1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- - -
BRIEFING BY LOW LEVEL WASTE FORUM (LLWF)
- - -
PUBLIC MEETING
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
One White Flint North
Rockville, Maryland
Friday, March 8, 1996
The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
notice, at 1:05 p.m., Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman,
presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission
KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner
GRETA J. DICUS, Commissioner
. 2
STAFF PRESENT:
JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary of the Commission
KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel
LLW FORUM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
GREG LARSON, Convenor
KATHRYN HAYNES, Alternate Convenor
WILLIAM DORNSIFE
LEE MATHEWS
TERRY STRONG
DON WOMELDORF
. 3
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. This afternoon the Commission would like to
welcome representatives of the Low-Level Waste Forum. The
Forum periodically briefs the Commission on the status of
the Low-Level Waste Siting program in the U.S. The
development and construction of low-level radioactive waste
disposal sites is an integral part of the nuclear program in
this country not only for reactors, but for materials
licensees. The establishment in this country of adequate
low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity that protects
the public's health and safety should be a major priority.
Earlier this week I had the opportunity to tour
the Barnwell disposal site in South Carolina, and in fact I
also visited the final disposal repository for low-level
waste in Sweden earlier. So I am particularly anxious to
hear from the Low-Level Waste Forum on the status and
progress that is being made in other states and compacts as
well as any comments you might have on the effect of
Barnwell on the process of developing low-level waste sites.
Commissioner Rogers, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dicus?
COMMISSIONER DICUS: No.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Larson, you may proceed.
. 4
MR. LARSON: Thank you, Chairman Jackson. It's a
pleasure to be here today. We have had the opportunity to
brief Commissioner Rogers in the past at visits to the NRC,
but we haven't had that same opportunity for you or for our
former colleague Greta. It's a pleasure to be here. We are
glad to be here.
Just a few words about the Forum before we
introduce ourselves. The Low-Level Waste Forum is an
association of representatives of compacts and states.
Compact representatives are appointed by their compact
commissions and the state representatives by their
governors.
Our primary purpose is to implement the federal
legislation that was passed in 1980 and amended in 1985, and
also to promote the objectives of interstate compacts in
developing new disposal capacity.
The organization generally operates on consensus.
We represent individually states and compacts and we have
our own individual views on a number of issues.
Occasionally we have issues that we do join together on and
establish a common position. You may hear today in the
discussion different positions offered by the
representatives here.
Why don't we just introduce ourselves. Don.
MR. WOMELDORF: I'm Don Womeldorf. I'm the
. 5
executive director of the Southwestern Low-Level Waste
Commission.
MR. DORNSIFE: I'm Bill Dornsife, director of the
Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection. I represent
Pennsylvania as host state for the Appalachian Compact.
Under our legislation our agency has both regulatory
authority and also contract oversight authority. We have
the dubious distinction of trying to become an Agreement
State to take over that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's a high honor.
MR. DORNSIFE: Yes.
MS. HAYNES: I'm Kathryn Haynes. I'm executive
director of the Southeast Compact Commission.
MR. LARSON: Gregg Larson. I'm executive director
of the Midwest Compact Commission.
MR. MATHEWS: I'm Lee Mathews, general counsel of
the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority.
MR. STRONG: I'm Terry Strong. I'm director of
Washington's radiation protection program and I am the
chairman of the Northwest Compact.
MR. LARSON: One of the things that the Forum does
is serve as a focal point for exchanging views and
information between federal agencies and people here in
Washington and our states and compacts. Of course that's
the purpose of the briefing this afternoon.
. 6
We would like to start off by highlighting some
items that are of particular interest to us and the focus of
a lot of national attention right now. The first is the
status of the siting process out in the state of California,
which is the host state for the Southwestern Compact
Commission. Don is the representative of the compact
commission and will brief you in more detail about the
status of that site development effort.
MR. WOMELDORF: Thank you. Yes, I am representing
the Southwestern Compact Commission, not the state of
California. I want to make sure that distinction is clear.
California issued a license in 1993 which was
immediately challenged in the courts. Those challenges have
now been played out to the level of the California Supreme
Court, and all along the way the California license activity
and decision have been supported. So that is no longer an
issue.
The critical path now is the transfer of the
property from federal to state ownership. As you may know,
the Department of Interior is saying that if this transfer
takes place now there won't be any public safeguards, and of
course our commission's view is that this isn't true at all,
because California is an Agreement State; it's under NRC's
oversight as an Agreement State; and those safeguards are
going to be built in there as well as California's own
. 7
regulatory activities.
It is important, I think, to note that all of the
lawsuits and all of the studies so far have indeed supported
the California licensing decision. It has been one thing
after another, and all along it has been yes-yes-yes, the
site is okay, the technology is okay, the regulatory scheme
is okay. We don't feel that one more study, as the
Department of Interior currently is proposing, is going to
change anything. We think it's only a delay.
So our commission's suggestion is to follow the
NAS recommendation, transfer the land now, then make sure
that things are going to be safe through additional studies
and monitoring as appropriate.
Along those lines, you have in your packet a
communication from the Forum to the Department of Interior
transmitting a resolution of the Forum which was passed last
month that goes along pretty much those same lines.
That is all I will say at this point. If you have
any questions, of course, I will respond to those.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No.
COMMISSIONER DICUS: No.
MR. LARSON: Chairman Jackson, one thing that we
would like to ask the Commission is whether or not there
might be some role for the Commission to play in moving the
. 8
process forward in California. I guess in the past we have
had discussions with the NRC about dual regulation and some
of the problems that are entailed in dual regulation between
EPA and the NRC. We find ourselves in a position now where
we seem to be moving in a triangular regulation where have
got another regulatory agency. In this case it seems to be
the Department of Interior, which doesn't really have any
charge in this area.
In looking over your confirmation statement, you
seem to express an interest and concern about storage of
low-level radioactive waste. One of the issues that worries
us about instances like the California situation is that if
California is not successful in developing its disposal
facility, we are going to have generators eventually storing
waste again. We think it's an important public health and
safety issue, and any support that the NRC could give
regarding the transfer of that land to California would be
very much appreciated.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Since in fact it's an issue
between a particular branch of the federal government and
the state, we would not get involved in a direct way. I
understand your concerns. From the general perspective I am
sympathetic. I will make sure that we take that into
consideration.
MR. LARSON: Thank you.
. 9
The second status report we would like to give on
a siting effort that has advanced fairly far along is the
siting effort in the state of Texas where they are now going
through licensing proceedings. They also have a new compact
that has been formed, and that is before Congress now for
consent. Lee is here representing the state of Texas.
MR. MATHEWS: Thank you. The Texas-Maine-Vermont
Compact for low-level waste disposal is currently pending in
Congress. House and Senate ratification bills have been
passed out of the respective committees and are awaiting
floor action. We anticipate that action in the House will
occur first, and we understand that that could occur any
time. It could happen this month; it could happen next
year. But we are hopeful it will be sooner rather than
later.
Under the compact arrangement, which is probably
unique among the compacts, Texas will be the permanent host
state for compact waste. A proposed site has already been
identified in west Texas. Under the compact arrangement,
Maine and Vermont will be able to send limited amounts of
waste to Texas and Texas will receive $50 million in total
from the other two states for that privilege.
Equally important, we think, is the fact that the
host county will receive $5 million to do with as they wish,
no strings attached.
. 10
The review of our license application by the state
regulatory agency is, I am happy to report, complete. An
environmental assessment will be issued by that agency in
three weeks. This will trigger a round of adjudicative
hearings, which we hope will be complete by this time next
year. So always being the optimist, I believe we could have
a site operating by early 1998 under the current
arrangements.
That's where we are at the present.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. LARSON: We have talked about two compacts,
one compact that is in existence and one compact that is
pending, but two states that have submitted license
applications in the state of California have been granted
their application. We also have disposal sites that are
currently operating now, one of which you visited this week,
Barnwell, and two others, one in Utah and one in the state
of Washington. The Utah site and the state of Washington
site are both in the Northwest Compact. Terry Strong is
here today and can give you a status report on what is
happening at those two sites.
MR. STRONG: Washington had the first compact. It
was relatively easy for us to do that, for the states
adjacent to us to band together around us. Our site also
has no provision for anybody else in the compact to have to
. 11
have a site. It was envisioned that ours would go on.
The provisions of the federal 1985 Amendments Act
allowed a compact once it was ratified and secure to close
its borders to receipt of waste from out of the region, and
we have done that. In furtherance, we believe, of the
intent of the federal Act, we also, after negotiation,
entered into a contract with the Rocky Mountain Compact. So
there are 11 western states that are in the region, all
sending their waste to Hanford.
When we began this in 1980 and the federal acts
were passed, no one envisioned having two sites in one
region. That has been an interesting issue for us to deal
with.
The niche that is filled by the Envirocare site in
Utah has been an important one. Their original intent, and
they continue to follow through on this, was to take large
quantities of slightly contaminated material. It is this
kind of material that most of the other compact regions as
they look at the kinds of waste and the volumes that they
would be faced with are not prepared to handle, and the
niche that is filled by Envirocare is to handle just exactly
that kind of material. And we don't want it at the Richland
site either. So that part of the relationship goes very
well. It is handling all of the material that is generated
in the Northwest Compact region, and it provides an escape
. 12
valve in the interim for all the other compacts, and I think
it works very well.
MR. LARSON: Kathryn Visocki is here from the
Southeast Compact and can tell you a little bit more about
the status of Barnwell.
MS. HAYNES: Old habits die hard. My name is
Kathryn Haynes now.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We got it because we see your
name in front of you.
MS. HAYNES: Which is funny, because I was
planning anyway to start by telling you that old habits die
hard. I've been with the Southeast Compact for quite a
while and I spent 11 years talking about the Barnwell
facility as our regional facility. Of course now I've had
to break that habit. So when I speak of the Barnwell
facility now, it is not within our compact any longer, as
you know.
The measures that were taken last summer to
withdraw South Carolina from the Southeast Compact and to
make the Barnwell facility available to the whole nation
except for North Carolina, those measures were attached to a
budget bill in South Carolina. Therefore, there has been a
lawsuit raised by a South Carolina environmental group
questioning the validity of that act. It is not known at
. 13
this point what time the court will consider that question,
but there is some question as to whether the act will be
upheld and whether the same measures will have to be
revisited in the South Carolina General Assembly.
That is just one of the areas in which we feel the
access to the Barnwell facility is tenuous. There is a
great deal of uncertainty. Not just because of the lawsuit,
but also because of the fact that the general assembly can
revisit that policy at any time. We have seen it happen
before and we know it can happen again. There was supposed
to be between seven to ten years of actual physical capacity
for waste, but we all know that the technical capacity is
not necessarily the issue.
I would like to make it clear that the Southeast
Compact nonetheless does take their responsibility seriously
in providing for access to disposal for its generators in
the Southeast. North Carolina continues to be our selected
host state and they continue to work, reviewing the license
application and developing a facility.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: What is the basis for the
seven to ten years of capacity of Barnwell? What is that
based on?
MS. HAYNES: I'm not sure I'm qualified to address
that. It was an estimate that has been presented to us by
South Carolina.
. 14
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: It's just past history that
what they have been getting up to now is continued in the
future at seven to ten years? What would be the basis for
that?
MS. HAYNES: I'm really not sure I can answer
that. All I know is that is what South Carolina tells us,
that they have computed seven to ten years.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Based on my visit there
recently, Commissioner, there is a rate of generation
assumption having to do with recent history. It does not
specifically take account of any premature closures, et
cetera, of nuclear facilities, but it also does take account
of new compaction technologies that exist. That is the kind
of perspective that was offered to me recently.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Thank you.
MR. DORNSIFE: In the Appalachian Compact, as I
mentioned, Pennsylvania is the host state. We had been
pursuing under our laws and regulations a site screening
process where our contractor would be identifying three
sites, and those sites would then be narrowed down to one
after site characterization.
Because of the controversy that we have been
seeing and some other issues, we have recently added another
step to the process, and it's called the community
partnering process. It's an attempt to find three volunteer
. 15
communities. We have just recently completed the planning
process with that new step and started implementing that
process. I am pleased to say that so far the reaction has
been pretty positive. It's amazing when you take pressure
off elected officials at the local level in terms of forcing
a site on somebody how the lines of communications are much
easier to deal with.
So far we are really pleased with that new
process. However, of course, it will add another two or
three years to the time when we expect to have a site on
line. So now we are talking probably the year 2002 or 2003
until we would be ready to accept waste.
I just want to also add that particularly with the
Texas and the California issue, those two issues kind of
send a chilling message to the rest of us. They are trying
to move ahead with siting. Congress and the federal
government had told us, states, you're responsible for this,
go forth and propagate, form compacts and develop new
facilities, and now two states have done that and the
federal government appears to be holding up progress. So it
certainly doesn't encourage the rest of us that are pursuing
the process.
MR. LARSON: I represent the Midwest Compact. Our
host state is the state of Ohio. Ohio just recently enacted
enabling legislation, back in June of last year, that will
. 16
allow their state to go forward and develop a disposal
facility. So we are really at the start of the siting
process in our compact commission.
We have also put at your place a report entitled
"Summary Report." It has a map on the back of the report
that shows you the breakdown of states within the compacts
and touches on where the siting efforts are in the other
states that aren't in compacts or the other compacts that
aren't represented here today. Unless you have any
questions about those, we won't discuss them.
Any other questions on where we stand as far as
our site development efforts?
COMMISSIONER DICUS: Just a quick question to
Bill. Several of the host states and the compacts have had
various sorts of processes to involve communities in the
selection process, and you think yours is going to work
well. What makes it unique from some of these other ones
where some have worked and some have not?
MR. DORNSIFE: As you are aware, we probably had
one of the more aggressive public involvement programs in
our Pennsylvania program to begin with. Quite frankly, when
you are talking about siting at a statewide level, it is
very difficult to get the public interested in the issue.
It is not until you actually get down to picking sites that
people start discussing the issue at the local level, and by
. 17
then it is probably too late, because people have gotten
biases. So we are thinking going to the volunteer process
with a grass roots effort allows that communication to occur
before a site even gets considered. Then the community has
the right to decide; they are empowered to make the decision
of whether they want to proceed.
COMMISSIONER DICUS: If they say yes, we want to
proceed, do they have a point in time that that decision is
irreversible?
MR. DORNSIFE: The way we envision our process,
there are four steps. The first is just information and
there is formal interest. Then there is a negotiation step.
At the end of that negotiation step there is some sort of a
formal agreement entered into. It can't be totally
irrevocable, but there will be terms in there that will make
it more binding and more difficult to get out of, but that
is after a community has expressed the majority interest in
pursuing it and being a host.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: What incentives are there in
your program for a community to want to advance itself as a
disposal site?
MR. DORNSIFE: We have a number of incentives that
were already built into the legislation. We had gone
through a very detailed public involvement process that
tried to identify the concerns. They range from providing
. 18
independent monitoring.
For example, we have local inspectors that have
the authority to shut down a facility if they see a
violation of health and safety. We have various kinds of
monitoring offered free to the citizens to make sure they
have not been affected. There are property guarantees.
Obviously local monitoring. Transportation. We even look
at affected municipalities and give them benefits. In
addition, both the law and the contract requires our
contractor to negotiate additional benefits, whatever the
community wants. So we are probably talking several million
dollars worth of benefits at the very least. Obviously not
all monetarily related, but certainly some of it is
monetarily related.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I had a question about the
Southeast Compact. The focus really is still on Barnwell in
the Southeast Compact. Is that correct?
MS. HAYNES: That is not correct. I was asked to
take that part of the program today. Since I traditionally
have spoken about Barnwell, they asked me to speak about it.
Barnwell is definitely not the focus of our activities. I'm
glad you asked the question. It gives me an opportunity to
make the point. What I was trying to point out to you is
that our focus is to develop capacity for our generators in
the Southeast.
. 19
Before South Carolina took those actions we had
already identified North Carolina as the host state. The
application for a license had already been submitted and the
process was already started to review that application.
That process was not in the least bit slowed up or changed
in any way. It was made very clear to North Carolina that
nothing had changed; they were still the host state; and
they still had an obligation. I don't want to imply that
North Carolina hasn't taken that seriously, because they
have. They continue to work to get the application reviewed
and the license issued.
In terms of our relationship with South Carolina,
however, I think there have been some assumptions made or
misunderstandings in the general industry and community that
there would be harsh feelings between the state of South
Carolina and the Southeast Compact Commission. At least
from my perception I have not seen that. We maintain a good
working relationship. The state of South Carolina needed to
do what they needed to do. Our commission needed to do what
it needed to do. We all have respected that and continue to
keep a good relationship with the state.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Let me go back to
your point when you were talking about California. What is
it that you think the NRC can profitably do with respect to
the problems with California and even Texas?
. 20
MR. LARSON: I think one thing might be to stress
what the implications are if we fail in our efforts to
develop disposal capacity. We have three sites operating.
The one in Washington works very well for their compact, and
the Rocky Mountain Compact, 11 states, but those are the
only 11 states that are being served by that compact. The
Envirocare facility takes only a limited part of our waste
stream, high volume, low activity waste.
And Barnwell, we recognize, is not a long-term
solution to our disposal needs because of its limited
capacity.
So in the end we still are all very much
interested and concerned about the need to develop new
disposal capacity. We don't want to return to the situation
that we had a year ago when we had no access to Barnwell.
In my compact region we had 170-some generators storing
waste on site. The same was true for the other states and
compacts that also lost access to Barnwell.
California is very important as far as our
success. They are the first state to have a new facility
that is licensed and ready to bring on line. We have all
been waiting for that to happen. To see that now in some
trouble because, of all things, the federal government is
not being supportive of the land transfer and allowing
development of that site to go forward is troubling to us,
. 21
because we took on this responsibility, the federal
government gave it to us, and we think we have gone forward
in good faith to do that.
I'm not sure if that is specific enough an answer
for you, Chairman Jackson.
MR. DORNSIFE: If I could add. It's somewhat
troubling to me becoming an Agreement State to see an
Agreement State having gone through a process of approving
issues and now some other entity that clearly does not have
radiological health and safety oversight looking at
radiological health and safety issues. It makes you wonder
who is really responsible for these issues.
MS. HAYNES: I think it's helpful to think of this
in terms of what is going on in the legislatures in the
states where a facility is being developed. It is very
difficult for state legislatures -- I'll use North Carolina
as an example -- to understand why their state has to go
through all this trouble -- and it is a lot of trouble -- to
develop one of these facilities and take all the political
flak for it if Congress might change their mind at any
moment. I think that's the perception in many host states,
that Congress is not standing behind their own policy. They
told us to develop these sites and now they are not
assisting California and they are not assisting Texas. I
think that is the very simplified perception of many people
. 22
in the host states. They are being given a tough job and
they are not given any support and maybe we shouldn't do
this; maybe we should just wait and see, because it looks
like Congress will change its mind or the feds are changing
their mind. That's a very common attitude, I think, in many
of the host states.
MR. LARSON: I think our reaction would be very
different if it was the NRC that was raising the concerns
about the site out in California, but to have health and
safety concerns related to radiation being raised by the
Department of Interior is just inconsistent with what the
federal government has said, which is that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is the agency that is assigned
responsibility at the federal level for regulation of
radioactive material. This is where the responsibility
lies, not in the Department of Interior.
Just to move on, a second topic that we wanted to
talk about this afternoon was the future status of the
low-level radioactive waste program within the Commission.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That was going to be my
question.
MR. LARSON: We anticipated it.
I indicated earlier that generally the Forum
operates on the basis of consensus. We all sometimes have
different opinions on different issues, but this was one
. 23
that we had a unified opinion on. We did send you a letter
that indicated our concern with any reduction in efforts in
the low-level radioactive waste program that would affect
the interaction that we have had historically between your
agency and the Low-Level Waste Forum.
We have been very fortunate to have Nuclear
Regulatory Commission staff attend our meetings. We have
been fortunate to have Commissioners, including two of the
past chairs of the Commission, come to our Forum meetings.
We believe that if there is an interest in cost reduction
that one of the best ways that you can minimize costs is to
continue to have a good strong relationship with us, because
what it allows is interaction with one organization and all
of us rather than to have to deal with all of us separately.
So we would encourage continued support of the Commission of
participation in our meetings and other activities that the
Forum is involved in.
In addition to that letter that we sent to the
Commission, I think individually many states and compacts
did communicate with the Commission. Without speaking for
them, I did happen to have an opportunity this morning to
look through the letters again. I think for the most part
everyone was in agreement that the program should not be
phased out, and I think most of the comments were to the
effect that option 2, which was a reduction in staffing, was
. 24
perhaps necessary, but I think most states expressed some
concern over the size of the reduction and felt that the
size that had been recommended might impair some of the good
things that the Commission staff has done in this area.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Have you thought about what
kinds of interaction should have the greatest focus given
that at least at this point most of the probable sites are
in Agreement States?
MR. LARSON: I think it is true, Chairman Jackson,
that most of the sites are in Agreement States. We do have
three states that, if sites are eventually selected and
license applications are submitted, will be coming to you
rather than to their state agencies. That is Michigan,
Connecticut and New Jersey. I know in their letters they
did raise that concern, that by phasing out or reducing
significantly the staffing of the low-level waste program
that it would perhaps prevent timely licensing of facilities
in those three states.
I had an opportunity also to look at the Advisory
Committee on Nuclear Waste letter, and I think they did a
very good job of highlighting the areas where we have
received a significant amount of support from the program
and we have benefited from the activities of the Commission
and the staff. I think they also did indicate some areas
where they thought some reductions might not affect the
. 25
overall program.
I think all of us are concerned that the kind of
reduction that was talked about in the options paper might
be such that it would eliminate what critical mass is
necessary to keep some sort of a program going.
MR. DORNSIFE: Maybe I could offer the perspective
of someone becoming an Agreement State and what kind of
needs we might have. I think primarily our particular needs
would be for assistance in development of guidance. Not
necessarily draft guidance, but review and comment on
guidance that we would be developing.
Some necessary research, particularly on
engineered facilities. That is somewhat lacking. And
long-term performance, waste form performance. That kind of
research would be particularly helpful.
Also, obviously some presence to provide for
updating of regulations as times change, to assist the
Agreement States in that process.
Those are the three areas that I think would be
most useful from our standpoint.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Have you given any thought to
how these things should be paid for?
MR. DORNSIFE: I will be bold to say that
obviously the nuclear power plants are a very large
contributor to the problem and they need the low-level waste
. 26
disposal as much as anyone. They obviously will continue
regardless of how we proceed here with the agreement program
to continue to be NRC licensees.
MR. LARSON: Just to give you another example of
how an issue can arise that is unanticipated. I think this
was mentioned in that alternatives paper. In trying to look
ahead and determine what are the needs going to be in the
future, it is hard to say, but historically there have been
things that arose that nobody could predict that required
staff time and attention.
Just an example of something recent has been a
concept that has been developed called assured storage,
which is another type of approach that has been suggested to
developing disposal capacity in a way where it is not called
disposal; it's called storage. I think there are many
members of our organization and states and compacts that
have significant reservations about that type of an approach
to developing some way of safely managing this waste. The
NRC had an opportunity to weigh in on that in a way that I
think was consistent with the views that many of us hold on
that.
There are other issues like that that are going to
arise in the future that are just very unpredictable.
Without being able to look to the agency that has primary
responsibility for radioactive materials and not have the
. 27
ability to consult with that agency when issues like that do
arise is troubling to us.
Another example of an area where the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission did play a role in assisting our
efforts was in California and the review that was done by
the National Academy of Sciences. Don is very familiar with
that and might want to say a few words about that.
MR. WOMELDORF: A couple of years ago some of the
project opponents identified what was seen as a
misrepresentation in the license application on the amount
of plutonium slated to go to Ward Valley and raised that
issue, and it came up again at the National Academy of
Sciences review recently.
We were pleased to see the quick response from NRC
staff such as Jim Kennedy, Andy Campbell and others to help
identify why those numbers looked the way they did. It
showed that the California decision again was supported,
that the amount of plutonium that was going to go to Ward
Valley was exceedingly small, very low, and that issue, I
think, has pretty well been put to bed. Others are going to
pop up, and California may come back to you with other
requests for information in the future, but that one seems
to be quiet, at least for the time being.
MR. LARSON: Another area that has been of
continuing concern to us has been dual regulation of
. 28
radioactive materials. There are two areas that we have
been focusing on recently. One is the NESHAPs, the national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, and the
other has been mixed waste. Bill is going to talk a little
bit about the NESHAPs program.
MR. DORNSIFE: Some of the states that are in the
process of licensing facilities have had some problems with
the way the NESHAPs have been handled. The dual pool
regulation involved there in terms of recognizing it is a
legitimate radiological health and safety issue, and having
two different agencies responsible for it creates some
problems.
We are obviously very supportive of the proposal
to deal with that and the way that proposed regulations have
come out.
There is absolutely no reason in our mind why this
shouldn't be dealt with the same as all the other
radiological health and safety issues that come up,
including the public involvement and all the other things
that the states are probably in a better position to deal
with.
The other concern we have had about NESHAPs is
because it is a separate agency it tends to get tied up in
some of these other issues that are outside of the agreement
program, like threatened and endangered species and some of
. 29
the other federal actions that are required.
MR. LARSON: Next is the other issue that is
affected by dual regulation. Lee is going to comment
briefly on that.
MR. MATHEWS: Members of the Forum and others have
urged for a number of years that DOE consider accepting or
investigating the acceptance at its sites of commercial
mixed waste for treatment and disposal. There is not a
whole lot of commercial mixed waste out there. It makes it
difficult and expensive for the states to provide separate
disposal modules for this material.
In addition, we feel like it subjects the states
to additional permitting. We would have to get hazardous
waste licenses and permits in addition to radioactive waste
licenses. Most of the states therefore have not made any
concrete plans for accepting mixed waste at their disposal
facilities.
The Federal Facilities Compliance Act Task Force
has put this item on their agenda for review and have
approached DOE about conducting a pilot project to determine
the feasibility of accepting certain mixed waste streams at
certain of their disposal facilities. DOE seems favorably
disposed to consider that possibility, and we are encouraged
that this should go forward and be a fruitful area of
cooperation and investigation with DOE.
. 30
In addition, NRC by letter dated February 9 to
DOE, has encouraged DOE in this initiative regarding the
pilot project. We are certainly happy to see some progress
made along this line. It's worrisome to the states, and we
feel like DOE probably can provide aid in this area, and we
will be looking forward to the joint effort between the
states, DOE and NRC.
MR. LARSON: Chairman Jackson, I think we have
covered the subject areas that we wanted to touch on during
the course of the briefing. I don't know if there are any
other areas that you or the Commissioners might want to ask
us about.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Not really a different area.
Since we are very much grappling with this question of what
we should be doing in the low-level waste area, I think it
would be perhaps helpful if we could have even a little bit
more feedback from you folks on what you see as the kind of
minimal strengths that NRC might have, in your view. I
think that could be helpful to us in trying to make some
decisions in this area.
You have touched on the two major efforts in sort
of general ways, namely, helping you with regulatory
activities and then helping you with technical activities
via research programs. I think it would be helpful if
. 31
perhaps we could have a little more focus from you, and
whether you all agree on that, I don't know. It's helpful
to us to know that you think that we ought to maintain a
low-level waste program. That's kind of a starting point
for us to focus on low-level waste, but it doesn't really
help us too much when we have to make decisions as to
exactly how we are going to do this and exactly what level
of efforts might be appropriate.
For example, you referred to the ACNW letter to
the Commission on this subject. It occurred to me that
perhaps we could help to maintain some kind of a national
technical strength by networking technical experts in the
individual states program together with our own technical
experts so that we might not necessarily be the sole
repository of technical expertise in all relevant areas to
the low-level waste disposal programs, let's say, but
nevertheless we could contribute and help to act as a
coordinating resource for technical expertise in this area.
That way we might be able to play an important
role but not necessarily have all of the expertise here,
because I'm sure within each of your organizations you have
technical expertise. You probably don't have all that you
want, however. You probably don't have as many people as
you would like to cover all of the bases, but you may have
some really first rate people that are real technical
. 32
experts on some key areas of the low-level waste disposal,
either the engineered barriers area, or hydrological
questions. I won't try to make a list here, but I think you
get the idea.
I think it would be helpful to us if you could
indicate what your needs are and how we might be able to
work together with you in some way to see that those needs
are met without our necessarily being the only resource that
is available.
Can we have some response on that? I don't expect
it to be definitive. You may want to think about it some
more, but what is your response to perhaps enlarging our
mutual supportive roles while at the same time NRC is
responding to its need to contract its FTEs and
expenditures?
MR. DORNSIFE: I personally think your suggesting
of being a repository for resources is probably not a bad
idea. In addition, I would suggest maybe considering other
parts to that resource. For example, USGS; the NIST for
concrete performance. There are a number of resources that
you could muster to help us. I think that's a good
suggestion, something I would like to think more about.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I'm sure we would love to be
able to have everything right here, but that isn't going to
be realistic in the future. The question is, if we are not
. 33
gong to have everything, what is something that we might
have that would still be very important and very useful in
the research area?
If you look in the regulatory area, I don't think
you can look elsewhere. You've pointed out and the ACNW has
pointed out that we can play a very useful role there in
assisting with regulatory questions at the state level. Not
necessarily dictating them, but being a resource to look at
the development of guidance. You've mentioned that. But
also certain aspects of regulations. Some of those
considerations are very local, very state-oriented things
that have to be in your local and state statutes, but we can
be helpful in certain parts of that, I would think.
I wonder if there is any way that you could give
us something that is a little more focused than what we have
just talked about today. Is there any mechanism that you
can think of that would allow you to share your own thoughts
and then get them to us?
MR. STRONG: I think we do have a lot of expertise
in the state of Washington, and on a collaborative basis I
don't see why we shouldn't be working even more closely
together. A specific example of that, not in the low-level
waste area, but earlier this week your staff and Agreement
State staffs met in Vancouver, Washington, on three issues.
It was not a training workshop put on by your staff. It was
. 34
a collaborative effort, and I don't see why we shouldn't do
much more of that specifically in this area. It was an
outstanding opportunity. I think we ought to capitalize on
it.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: What strengths do you feel
you have in the area of performance assessment? This is
something that we have been working on here quite hard for
the last few years, particularly in the low-level waste
area, that I think has really started to look very good,
very professional and complete. What do you folks have in
your own organization with respect to performance assessment
capabilities?
MR. DORNSIFE: I think from our standpoint we can
certainly identify the key issues that need to be resolved.
For example, one of the issues that I think is in dire need
of more research is what is the long-term performance of a
concrete waste form. That would be very handy to have,
because you can get chemical absorption for ten to hundreds
of thousands of years without maintaining physical
stability.
We have been working very closely with the folks
at INEL, the DOE Low-Level Waste Technical Assistance
program. We have access to a number of computer programs
and experts out there to help us develop some of the early
guidance documents and things that we need for performance
. 35
assessment. So we have been using other resources. We do
have some expertise on our staff, certainly, but that is one
of the areas we primarily look to the outside for expertise.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Do you within your
organization share this? In other words, do you as
representatives of individual compacts encourage your
technical people to exchange information among each other?
MR. LARSON: We do, Commissioner Rogers. There is
another organization that also operates along the same lines
that we do called the Technical Coordinating Committee,
which consists of representatives of host states. In once
sense I am here representing the Midwest Compact, but the
people who are really doing the siting work are people from
the state of Ohio, and they are probably the more
appropriate people to respond to your questions about
performance assessment or other specific activities that
they might be engaged in that interface with DOE. It's
probably true with Kathryn as well.
That is certainly something that we can also take
back to our organization and ask the states who are doing
the siting work like Bill and other state officials the
question that you have raised.
I just want to stress that in one sense some of
that activity, perhaps not so much solely technical, is
going on now with our organization and with the NRC. We are
. 36
fortunate to have Jim Kennedy come to our Forum meetings.
He is there to answer questions that can cover a gamut of
things, from performance assessment to the latest position
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has on import and
export of low-level radioactive waste. He's in the hot seat
quite often during our meetings, because we have a lot of
questions about what the agency that is establishing
policies regarding radioactive materials is saying about
different issues. So that kind of interaction is going on.
MR. DORNSIFE: One of the concerns that we run
into, though, is host states essentially have two
responsibilities. One is regulatory and one is site
development. Obviously the concerns are somewhat different
between the two. The TCC, the Technical Coordinating
Committee, is more of a site development effort. NRC had
been sponsoring meetings of the state regulators to talk
about those issues, and recently the Conference of Radiation
Control Program Directors has gotten a grant from DOE to
pick up a continuing workshop effort to deal with those
regulatory issues and share information about regulatory
issues. So whatever support you could provide for the
regulatory effort would be very much appreciated. That's
really where the regulatory issues are discussed.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dicus.
COMMISSIONER DICUS: One quick thing on the
. 37
research effort, and I think it goes to Commissioner Rogers'
question about your mechanism for gathering information and
then putting that information together and getting it to us.
You mentioned one thing in particular that would be helpful,
that perhaps the individual states cannot do. For example,
concrete's ability to perform over time. Are there other
particular projects that you think would be worthy of the
expenditure of time and effort on the agency's part that
will be helpful to you? If you had a way to bring those to
us, it would be helpful.
MR. DORNSIFE: Hopefully that regulatory group
that the conference is sponsoring is the appropriate
collection point for those ideas.
MR. LARSON: Bill's example is a good one insofar
as it is the type of activity that doesn't just benefit his
compact because it may be looking at a concrete container or
a concrete bulk facility, but for all of our host states
that are looking at that kind of technology. That kind of
assistance from the NRC benefits a broad number of siting
efforts.
MR. DORNSIFE: Another area that has been of
concern to us that NRC has authority over is export and
import of waste. Obviously we get a lot of criticism and
concern expressed by the public about the possibility of
waste being imported and exported. We know there are
. 38
regulations in place now. We certainly would like to work
with you on those and make sure that what is in those
regulations is enforced.
MR. LARSON: If there aren't any other questions,
I guess we are at the end of --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: End of your rope?
[Laughter.]
COMMISSIONER DICUS: One more. You used a term a
while ago. I haven't been away from the low-level waste
arena too long, but apparently this term slipped in on me in
the meantime. This assured storage, what is that issue or
term? I'm not familiar with it.
MR. LARSON: Assured storage is an alternative
that has been put forward, I think in the belief that it
might result in an easier siting and development of disposal
facilities. It is basically developing a facility, not
calling it a disposal facility, but calling it a storage
facility, and going forward with that development without
the type of rigorous regulatory compliance and performance
assessment that you would go through for a 10 CFR 61 type of
facility. I think the belief among some people is that that
is easier to do because the public may feel more comfortable
with the word "storage" than "disposal."
Speaking for myself, I don't find that to be true.
I think more than anything else, when we get asked questions
. 39
by citizens about what it is that we are proposing to
develop in the way of a disposal facility, they are looking
for certainty in our answers, and to be telling them that we
are going to develop a storage facility, the very next
question is going to be, for how long, what's going to
happen at the end of the storage period?
My belief is that the approach that was taken by
the NRC back when it developed 10 CFR 61 is a correct
approach, to call it disposal. That's what we intend to do
and to subject it to the kinds of rigorous analysis that the
public expects. There are some members of the public who
don't think 10 CFR 61 is sufficient. To go forward and
develop the kinds of facilities we are doing and to call it
storage and not have it subject to those requirements is not
the proper way to go. That's the position that I think
staff at the NRC have communicated.
MR. DORNSIFE: I think from a regulatory
standpoint we see the same kinds of concerns for this
long-term storage as we see for disposal. It's materials
performance concerns; it's assurance of eventual disposal.
If you go beyond 100 years, what do you do about long-term
care, intruder protection? Those same issues still occur
with this kind of a concept. So we're not sure from a
regulatory standpoint it is really a whole lot easier to
deal with.
. 40
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Those are the kinds of issues
that exist in the high level waste area in spades.
MS. HAYNES: This is a concept, though, that has
been given quite a bit of attention at the state level. So
you probably will be hearing it frequently in the future. I
know in North Carolina it has come up in several legislative
hearings. The state licensing agency has received a number
of questions about how they would go about licensing such a
facility. So I would expect that you would be getting those
kinds of questions soon as well.
MR. LARSON: There are some states that have
expressed further interest in it. They want to know more
about the alternative, what are the cost implications of it.
So I think there will continue to be some interest in the
alternative.
MR. DORNSIFE: Just as another issue, obviously we
are very much interested in the rebaselining effort that is
ongoing in the agency, and where it affects the low-level
waste program and Agreement State programs that are integral
to our efforts, we would like to be involved wherever we can
in terms of helping you with that effort.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You will be.
MS. HAYNES: Something that has been very helpful
to the Low-Level Waste Forum and its members is having
regular attendance at our meetings by your staff members and
. 41
occasionally by an actual Commissioner. In the past we have
had attendance from a Commissioner. I think it has happened
two times. The last two chairs of the Commission have
attended our Forum meetings.
We purposely schedule our meetings so that at
least one of them is in the Washington area to make that a
little bit more convenient for you. As I said, even if we
are outside the region, we normally have a member of your
staff to attend. Jim Kennedy and sometimes others. That is
enormously helpful for us. It is very efficient and
effective. It saves all of us having to come back and forth
to Washington all the time, and for your staff, I'm sure, to
travel all over the country. It helps us to know what
issues are on your minds before you make decisions, and
likewise I'm sure you are kept informed on the issues that
are important to us.
We would like to ask you to continue to support
your staff in attending our meetings and for you to attend
as well when you can. Our next meeting in the Washington
area is May 29 through 31, and that's in Annapolis.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, you have your sister
here. In addition, I respond to invitations.
MS. HAYNES: Thank you.
MR. LARSON: I think with that we are done. I
would like to do one other thing. It was an oversight on
. 42
our part not to recognize the efforts of Andy Campbell on
your staff, who was very helpful to us in working through
the question of the amount of plutonium going into the Ward
Valley facility and assisting the NAS panel with that. We
very much appreciated his help.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. LARSON: With that, thank you very much for
your time this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I would like to thank all of
you representing the Low-Level Waste Forum for what I
thought was a really informative and useful briefing.
Obviously this is an issue that has to be addressed, given
some of the things you pointed out, in a thorough but timely
manner. It looks like there is some progress from what you
are telling us, but as I always say, there is always room
for improvement. You are clearly working to do your part in
trying to move the siting process along.
As I try to capture what you have said and what my
fellow Commissioners have said, it is clear that going
forward appropriate partnering of resources between what is
available in the states and here merits serious
consideration in addition to any specific technical
assistance that NRC can uniquely provide. We have to
consider that as part of our ongoing rebaselining
assessments, et cetera.
. 43
As Commissioner Rogers has said, and you have
identified a number of things here, some focused input that
is more comprehensive even than what you have already
outlined on these issues from you would be helpful to us and
especially helpful to me since I'm a visual learner.
Again, I would like to thank all of you for an
excellent briefing. Unless my fellow Commissioners have any
additional comments, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the meeting was
adjourned.]
Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission Meetings, Slides, Transcripts, Meeting SRMs, and Full Written Explanation for Closed Meetings > 1996
> 03/08/1996