United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment
Home > NRC Library > Document Collections > ACNW > Meeting Transcripts > 1999 > 114th Meeting - November 17, 1999

114th ACNW Meeting U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 17, 1999

                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE
                                  ***
                 MEETING:  114TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
                         NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)

                        U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
                        Two White Flint North
                        Room T-2B3
                        11545 Rockville Pike
                        Rockville, Maryland
                        Wednesday, November 17, 1999

         The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:03 p.m.
     MEMBERS PRESENT:
         JOHN GARRICK, Chairman, ACNW
         GEORGE W. HORNBERGER, Vice Chairman, ACNW
         RAYMOND G. WYMER, Member, ACNW
     .                         P R O C E E D I N G S
                                                      [1:03 p.m.]
         DR. GARRICK:  Good afternoon.  The meeting will now come to
     order.  This is the first day of the 114th meeting of the Advisory
     Committee on Nuclear Waste.  My name is John Garrick, Chairman of the
     ACNW.  Other members of the committee include George Hornberger and Ray
     Wymer.
         In addition, we have Milt Levenson serving as an ACNW
     Consultant.
         During today's meeting we will discuss committee activities
     and future agenda items, discuss the research plan for environmental
     transport of radionuclides in the geosphere, and discuss the
     rubblization approach.
         Richard Major is the Designated Federal Official for today's
     initial session.  This meeting is being conducted in accordance with the
     provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and we have received no
     written statements from members of the public regarding today's session.
     Should anyone wish to address the committee, please make your wishes
     known to one of the committee's staff.
         As usual, we request that speakers use one of the
     microphones, identify themselves.
         Before proceeding, there are a couple of items we would like
     to cover.  Or course, we are all aware that on October 29th, Dr. Richard
     Meserve was sworn in as Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
     Commission.  We have some Staff changes effective November 1st.  Howard
     Larson has been assigned to the position Associate Director of Technical
     Support of the ACRS/ACNW.  Howard brings to the position a great deal of
     management experience in industry and government and of course the
     nuclear Navy.
         Andy Campbell will begin a six-month rotational assignment
     in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research beginning on Monday,
     November 22nd.  Andy will join the Radiation Protection Environmental
     Risk & Waste Management Branch and we expect to welcome John Randall
     from Research, who will trade positions with Andy for the time being.
         The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has launched a new study
     on spent nuclear fuel cask responses to severe transportation accidents.
     As you know, many years ago this was something that was studied
     extensively.
         There is a meeting going on that is of interest to the waste
     community.  It is going to take place the first part of December.  Some
     75 experts representing a broad spectrum of opinion will meet early
     during the next month to try to develop some consensus on issues around
     the health effects of low level ionizing radiation including how to
     regulate in the face of scientific uncertainty.  If they accomplish
     those goals, they will have achieved a miracle.
         There will be a follow-on meeting, a conference call,
     "Bridging Radiation Policy and Science," and it will be held at the
     Airlie Center in Warrenton, Virginia and among the organizers of this
     meeting is Gail DePlanque, former NRC Commissioner, and Manny Munson,
     President of the International Nuclear Law Association.
         Unless there's comments or some other announcements that the
     members or staff would like to make, I think we will proceed with our
     agenda and we are going to hear about the research plan for
     environmental transport, and it is nice to see Margaret Federline.  We
     haven't seen you for awhile.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Yes, I really appreciate the opportunity to
     be with you.  I have missed you.
         DR. GARRICK:  Well -- you have the floor.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Thank you very much, Dr. Garrick.  I
     appreciate it.
         We really appreciate the effort that the committee is
     putting into reviewing our research program in the waste area.  We
     appreciated the comments that you made on NUREG 1635 and let me just
     throw those up on the slide for the benefit of the audience.
         Ashok and I have looked at the processes in the Office of
     Research and we couldn't agree with you more that with limited funds we
     have to improve the focus of the activities within the Office and to
     make sure that they focus on the critical issues and that definitive
     goals are set.
         In order to do that, we initiated over the past year a
     self-assessment. I want to talk with you -- Ashok had an opportunity to
     talk with the ACRS and I wanted to take this opportunity to talk with
     you folks and just give you some background in terms of what we are
     trying to do in the Office, which also directly affects the
     Environmental Transport Program, so the objective of my briefing today
     is to describe the process that we are using for planning and
     prioritizing research activities.  I will discuss it overall for the
     Office and Cheryl Trottier will get into more detail for the
     Environmental Transport Program.
         I want to discuss the relationship of our waste activities
     to NRC's performance goals and we are also really interested in your
     ideas about how we should prioritize our research.  Let me just touch on
     a few points of background.
         I know the committee is very familiar with direction-setting
     Issue 22.  This was the issue that the Commission provided guidance to
     the Staff on the future role of Research in achieving our mission, and
     as you will recall, in that document the Commission told us to ensure
     that we continue elements of confirmatory and anticipatory research,
     that we are supposed to address both current and emerging issues, and
     that we are to focus on the issues of highest safety significance and
     that Staff should explore cooperative research with DOE and the industry
     and that we should also involve our stakeholders early in the processes
     and also he urged us to participate with the international community and
     make sure that we are learning the lessons there and a number of these
     principles are very important in the waste program and I will touch on
     those in just a minute.
         Now recently the Commission asked us to develop a vision for
     the Office of Research and I want to discuss that with you for a minute
     and get your feedback as to how it fits in the waste arena.
         We also realize that Research needs to be responsive to the
     changing environment.  A lot is going on with the industry right now
     with deregulation, and of course waste is one of the preeminent issues.
     If we don't, if it is not possible to solve the waste issue in a safe
     and effective manner, it is going to be difficult to proceed with
     license renewal and other issues, so as we see industry looking to use
     more efficiencies in the arena that we are dealing with, several issues
     come to the forefront -- the storage and transportation of spent fuel as
     well as the successful disposal -- so we are focusing broadly in the
     Office on all of those issues.
         Now as part of our self-assessment effort we have defined a
     vision and objectives to guide the work in the Office.  I have listed
     here the NRC vision.  I won't go through it in detail, and I have also
     listed the Research vision, to give you an idea of how the two fit
     together.  The Research vision flows in fact from the agency vision.
         The next slide discusses the key elements of the vision that
     we see.  There are three really critical aspects, as we see it, to our
     vision.  The first is technical independence from the licensees.  We
     think it is very important that there is a credible technical basis for
     NRC regulatory decisions.  Now this doesn't preclude joint planning of
     experiments.  In other words, there's advantage, and we have done that
     with EPRI in a number of cases, looking ahead and planning research so
     that we cannot duplicate each other's work.
         We also think that there is need for realism in the
     technical basis and a focus of the Environmental Transport Program is to
     bring more realism to the decommissioning program right now.
         We also feel that Research has a role to be forward-looking
     for the agency.  I think with the responsibilities of the program
     offices to deal with near-term and short-term problems Research is the
     Office that is better equipped to sit back and sort of look at where
     should we be five years from now, what issues do we need to prepare for,
     so that is really a key element of our vision.
         Of course, underlying this is the maintenance of technical
     expertise which underlies the vision and this is an extremely important
     component of our work.  The committee expressed great concern about the
     size of the Research program in Waste Management, and that is something
     that we are very worried about too.  We are trying to balance that with
     the need to maintain a core research capability in that area and I think
     that is one area that the committee can be helpful to us in how best to
     do that.
         Our operating plan is our management tool that we are using
     to ensure that all of our activities are focused on the highest priority
     activities.  The Research Operating Plan is directly tied to the four
     operating goals.  This is maintain safety, reduce unnecessary burden,
     enhance public confidence, and increase the effectiveness, efficiency
     and realism of the activities that we do.
         This year we have gone to an outcome-based budget -- in
     other words, no longer will you see disciplinary efforts within the
     Office of Research.  In the past, you know, we have had efforts in the
     area of hydrologic transport.  We are now becoming more
     outcome-oriented, which relates to the issues that we need to be solved,
     and Cheryl is going to talk specifically about the issues in
     environmental transport.
         Now our goal is to both support customer needs and
     anticipate fewer future issues, so this means that the licensing offices
     are urging us to focus on the needs that they have immediately, but we
     must balance that with a long-term look in the area of waste management,
     and that is another issue that we are struggling with and we will be
     eager to hear your advice on.
         Now an important aspect of our self-assessment was the need
     to increase our contribution to the agency mission, and our objective in
     doing that was really to define our desired outcomes.  What do we want
     to achieve with this work, and key to that was a systematic, top-down
     look from the Office level of what are the important things that we
     ought to be focusing on in the Office, and out of that came
     environmental transport and decommissioning as very important to
     achieving Office goals -- this is bringing realism and maintaining
     safety.
         You will see, as Cheryl describes, that we have given
     priority to work with the greatest outcome leverage.  There are a number
     of activities on our plate in the waste management area, but because of
     resource constraints we have been forced to ask ourselves what are the
     most important and what weigh in with other priorities in the Office,
     and so this has achieved some constraints in what we are able to do in
     the waste management area.
         We have also given attention to sunsetting work, which we
     don't think leverages our outcomes in a number of areas.
         So how did we approach this?  Actually, the self-assessment
     was a much broader activity, focusing all of the processes in the Office
     of Research, looking at our contracting mechanisms and determining if
     they were effective and looking at our staffing.  As a matter of fact we
     have during the past year been through a reorganization where we tried
     to better align the functions within the Office to serve our needs, but
     today I'm mainly focusing on our, what we call our pilot of the
     Performance Budgeting and Performance Management process -- the PBPM
     Process, as is it referred to in the agency.
         Now we and NRR piloted this for the agency and we are moving
     into sort of the second phase of this right now.  I have outlined on
     this slide our approach for doing this planning effort, and I think two
     critical things that I want to emphasize on this slide are the bottom
     two points, developing outcome-based performance measures.
         What we have tried to do with all of our work is identify
     performance measures so we will know when we have gotten there, and then
     we are managing to those performance measures in our operating plan, and
     Cheryl will discuss some of that with you as well in detail.
         Just to give you an idea, as I mentioned earlier, in the
     past we have been organized in the Office according to Thermal
     Hydraulics and Severe Accidents.  What we tried to do in stepping back
     with this systematic process was to ask ourselves where do we want to be
     and what are the strategies that we need to use to satisfy the agency
     mission, and on the left-hand side of the slide you can see that
     developing the technical basis to address safety issues and determining
     the regulatory significance of new information, and preparing the NRC to
     make timely future decisions.
         We are now organized under these what we call Planned
     Accomplishments, which we refer to as Key Issues.  Now under these we
     organize all of our activities, so all of the activities which relate to
     developing and employing risk information would be organized and we
     would prioritize and we would manage those to performance outcomes, and
     you can see on the slide that many of these Planned Accomplishments have
     tied to more than one of our agency goals.
         We did indicate to you that we were performing a
     prioritization effort in the Office and as part of the 2001 budget
     submittal we tried to put everything on a level playing field in the
     Office and using a multi-attribute decision analysis method, using the
     analytical hierarchy process we prioritized all of the Office activities
     in a 1 through N manner.
         I have listed on this slide the criteria we used to do
     this -- issue credibility -- in other words, what is the real evidence
     of a problem?  Do we have an actual finding that shows it is important?
     Is it a result of a risk assessment?  What is telling us that the issue
     is credible?
         Also, what is the safety significance and to a large degree
     we used risk assessment to the extent we could in making that
     determination.
         We measured the burden reduction significance -- in other
     words, what payoff would this activity have in terms of burden
     reduction.
         Applicability -- we looked at the number and types of
     licensees that the activity would affect, and what we actually through a
     parallelized comparison we came up with a relative prioritization for
     all activities within the Office.
         Now was the process perfect?  I would have to say no, it
     wasn't perfect the first time around.  It is a very difficult process
     and we really think that we need to make some improvements in the
     criteria.  We also think that we could make some improvements in the
     transparency of the process and we are working on that right now for the
     next budget cycle.
         We also want to simplify the process.  We had developed a
     software tool that helped us, but we think that we can simplify the
     process even further.
         And another challenge that we have this year is really
     improving our discussion of the tie between the issues and the agency
     goals.  I have included an example in my briefing near the end which
     will give you an idea of how we are trying to achieve this transparency.
         So, in looking back over '99, we asked ourselves, we have
     put a lot of effort into this activity, and what do we think we really
     achieved this with effort?  First, we think we have, in our own mind,
     achieved a link between research activities and agency goals.  We think
     that could be improved in our narratives and we are going to work on
     doing that for the coming year.
         We have developed an outcome-based budget.  And this has
     been extremely important for integration within the office.  What we
     have tried to do is tie together the engineering, the risk assessment
     and other activities that are all needed to support common issue
     resolution and make sure that the timing of all those activities was
     such that it would produce the outcome.
         It promotes integration of activities.  As I have said, we
     are now finding that our divisions and branches are having regular
     meetings on a weekly basis to talk about the various inputs to the issue
     outcome, and I think that is a very positive thing.  We have developed
     and used a new outcome-based prioritization for informing our budget
     decisions.  So as the Commission makes decisions about cuts, we have a
     prioritization, and we have a documented basis for our prioritization
     which helps us make our decisions.
         In the waste area, I just wanted to give you an example of
     what we are trying to do with this process.  The agency performance goal
     which I have used as an example is reducing unnecessary regulatory
     burden.  The research planned accomplishment in this area is develop the
     technical basis to facilitate reductions to unnecessary burden.
         The budget issue is to develop realistic models for
     assessing radiation exposure, and one of the activities in the 2000-2001
     timeframe is to examine the assumptions and the conceptual model and
     parameters of existing models, and to develop more realistic models
     which can be implemented in computer codes.  And one of our operating
     plan milestones is to develop probabilistic version of RESRAD by August
     of 2000.  So our effort in this regard is to make sure that we can see,
     and staff can see, a clear link between what each of the activities are
     and what the outcome goal will be for the agency.
         So let me just stop.  I will be turning it over to Cheryl
     who will discuss -- I know the committee is interested in more details
     in the waste area, and Cheryl will be providing those, but I thought it
     was important to provide you sort of an upfront piece on where we are
     headed, and I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yes.  I failed to mention that we are asking
     George Hornberger to lead this discussion.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Thanks, John.  Thank you very much,
     Margaret.  Do we have questions?
         DR. WYMER:  I have one.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Go ahead, Ray.
         DR. WYMER:  On your Viewgraph Number 10, where you list your
     prioritization points, where in there does the magnitude of the problem
     fit?  That is, there is some problems are a lot of sites, some are just
     at a few, but some are at a single site, but it is a big problem at that
     site.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Right.
         DR. WYMER:  Which one of these nine does that fit under?
         MS. FEDERLINE:  We would cover that under 2 and under 5.
     Number 2 relates to the risk significance, what at stake.  If it is a
     big consequence issue, or is it a very high probability, we would pick
     it up there.  And then we would look also at the numbers and types of
     licensees under Number 5.  And this is one shortcoming that I think we
     see with the overall -- the agency goals are fine as goals, but as a
     prioritization method, we think there are other factors that need to be
     considered as sort of subfactors under the performance goals for the
     agency.
         DR. WYMER:  Okay.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  John.
         DR. GARRICK:  You mentioned, I guess it was the last slide,
     Slide 12, the NRC performance goal is to reduce unnecessary regulatory
     burden.  How are you going to measure that?  How are you going to
     measure burden reduction?
         MS. FEDERLINE:  We actually have an effort in our regulatory
     effectiveness branch.  What our intention is is to go back and look at
     selected initiatives and see what is realized when they are in place.
     You know, that will be, of course, sort of an after the fact effort, but
     we believe that we need to go back and look at these initiatives and
     say, did they really pay off as we estimated they would?
         DR. GARRICK:  Yeah, the reason I bring it up is because
     regulatory burden relief is also discussed in the PRA policy statement
     and, of course, most applicants would argue that the burden is
     increased, not decreased, because we are in this transition period where
     we don't want to give up the way we have done it in the past until we
     learn more about ho to do in the future.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Right.
         DR. GARRICK:  And that makes sense.  But at the same time,
     it seems that if indeed some regulatory relief is a major component of a
     goal, that some sort of metric has to be developed to see if you are
     making any progress on that.  That was really the reason.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Yes.  And that is really one of our primary,
     -- as I said, we had the reorganization in the office, and we felt that
     a regulatory effectiveness group within the office that could look more
     broadly at office activities and provide us feedback was sort of a
     check-and-balance kind of system.
         DR. GARRICK:  Just one other comment, in your
     multi-attribute approach, you talk about risk, safety significance, et
     cetera.  I guess one of the things I was kind of looking for here was
     some of the underlying elements of your strategy for implementing your
     vision statement.  An example of that would be that we are transitioning
     into a risk-informed approach to regulatory practice.  You do talk about
     strategies, but I guess I was trying to -- maybe you can help me see
     what some of the real foundations here are of the strategy for
     implementing that vision.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Yes, I think our strategy for -- you are
     talking about the strategies for implementing the overall vision within
     the waste area?
         DR. GARRICK:  Right, right, right.  And I am looking for
     kind of a capstone component of that strategy and what it is.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  What we have been doing is working on an
     arena basis with NMSS and we are currently revising the strategic plan.
     As part of that, there will be strategies that we are working on, and
     many of them are articulated -- of course, obviously, they are not the
     right words, but many of those are incorporated in Slide 9, where I am
     talking about improving analytical tools and data to support realistic
     decisions.  That is a key strategy for the waste arena.  How are we
     going to get to reducing burden and maintaining safety?
         DR. GARRICK:  Do you think you have advanced to a point now
     where, if you were challenged on the attribute of risk, that you could
     put forth the risk relevance, importance ranking of the research
     program?
         MS. FEDERLINE:  No, I don't think we have, and that is one
     thing that Cheryl is going to be discussing with you.  One of our major
     strategies within our own program is to look at a range of performance
     assessments.  You will probably recall, under DSI-22, the Commission
     said one of the things that research does well is understand and develop
     methods.  And what we want to do is look at a range of the existing risk
     assessment methods for waste, and look at where the underlying
     uncertainties are.  Where are the uncertainties that make the most
     difference?
         And my belief is that that should drive our research
     program, and we have seen that in the decommissioning area and the --
     Cheryl -- the building --
         MS. TROTTIER:  Indoor resuspension.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  I'm sorry.  Indoor resuspension.  I can't
     keep that in my mind.  But our performance assessment drove that as a
     key factor and so we were able to actually go out and get some
     information from industry.  There are going to be places where are not
     going to be able to get that information from industry, that we might
     have to do some actual research.  But I would see our agenda in waste be
     more driven by our understanding of the risk assessment methodologies as
     they exist.
         DR. GARRICK:  Okay.  Thank you.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Milt, did you have anything?
         Cheryl, I have two questions, one quite specific and the
     other more general.  Let me do the specific one first.  In your new
     program areas, one of them, at the bottom, is enhancing public
     confidence.  And I am curious as to whether you are doing research in
     that field, that is, how NRC might improve the techniques, or whether
     that just means that you are participating in informing the public and
     engaging the public to create the confidence.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  I think at this point there is an effort
     afoot to develop a communications strategy for the agency, and so it is
     not really played out what each office is going to be doing.  But I can
     tell you in the research area, one of our goals here is to enhance our
     communication with our stakeholders, to engage our stakeholders earlier
     in the development of the research process.  Make sure that we are in
     sort of an agreement as to what the planning is that needs to be done.
     So our public confidence effort is mainly an information exchange, a
     confidence.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Okay.  The more general question is a
     difficult one because, on the one hand, as -- well, as you pointed out
     in your first slide, we suggested that one of the things that we thought
     that you should be doing is just what you described, going through some
     form of prioritization.  Now, the trick is, of course, when you are
     dealing with research, is how one does that and doesn't get so focused
     on short-term objectives that you can't do some of the other things that
     a research organization has to.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Right.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  For example, maintaining your core of
     excellence, or whatever your exact words were, may not jibe with purely
     short-term payoff items.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Right.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  How are you balancing this?
         MS. FEDERLINE:  That is a very difficult area and that is an
     area where we would interested in your advice.  Let's see, if we look at
     -- let's see.  If we look at Slide 10, you can see that using these
     criteria, for instance, issue credibility, if it is a long-term issue,
     it is going to get a lower score.  It was very hard for us to capture
     criteria in here that would adequately reflect the emerging technology
     area.  And if you can think of any that could help us, we would be --
     this is a problem we struggle with all the time.  But we have thought
     about it, and, you know, we just haven't come up with a good answer yet.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Of course, like most people, we are better
     at pointing out problems than suggesting solutions.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Well, but we haven't given up on the
     problem.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  No.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  We are still thinking about it.  It is just
     very difficult.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  And we will think also.  But I don't want
     to promise you that we will have any creative suggestions for you.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Okay.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  It is a very tough problem.
         DR. WYMER:  Actually, you are sort of on the horns of a
     dilemma here because to be prepared for long-range problems, you have to
     maintain a general expertise, which isn't consistent with addressing
     specific problems.  So I am not sure how you ever do resolve the issue.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Yes.
         DR. GARRICK:  One of the things I was struck by is this
     change from a discipline-oriented approach to what I might call a
     program- or project-oriented approach.  Is there any problems with that
     in terms of maintaining quality or recruiting, or what-have-you?
     Because researchers tend to want to be identified with a discipline more
     than they want to be identified with a program or a project.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Well, the way we have tried to address that
     is by keeping a functional organization, in other words, our planning
     and budget categories are based on -- and project is not a good
     characterization.  We have tried to look at broader issues.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yes.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  You know, more sort of, more -- a longer
     scope or broader scope issue.  But the way we have tried to get at that
     is the importance of people doing important work, working together, and
     drawing synergy from one another.  We have tried to make our
     organization more functional and bring together relationships of people.
     In other words, risk people, you know, need to work with the severe
     accident folks, for instance, to try to get a clear relationship, to try
     and bring the related functions together.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yes.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  It is just very difficult to go and explain
     a thermal-hydraulics program, or an environmental transport program
     without putting it in the context of what it is we are trying to solve,
     or where we are trying to get long-term.
         DR. GARRICK:  So it is kind of issue-based, I guess would be
     --
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Yes.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yes.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Yes.  These are our 10 key technical issues.
         DR. GARRICK:  Right, right.  Yes.  Now, that opens up a few
     more questions.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Forget I mentioned it.  I would like to turn
     things over to Cheryl Trottier.  She is our Branch Chief in this area.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Thanks very much, Margaret.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yes, thanks.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  You are welcome.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  We will have to do more about research just
     so we can get to interact with you more frequently.
         MS. FEDERLINE:  Absolutely, I would really look forward to
     that Your ideas are always very helpful to us.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Good afternoon.  As Margaret has said, I am
     Cheryl Trottier, and I am the Chief of this branch.  It takes too much
     to say it, but it has a very long name, we have to change our name.
     But, anyway, this is the first time I have come to you in this new role.
     As of our reorganization in the spring, we have basically merged our
     former Radiation Protection and Health Effects Branch with the Waste
     Management Branch, so there are a lot of things that, within the branch,
     we do differently, but it is nice to see there are a lot of things which
     have caused cohesiveness.  There is a lot of interaction between the
     kinds of work that the former Waste Management Branch did and the kinds
     of work that we are doing in Radiation Protection these days, so it is
     turning out to be a very good mix.
         Margaret did a good job of introducing prioritization, which
     I am glad she did, because it is much better when she does it than when
     I do it.  But what I am going to try and do is walk you through how this
     process worked in the waste arena.  And I thought I would first just
     give you a couple of summary slides that speak to the kinds of issues
     that were identified, and then I will talk in more detail for each of
     those issues, the kinds of projects that we are engaged in that fall
     under those issues.
         So under the performance goal, maintain safety, three issues
     came out.  The first one basically dealt with developing monitoring
     techniques for volumetric contamination.  And this can cover a variety
     of areas and, as I said, I will get into more detail with that.
         The second issue that came out was a need for realistic
     analysis of groundwater systems.
         And the third issue that came out was one of developing
     monitoring strategies for the decommissioned sites, because there will
     be cases where the licensing office we believe will need some support
     there.
         Then the next performance goal, and, really, for the waste
     arena, even though they could have probably fit under three categories,
     for the waste arena, they basically fell into these two categories of
     maintain safety or reduce unnecessary burden reduction.  And as we walk
     through these, you will see a lot of these could have fallen into
     effectiveness and efficiency, but, in fact, for this part of the process
     anyway, maybe down the road, they might change, but at this point they
     are under the unnecessary regulatory burden aspect.
         And the first one, which I will spend quite a bit of time
     on, was -- the first issue identified was to provide and maintain
     integrated computational tools.  We have talked about that before, but I
     will give you an update on where we are with that.  And then the rest of
     these basically support that and some other initiatives that are
     currently of interest in the licensing office, that is to develop
     realistic analysis, models that support realistic analysis of
     radionuclide transport, data and models to support realistic analysis of
     groundwater flow.  Again, data and models to assess the effectiveness of
     engineered systems, and I will talk a little bit about that, because we
     may not have discussed that recently.  And then the last one is develop
     data and models on contaminant degradation and release.
         I will mention that for most of these projects, they were
     ongoing projects within the office.  There is one new initiative that
     came out of this prioritization effort, and that, in fact, is on this
     first slide.  So then to talk about the projects that fell under these
     issues, the first issue, which was the maintaining safety issue, has
     these three projects and -- or, actually, there is more than three
     projects because under the first issue there are two projects.  The
     first issue is the one that dealt with volumetric contamination.  And I
     want to apologize because I am suffering with a cold today.  I am
     getting to the end of it, but anyway.
         This really addresses both decommissioning and support for
     the development of a possible rulemaking, -- we are not in rulemaking
     space yet, -- that would support clearance of material that is released
     from licensee control.  It deals with the issue of how you measure
     volumetrically contaminated radioactive material.  In other words, if
     you are sending off soil from the site, or in the case of decommissioned
     site, our current guidance really only addresses the first few
     centimeters.  The modeling does not go down with depth.  The survey
     techniques really don't address depth.  And so this work that we are
     having done in both of these contracts will help with the techniques,
     the survey methods, the instrumentation that will enable licensees to do
     those kind of measurements.
         And the next project -- excuse me -- that falls under this
     safety performance goal is one that addresses parameter uncertainty.
         Yes, thank you, John.  Gosh, you brought my water.  Thank
     you, Margaret.  That is called management support.  Thank you.
         Parameter uncertainty and groundwater modeling.  We have had
     that project going on for several years, and we believe that this is one
     of the aspects that is critical to the licensing office to assist them
     in making a lot of the decommissioning decisions that face them today.
         And then this is one of our new -- oh, I am going to mention
     to you I have a little coding system on this chart that may help make
     more sense out of it.  I have ranked these in order of priority, and
     those priorities were really assigned by the licensing office.  During
     the process of doing our prioritization, we also met with the licensing
     office and gave them the initial results of our prioritization.  And
     they came back to us with their assessment of how close we were to the
     mark in identifying the important issues.
         And so the items here, or the projects that are identified
     as high priority are those that the licensing office indicated to us
     were a high priority.  Under that first bullet, I also indicated that
     this supports the SRM that the Commission issued to the staff to go and
     investigate a potential rulemaking on volumetric release.
         And the reason I went back to that is this last project is
     one of our anticipatory research initiatives.  That is really the reason
     why it has a "no priority," because NMSS focused on those areas where
     they had user needs, and they had already identified work that they
     needed.
         We believe this is a critical component for the Office of
     Research, to continue to do anticipatory work.  In fact, that is why we
     have the experts that we have, so that we can look down the road to see
     where the needs may be in the future, because many times the research
     takes more than a year to complete, and oftentimes a licensing office
     needs an answer in a year.  So if we just simply wait for them to come
     to us with their needs, then many times we won't be able to be
     responsive.  So we will continue to try to identify -- that is one of
     the things that we will get to when I get to the end of this, where we
     are trying to refine that process of how we effectively identify where
     the future needs are.  But that is a new initiative that I currently do
     not have money for this year, but we will start it in probably either
     the end of this fiscal year or the beginning of '01.
         Okay.  Now we will move into the second performance goal
     area, and that is unnecessary regulatory burden.  I will begin here with
     the issue addressing the integrated computational tools, which at this
     time involve three projects, enhancements to the Sandia Environmental
     Decision Support System, which I know we have brief the committee on
     before, and that is an ongoing project.
         The development of a probabilistic version of DandD.  Now,
     what this is really doing, and I will speak to this further as we get to
     the next slide, is removing some of the conservatisms that are inherent
     in DandD.  There are some conservatisms that you can't get rid of
     because it is screening code, but there are some that were put in mainly
     in order to get the code developed quickly.  The mechanisms for
     developing the original set of defaults added conservatisms that weren't
     warranted.
         And the third is a fairly new initiative, and we may not
     have come before the committee with this before, and that is to develop
     a probabilistic version of the RESRAD code.
         I thought it might be worthwhile to digress a little from
     the overall prioritization effort and walk through a little of where we
     are on these computational tools.  Again, under DandD, the version that
     we have out today really produces bounding estimates, and it is
     important to remember that part of the reason for that is it is based on
     a model that was developed to support rulemaking, not necessarily as an
     implementation tool.
         It has worked as a handy screening tool, and really serves
     as a basis to help licensees make decisions in that they don't actually
     have to know anything about their site to run DandD.  And in some cases,
     there will be licensees who won't need to do anything other than run
     DandD, and they can then make decisions about terminating their
     licensee.  They won't need to run a more sophisticated code or go out
     and collect site data in order to make those decisions.
         Currently there is a version of RESRAD that is available
     that has been used by licensees.  The licensing office specifically
     asked us to look at developing another version of RESRAD because, while
     licensees are very comfortable with using RESRAD, it creates a burden on
     the licensing staff in having to review each submittal because RESRAD
     was really developed for DOE sites, where there is a lot of
     characterization, and you can't really run RESRAD in default mode, it is
     not intended to be run in default mode.  So, therefore, the licensing
     office needs to have some assurance about the parameters that licensees
     select, and the effort that we are underway with now will help them do
     that.
         SEDSS is available today.  Unfortunately, it is very hard
     for the average user to use SEDSS.  It is something that the staff has
     been able to make sure of, but the current version of it is not what we
     call really user friendly.
         Okay.  This is what we are going to accomplish this year.
     In fact, I believe we now have, or are about to have a beta version of
     DandD available.  Again, the primary purpose of this version is simply
     to reduce the amount of conservatism in it.  It is still a screening
     code, it is still based on the 5512 model.  And, again, its only real
     purpose is to be useful as a first step, and for a few licensees who
     really do not have significant amounts of soil contamination, I believe
     it will be a very useful tool for all of their decommissioning
     decisions.
         The work we are doing on RESRAD is similar to the work that
     was done to develop the version of DandD that we have today, in that
     they are using a Monte Carlo approach for treating parameter
     uncertainty, and what that will then produce is a distribution which
     will be sampled and licensee's submittals then can be compared against
     those distributions.
         And the work we are going to accomplish with SEDSS this year
     is to put together basically a PC version of SEDSS.  That version will
     still use the same modeling that it has in the version we have today,
     and what that means is it only has a one-dimensional groundwater model.
     So it is still not going to be the kind of SEDSS we eventually hope to
     get to, but at least it will have some improvements in it this year.
         And just to give you an indication of where we are going
     with these, we're anticipating that by the end of FY2000, the work on
     D&D and RESRAD will be primarily done.  There will be some documentation
     that will still be needed to be completed.  But the actual code work
     will be done and will be available for licensees to use.
         Then the future work will focus on SEDSS.  And what we are
     doing is, a lot of the work within the Branch today will support these
     enhancements to SEDSS.  And I list a few here of the areas that research
     that we see needed down the road to help reduce the uncertainties.  And
     that is to focus on the forms of the radionuclides during release and
     transport, during inhalation and ingestion by people, and the metabolism
     and dosimetry of the forms once they're ingested -- in other words,
     completing the whole process eventually is our goal.
         Now I'd like to give some examples of some of the specific
     projects that go into supporting the development of more realistic
     models.  And under the first, which deals with absorption process, there
     are actually two projects ongoing; one dealing with the mechanisms
     primarily, and one which is focusing on field studies.  And that is a
     cooperative effort with the USGS.  And both of these are ongoing efforts
     that are about halfway completed.  Both of these projects, you'll
     notice, were under user need, but the Office has identified them as a
     low priority.
         The second bullet here is model uncertainty in groundwater
     models.  This is also work that's about halfway completed.  And this
     falls into the area of anticipatory.  The user needed -- the Licensing
     Office did not provide us a user need.  And we do believe that the work
     that's being done in this project will eventually feed into SEDSS.
         The last project on this sheet, which is the last bullet, is
     a project that is addressing engineered barriers.  And you've probably
     been briefed on this in the past, which is the 4SIGHT code.  That work
     is being done in cooperation with NIST.  Again, this is anticipatory
     work.  This work, I think, was originally started to support low-level
     waste research.  And what it now appears is, a lot of the information
     that can be obtained through this code may help the Staff in making
     decisions for any situation where a licensee may choose to use the
     entombment option for decommissioning, because it's a very useful code
     for evaluating the concrete degradation issues that would be a key
     element of an entombment decision.
         This is also one of the projects that I like to speak about
     from the standpoint of how I think the Office is effectively using the
     research expertise that it has, because in this case the Staff person
     actually works at NIST at least one day a week.  And really, that's an
     effective way to keep researchers interested in their work and it's a
     very effective way to use the dwindling dollars that the office has
     because the more cooperative efforts we have through the resources that
     are available locally -- and there are a lot of resources available
     locally -- the more benefit I think we're gonna get in the long-run.
     And I really encourage the staff to seek out these kinds of research
     programs, where they can do a cooperative effort with another Federal
     agency or university, which has the equipment and tools that enables
     them to do the research.
         These are examples of the last two projects -- we have other
     projects going on in the Office, but I focused on those things for which
     future year money, or 2000-year money has been allocated.  There are
     some projects that are near in completion that did not use current
     dollars.
         These are, this is the last two projects that I'm gonna
     speak to.  And these really did come under a user need that supports the
     decommissioning decisions for the licensing office dealing with
     primarily slags and, in particular, looking at solubility and leach
     rates.
         The second project is another one of the in-house
     cooperative work.  In fact, almost all of it is done in-house, where the
     researcher spends considerable time at Hopkins University doing the
     research.  And you know, we're getting very good results out of that for
     very little money, and that's a really important feature of it.
         And now I come to our last slide, which is the one where I
     said of the -- primarily asking for some guidance from you.  The process
     that we went through was an office-wide process.  But in identifying
     issues, one of the things the Staff has to be able to do is have some
     idea of where to look.  How do I know where the problems are?  And so,
     what this slide really lists is our ideas as to sources for input in
     defining where future research is needed.
         Margaret talked about self-assessment.  And beyond the work
     that we did in-house is the idea that by doing, or looking at, different
     performance assessments, it's a way for us to gain other information on
     areas which may need further work.
         Another area where we thought we could gain some insight was
     from going out to stakeholders.  And lumped into that group is having
     peer review of research results to identify where further work my be
     needed:  of course, working with the program offices who frequently know
     what's needed, at least short-term; seeking guidance from groups like
     the ACNW; participating in outside meetings, having research staff
     participate in outside meetings and technical conferences, to know how
     others are coming in their research efforts and, and hopefully
     identifying where gaps exist.  And also that's an effective way to avoid
     duplication of research.
         And in some cases we have had a lot of success in conducting
     public meetings and in doing program reviews, which we have recently
     tried to do in a much more formal way.  I think last year, maybe in the
     Spring, Staff told you about the program review that we did at Sandia
     last December.  Well, in June we conducted a program review at
     Beltsville, Maryland on hydrology, and it was a very successful program
     review, where numerous scientists came in and discussed their research.
     And we shared with other agencies as well at that meeting.
         And then the third source is really industry initiatives,
     because sometimes industry does identify problems.  And a good example
     is entombment.  There are some licensees out there who have indicated an
     interest, that they may like to pursue the entombment option.  Well that
     then is a challenge for the Licensing Office, and those are sometimes
     areas where research can help by filling in the gaps on what the
     licensing office doesn't have in their data for making those kinds of
     decision.
         And that ends my formal presentation, so I'll take
     questions.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Thank you very much, Cheryl.  Don, do you
     want to start it?
         DR. GARRICK:  Looking at this list of sources of input in
     defining future research, in the past, what have been the top two or
     three sources that you've depended on or that's been the most effective?
         MS. TROTTIER:  I would guess -- and see, here I'm going to
     call on my vagrant assistant branch chief who's gone off to the EDO's
     office for hopefully only six months to maybe help because I'm very new.
     But I would suspect staff expertise and peer review, but Bill, can you
     add to that?
         MR. OTT:  I would say -- Bill Ott, Office of Research.  I
     guess I'll cling to that affiliation right now.
         MS. TROTTIER:  That's great.
         MR. OTT:  One particular avenue that Cheryl didn't mention
     explicitly is that we maintain a small contract with the National
     Academy of Sciences -- to general support for one of the committees.
     Every year we go to that committee and we discuss parts of our research
     program. Generally, it's been in the areas of hydrology, the work on
     4SIGHT, and things like that.  The National Academy then gives us back
     informal feedback.  We don't give them enough information or enough
     money to come back with a formal report, but we do get informal feedback
     from them on the content of the work and the direction of the work.

     We do, of course, aggressively go after peer review.  We've always done
     that.  That's an office policy.  Stakeholders internally -- of course,
     the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; our own staff;
     attendance at professional meetings in which we make presentations and
     actively go out and solicit interactions from the participants.
         This year is the first year that we aggressively went out
     and tried to expand the program reviews.  And we did this in two way.
     First, instead of holding individual project reviews, we tried to hold
     two or three project reviews together to increase the number of
     scientists themselves who were interacting in the program.  Then we
     invited, actually sent out letters of invitation, to a lot of people.
     We sent them out to EPA.  We sent them out to USGS.  Other -- the
     Department of Energy.  We sent even letters out to some of our
     international partners with whom we do information exchange.
         We got probably 30 percent response in terms of people
     coming into those meetings.  But Sandia one was the first one and had
     the least participation.  The hydrology one in Beltsville was the second
     one.  We had more participation in that one.  And some of those people
     said, next time you go to do the chemistry, give us the call rather than
     someplace else where you send it in the Agency because we think we
     should have been there in Sandia.
         We got a lot of positive feedback from the other Federal
     agencies, both DOE and EPA, at the meeting in Beltsville with regard to
     the applicability of the work we were doing, how it would benefit them,
     and things they were doing that were relevant to us and whether we were
     on track to help them and that kind of thing.  So it's a case of, I
     think it's evolving.  And I think we're actually making progress.
         DR. GARRICK:  What's the principle mechanism of getting
     industry feedback?
         MR. OTT:  We invited -- as I said, before this year we
     didn't really actively invite the industry.  We invited NEI and EPRI to
     participate in both the Sandia and the Beltsville workshops.  EPRI
     participated in both of them.  Did NEI -- NEI did not participate in
     either one of them, but the NEI people said that they would consult the
     EPRI people that attended the Beltsville meeting.  They just didn't
     respond to us on the meeting out in Sandia.  But principally right now,
     that's the mechanism that we're going through trying to get them to come
     in and see the work at the ground level, where the individual
     researchers are presenting the guts of what's going on in the program
     review context.
         MS. TROTTIER:  And I will point out, we've had a lot of
     public meetings as we're finalizing this guidance for the license
     termination rule.  And licensees are usually eager to point out areas
     where they need further work.  So I think those kinds of exchanges are
     helpful in identifying areas where there may be shortcomings.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yeah.  Now, you said earlier that you rely a
     lot on performance assessment work, and you also made specific reference
     to going to the licensing people to get that input.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Um hmm.
         DR. GARRICK:  Is there good correlation between those kinds
     of searches?  Are the licensing people increasingly going to the
     performance assessments to evaluate what's important?
         MS. TROTTIER:  I believe they are using performance
     assessment more and more, and in fact that's how they have identified
     some of the flaws that we've needed to work on in the existing models.
         DR. GARRICK:  Thank you.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Bill did you want to add something?
         MR. OTT:  Yeah, I wanted to add one thing to that.  When you
     talk performance assessment in this context, you're talking about it in
     a broader sense than applying one of these models?
         DR. GARRICK:  Right.
         MR. OTT:  Because I think what we get a lot from the
     licensing office is experience from the licensing review, which may not
     have employed one of these models.
         DR. GARRICK:  Right.
         MR. OTT:  But they detect it in trying to do analyses, no
     matter how they did them, that there was a problem and they needed
     information.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yeah.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  I don't have a question; I have an
     observation.  Your page 8 viewgraphs, viewgraph you have items A, B, and
     C.  A and B are basically speciation concerns.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Um hmm.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  And about three weeks ago, there was a work
     shop held by the Nuclear Science Committee of the Nuclear Energy Agency
     of the OECD --
         MS. TROTTIER:  Um hmm.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  -- that was specifically directed at
     speciation in the context of waste management and environmental
     pollution.  And they're in the process of preparing a report on that.
     And I'd be happy to give you a contact if you'd care to pursue it.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Yes.  We would appreciate that.
         MR. LEVENSON:  I've gotta couple of questions that are "new
     boy on the block" questions, so they're for clarification.
         On slide 2, you talk about the need for realistic analysis
     of groundwater systems.  Is that chemical analysis or computer modeling
     analysis?  Which definition of the word?
         MS. TROTTIER:  Mostly computer modeling analysis, but I
     think I would like Tom to answer that because Tom is doing more than
     modeling, really.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Okay, see, because the other two items on
     that page are monitoring techniques rather than modeling.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Um hmm.
         MR. NICHOLSON: With regard to the modeling of groundwater --
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Tom, give your name please.
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Excuse me?
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Give your name for the record.
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Oh -- Tom Nicholson, Office of Research.
     With regard to the groundwater models, one of the dilemmas is that
     depending on how the licensing staff chooses their code, it may
     represent a very simplistic view of the groundwater system and maybe a
     one-dimensional model.  It may handle things in a very lump-parameter
     fashion.  And so therefore, some people want us to take credit and give
     information with regard to realistic groundwater flow systems.  And so
     therefore, we're trying to capture those realistic flow systems by
     varying the code, as Cher went through.  We're also looking at the
     conceptualization of groundwater flow systems.
         MR. LEVENSON:  You're giving me more information than I
     wanted.
         [Laughter.]
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Okay.
         MR. LEVENSON:  My question basically is, what's the
     difference between Item 2 on page 2 and Item 3 on page 3?
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Item 2 on page 2 is to basically look at
     groundwater flow systems so we can think of it in terms of one-, two-,
     three-dimensional models.  We can also look at various processes.  We
     can handle heterogeneities with regard to realistic groundwater flow
     models.  So Item 2 on page 2 is more oriented toward modeling.  Now what
     we the other question, Sir, on page 3?
         MR. LEVENSON:  Page 3, Item 3, which I think is what you
     just said.
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Yes.  That is almost identical.  Yes, it is.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Actually, Tom -- because we had this
     confusion with trying to write these short.  This is the, the -- Item 1,
     page 2, is the PNNL work.
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Okay.
         MS. TROTTIER:  And item on page 3 is the Arizona work.
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Okay.  With regard to the PNNL work, the
     investigators at PNNL are looking at uncertainties with regard to the
     parameters.  So it's parameter uncertainty they're looking at.  And some
     of the models used in decommissioning have generalized to use default
     values.  And now people want to put in what would be more realistic
     values.  So PNNL is coming up with distributions of parameter.  So if
     you know the soil textural class, you can go then to a table and look at
     what the ranges would be in sampling from those.
         With regard to the other project, conceptual model
     uncertainty, that's going on at the University of Arizona.  And that's
     what I described earlier, looking at issues of dimensionality, looking
     at issues of scale, heterogeneity, the type of assumptions you make when
     you choose your model.
         DR. GARRICK:  Are analogs being used in the conceptual model
     uncertainty analysis?
         MR. NICHOLSON:  No.
         MR. LEVENSON:  One page 4 -- I hope the third bullet where
     you say "no priority" was intended to be "no priority from licensing
     people"?
         MS. TROTTIER:  Yes --
         MR. LEVENSON:  As I think --
         MS. TROTTIER:  And resisted -- the first time I did these
     slides, I didn't put anything there because it bothered me so much to
     see "no priority."  But for accuracy, I put it in.  What it means is
     that priority designation came from the licensing office.  And if it was
     an anticipatory activity on the part of Research, which meant they did
     not have a user need, then they labeled it as "no priority."
         MR. LEVENSON:  Okay, but I hope it's your office priority --
         MS. TROTTIER:  It is our office priority.
         MR. LEVENSON:  -- would not automatically follow necessarily
     any of their priorities.
         MS. TROTTIER:  No.  No, no it doesn't.  But it was, if you
     remember from what Margaret spoke with you about, user need was an
     aspect of our prioritization.
         MR. LEVENSON:  I just have one other question.  On page 11,
     on the input on defining future research, having been on quite a few
     Academy committees over the years and having been on many peer reviews,
     normally the guidance you get is to review what people are doing.  Does
     your request to the Academy committee ever say, don't bother reviewing
     what we're doing; what's more important is, can you identify what we're
     not doing that we should be doing.  Is that question ever posed?
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Yes it is, Sir.  Jake Philip and I go to
     these National Academy of Science -- Jake is the liaison to the Board on
     Rock Mechanics.  I'm the liaison to the Water Science and Technology
     Board, and yes, we do ask that question.
         MR. LEVENSON:  But that's a very limited area if it's only
     asked of that Board, isn't it?
         MR. NICHOLSON:  We have -- last March, we were the principle
     sponsor, along with DOE, of a workshop on flow through the fractured
     vadose zone.  It was dealing with conceptual models.  And we and the
     National Academy of Science organized a panel and brought in a large
     international group to look at conceptual models of flow through
     fractured rock in the unsaturated zone.  And at that time, we were
     actively looking obviously for input from a variety of scientists --
     source scientists, hydrogeologists --
         MR. LEVENSON:  Well, I didn't mean extremely limited in your
     source.  I mean, you're asking a very, very narrow question.  There are
     many other questions in the waste area.  There should be research going
     on.  So if you ask experts in rock mechanics what you should be doing,
     you may get a very good list of things, but there are a lot of things
     other than rock mechanics.  How do you get -- is the National Academy
     committee that narrowly defined for this purpose, this group?
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Well, as I said before, the other committee
     we interact with is the Water Science and Technology Board.  And there's
     also a Board on Radioactive Waste.  Now, we're not the contact on that;
     that's NMSS.  But we actively attend the meetings and discuss with them
     various projects.  They review every year, they go through a process
     where they bring in invited speakers and go through a variety.  Often
     it's DOE, either DOE clean-up of former material sites, or Yucca
     Mountain.  And we learn an awful lot through that also.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  But to follow up just a moment on Milt's
     questions, research does not liase with BRWM.  You simply, you liase
     with rock mechanics and WSTD.
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Right.  Right --
         DR. GARRICK:  I guess the connection I'm trying to make
     there is, Margaret talked about moving away from a disciplinary
     approach, more to a multi- or interdisciplinary program approach.  And
     just as an observation, the Board on Radioactive Waste Management is
     much more oriented toward the latter than the former and it could be an
     important inter-liaison for research as well, especially if this is a
     change in the strategy.
         MR. NICHOLSON:  Um hmm.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Yes, I think we need to make sure Research
     participates in those meetings and asks those questions.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  From the other side, I'll just make a
     remark, because one of the other things I do is chair the Commission on
     Geosciences and Environment Resources, under which is the Water Science
     and Technology Board and the Board on Radioactive Waste Management.  At
     any rate, we just went through a review of the Board on Radioactive
     Waste Management, and one of the messages that was certainly suggested
     to them is that their meetings could really play an important role if it
     provided a forum, not be so tightly restricted to DOE issues, but not to
     have broader issues.  So BRWM might be quite responsive to hearing from
     you.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Good.
         DR. GARRICK:  We've got a lot of incest.
         [Laughter.]
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Any other questions?  Cheryl, I have, let's
     see, a couple of questions.
     On page 9, where you went through several of the examples, my question
     is, do, would I expect to see the listing in terms of the priority
     rankings somewhat different in the future after having heard Margaret's
     pitch as to how you've gone through prioritizing.  Because, when I go
     down this the user need, low priority; the next ones are anticipatory --
     anticipatory.  So I don't see any on here that are user-need high
     priority.  I'm, am I right in inferring that in the future I might
     expect to see one or two there?

     MS. TROTTIER:  Well, what I didn't mention is I listed these in order of
     their priority.  So when I got to page 9, I was moving into the lower
     priority things.  And the one under reducing unnecessary burden that
     were highest on the priority were the three codes.  Those three came out
     as very high -- or at least that issue.  I shouldn't say those projects,
     because this was an issue-based prioritization.  That issue came out
     high on the prioritization because it was high as a user need.
         I think the future prioritization may change this some.
     It's hard to say.  You know, this was our first attempt --
         DR. HORNBERGER:  And I, I don't mean to do anything like
     cast dispersions on any particular project.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Yes.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  I was asking a much more general question.
     Just in general, might I anticipate seeing more that don't either fall
     into the anticipatory or the low priority category?
         MS. TROTTIER:  Yes, you might.  You most likely will.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  John, did you have a follow-up?
         DR. LARKINS:  Yes.  If you use the attributes that are
     listed in Margaret's presentation on page 10, then aren't you always
     going to come out with your anticipatory programs being ranked lower --
         MS. TROTTIER:  Yes.
         DR. LARKINS:  -- than those for which you have a research
     request?
         MS. TROTTIER:  Yes.
         DR. LARKINS:  And in times where you have competing dollars,
     it seems like that might automatically eliminate the anticipatory work
     from the other.
         MS. TROTTIER:  That's going to be a challenge for the
     Office.  It's going to be a particular challenge if we go to agency-wide
     budgeting by arena.  In other words, not office-wide budgeting, but if
     we go to agency-wide budgeting, then that anticipatory work is going to
     be really hard to compete in the face of licensing.
         DR. LARKINS:  Right.
         MS. TROTTIER:  So, I --
         DR. LARKINS:  I might suggest that when you do your
     multi-attribute decision or AHP, that you look at weighting different
     factors.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Differently.
         DR. LARKINS:  Differently.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Yeah, that's my fear is how we maintain our
     -- it's important to maintain our anticipatory program.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Absolutely.  Absolutely.  That's again one
     of the difficult issues that I painted for Margaret that I wanted to
     disabuse her the notion that we might solve that problem for you.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Right.  I understand that.  Bill, did you
     want to add something?
         MR. OTT:  Margaret made the observation that the process we
     used was fairly complex.  It's complex only in the number of factors
     that are used; conceptually, it's not that difficult.  But it's almost
     too simple to say that it automatically ranks low if it doesn't have
     user need, because there are so many factors that were considered that
     if something with a user need doesn't also have some factor like
     leverage or something like that that can boost a project above one that
     has a user need because it's only one of -- I think if you total the
     number of factors, it's something like 20 that get various scores in
     this process.
         DR. LARKINS:  So there are more than nine that are listed.
         MR. OTT:  The nine that are listed are the primary criteria.
     Under them there are sub-criteria, and then there are importance
     measures and things like this.  So things can, can adjust based on
     relative scores because they're not always necessarily related to user
     need.
         MR. KING:  Tom King.  Let me follow up on that.  There are
     only nine factors.  Each one has a different weighting to it, so they're
     not all weighted equally.  And under each of the nine factors, there are
     some sub-criteria that tell you, for that factor, should it get the full
     weight, should it get some fraction of that weight, depending upon how
     well, for that factor, certain sub-criteria are met.
         So there's really only nine factors, but there are a score
     -- each of the nine factors, and then each of the nine factors
     themselves have different weighting.  And we can get you the numbers,
     the weighting scheme if you want to see it.  But it is complex.
         DR. LARKINS:  I guess the only question I would have is, how
     do you do budget reductioning significance?  And then you have to have
     an estimate of what the impact of once you develop an outcome, how that
     outcome is going to reduce the burden, for individuals, for licensees,
     for staff.
         MR. OTT:  Believe me, we struggled with issues like that.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Yeah.
         MR. OTT:  And the other point that Margaret made is that
     it's changing.  This was the first attempt.  And there could be a change
     in the criteria structure as well as the weighting scheme in this next
     go-around based on the experience that we had last time.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  And I think that it's clear.  And I think
     everybody who's gone through anything like this is, recognizes that
     there's a certain arbitrariness to how you assign the weights and how
     you divvy things up and how you estimate this.  But I think that the
     important thing is that you go through the process and you recognize
     those nine factors.  And what you wind up with, you hope, I think, is a
     balanced portfolio, which is I believe what you're all looking for.
         MR. KING:  Yeah, and we didn't blindly follow the numbers
     that came out.  They informed the decision process.  Other factors came
     in as well.
         DR. HORNBERGER:   Of course.  Well, I would hope so.
         MR. KING:   Cheryl, my other question has to do with your,
     on the slide you list the sources of input in defining future research
     and how you get outside input, if you will.  And my question has to do
     -- so you conducted these public meetings, and I think I -- I certainly
     talked to Bill and probably Tom, and they both told me that the June
     workshop in particular they were very happy with.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Right.
         MR. KING:  Now my question is, when you conduct these
     things, is there some written record?  Is there a written report?
         MS. TROTTIER:   Yes.  And in fact, on the June workshop we
     published proceedings or are publishing proceedings.
         MR. KING:   Okay.
         MS. TROTTIER:   We normally transcribe them, so there is a
     written record.
         MR. KING:   Okay, but proceedings, that would be the
     presentations.
         MS. TROTTIER:   Right.
         MR. KING:   What I am wondering is, when we think about how
     ACNW might give its input, if there were some record of, ah, here are
     the lessons that we learned.  Here is the evaluation.  Here is
     somebody's comments, outside comments on the research.  Or here's the
     Staff's take on what we learned.  Is there anything like that written?
         MS. TROTTIER:   There is a transcript.  But you're really
     looking for more than a transcript.
         DR. HORNBERGER:   A transcript --
         DR. GARRICK:   We're looking for an evaluation of the --
     yes.
         MR. OTT:   We need to back off on that a little bit.  The
     decommissioning workshops, we had transcripts for.
         MS. TROTTIER:   Right.
         MR. OTT:   The research program reviews, we did not.
         MS. TROTTIER:   I know that.  We did not.
         MR. OTT:   We did not have a transcript for those.  It was
     our intention for the Sandia workshop to put together a summary. Our
     intentions were better than our performance and we didn't do that.  I
     don't know if you did that for --
         MR. NICHOLSON:   We did put a short summary together.
         MR. OTT:   Tom put a short summary together for the
     hydrology workshop.  So the first one, our intentions were great.  We
     didn't quite follow through.  We've begun following through on
     hydrology.  Hopefully, the next time we'll have our act together and
     we'll have a good written summary after the conclusion, sort of learning
     this process as we go along and trying to get, you know, more input into
     the program.
         Our primary reason for not having a transcript was to not
     have it be a detriment to open flow of information.  And there were
     people there from other Federal agencies that have licensing
     responsibilities and all the rest of that.  And they won't necessarily
     say things on the public record that they will if it's not recorded.  So
     we deliberately did not do that.  And any summary would necessarily, not
     necessarily attribute views to individuals to individuals as much as
     views to discussion or summaries of the discussions that went on.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Believe me, I don't want to read a
     transcript of any of these anyway.
         [Laughter.]
         DR. HORNBERGER:   That wasn't my point.
         MS. TROTTIER:   Right.
         DR. HORNBERGER:   But if there is a summary, for example,
     that Tom has prepared, it would be very useful for that to be provided
     to ACNW.  It would also, to tell you the truth, be useful, I think, to
     us -- you have your solicited input from outside experts who attend
     meetings at technical conferences.  And I understand that this is all
     done in the hallways for the most part.  Nevertheless, if your people
     write a trip report when they come back from such things, particularly
     if the trip report says, yes, in the discussion this is an issue that
     came forward, these kinds of things I think would be useful to us to
     see.
         MS. TROTTIER:   Okay.  We can do that.
         DR. HORNBERGER:   Anything else?
         DR. GARRICK:   No.
         MS. TROTTIER:   Thank you.
         DR. GARRICK:   Thank you.  We're right on schedule -- unless
     there's another presenter.  You don't have another presenter?
         MS. TROTTIER:   No.
         DR. GARRICK:   All right.  Then we are right on schedule,
     and our agenda says at this point, we have a break and we'll take that
     break right now.
         [Recess.]
         DR. GARRICK:   Could we come to order, please.  Our next
     agenda item is on rubblization and the committee member that's gonna
     lead the discussion on this is Dr. Wymer.  And I guess Larry Camper and
     Larry Pittiglio are going to conduct the briefing.
         DR. WYMER:   Well, you just stole my thunder.
         [Laughter.]
         MR. CAMPER:   That's it, huh?
         DR. WYMER:   So please proceed.
         MR. CAMPER:   Well good afternoon.  It's a pleasure to be
     with you again.  And we're going to cover with you this afternoon a
     concept on this rubblization.  And it is interesting and challenging
     concept.
         The license termination rule went into effect in August of
     1996.  That rule established criteria in Part 20, Subpart E for
     restricted and unrestricted release of sites and unrestricted released
     in 20.1402.  And now the Staff is implementing that rule.  And we find
     that license termination plans are coming in.  Concepts are emerging
     from industry to fulfill the requirements of the rule.  And what we're
     going to discuss with you today is one of those concepts.
         I emphasize that it's a concept because we don't have an
     application yet, and therefore it's, it's somewhat difficult to talk
     about the specifics of a particular application, perhaps to go into a
     meaningful discussion in terms of quantitative data and things of those
     nature.   But the concept is coming and there will be variations of this
     concept, we believe.  So I think that there are two very valuable things
     that the Committee can do for us at this juncture.
         One is, having reviewed the paper and these slides, if you
     have major observations or thoughts, concerns about the concept, the
     approach, or the approach the staff is taking, it would be interesting
     the hear those.
         And probably more even more important would be, given that
     the Staff does not believe that there's a policy matter here, rather
     there is a concept and informational issue here -- which is why we
     prepared the Commission paper -- if you have thoughts that might aid us
     as we review applications and go about the concept of rubblization, that
     would be of great value to us.
         Rubblization -- what is this term? -- which, by the way, no
     one can agree upon how to spell.
         [Laughter.]
         MR. CAMPER:   -- simply stated, it's the demolition of
     concrete structures combined with the use of some or all of the
     resulting rubble as on-site fill.  Next slide.
         We do, as I pointed out, believe that this is an
     implementation issue rather than a policy issue, but we have prepared a
     Commission paper for the Commission's awareness.  We want to do this
     because it is controversial in nature.  If you had the opportunity to
     review the Commission paper, you'll note that it contained a number of
     enclosures.  The enclosures cover a broad spectrum of views.  Some for;
     some strongly against, and some in between.
         What I'm sharing with you today, of course, is the Staff's
     views as presented in the Commission paper.  Obviously we will see what
     the Commission has to say about it in the near-term.
         One of the things that makes this concept somewhat sensitive
     is that it was not specifically considered within the statements of
     consideration.  But as the Staff points out in the paper, we believe
     that it is consistent with the license termination rule and would be an
     acceptable means for meeting the license termination rule, provided
     obviously that the conditions of the rule are satisfied.
         Rubblization concepts applies to contamination concrete
     buildings, primarily at reactor sites, although they would not have to
     be limited to reactor sites, but primarily reactor sites.  Removing
     equipment from the buildings, obviously in the early stages of
     dismantlement and decommissioning.
         Decontaminating the building surfaces using scabbling or
     some other means.  These building are primarily the turbine building,
     the reactor building, spent-fuel building, and some auxiliary buildings,
     and demolishing the above-grade part of the structure, which is going to
     then create rubble materials ranging from gravel size to very large
     blocks.  It's going to result in a very heterogeneous mix of
     contaminated and non-contaminated materials.  Next slide.
         The next step then is to place the concrete rubble into the
     below-grade structure. Perhaps three walls would be left standing, and
     some of the approaches as they were being put in below surface.  Grading
     the site to a restored condition.
         And in couple of minutes Larry particularly is going to show
     you exactly what that looks like.  This is the classic green field
     effect, if you will.  It will involve modeling, how the licensee will
     consider these elevated areas of contamination, the fact that it's a
     heterogeneous mix, possible intruder scenarios.  And this may vary from
     licensee to licensee.  It probably will, and they have the capacity to
     propose different models.
         It means satisfying the license termination rule -- i.e., 25
     millirem and ALARA; all pathways considered.  And there will probably be
     variations on this theme.  Next slide.
         A number of issues or considerations had emerged.  Some of
     them were controversial, resulting from a number of stakeholder
     concerns.  The papers, issues papers are contained within the Commission
     paper, and I'll come back to those key issues in a couple of minutes.
         Leaving rubblized concrete on-site is not new. Similar
     approaches were taken at Shoreham Nuclear in Ft. St. Vrain, and the
     large concrete blocks were left on-site.

     The sites were subsequently released for unrestricted use.  However,
     there are new aspects under the rubblization concept.  Those being,
     placing the rubblized concrete below grade structure and below grade
     structure; demonstrating compliance with the 25 millirem per year, which
     wasn't in place at the time we released the earlier sites that I
     mentioned; and higher levels of residual contamination.
         Now, the higher levels of residual contamination is one of
     the more sensitive issues of the concept.  These values can be several
     times higher than the building occupancy scenario using the D&D.  Those
     values were published in the Federal Register notice in November of
     1998.  So the licensee would decontaminate up to a point, and the values
     may be higher, may be higher than would be the values in the table that
     I cited in the Federal Register notice.  Next slide.
         NUREG 1496, which is the generic environmental impact
     statement in support of the radiological criteria of the license
     termination rule at nuclear facilities did not specifically address the
     concept of rubblization.  However, the Staff believes that there is
     encompassing language within that GEIS, and we point that out in the
     Commission paper, that gets at the concept of recycling and the doses
     associated with recycling.  And we believe there's an adequate level of
     conservatism built into the GEIS to address this type of approach
     because of dilution and so forth of the material.
         The licensee of course though will have to identify and
     address possible exposure pathways. These can be groundwater
     considerations, resident farmer consideration, and possible excavation.
     And we'll have to develop intruder scenarios.
         There is a need for guidance for dose assessment modeling.
     We have not yet received an application.  We've not yet reviewed
     conceptual models.  Therefore, the Staff is going to have to develop
     guidance along the way as we receive these, and we plan to do that as we
     go through a case-by-case review.
         There are two big things that drive this concept for the
     industry -- that being, a reduction in the volume of low-level waste.
     The point is that walls would be scabbled to a certain point.  Somewhat
     higher levels of residual contamination would be left behind; therefore,
     there would be overall less material to be removed and taken away to a
     burial site.
         And there is substantial potential cost savings.  The Staff
     includes in the Commission paper, or will include in the Commission
     paper, an example of what those savings might be.  The value is
     somewhere on the order of $8- to $16 million per site, so there is a
     substantial economic driver in this for industry.  Next slide.
         There are a number of stakeholders.  We did hold a public
     workshop recently in August, and there was a session during that
     workshop on rubblization.  We did that because we wanted to afford an
     opportunity to get direct input from stakeholders.  And there was a lot
     of dialog.
         The stakeholders, the most viable stakeholders or the most
     readily apparent stakeholders that we have identified thus far are NEI,
     utilities, the public, environmentalists, states, Federal agencies -- in
     particular, EPA -- and low-level waste compacts.  Now the issues papers
     that are included within the draft Commission paper includes issues
     papers from NEI, from the Sierra Club, and from the State of Maine.
     There are two letters from the State of Maine.  We have nothing in
     writing at this point from EPA.  We have a verbal indication of EPA's
     concerns, and the concern that we've heard expressed thus far is whether
     or not this type of site would require a RCRA permit.
         We did have a meeting with EPA last week on some other
     issues, and at that time they indicated to us that they would try to
     provide us with a one- to two-page summary expressing their concerns.
     And if we can get that in a timely manner, we will include that in the
     paper as well.  If not , we'll provide it to the Commission as an
     addendum to the Commission paper.
         DR. HORNBERGER:   Larry, could I interrupt for just a
     second?
         MR. CAMPER:   Sure.
         DR. HORNBERGER:   RCRA would apply even if there were no
     hazardous materials other than radionuclides?  That's EPA's
     interpretation?
         MR. CAMPER:   Yes, because of the concrete and the water
     leaching through the concrete and that type of thing.
         DR. HORNBERGER:   But nothing but, besides radionuclides to
     lead to contamination?
         MR. CAMPER:   I believe they have, they've really not
     articulated fully their concerns.  They've only indicated to us that
     they believe that this type of approach may warrant a RCRA permit.
     They've really not been specific on that point.  We would love to get
     more of an articulation, frankly.  And we hope that we will.
         So the issues papers that are contained within the
     Commission paper support the number of a concerns.  What we've tried to
     do in this particular graphic is to cull out the big ones, the first
     being ALARA.  There is some concern that the approach would not be
     ALARA.  Leaving some material behind is not consistent with ALARA in the
     minds of some.  Now the Staff intends to review these applications on a
     case-by-case basis, and we will be looking closely at the ALARA
     consideration.
         I think that that fundamental question that you get into
     when you look at ALARA -- there are really two.  How far do you go in
     scabbling?  How much material is left behind?  And does that seem
     reasonable, considering the fact that costs to do further
     decontamination, given that you're already in the dose range of 25
     millirem or less and it costs a lot of money to do decontamination.
         And if you compare that to the value of $2,000 per person
     rem averted exposure, you can readily see that you can spend a lot of
     money very quickly in reducing that exposure only a very few millirem,
     if any.  So I think that's going to be a challenging issue for the
     licensees and it's going to be a challenging issue for the Staff.  And I
     think that's probably going to be one of the biggest challenges that the
     industry and the NRC faces as we look at these.  DG-4006 does address
     the ALARA concept.  It provides guidance for licensees to follow as they
     go about dealing with this issue.
         There's a concern by some that this approach would represent
     a departure from previous practice -- i.e., take away as much material
     as you can.  We have had sort of an operating philosophy, if you will,
     that we would remove all possible radioactive material.
         However, the Staff looks at the license termination rule,
     which contains now a dose-based standard which says 25 millirem an
     ALARA.  And that seems to imply that some material, albeit small
     quantities, could be left behind.  And therefore, we believe that the
     approaches can be consistent with the license termination rule, but
     there are those that are concerned that it is a departure from previous
     practice.
         There's also the concern in the minds of some that this is
     equivalent to a proliferation of low-level radioactive waste burial
     sites, that there would be multiple sites across the country -- where
     there were previously operating reactors, now there are piles of rubble
     buried beneath the surface that contain trace amounts of radioactive
     material, or minor amounts of radioactive material.  And the question
     that is asked, isn't that really the same as a low-level waste burial
     site?
         And another question that gets asked:  Isn't that really the
     same as a low-level waste burial site?  Another question that gets asked
     is, does that warrant the Part 30 license?  Or, isn't this really a Part
     61 type of activity.
         The Staff, as we stated in the draft paper, doesn't think
     so.  We think there's a distinct difference between relatively small
     amounts of radioactive material being left behind, consistent with the
     dose-based standard in Part 20, Subpart (e), versus operating a
     low-level radioactive waste site license under Part 61 to receive
     materials from other licensees and so forth.
         The first three points -- ALARA, departure from previous
     practice, proliferation of low-level sites -- are somewhat philosophical
     in nature, as opposed to being purely technical in nature.  But be that
     as it may, they are issues that the Staff has tried to address in the
     paper, express our thinking on and will continue to deal with, I'm sure,
     as we interface with licensees, possible hearings, and that type of
     thing.
         The last point is that there is a feeling by some that there
     is a potential conflict with the proposed initiative on control of solid
     materials.  Again, the staff, at this juncture, draws a distinction
     between release or control of release of solid materials at operating
     facilities versus release for unrestricted use in a site that is
     undergoing license termination.  However, we think that this point will
     need to be clearly addressed in the statements of consideration for the
     control of solid materials initiative, should that initiative come to
     rulemaking.
         Next slide.  So, how are we trying to deal with this?  We've
     been talking about it a lot amongst ourselves; we have been interfacing
     with industry on it; we have discussed it at great length within the
     decommissioning board; and we are preparing a Commission paper to make
     the Commission aware of this emerging concept.
         We don't believe that there is a policy issue here, which is
     why the paper is structured as an information paper.  We believe that
     the approach provided for licensee clearly demonstrates satisfying the
     criteria the License Termination Rule is an implementation issue.  But
     because it is controversial and because there has been some concern
     expressed, for example by the State of Maine, we believe that we need to
     be very sensitive to those concerns and we want the Commission to be
     aware of those issues; and should the Commission have some concern and,
     of course, tell the staff as to what those concerns would be, then we
     would make modifications accordingly.
         Now, this concept rubblization is the first of these types
     of concepts, but there will be others and there will be variations to
     rubblization.  But -- and I think that the staff will continue to keep
     the Commission informed along the way, if there are sensitive and
     controversial approaches that emerge.  We, also, stated in the paper
     that prior to approving the concept of rubblization in a given license
     termination plan, review, and approval, we would inform the Commission.
         We're going to do a case-by-case review.  Given that there
     is no guidance currently on this in particular or given that there is
     still some modeling issues to be thought about and worked through, it
     may be a little bit slower process, as a result of that.  But until such
     time as we get some of these, can see how it actually goes, what is the
     actual submittal to us, we'll have to do these on a case-by-case basis
     and develop guidance along the way.
         The licensee will have to meet the License Termination Rule,
     obviously.  The licensee will need to clearly demonstrate that they've
     satisfied ALARA and that they've met the 25 millirem and ALARA standard.
     If they do, as we expressed in the draft Commission paper, the staff
     believes it would be appropriate to approve the concept.
         I mentioned we are informing the Commission, at this point,
     as to how we want to proceed and why.  We'll keep the Commission
     informed along the way, as we gain additional experience and knowledge
     with the concept, and we would go to them on each specific approval.
         Larry is going to -- Larry Pittiglio, and I think most of
     you know Larry.  Larry is an engineer within the Division of Waste
     Management in my branch.  Larry is the project manager for the
     rubblization paper.  He's been very involved from the beginning.  He is
     the author of the paper.  He has been actively involved in the
     discussions and presentations.  And what he is going to try to do now is
     sort of put this into some pictures for you, which I think helps to see,
     and then I'll come back and make a few summary comments.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  The first picture you see is simply a
     picture of the Maine Yankee facility.  That's the way it is today and
     that's the way it looked when it operated.  But, it's just a
     presentation of the facility.
         This next picture I'm going to put up is what the facility
     will look like with rubblization.  Basically, the licensee, in a
     proposed decommissioning or license termination plan, had committed to
     green field the facility.  That meant removing of all the structures.
     So, that's an artist type conception of what the facility would look
     like after decommissioning is complete.
         This particular picture right here shows the containment.
     The red represents the concrete part of the structure.  As Larry had
     mentioned, in the rubblization approaches that we've seen, all of the
     equipment would be removed from the facility and the above-grade part of
     the structure would be knocked down and rubblized and placed into the
     below-grade structure.
         Basically, the over piece that I just set on it is what you
     would see below grade.  That would be what would remain.  The blue
     represents the concrete shelf filled with rubblized concrete material.
     That would be between three and ten feet below grade, depending on the
     approach.  And the green field picture is really what the site would
     look like as it's regraded.
         What is rubblization?  We just have a couple of construction
     pictures to show you.  That's typically what rubblization is, variation
     in chunks of concrete.  This particular picture just shows a building
     being knocked down, the rebar.  What we'll see, as far as a proposal,
     whether it be large pieces of rubble with rebar or granular sizes, we
     don't know.  The concept allows significant variation.
         And, again, I just have one more construction picture to put
     up.  Again, that's just some more rubblized concrete.
         MR. LEVENSON:  It looks more like destruction than
     construction.
         SPEAKER:  It does, doesn't it.
         DR. GARRICK:  The size of that rebar is considerably smaller
     than the containment rebar.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  Yes.
         MR. CAMPER:  So, in the final analysis, you'll see that this
     concept is interesting; it's challenging; it's somewhat controversial.
     It is the first of many, as I've mentioned, to address the License
     Termination Rule.  The staff believes that we have a dual goal.  One the
     one hand, we need to be performance oriented and risk informed, as we
     evaluate this concept, and we do believe that it is consistent with what
     we interpret it as a performance oriented rule; yet, we have to ensure
     that we satisfy the specific criteria of the rule -- i.e., 25 millirem
     and ALARA.
         There are a number of technical and policy issues to work
     through.  We've identified those with an attachment and we'll address
     those as we go along case-by-case.  And we may see this as early as the
     Maine Yankee LTP, which we actually anticipate getting very soon now.
     There has actually -- there's been talk of us receiving it in November.
     I notice representatives from Maine Yankee are here today; perhaps, they
     can give us their current thinking and time line.  But, it is coming
     very soon.  And so, that is why we feel a sense of urgency in getting
     your perspectives and we do appreciate you putting us on your agenda.
     And we feel a sense of urgency, obviously, in getting the Commission
     paper up to the Commission and their staff, so that they can take a look
     at this, because we will be dealing with it in real time, in a real
     case, we think, very shortly.
         So that's all of our formal comments.  We'll be happy to try
     to entertain your questions and hopefully have some good answers for
     you.  Thank you.
         DR. WYMER:  John, do you have any questions?  Comments?
         DR. GARRICK:  Well, yeah, a little bit.  What can you say
     about land use for the option of rubblization?
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, the approach that is being proposed is
     unrestricted use.  As you know in Part 20, Subpart E, there are two
     pathways that a licensee might follow:  restricted use or unrestricted
     use.  This is being envisioned -- this is envisioned under unrestricted
     use.
         DR. GARRICK:  Well, suppose somebody wants to build a big
     facility, where it's required that they dig into the rubble.  Is that --
     does that present any unusual problems?
         MR. CAMPER:  It doesn't present an unusual problem, but it
     does present a problem, in that the licensee is going to have to
     consider intruder scenarios, including excavation or possible excavation
     of the site; subsequently, someone coming in and removing the rubble and
     deciding to turn the remaining three walls into some type of living
     quarters.  Therefore, there is an occupancy consideration that will have
     to be considered.  There is intruder scenarios that will have to be
     considered.  There is the resident farmer scenario that will have to be
     considered.  And we will be expecting the licensee and, in turn, we will
     be reviewing for adequacy all of those kinds of considerations.
     Because, I mean, obviously, if it's released for unrestricted use and a
     number of years go by, no one can truly predict what will be -- this
     land will be used for.  So, we have to consider those kinds of
     contingencies, at this point.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  And we have identified that in the
     conclusion section of the Commission paper as a recommendation.
         DR. GARRICK:  But, I don't know.  Something -- you're
     complying with the License Termination Rule, but not with Part 20,
     necessarily.
         MR. CAMPER:  The License Termination Rule is part of Part 20
     --
         DR. GARRICK:  Well --
         MR. CAMPER:  -- Part 20(e).
         DR. GARRICK:  But, you're not required, as I -- I thought I
     heard you say you're not required to comply with 20 Part 2.002 or
     whatever it is.
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, the staff believes that 20.2.002 is not
     applicable, because that part states that you may request approval to
     dispose of a material by a means not authorized by the regulations.  The
     staff looks at Part 20, Subpart E, the License Termination Rule, which
     has 25 millirem and ALARA, and interprets that to mean that the
     Commission intended that some material could be left behind.  Therefore,
     in this concept, I'm not seeking approval to do something that's not
     inherently authorized from the regulation.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yeah.  When you get an application, are you
     going to ask for risk cost benefit type of analysis of alternatives?
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  Alternative?
         DR. GARRICK:  Alternative to rubblization?
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  No, we would not.  We would -- the only
     thing in the cost benefit side of the analysis would certainly be the
     ALARA part of it, to demonstrate ALARA.  But, if the licensee elects to
     present one and one only approach, rubblization, we would review it and
     make a finding.  But, we're not asking them to come in with other
     options and other costs.
         DR. GARRICK:  Do you have a sense of what the risk benefit
     of this approach is versus hauling the stuff away, considering the
     scenarios that would be involved with both cases?
         MR. CAMPER:  No, not specifically, because, again, we don't
     really have any specific applications that we could, you know, turn the
     numbers on and crunch the data; so the answer really is no.
         As I pointed out in my comments, I believe that one of the
     toughest parts of this is going to be for the licensee to make the
     clear, logical argument that it is ALARA.  It's not to say that it can't
     be done, because I think that it can be.  But, that's going to be
     something they're going to have to do.
         Now, there may be other alternatives.  What you're -- the
     essence of your question really gets at, there may be various means for
     satisfying the rule versus carrying the material away.
         DR. GARRICK:  Right.
         MR. CAMPER:  There's occupational exposure involved in that.
     There's other possible exposure due to transportation, so forth and so
     on.  We have to look at that generically along the way.
         DR. WYMER:  Doesn't one of the decommissioning modules
     require alternatives?
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  No.
         DR. WYMER:  Yeah, it does.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  The other part that's important to point out
     is that the rule, not only does it say ALARA and 25 millirem, it says
     you should reasonably represent the conditions of the site, at the time
     the license is terminated.  If the licensee is clearly committed in the
     license termination plan to -- and made the statement that we -- the
     buildings will not be left standing, that we intend to knock the
     buildings down, that, to me, indicates you need -- that's a condition
     that's going to exist or reasonably represent the site, at the time the
     license is terminated.  And I think it's one direction why they're going
     -- if they elect to go to rubblization, one, they committed to take the
     building down and then, two, they are even in the cost of filling in the
     hole is significant savings by using the rubblization concept.
         DR. WYMER:  Well, either you or me or both of us need to
     reread the modules, I guess.
         MR. CAMPER:  What module are you referring to, sir?
         DR. WYMER:  I don't remember which -- I don't remember it by
     name.  There's too many of them.  But, I just read through them very
     recently and one of them called for alternatives.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Did EPA indicate that the four millirem
     groundwater standard would be -- groundwater protection standard would
     be -- have to be met?  And even though that might not be your direct
     responsibility for license determination, it might be very critical to
     an evaluation.
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, much -- even though much more broadly
     than rubblization.  I mean, the difference that exists between the
     positions, in our case, a rule -- the 25 millirem all pathways versus a
     position, if you will, derived from risk-based regulations that result
     in the 15 and four.  EPA has never said to us, specifically in the
     context of rubblization, these licensees are going to have to meet the
     four millirem groundwater consideration.  No, they've never said that to
     us.  But, clearly, we are concerned about that and, frankly, so are the
     licensees.
         We have a lot of discussions with licensees that are worried
     about that very issue.  And every time we get an opportunity, either
     myself or John Greeves, the Division Director, we express our concerns
     about finality.  And, ultimately, that issue needs to be resolved.
     It's, we think, beyond our capacity to resolve it, certainly in the
     context of this particular issue that we've discussed.  But that is a
     major issue that, at some point, will need to be addressed.  But, it's
     far beyond just rubblization.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Yes, it is.  I recognize that, obviously.
     Now, let me just rephrase it, to make it an easier question for you.
         MR. CAMPER:  Sure.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Have you looked at -- or has anyone looked
     at any calculations?  And I realize you don't have a specific
     application, but just in a general sense, as to whether or not such a
     standard -- a four millirem groundwater protection standard would,
     indeed, cause problems for things like rubblization.  No one has done
     the calculations or anything?
         MR. CAMPER:  No, not -- not that I'm aware of, no.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  That's all I have.
         DR. WYMER:  Milt?
         MR. LEVENSON:  I've got a couple of questions, again,
     primarily for clarification.  On page two, where you say, "removing
     equipment from the buildings," does the concept, as it stands now,
     permit --
         MR. CAMPER:  Excuse me, are you in the slides or the paper?
         MR. LEVENSON:  The slides.
         MR. CAMPER:  Okay; thank you.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Removing the equipment from the building, is
     the implication that no metal debris will be allowed to be part of the
     rubble?  Because if the answer is yes, then what do you do about rebar?
     And if the answer is no, can small pieces of equipment, also, be buried
     there?
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  The proposals that we have discussed clearly
     had the equipment and structural -- major structural steel components
     removed.  Whether or not the rebar will be left in the concrete is an
     issue that we'll have to look at on a case-by-case basis and it probably
     is related to the size of the component.  For the proposals that we have
     seen, where the rubble material was a gravel size, obviously, the rebar
     is removed.  For other conversations we've had, where components could
     weight four or five tons, it may well be that the rebar will be left in
     place and the concrete will be cut into a large box.
         The paper addresses the concept.  Certainly, there is many,
     many different combinations.  There may be a combination of gravel and
     large box.  We don't -- we haven't had an application and we don't know
     what we'll get, until we receive them.  And it's highly probable that if
     we get more than one, they'll be different.
         MR. LEVENSON:  At the moment, then, the concept either
     includes nor excludes things other than concrete, namely metal?
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  Right; that's right.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Because the next piece after the rebar, the
     picture you showed, is the steel liner of the containment building at
     the below-grade part.  Your concept, that has to be removed or is that
     just additional --
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, in the industry's concept that has been
     proposed, in conceptual space, what's left behind, what has been
     discussed is concrete, possibly rebar, but no steel liners and no metal
     equipment.  And there are people here from industry, who could address
     that probably even better than us.  But, that is our understanding, that
     it would be limited to concrete, possibly rebar.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  However, one of the recommendations that we
     did make in the paper, for the shell that remained in place, to which
     the rubblized material was inserted, that it be addressed as building
     surface contamination limits, unless the licensee can come in and
     clearly demonstrate that it would not be reused as a building for some
     -- at some time.  I don't know if that helped or not.
         MR. LEVENSON:  On the question of radiation, the exposure in
     ALARA -- I'm a little confused by some of the things you said, because I
     had never heard ALARA being applied to some potential low probability
     exposure in the future.  I've always heard it applied to exposure in the
     here and now.  And so, doing the ALARA for this, you're going to have to
     include all of the exposure of the people doing the waste disposal, if
     you ship it off site; is that right, handling the burial ground people,
     etc.?
         MR. CAMPER:  Cheryl, you were shaking your head there?
         MS. TROTTIER:  Actually, I think our analysis simply
     requires them to do basically a cost benefit analysis on their choice of
     decommissioning option.  If that means that they're going to ship
     material, then that part needs to be considered.  But, they're not doing
     an ALARA analysis on what's happening at the low level waste site.  The
     ALARA analysis is the cost to meet a certain value compared to the
     $2,000 per person rem.  I mean, that's the base line.  In other words,
     if it costs significantly more, then that's part of their decision
     process.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Well, that's my understanding of it, but
     there was some implication that the residual 25 mr in exposure of future
     people might be part of the ALARA analysis and I didn't understand that.
     Maybe that wasn't intended.
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, Cheryl -- Cheryl is the branch chief of
     Research and was involved with the rule when it was written, which is
     why I deferred the question to her.  So, Cheryl, do you want to add to
     that?
         MS. TROTTIER:  Calculations, if I remember correctly, are
     basically a thousand year calculations, but the site use can be the kind
     of use you would expect at the time you terminate the license.  You
     don't need to hypothesize what society will be doing a thousand years.
     You could assume they're doing the same thing today that they're going
     to do a thousand years from now.  But, the actual dose calculations are
     supposed to cover that time period, not beyond.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Cover -- the hypothetical one is a thousand
     years out on site and don't cover the very real doses that people get
     this year at a waste disposal site handling the material?
         MS. TROTTIER:  Now, in order to meet -- this is not the
     ALARA analysis.  This is demonstrating that you meet the rule --
         MR. LEVENSON:  Yeah, okay, that's --
         MS. TROTTIER:  -- the modeling you do for that.
         MR. LEVENSON:  -- that's specifically about the ALARA.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Yeah.  I don't believe to do the ALARA
     analysis, that we even address that issue in the guidance that we've put
     out so far.
         MR. CAMPER:  It is interesting, though.  Your question is
     interesting from a practical standpoint, because if you look at exposure
     to individuals in the future, the rule doesn't say 25 millirem.  It says
     25 millirem and ALARA.  Therefore, as a practical matter, the staff is
     going to be looking to see that the licensees have decontaminated to the
     maximum extent possible that's consistent with the ALARA guidelines and
     cost considerations.  Now, from that, one can imply that there are
     implications of exposure or reduction of exposure to members of the
     public in the future, not just ALARA, as we classically think of it.
     And you're right, which is normally occupational work, this type of
     thing.  That's a really very astute question.
         DR. WYMER:  I have several comments and then a couple of
     specific technical questions.  And you have to realize that we're very
     new to this rubblization concept.
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, so are we.
         [Laughter.]
         DR. WYMER:  That's my excuse; because I want to say, if I
     say something that's obvious or stupid, you want to give us some leeway
     here.
         The comments relate to things that you already addressed,
     but I think they're important enough to stress.  One was that this
     probably is precedent setting and it probably will be extrapolated into
     areas that are not presently anticipated.  There will be some clever
     people out there saying this is just like rubblization; therefore, we
     can do it, too.  So, I think it's worth stressing that you need to be
     very sensitive to the fact that you're setting a precedent here very
     likely.  You know that and you've already alluded to that.  But, I felt
     it was worth stressing.
         The other thing is that, to my mind, at least, the line
     between rubblization and low-level waste disposal is very blurred.  If
     you're to take this concrete and can it up and send it off to Enviro
     Care, it would be a low-level waste disposal issue.  You're leaving it
     on site and you're calling it something else, that's all, and you're
     alluded to that, too.  But, it is a pretty darned blurred line.  So,
     those are the two general comments.
         Specifically, in most of what I've seen written, what little
     I've had a chance to read so far, you're addressing primarily
     radioactivity from neutron activation of constituents of a reactor
     containment vessel.  There are other kinds, as I'm sure you know, of
     possibilities of containment of the structure.  For example, the storage
     pool, you could have some leakers that are going to be contaminated and
     it's not activation products, it's fishing products, actinites.  And
     there are other kinds of facilities, other than reactors.  But, I grant
     you, reactors are certainly the big ones right now.
         But some specific technical questions:  how in the world
     will you go about measuring the bulk contamination that you have in this
     concrete -- this rubble that's being pushed into a hole?  I noticed, we
     heard from the research people, they're going to take a look at this
     over the next couple of years and it seems to me, that's a really -- a
     really tough issue, unless you get into some fairly detailed analysis of
     that stuff, and the whole idea of rubblization is to -- one of the ideas
     is to reduce cost, so you don't get into a lot of additional work.  So,
     the measuring of the bulk contamination seems to me to be an important
     issue.
         And then in the modeling business, how in the world are you
     going to evaluate the leaching behavior of this porous material that may
     be shot through with rebar that's activated and it will rust and leach
     out?  How will the leaching be addressed?  You know, this is not a
     trivial question, I don't think, that again requires more input than
     would be -- the people will likely be ready to provide.  Those were
     essentially the technical list.
         MR. CAMPER:  Let me try to address a couple of your points,
     the first one being -- you know, we have moved into an era of much more
     emphasis upon performanced-based risk informed regulation, and that's a
     positive thing.  I think most of us would agree with that.  But, it does
     present a number of challenges to the staff, as licensees go about
     identifying approaches that are performance oriented.
         This is something that I often talk with our staff about.
     We -- in this case, it's rubblization; there will be others.  We're
     going to have to devote a fair amount of intellectual energy into
     addressing various approaches that are performance based.  And that will
     be -- as you said, there are clever people out there and they will come
     up with some unique concepts that none of us have thought about yet.
         DR. WYMER:  I'm sure they do.
         MR. CAMPER:  And the staff will have to deal with them one
     at a time, as they come in the door, and take the lessons learned and
     put it into guidance and hopefully improve the process along the way.
     But, that's what it means.  That's one of the things that happens, as
     you move into performance-oriented regulation.  And that's the challenge
     we face and we're going to have to do the best we can to meet it.
         With regards to measuring bulk material, the idea is that
     these walls will be evaluated and characterized, if you will, following
     like a MARSSIM type approach, prior to demolition and burial.
         The leaching issue, you're absolutely right.  The modeling
     considerations with this are a challenge.  Leaching is one of those.
     There are others.  But the licensees are going to have to do a thorough
     and adequate job demonstrating modeling and dose assessment to us and
     we, in turn, are going to have to do a good job at evaluating it and
     ensure that's acceptable.  But, you're right, that is a challenge.
         And as I mentioned in my comments, to, it may slow down the
     process.  I mean, you know, like everything else, you know, there's a
     good and a bad.  I mean, the good is that their licensees are trying to
     find ways to have more flexibility, introduce you to new concepts.  The
     downside of that is since you're not following a purely prescriptive
     predefined approach, the staff will have to wrestle with that.  They
     will have to work its way through it.  That may take time.  That may
     require some further communications with the Commission along the way.
     But, that's the trade off.  But, your points are on the mark.
         DR. GARRICK:  In many ways, this is a very interesting
     concept, because it does attempt to simplify rather than complicate the
     process of waste management.  And we don't see enough alternatives that
     do that.  We're always seeing alternatives that require more processing,
     more treatment, more handling, and what have you.  So, if this is a
     concept that really can work, it could have really far reaching
     implications, given the number of sites that we're talking about.
         Given that I would think that one of the institutions of
     industry, like the Electric Power Research Institute or INPO or Edison
     or somebody, would have provided an analysis -- or the NRC or DOE or
     somebody would provide the analysis that would make it clear what the
     case is for rubblization.  And yet, we sort of are sitting here saying
     that let's wait until we get an application and then we'll put the total
     burden of that question on our first applicant.
         Something here doesn't quite hang together.  You're talking
     about a new concept of waste management and it's pretty dramatic and
     it's a total consideration.  And yet, there does not seem to be a case,
     from a technical standpoint, for why we should do this.  And the answer
     seems to be, well, we're going to wait until the applicant comes in and
     then we're going to beat the hell out of him, until he gives us what we
     want.
         MR. CAMPER:  I didn't say that.
         [Laughter.]
         DR. GARRICK:  So, I'm surprised that the case for
     rubblization, it hasn't been advanced.  And I'm critical of both
     industry and government for not providing that, given the implication
     here, which seems to be -- which could be significant and it could be
     very much in the public's interest to go in this direction, if a real
     genuine risk-based and cost-based analysis was performed.
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, let me take an attempt at trying to
     answer your question or your comment and, certainly, I can speak to it
     from our side.  In the decommissioning arena, we have a lot of activity
     going on.  There are a lot of sites being decommissioned.  The staff is
     working feverishly to provide all the guidance that is necessary to
     implement the LTR, whether that be DG40006 or the standard review plan
     or working within our NUREG 1700 and so forth.  We have been spending
     the mainstay of our energy in dealing with actual case work in
     decommissioning sites.
         Now, we have LTPs coming on line.  In fact, we actually have
     an LTP in house right for the reactor site.  So, we're using the staff
     that we had to deal with actual casework or develop or refined guidance
     of a generic nature.  We simply don't have the resources to put into
     further analyzing or creating the type of scientific data that we'd all
     like to see for this particular concept or for others that might come
     along.  We really have no choice but to deal with them, as they present
     them to us.  Because for one thing, while we believe there's a pretty
     high probability that we're going to a rubblization application.  We
     don't know that for sure.  We think that's the case.  We believe that to
     be the case, but we don't know with virtual certainty.  So, we just
     don't have the resources to do that.
         With regards to industry, and there are industry
     representatives here who can speak on their behalf far better than I,
     the industry has, at least this point, given us an issues paper that
     expresses their position.  NEI, for example, has a paper within the
     Commission paper, but that's certainly not the type of analyses or study
     that you're alluding to, obviously, and I don't know what inclination
     the industry might have to do more on those lines.
         Paul Genoa of NEI, if you want to comment on that, or other
     members of the industry.
         DR. GARRICK:  Please give your name and affiliation.
         MR. GENOA:  Yes.  My name is Paul Genoa and I represent the
     Nuclear Energy Institute and, in fact, was involved in both the
     presentation on the rubblization issue and helping to shepherd an issue
     paper on rubblization.  And my comment would just be that, you know,
     this is brand new and we are right at the -- right at the inception of,
     you know, what these different concepts could be and so we provided the
     paper in that context.  We haven't even scoped out all the different
     specific ways you might approach this to lay out a detailed analysis,
     like you suggest.  That could happen; but as often as the case, if we
     wait for the research to be done, the people who are actually want to
     use this approach, the licensees, may be ahead of us.  In this case,
     they are.  I think it's very likely you're going to see a concrete
     example of a rubblization approach sooner than we would get a generic
     approach together for you.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  And in all honesty, I'm not sure that we can
     develop generic guidance that would cover the number of spectrum of
     potential cases under the rubblization concept.  We've certainly --
         DR. GARRICK:  Well, if you could do it just for reactors,
     you would have done a major thing.  In other words, if you just picked
     one specific facility type -- there are facility types that represent
     the billions of dollars of decommissioning costs.  So, as far as
     wouldn't know where to start, there's probably some candidates out there
     that would be a source of learning a great deal about the concept, I
     would think.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  Well, yeah, I agree with you.  I mean, I
     think the concern is that if you don't make an assumption regarding the
     size of the rubblized component to support your modeling and so forth,
     your analysis isn't going to be effective.  Yet, if one approach uses
     the component that's a sizable piece of gravel and another application
     comes in with blocks that weigh between four and six tons each, the
     guidance that we develop for the rubblized gravel size probably would be
     of no benefit to the concept that may come in that's significantly
     different, even though it is "rubblization."
         DR. GARRICK:  Well, that may be; but I still think that
     because this has become an issue to the point it has, that somebody has
     some pretty good ideas as to the benefit that they ought to receive from
     this.  And given that it is a concept that can be replicated many, many,
     many times and, therefore, has widespread impact on the whole waste
     management field, I can't think of too many things where a little bit of
     analysis could have as much payoff.  And that's the thing that I think
     is missing here, is -- so why do you want to do this.  And I think it's
     -- conceptually, it's quite appealing; but I think to make a decision on
     it, I would want to know a lot more about the costs and benefits and
     risks.
         MR. LEVENSON:  John, since I'm not a member of the
     committee, I'll talk a little -- I don't have to have the same limits
     that you do maybe.  Historically, such a thing would be handled --
         DR. GARRICK:  I don't have any limits.
         MR. LEVENSON:  -- by EPRI forming a owners group and
     starting preliminary negotiations with the NRC.  I don't think the
     initiative is with the NRC.
         DR. GARRICK:  Well, that's why I --
         MR. LEVENSON:  I think the initiative is with the owners.
         DR. GARRICK:  Well, I started from that perspective.  I'm
     surprised that EPRI or owners group or Edison Electric or INPO or
     somebody that's concerned about this issue hasn't come forward with a
     more convincing case and I'm surprised that, you know, we're waiting for
     the first application to really come to grips with an attempt to
     quantify the impact of rubblization; but, maybe that's -- maybe that's
     inevitable.
         MR. LEVENSON:  The first applicant may be a masochist and
     wants to do it on its own.
         DR. GARRICK:  Well, that may be.  It may postpone.  Because
     if I were interested, I think I would want to be at least the second
     applicant.
         [Laughter.]
         MR. LEVENSON:  Back to one comment that Ray made and flew by
     very quickly, because I, also, had circled it in a letter, you refer to
     neutron activated materials and, in fact, the bulk of the contamination
     on the concrete and rubble and surfaces and everything else are fission
     products, not neutron activated materials.  And if there's some special
     case for neutron activated materials or even the use of the term, I
     don't understand it, because there are some isotopes that are both
     neutron activation and fision products.  The implication, you want
     people to differentiate?  I don't understand the use of the word
     "neutron activated," when we're talking about removing radiation,
     radioactive materials.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  The first part of the paper basically dealt
     with the surface contamination limits and the majority of the
     contamination, we believe, exists in, from what we've seen or from
     approaches that have been addressed by the licensees, less than the
     first quarter inch of material, so that the scabbling approach to remove
     it to a certain level and the surface contamination limits were how the
     rubblization concept was addressed.
         We do have some concern about activated components.
     Basically, I think that when we looked at -- what we've seen is that if
     the contamination is in a very surface -- the first couple of
     centimeters of the surface, we're not going to have a problem with
     activation in the rebar and so forth.  But, we didn't want to not
     identify that as a concern in the paper.  That's why I think that that
     --
         MR. LEVENSON:  I don't understand the differentiation.  I
     mean, the 25 mr --
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  That's correct.
         MR. LEVENSON:  -- sets the total, whether the source term is
     an activated material or a fision product.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  That's correct.
         MR. LEVENSON:  I don't understand the use of this at all.  I
     don't know what this -- this would tell me nothing, if I were trying to
     interpret what this meant.  Is this outside the limit of the 25?  Do I
     have to remove all activation?  I don't understand it.
         Norman?
         MR. EISENBERG:  I'm Norman Eisenberg, Division of Waste
     Management.  The concern is that the paper states that if you meet the
     building occupancy requirement, you'll be okay for rubblization.  That's
     only true if all the contamination is on the surface.  If you've got
     neutron activated components that are deep in the walls, then that is
     not the case.  So that caveat was put in there just to cover that.
         MR. LEVENSON:  But that doesn't cover anything, because most
     concrete structures have cracks and I could have stuff deep in the
     concrete that's a fision product.  I don't understand the
     differentiation here.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Can I add a little clarification here?  The
     License Termination Rule is 25 millirem all pathways plus ALARA.  There
     are two scenarios that we analyzed:  one, a building is left intact.
     Remember one thing:  NRC only requires that the radioactive material be
     removed to the level that meets the rule.  This is a dose-based rule.
     So, what it says is, if I'm going to leave the building and walk away
     from the building, the dose the person is going to get working in the
     building meets the rule.
         But if there is buried material, a licensee is supposed to
     include that in their dose estimate, if there is a way that that can get
     to the person working in the building.  Now, you know, it's unlikely
     buried in concrete that's going to happen, but piping and things like
     that -- I mean, you know, you can have ventilation systems, etc.  But,
     anyway, the concept behind those values was you were leaving the
     building there and then you can walk away.  The building can be torn
     down.  But, conceptually, because of the concern of nature of the
     modeling, you were going to be protective.
         Then the other model, of course, is you have no building and
     you are measuring soil activity for demonstrating compliance with a
     farming type of scenario, because, you know, that's the most restrictive
     case.  But, the concept where those values that were used for the
     building was that you were going to leave the building there and that
     would be the dose you would get from working in the building.
         MR. LEVENSON:  I understand that and that doesn't
     differentiate what the source of the source is.  That's what this --
         MS. TROTTIER:  You're right.
         MR. LEVENSON:  -- this is confusing.
         MS. TROTTIER:  It does not.
         MR. EISENBERG:  Perhaps a better distinction would have been
     whether the contamination was solely on the surface or whether there was
     a possibility for components to be deep within the walls, that would
     then become available for providing a source --
         MR. LEVENSON:  I have no problem with that.
         MR. EISENBERG:  -- under rubblization.  But, those deep
     components would only get there if they were activated components.
         MR. LEVENSON:  That's not true.
         MR. EISENBERG:  Well, there is a report that models the
     fusion of fision products, primarily from the surface into the concrete,
     and even with cracked concrete, the penetration was -- dropped off
     dramatically with distance, whereas activation products could be several
     meters in.  But --
         MR. LEVENSON:  I don't know about the computer model.  I
     have been involved with the complete dismantling of a number of reactors
     and I can tell you that fision product activity gets fairly deep some
     places.
         DR. GARRICK:  Especially the volatile ones --
         MR. LEVENSON:  Yeah.
         DR. GARRICK:  -- the more volatile ones.
         MR. LEVENSON:  I mean, that's just the physical world.  It
     doesn't necessarily conform to the model.
         DR. GARRICK:  But, I can understand a little bit of Norm's
     perspective on this; that if you didn't mention induced activation,
     someone would surely ask, well, what about induced activation.
         MR. LEVENSON:  But, it's total activity you're measuring.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yes, I know that; I know that.  But, I'm, also
     -- I can, also, appreciate why --
         MR. CAMPER:  That is why the --
         DR. GARRICK:  Yeah, why it was culled out.  It's a more
     subtle source than fision product contamination.
         MR. CAMPER:  I was going to say, the comment was suggested
     by Dr. Eisenberg's group and it was for that clarifying point.  Now, if
     there's a better way to say that, we still have time to --
         DR. GARRICK:  We now know who to blame, then.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  I think the more I learn about this, the
     curiouser it gets.  It strikes me now that you're telling me that a site
     could pass the License Termination Rule with a building intact --
         MR. CAMPER:  That's possible.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  -- and fail, if they knocked the building
     down and left the rubble there.  You're telling me this is a
     possibility?
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  No.
         MR. CAMPER:  No, I don't draw the same --
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  What we're saying is that first of all, the
     building should be left standing.  You could use site specific surface
     contamination limits or you could -- if you met the screening limits,
     you would have to do nothing else.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Yeah.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  All right, and that would meet the 25
     millirem.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Right.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  After the license was terminated, you could
     knock the building down with no argument.  You could knock the building
     down with no argument, as far as we're concerned, if you met those
     limits.  This particular concept, though, because of the way it's done
     and because of the conversations we've had with those that are proposing
     it, they are going to, in most cases, have a significantly higher
     surface contamination number of value than would -- than our screening
     or even your site specific value resulting from a D&D run for an
     occupancy scenario.  The reason that they wind up with that number is
     because they take the contaminated surface material, place it in the
     shell, and the analysis they do with leaching and so forth and because
     of the time it takes for leaching, allows them to have a number that
     would be higher than if they left the building in place.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  yeah, but it strikes me -- I understand
     that, all right.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  Okay.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  But, it's -- unless misheard, I thought
     that we were just talking about if you pass the screening for the
     surface contamination, you still now have to do an additional analysis,
     because when you rubblize, you could have, for example, activation
     products that we wouldn't have exposed, that the surface wouldn't lead
     to exposure in an intact building and, therefore --
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, you're going to have to evaluate a number
     of scenarios:  intruder scenarios; the occupancy scenarios, where
     someone can go back in there later and take the rubble out and occupy
     the building.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Yeah.  No, I'm just trying to understand
     it.
         MR. CAMPER:  I understand that.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  It strikes me that if you can terminate a
     site with a building intact --
         MR. CAMPER:  Right.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  -- but it's still -- I haven't heard you
     tell me why that same site, if they proposed to knock it down and
     rubblize it, it might not pass.  I'm not saying it wouldn't, but it
     might not, because you're considering an additional source.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Can I comment on that?
         MR. CAMPER:  Please.
         MS. TROTTIER:  Part of it is making it seem too simplistic.
     We have those screening models and licensees can use them, but we have a
     big caveat in our guidance, if they apply.  So, if you had a site, where
     you think you might have some major problems internal to the building,
     the staff would not likely approve someone just using a screening model.
     They would want some site specific model.
         And, again, there's nothing to prevent the licensee from
     walking away and someone later on demolishing the building.  What we
     hope -- and I will say this, because this is the -- this is the risk in
     performance based regulation, is the licensee has the obligation to
     demonstrate that they meet the criteria and they have to do it
     responsibly.  You know, they are not to be hiding truth, and there's no
     way for the NRC staff to go in and do thorough checks of building
     interiors like this.  So, it's important that the licensee, as all cases
     through the licensing process, tell the truth.  We rely on that.  It's
     the key of our program.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Just to clarify, my question did not -- I
     did not mean to imply, by any stretch of the imagination, that I was
     talking about somebody lying.
         MR. CAMPER:  No, of course not.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  That had nothing to do with my question.
         MR. CAMPER:  Accurate -- she means accurate and thorough.
         DR. CAMPBELL:  So far I haven't heard what the key
     radionuclides are; what kinds of total activity it is you're talking
     about and the kinds of concentration you're talking about.  What I'm
     hearing for this discussion is an issue about pathways.  I believe the
     building standing, the exposure to someone working in the building is
     probably a gamma exposure of some sort, presumably.  If you break it
     down into pieces, pour it all into the basement of the reactor, you
     could possibly have some sort of a pond forming, containing water.  You
     cover -- your scenario for the site as a green field doesn't show the
     covered limiting water getting into the system.  So, you could have a
     backup type of effect of leaching.
         So, you could conceivably have a situation where an exposure
     scenario, if you will, of somebody working inside a building has one
     dose; whereas an exposure scenario with an intruder farming on the site,
     drinking water from a well -- and a lot of these sites, and Maine Yankee
     was chosen -- they're chosen because they're close to water; the water
     table is shallow.  These are all things that would preclude a site under
     Part 61, although I will say, you know, Barnwell and the other -- and
     Richland were grandfathered in; but, nevertheless, it would preclude a
     site from being selected for a low level waste site for Part 61.  So,
     there are issues about the total amount of radioactivity, its
     concentrations, what those radionuclides are and, therefore, the issue
     Ray raised about speciation, it's the leachability and then the site
     issues, themselves, about how much water is going to get in, how you're
     going to model the leaching, and so on.  So, there are a lot of issues
     that are --
         MR. CAMPER:  Yes, they are and they --
         DR. CAMPBELL:  -- kind of enter into all of this discussion.
         MR. CAMPER:  -- all ultimately come back to whether or not
     the dose criterion is satisfied.  The proposal -- we've seen -- we've
     talked about a number of conceptual approaches with licensees thus far.
     But, the numbers of residual contamination that would be left behind, in
     some cases, are several times, perhaps even on the order of magnitude,
     they are more higher than the screening values.  But, ultimately,
     whatever those materials are that are left behind are going to have to
     be properly characterized, in terms of concentrations, nuclides, and,
     ultimately, whether or not this satisfies the dose criteria.  It is a
     dose based regulation.
         DR. CAMPBELL:  So, you don't know, at this point, what the
     key radionuclides are, the kinds of concentrations they're talking
     about?
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, we've not seen the application.
         DR. CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Well, that means there are pathways
     and those pathways --
         MR. CAMPER:  But on your bathtub effect, the answer to that
     is absolutely yes.  In fact, one of the models that have been discussed
     was conceptually included the flooding -- flooding the rubblized
     structure.
         DR. CAMPBELL:  Which will probably --
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  Which will drill a hole in shells to allow
     the water to come in and put a well --
         MR. CAMPER:  Right.
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  -- on top of it.
         MR. CAMPER:  But, again, the issue there is 25 millirem all
     pathways.
         DR. CAMPBELL:  Or possibly four millirem.
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, now, that -- again, in our regulatory
     space, it's 25 millirems all pathways.
         DR. CAMPBELL:  Okay.
         MR. CAMPER:  But, yes, I mean, they're good points.
         DR. GARRICK:  But that's part of, Andy, what I'm referring
     to, when I say it's too bad there isn't an analysis that answers some of
     these questions.
         DR. CAMPBELL:  Well, I had written down, before you even
     said an EPRI research, a question mark.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yeah.
         DR. CAMPBELL:  This is clearly something EPRI ought to be
     working on.
         DR. GARRICK:  This is such an industry-wide opportunity; if
     they really see major savings here, that you would think that somebody
     would be motivated to do that.
         MS. TROTTIER:  I can add one clarifying point to Andy's
     question.  To support the 1998 decommissioning rule, we did do a GIS,
     looking at the process of decommissioning for a number of facilities.
     And Cobalt 60 and CZ-137 were the prime components there and I would
     expect for most licensees that to be the case.
         DR. GARRICK:  Yeah.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Oh, sure.
         DR. GARRICK:  Strontium, cobalt, and cesium, and maybe some
     of the volatile -- more volatile.
         DR. HORNBERGER:  Have we exhausted this or we've exhausted
     the speakers here?
         MR. CAMPER:  It's entirely up to you.
         DR. GARRICK:  When do you expect your first application?
         MR. PITTIGLIO:  The licensee, at one time, had indicated
     possibly by Thanksgiving.  Is that still --
         MR. CAMPER:  I was going to ask, did you want to comment on
     that, Maine Yankee, as to when?
         MR. ZINKE:  I am George Zinke from Maine Yankee.  We had
     anticipated -- well, initially, we had anticipated by first of November
     and, in fact, our LTP is all prepared, reviewed, and on my desk ready to
     submit.  We're delaying submittal, because of the controversy in what
     we've been discussing and the controversy in our State over the 25,
     which then brings in EPA and just a whole raft of issues that we are
     trying to come to agreements with our State, as far as what the actual
     condition of the site will be left.  And we're trying to come to that
     agreement before we submit, because if we submit prior to getting some
     of those agreements, we create a real emotional contentious situation.
     So, you know, we're hoping that we will submit this year, but it's --
         DR. WYMER:  Let me ask, is the issue of 25 versus 15
     important to you?
         MR. ZINKE:  It's important to our State.  And it's not a 25
     versus 15 anymore; it's 25 versus lower numbers than that.  So --
         DR. WYMER:  Yeah, for your State?
         MR. ZINKE:  Yes.
         DR. WYMER:  And these are -- these become important to you
     --
         MR. ZINKE:  Yes.
         DR. WYMER:  -- with respect to the analysis you've made?
         MR. ZINKE:  Yes.
         MR. CAMPER:  In our discussions with various reactor sites,
     the 25-15 is not a particular difficult issue, if an issue at all.
     Twenty-five versus four might be.
         DR. WYMER:  Yeah.  I was just wondering, in a practical
     case, whether these things were reaching the cutoff point for you, and
     you said yes.
         MR. ZINKE:  Yes, and it's a matter that -- you know, we've
     done now cost evaluations, well, what if I have 25, what if I have 15,
     what if I have 10, what if I have four, so that as we talk with the
     State, we have an understanding of what it's going to end up costing us.
         DR. WYMER:  Some place in there, you cross the line and the
     cost starts going up?
         MR. ZINKE:  Yeah.  The cost goes up every place you keep
     dropping.
         DR. WYMER:  It's conceivable that it wouldn't.  It could be
     so low that it wouldn't matter in the first case; but that isn't the
     case, obviously.
         MR. ZINKE:  Yeah, there is -- I mean, the 25 is a limit and
     so our license termination plan shows how we would meet the limit.  And
     in all practicality, when you scabble and when you're doing remediation,
     you're going to be well below the 25.
         DR. WYMER:  Yeah.
         MR. ZINKE:  But, then, you, also, have to consider the cost
     of -- you know, the samples and the surveys to prove it's lower.  So, it
     cost more to prove that it's lower, even if it's the same ground or the
     same stuff, than it would be to prove that it's at 25.
         DR. WYMER:  Well, that's one of the points I made, I think,
     earlier.
         MR. ZINKE:  Yes.
         DR. WYMER:  Okay.
         MR. LEWIS:  Excuse me.
         DR. WYMER:  It gets you around the ears pretty good.
         MR. LEWIS:   I have -- my name is Steven Lewis from the
     Office of General Counsel.  I wanted to try to help out on the question
     that I think was posed by the Committee earlier and I didn't -- I didn't
     hear the kind of answer that I wanted to totally leave you with, and
     that had to do with evaluation of alternatives.  The staff's position is
     that the GEIS that was prepared for the License Termination Rule
     encompassed within it not specifically something called rubblization,
     but other types of scenarios that encompassed -- are inclusive enough to
     encompass the rubblization that we're seeing now.
         What I did want to assure you about is that staff is well
     aware that we have to comply with NEPA in this process.  For example, at
     the license -- at the stage of amending a license, to approve the
     license termination plan, we will have to do whatever NEPA requires of
     us and the Commission may tell us, in response to a paper -- that in the
     paper that we give them, they may give us some guidance with respect to
     how we go about meeting our NEPA obligation.  But, we are well aware of
     it and that's why it's being -- it definitely will be addressed in the
     paper we give to the Commission.
         DR. WYMER:  Which means alternatives?
         MR. LEWIS:  Well, that's clearly -- clearly one of the
     things that we have to -- we have to make sure that everyone understands
     and is comfortable with the scope of the generic environmental impact
     statement that has already been done and that rubblization fits within
     it.  And, yes, I am speaking in terms of analysis of alternatives, yes.
         DR. WYMER:  Thank you.
         DR. GARRICK:  Okay.
         DR. WYMER:  Well, thank you, very much, for your
     forbearance.
         MR. CAMPER:  Well, thank you.  I'd, also, like to thank
     Steve and Cheryl and Norm Eisenberg for their comments.  It is a
     challenging and complicated history.  Cheryl has a great history of the
     rule, Steve is our legal counsel, and Norm is a modeling performance
     assessment guru, so I appreciate all their input, as well.
         Thank you for your questions and as you formulate your
     thoughts about this, again, if -- the things that you've heard today, or
     there are questions we've answered, if there are things that we can have
     on our scope and we're implementing and considering this on a
     case-by-case, that would be extremely helpful to us.  And you've raised
     a lot of good points.  Thank you.
         DR. GARRICK:  Thank you.  I think the plan is that we'll
     declare a short break here.  And I don't think we'll need the reporter
     following the break, because we're going to go into discussion of
     reports and letters for the rest of the day.  So with that, let's have
     -- let's take a short break, a five-minute break.
         [Whereupon, the recorded portion of the meeting was
     recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, November 18, 1999.]
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 27, 2014