backgrounds -- geologists, y hydrologists, people involved in soil saturation and so forth.
3 So, those are not in unlimited suppli' in our country.
9 So, I think they are trying to concentrate on the 10 experts and I just don't know whether it would be appropriate 11 or really absolutely necessary to have your organization of 12 considerable expertise in your field branch into something 13 where I think it is recognized by all of the discussion I 14 heard this morning and I wo61d agree with most of what has 15 been said, I think we all recognize that it is a very different 16 field and we do indeed want the confidence of those experts.
Go, we are all searching for that. I think our 17 18 staff is doing the same thing with the expertise they have 19 and others they are talking with, and with the DOE people.
20 So, I just don't know whether it would be wise to 2j ask you to take on this ta.sk. I do think, though, that the 22 original question that was put forward, if we want a letter 23 from the ACRS, that's a very good question because if we do 24 ask for a lotter that provides your conclusion for "No undue Ae r.d.e.1 nei, w.
25 risk to the public health and safety," then indood wo somewhere
39
(.
1 or another along the line have to be involved -- but I think i
l 2 in a quite different way, perhaps, than our practics or your 3 practice in the past. And in this whole process, it seems to me ,
i
! 4 you would have to be involved in the informal stages and in 5 the whole process.
6 So, I am just not sure whether it's appropriate to ask you to take on that task. If I were you, some of you 7
3 anyway, with your very expert and professional backgrounds, I ,
- 9 would be a little uncomfortable, I think, if I were in your 10 shoes if I were asked to take on this kind of responsibility.
11 On the other hand, I think it's appropriate that 12 we discuss it and that we think about it, and certainly my colleagues and I will have to come to some decisions. But I 13 14 for one am keeping an open mind on what we discussed today.
15 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Tom, did you have comments?
16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I think I agree with what 17 13 Lando said. I haven't made up my mind, I'm not sura. I'd t 19 like more --
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Incidentally, when I first 20 21 came on the ACRS the big subject was not in my area of ,
22 expertise nor in the area of expertise of most the people 23 on the Committee, it had to do with seismicity, we had 24 seismologists, geologists, hydrologists with us, and so we Ae.e.d.,.i n.p.,wi, in, 25 did use consultants. But what you rolled on was the ability
- 40 L 1 of the people'on the Committee to hear these consultants, !
l I
L 2 reflect on the overall problem and give a balanced judgment.
j 3 Now, I can go either with this Committee or some l
l, 4 other committee.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, I agree. Heavens, if i 5
l l 6 we were to try and run the government on the basis of 7 8Xpertise, I'm not sure how many of us would be sitting on 3 this side of the table right now -- maybe Jim would be the 9 only one that ought to be here. ;
l .
10 (Laughter) i 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You know, aside from the i
12 value and clean line of communication, and there is a real :
13 attraction to that,'in effect a subcommittee that reports f
. 14 directly to the Commission, or a separate Advisory Committee --
15 I don't care what you call it -- that's the great advantage, 16 it seems to me.
17 But although I appreciate the modesty, maybe, of 13 disclaiming your expertise, I'm not sure it's that easy and I'm not even sure that in fact that the high level waste 19 20 disposal program is so different, in principle, from tho .
21 things you worry about. There aren't pumps and valves, to 22 be sure.
23 (Laughter)
COMMISSIONER BERNT!!AL: It's politically different, 24 I wP.d.<.1 n.p.,=., W.
25 that's quite right. And as I say, you in fact may have more j
41 9
1 important things to do, but it's not clear to me that in terms 2 of public perception there are more important things.
3 But you have to know about -- in fact, you mado 4 recommendations to us in areas of seismology. Well, if you 5 didn't know anything about it, then you should have told us 6 to begin with when you made recommendations in those areas.
7 There are areas of electrochemistry that have to 8 do with -- surely have to de with corrosion and fuel elements 9 in a plant as it is running and in the proper handling of 10 spent fuel that must be common fundamentally in both areas.
11 I'm just not nuro I buy the disclaimer of exportise, 12 with all duo respect.
13 MR. OKRENT: Not all of us made the disclaimer.
14 (Laughtor) 15 Cl! AIRMAN PALLADINO: Can I ask one question that 16 Fred jogged my memory on? In some of the reading the word 17 was mentioned, low levol wasto as well as high level wasto.
18 Woro you thinking of oncompassing both, or are you just working 19 on high lovel waste and the repository?
20 MR. MOELLER: Oh, we have covered both, yes. Wo 21 woro concentrating today on high levol but, you, we havo 22 boon covoring both.
23 MR. WARD: But this proposal of boofing up the 24 subcommittoo, and so forth?
A< r.d., i n.por,.,i, lac.
! 25 MR. MOELLER: Oh, that would be primarily for the DOE
42 I repository.
2 MR. CARBON: I just wanted to make a short comment 3 along the lines that Paul just said. Many of us think that
, 4 it is reasonable for the Committee t'o do this and that wo 5 can do it. And since you asked for individual members' views, 6 I wanted to express that one.
7 MR. SIESS: So far, we haven't seen anything importan-.
8 enough to do it.
CIIAIRMAN PALLADINO: Lot me offer the following 9
10 comments. I think wo do have to decido whether we want to 11 have the ACRS provide us the advice or do we want to establish 12 another separate committoo.
13 If wo do want -- in either caso, we will need to 14 let you know. If wo do want the ACRS to be the advisory body 15 to us on this subject, I think we should writo you a letter 16 asking you to tako it on and perhaps suggesting areas in 17 which wo would like to got particular Committee foodback, but 18 be kept informed on the subcommittoo activities.
19 With regard to resourcos, we are going to havo to 20 address the resources. We have an up-coming mid-year review 21 and we are starting the now budget cycle. So, this will 22 have to be kept in mind rogardless of whether it's a separato 23 committoo or it's the ACRS.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But I think oither way, 24 Ac.1.d. col n. port.,,, Inc.
25 if wo can identify resources that are noconsary to do the
,' 43 1 repository program, the regulatory aspects of it, that should 2 not be a problem -- whether it's within the ACRS or a separato 3 group.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Resources will be a problem.
5 But we have to recognize the magnitudo of the undertaking 6 relative to all the other. things that we've got so tha. we 7 don't undercut it relativo to the demands of the job.
8 MR. WARD: Dave, do you want to say somothing?
9 MR. OKRENT: Whichever committoo it is that does 10 some oversight, in my opinion one thing that should be an 11 important task in that they look at how the NRC staff is going 12 about trying to implomont whatever in the oventual EPA 13 standard.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yon.
15 MR. OKRENT: That it in done with the propor Lalance.
16 That is not an easy task.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.
18 Cl! AIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Well, I am going to 19 colicit suggestions from Commission membora on topics they 20 think they would like to particularly havo Committoo feedback 21 on.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I also think that however 23 wo ntructure it, what wo ought to start planning is periodic 24 mootings with whatever group in going to bo doing thin to Acadederal Reporters, Inc.
25 cover como of those innuos becauno thoro are intoronting
44 l 1 issues that are cropping up now and I am sure will be over the l
2 next several years. I think what we need to do is start 3 setting up a more formal opportunity to go through and discuss
( 4 some of those with you, or with whoevor will be doing it.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me make one other comment. 1 l 6 I don't know how quickly we will come up with our decision on 7 which way we want to go. Unless the Commission objects, I 3 am going to recommend that you proceed as you are proceeding 9 now --
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. ,
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -- and we have the responsi-12 bility to tell you if we want something dono.
13 MR. WARD: Fine.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Even if the Commission were 15 to go with a new --
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It would be a while, anyhow.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: -- committoo, there would have to be a transition period, that's right. I is i
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So, wo don't want to stop your 20 subcommittee activity, that's the point I was trying to mako.
21 MR. WARD: Pino.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Unless somebody --
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No, I agroo. l 24 COMMISSIONER ZECH: No, that's fino. I w ed .Ia.,.r,wi,In.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Now, what sort of timo-
, 45 I table to make our decision? I am going to solicit your 2 comments by a memo and it would be desirable to get an answer with-3 in the next two weeks.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good, I agree.
5 It also might be useful to hear from the staff on i
6 this question because we have not heard from them yet.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes, I think that would be very 9 useful, important.
f 10 MR. MOELLERt I understand they are preparing a f 11 statement for you.
- 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
- Okay.
L '
l 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Incidentally, we may want to 14 wait until the statement comes. It is due here the end of 15 May.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. Why don't we 17 tell them to speed it up a little bit, get it down here?
18 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I think we ought to hear from 19 the staff before we go any farther.
20 COMMISSIONER RODERTS: Yes, I agree with that.
21 Cl! AIRMAN'PALLADINO: Okay, anything moro wo should 22 discuss?
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTitAL: We can probably take a year 24 with the matter.
A..M.,.i n.,.,,,,,, w.
25 (Laughtor)
e I 46 1 MR. MARK: If you can settle it by the quarter year --
l 2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Exactly, yes.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: This will be with us for !
l l 4 twenty years.
l 5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: We'd be doing quite well j l
6 if we would do that.
! i l 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any more, Dave? !
8 MR. WARD: No, that's all we have, Mr. Chairman. ,
l i 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Well, thank you very l 10 much. I think you have been very productive, very useful.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: As always. ;
12 MR. WARD: Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We stand adjourned. l
's l 14 (Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the meeting of the l 15 Commission was adjourned.) ;
le 17 ,
t t
18 I
19 N
21 l l
22 [
23 l 24 aopedw.i hp.ews.lu.
2S
[
t
.____.._)
I . .
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REFORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before
+
the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter oft .
NAME OF PROCEEDING: Periodic Meeting with Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Public Meeting DOCKET NO.:
PLACE: Washington, D.C. -
, DATE: ,
l were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sict) .
N/ /@#(..
(TYPED) M. E. Ilansen Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation Ace-Federal
e f J 9999if thththth th(hthhfGhfghth[ghthgh(hghghghghgh[hghh l
12/82 l TRANSMITIAL 'IO: Docment Cbntrol Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED CDPY 'IO: / / ,
'Ihe Public Document Ibcm '
DA'IE:
M/I'((J
< cc: OPS Filo j
- OM M !
C&R (Natalie)
! Attached are copics of a Comission meeting transcript (s) and related rmeting , I i ,
document (s) . 'Ihey are being forwarded for entry cx1 the Daily Accession List ! l l and placment in the Public Docummt Ibcm. tb other distribution is requestod l
!; or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed m the individual docments wtwrever known.
j Mocting Titlo . /_, o A T< , . u &/> [4L su .m A. t , .
($ rw o.r o TtTu ,s u hr -, h / .b A r s , ,,L < J g
Meeting Dato: f4o </v Ot K Closed l
- DCS copics l 3 (1 of each clxx:ked)
- Itcu Doncription: Copics i
Myanced Original !by Duplicate g 'Ib PDR . Documnt bo Dup *. Copy * !
! 1.
T!WIDCRIPT 1 . 1 l j When clur.kod, DCS should send a .
~
fj copy of this transcript to tho . ,_
- LPDR for: .
II e ,
Ii
- I! 2. Y At . (,Jo4 ,t. 6 / ', i I K e> / / M
}.b oO*l Y/sv/p f -
i .
$E i
g 3. __
8 i
- 5 e *
- e i
- 3 , 4. .
- e i * -
3
tw of each SII:Y paper.)
e
- Onngo to "PDR Availablo." b; m
e eumymenwaymymymnymymnymyarmwayarmyanymymnwennvanymymyE