United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment
Home > NRC Library > Document Collections > ACNW > Meeting Transcripts > 2000 > 120th Meeting - June 13, 2000

120th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) Meeting, June 13, 2000

                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE
                                  ***
           120TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
                                  ***

                              Nuclear Regulatory Commission
                              Two White Flint North
                              Room 2B3
                              11545 Rockville Pike
                              Rockville, MD 20852-2738

                                                       Tuesday, June 13, 2000

               The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45
     a.m.

     MEMBERS PRESENT:
               B. JOHN GARRICK, Chairman, ACNW
               GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Vice Chairman, ACNW
               RAYMOND G. WYMER
               MILTON LEVENSON
     .                            C O N T E N T S
     ATTACHMENT                                              PAGE
     Technical Report on Low-Level
     Waste Performance Assessment                              7
     NRC's Draft Policy Statement on
     Decommissioning Criteria for the
     West Valley Demonstration Project
     and West Valley Site                                      59.                         P R O C E E D I N G S
                                                     [10:45 a.m.]
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Good morning.  Our meeting will
     come to order.  This is the first day of the 119th 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,
     Ray Wymer and Milt Levenson.
               During today's meeting we will discuss committee
     activities and future agenda items; review and comment on
     the final draft version of the branch technical position on
     low level waste performance assessment; hear and discuss the
     results of public comments on a draft policy statement on
     decommissioning criteria for the West Valley Demonstration
     Project; and we will discuss plans for its own review of the
     Yucca Mountain site suitability and licensing application
     process, our task action plan.
               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.  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.  And, as usual, it is requested
     that each speaker use one of the microphones, identify
     themselves and speak clearly.
               Before proceeding with the first agenda item, I
     would like to cover a few items of interest.  The committee
     is very pleased to welcome Milt Levenson as a new member of
     the committee.  Milt was officially named to the Advisory
     Committee on Nuclear Waste by Chairman Richard Meserve on
     May 17th.
               Also, we would like to welcome two new ACRS/ACNW
     staffers, Magdalene Weston and Jenny Gallo.  And we have
     some changes in staff that we would like to acknowledge.
     Unfortunately, we are going to have to say farewell to Lily
     Gaskins, who has been a tremendous help to ACNW over the
     past six years.  Lily has accepted a position with the
     Defense Intelligence Agency and we wish very well on her new
     career change.
               As you know, on April 25th, President Clinton
     vetoed the High Level Nuclear Waste Bill.  The bill approved
     by the Senate in February and the House in March would have
     provided for early receipt of civilian spent fuel at Yucca
     Mountain in the year 2007.  The bill would have also limited
     EPA's authority to issue radiation standards, and the Senate
     failed to override the veto in an early May vote.
               The State of Utah has received an application from
     Envirocare of Utah for Class B and C waste.  The state will
     review the site and report, first, to decide whether it is
     acceptable before beginning a review of the application
     itself.
               The Rocky Mountain Compact, which is Nevada,
     Colorado, New Mexico, expects to receive an application from
     Waste Control Specialists for a disposal site in New Mexico,
     across the Texas border from WCS's waste storage site.  And
     this application is expected to include waste Classes A, B
     and C.  Apparently, New Mexico is interested in the prospect
     of an application being submitted.
               We have a couple of other items we want to
     mention.  We are very pleased to announce that on June 22nd,
     Theron Brown will be receiving the Commission's meritorious
     award, Excellence Award for his outstanding contribution to
     the Commission.  As you all known, Theron is the gentleman
     that makes possible all this audio-visual activity that we
     carry on in these meetings, and we are pleased that he is
     receiving this recognition.
               I also want to note that on June 7th, the governor
     of South Carolina signed into law the Atlantic Interstate
     Low Level Radiation Waste Compact Implementation Act.  I
     don't know, Howard, if you want to make a comment or two on
     what all that means, but you might want to.
               MR. LARSON:  No, not really.  I did send to all
     the members the notice, the three page notice from the Low
     Level Waste Forum where, in addition, to indicating that
     South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut are this compact,
     there also is a gradual reduction in the quantities of waste
     that they will receive over the next several years.
               I guess I would like to say one thing, John.  John
     mentioned that there were two new members of the ACRS/ACNW
     staff, one of them Mag Weston, who is principally working
     with the ACRS, but she is today at Davis-Besse on a site
     tour with many members of the ACRS, and the other is Jenny
     Gallo, who is hiding over here, who many of you probably
     have not seen since she came since your last meeting.  Jenny
     has helped Lynn out on a lot of things and will help us all
     out in budgeting analysis, presentations, innumerable
     things.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Is she tied to the California
     Gallo family?
               [Laughter.]
               MR. LARSON:  Do you want a free tour of the
     winery, John?
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  All right.
               MR. LARSON:  I don't know.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I think that is -- do you have
     anything you want to add to any of this?
               [No response.]
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  The first item on our
     agenda is low level waste branch technician position on
     performance assessment.  As all of you know, this has been a
     major issue.  It has been a difficult task in trying to
     achieve a reason balance between the traditional ways of
     doing performance assessment and the corporation in the
     methods of a risk-informed approach.  And I know that both
     options are available as a result of the branch technical
     position, and we are going to hear about that and a lot more
     from Mark Thaggard.
               Mark, do you want to introduce yourself and tell
     us what you are going to tell us?
               MR. THAGGARD:  Okay.  Can everybody hear me?  I
     might be a little loud.
               Okay.  My name is Mark Thaggard, I am a senior
     analysis in the Division of Waste Management, and as Dr.
     Garrick pointed out, this effort has been going on for quite
     some time.  And as I was talking to Andy Campbell before the
     meeting, I am kind of like the last man standing on this.
     There have been quite a few other people that have worked on
     this effort in the past.
               What I am going to be talking about today is the
     technical report on low level waste performance assessment.
     I have gone my phone number and e-mail address here in case
     anyone has some follow-up questions.
               The outline of my presentation, first of all, I
     would like to go over the purpose of the presentation,
     specifically, what we are hoping to get from the committee.
     Provide some background information on development of the
     document, and I think this may be kind of pertinent
     considering the fact that the document has been around for a
     number of years and I believe the last time we briefed the
     ACNW was back in 1995.  And, so, we have gotten a lot of new
     members since that time.
               Also, as part of the background, I would like to
     talk a little bit about some of the attributes of the
     performance assessment that is discussed in the document,
     along with some positions that we have taken in the
     document.
               The primary purpose, I mean the primary thing that
     I would like to cover today is the comments that we got on
     the document and how we are proposing to respond to those
     comments, along with the revisions that we are making to the
     document.  And then I would like to end with a brief
     summary.
               We plan to publish the document as a NUREG and
     provide it to the Commission for information purposes.  We
     were directed by the Commission, and I will go into this in
     a few minutes, but we were directed by the Commission a
     while back to go out for public comments on the document, so
     we feel obligated to go back to the Commission and let them
     know how we are responding to the comments.  So, we would
     like to -- we would be very interested in any feedback we
     can get from the committee on how we are addressing the
     comments and also how we are proposing to change the
     document in general.
               Okay.  Now, I would like to kind of walk through a
     little bit of the history of the development of the
     document.  As most of you may recall, back in the late '80s
     and the early '90s, there were a lot of activities going on
     in the low level waste area.  States were forming compacts.
     Some states were actually in the process of licensing low
     level waste disposal facilities, all in an effort to meet
     some milestones within the Low Level Policy Amendment Act of
     1985, which had 1993 and 1996 milestones.
               In 1987, the NRC developed what we call the
     performance assessment strategy, and that was actually
     authored by John Steimer, who I see sitting in the back,
     along with Lynn Deering.
               We also contracted with Sandia National Laboratory
     to develop what we called the performance assessment
     methodology, which they documented in a series of NUREGs,
     5453.
               Now, as I indicated, -- let me flip this around.
     As I indicated, back in the early '90s, we were having a lot
     of activities in the low level waste area, and the
     Commission became concerned at that time as to whether or
     not, if we got a license application, whether or not we
     would be able to review that application within 15 months,
     as was called for in the Policy Amendment Act.
               So, the Commission directed the staff through a
     SRM to develop a plan for enhancing its performance
     assessment capabilities in the low level waste area.  And,
     so, with SECY-92-060, the staff developed a plan for
     enhancing its performance assessment capabilities and a key
     component of that was development of some guidance on how to
     conduct performance assessments.  So, that is kind of where
     we -- how we got started in this effort.
               In the early '90s, the staff from NMSS and
     Research, in what we called the Performance Assessment
     Working Group, developed a preliminary draft for the
     document.  In parallel with that, we conducted a test case
     analysis where we actually were trying to analyze a
     hypothetical low level waste facility.  This not only
     allowed us to look at some of the assumptions and approaches
     that we were proposing to put in the document, but it also
     gave us a way to help enhance the staff performance
     assessment capabilities.
               After we developed a preliminary draft of the
     document, we had public workshops.  We also briefed ACNW at
     that time.  And, based upon the feedback we got from these
     groups, we revised the document.  And in 1996, we developed
     a draft version of the document, went up to the Commission
     with the draft and requested permission to go out and seek
     public comments on the document.
               In this SECY paper, we also identified four
     regulatory positions that were taken in the document, and I
     am going to go over those in a few minutes.
               In a staff requirements memorandum in August of
     ''96, the Commission approved the staff request to go out
     for public comments on the document.  In addition, the
     Commission asked the staff, prior to finalizing the
     document, to come back to the Commission with additional
     technical justification for truncating the performance
     assessment analysis at 10,000 years.  This was one of the
     policy issues addressed in this SECY paper here.
               The staff requirements memorandum also directed
     the staff to seek public views on this issue of dose
     discounting, which has to do deal with the current economic
     cost of design and performance against future health risk.
     This issue wasn't addressed in a document, but the
     Commission for some reason asked staff to get public views
     on it.
               So, through a Federal Register Notice in 1997, we
     went out, made announcement on the availability of the
     document.  Although it was like a 90 day time period for
     getting comments, we are just getting around to finalizing
     the document this fiscal year, because we have obviously had
     some cutbacks in our low level waste program and, also, we
     have had some other higher priority work.
               I will point out that completing the document is
     in the agency's performance plan for this fiscal year to be
     completed, so it is important that we get it done this year.
               And the last thing I would like to point out is
     that our original plan was to finalize the document as a
     branch technician position, and now we are planning to
     simply publish it as a NUREG document.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  I understand all the difference
     in the letters, Mark, but what does that last thing mean?
               MR. THAGGARD:  Branch technical position?
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Well, no, I mean I understand the
     branch technical position and a NUREG.  What is the
     difference between publishing it as one and not the other?
               MR. THAGGARD:  A branch technical position carries
     a little bit more weight to it.  It is similar to like a
     guidance document that basically laws out approaches that
     the agency finds acceptable.  Whereas, basically, anybody on
     staff can develop a NUREG and state their position.  So, the
     positions in the document can be just the positions of the
     Performance Assessment Working Group, they don't necessarily
     have to be the position of the agency.  Whereas, if it was a
     branch technician position, it would be stating, you know,
     we would be stating that these are the agency's positions.
     So, I don't know if that gives you a flavor.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, does that really mean
     then you are still undecided about what the position of the
     branch is?
               MR. THAGGARD:  No, I think -- one of the reasons
     for just publishing it as a NUREG is that, obviously, our
     involvement in the low level waste area has been greatly
     reduced over the years.  And, so, there is really less of a
     need to put out a document which -- I mean a document of the
     stature of a branch technician position.  However, there may
     be some useful information in there that we can give the
     Agreement States and some of the other people that are
     involved in conducting performance assessment, and we
     probably ought to share that information with those other
     groups.
               I don't know if this has anything to do with the
     fact that positions are not clear.  I mean, obviously, some
     of these positions are policy issues and they have gone up
     to the Commission once.  And our plan was to go back to the
     Commission -- I mean our plan is to go back to the
     Commission again, but I don't know if that really weighs
     into it.  We can get into that some more if you want.
               When we started developing the branch technical
     position, one of the things that we did was we looked at
     some of the approaches that were being used for doing
     performance assessments and looked at some of the concerns
     that we had with the approaches that were being used, and
     tried to factor these into the document.
               One of the clear concerns we had was that most of
     the performance assessments that were being done at that
     time, they were not done integrating the site
     characterization and the designs, it was almost done as a
     separate entity.
               Another concern is that most of the site
     characterization work focused primarily on the groundwater,
     and in some cases it turned out the groundwater may not have
     been that important of a pathway.
               And, also, most of the performance assessments
     done at that time, there was very little consideration given
     to the treatment of uncertainty.
               So, in developing the performance assessment
     approach that is in the document right now, there are
     certain attributes that I would like to discuss.  First of
     all, it is designed to look at long-term performance that is
     post-closure.  And, so, issues associated with inadvertent
     intruder or dose to the public during operation, they are
     not really covered under the performance assessment approach
     that we are talking about here, although the document does
     talk a little bit about the consideration of inadvertent
     intruders.
               The performance assessment approach in the
     document is structured after the performance assessment
     methodology that was laid out in those series of NUREGs
     developed by Sandia National Laboratory.  I apologize for
     the quality of this.  But, basically, what we have tried to
     do in the document is each one of these areas here, we have
     tried to address concerns or approaches of how to analyze
     each of these technical areas.  So, if you go through the
     document, you will see a section on each of these technical
     areas.
               Another key aspect of the document -- I apologize,
     I am flipping back and forth to page 8.  Another key
     consideration in the document is that the performance
     assessment approach that we laid out calls for an iterative
     process.  Basically, what this means is that we are
     suggesting that people start the assessment using the
     available information that they have, develop their
     conceptual models and their mathematical models, carry out
     the analysis, and then do some sensitivity analysis.  And
     from those sensitivity analyses, they can identify the key
     assumptions and parameters that are driving the analysis and
     that can feed into their site characterization and their
     design, and then they can update the analysis as necessary,
     so it will be an iterative process.  And this would allow an
     integration of the site characterization and the design with
     the performance assessment.
               And the last thing, the last attribute I would
     like to point out is that we obviously tried to cover the
     issue of the treatment of uncertainty, which I am going to
     talk about in a few minutes.
               Okay.  Now, I would like to talk briefly about the
     four regulatory positions that are stated in the document.
     As I indicated that SECY paper that we went up to the
     Commission, we identified four policy positions.  And I
     would just like to touch upon what those are in the
     document.
               The first position has to do with the timeframe of
     the analysis.  If you look at 61.41, there is no definitive
     timeframe as to over which the analysis should be carried
     out.  And, so, we tried to address this document, and our
     position is that the analysis should be carried out 10,000
     years, but if you have got peak doses beyond 10,000 years,
     you should look at that information and use it, because it
     might be able to help determine whether or not there is some
     need for inventory limits or something of that nature.  So,
     it is a two part approach that has a 10,000 year compliance
     period, with a qualitative evaluation beyond 10,000 years.
               Another regulatory position had to do with the
     consideration of future site conditions and processes.  And
     this concerns what assumptions should be made about the
     condition of the site in the future.  And our position in
     the document is to use a "reference geosphere" and
     "reference biosphere" based upon current site conditions.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Do you have any sense of what
     fraction of the low level waste would have peak doses beyond
     the 10,000 year compliance period?
               MR. THAGGARD:  No, I don't know if I have a
     specific number.  We did some analysis as part of the test
     case, and we found that most of the peaks were occurring
     within 10,000 years.  Obviously, in some cases you are going
     to see that if you have got, for example, large quantities
     of uranium or some other transuranics, or if you are in an
     arid environment, for example, you may get cases where --
     but I don't know if I have a definitive number on that.  But
     in the analysis that we looked at, most of the peaks
     occurred within 10,000 years.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.  The only reason for
     asking the question, of course, is it is my understanding
     that a lot more of the low level waste is contaminated with
     uranium than we had ever envisioned, and that could play a
     role in the peak dose calculation.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yes, that is correct.  And I see
     Andy wanting to make a comment on that.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  Yes.  We looked at different
     timeframes and for the mobile radionuclides like iodine-129,
     chlorine-36, tech-99, most of the doses occurred fairly
     early.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  Basically, you have very little KD.
     So, as soon as your cover has failed, and you get natural
     infiltration, then you see a dose, and that usually occurs
     within the first thousand years.  You see doses later on
     from things like radium put into a low level waste site.  At
     very long timeframes, you can see doses due to the in-growth
     of daughters of uranium.  But those in-growth doses don't
     become, you know, don't begin to approach the limit until
     you are a 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 years out.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  For the kind of inventory we did in
     the test case, which was a few hundred curies of uranium.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yes.  I think to answer your
     question, though, I don't know what percentage of low level
     waste sites have a higher percentage of uranium than we
     originally anticipated.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.
               MR. THAGGARD:  I don't really have the answer to
     that.
               Another regulatory issue, regulatory position that
     we took in the document has to do with the performance of
     engineered barriers, and this relates to how long should we
     assume that the barriers remain effective in terms of
     isolating the waste.  The position we took in the document
     is that beyond the 500 years, the barriers should be assumed
     to be degraded, however, structure stability and chemical
     buffering could be considered to last longer than 500 years.
               The last regulatory position dealt with the
     treatment of sensitivity and uncertainty.  And a couple of
     questions that we tried to address is whether or not
     deterministic or probabilistic analysis should be used.  And
     for probabilistic analysis, what part of the distribution
     curve should be used to make the determination of
     compliance?
               The position we took in the document is that
     either deterministic or probabilistic analysis could be
     used.  For deterministic analysis, the analysis should be
     demonstrably conservative is the position that we took.  And
     for probabilistic analysis, the mean of the distribution
     should be less than the performance objective and the 95th
     percentile should be less than 100 millirem.
               Okay.  That is just to touch upon the four
     regulatory positions in the document.  Now, I would like to
     go over some of the comments that we got on the document.
     First, as an overview, we sent out over 200 copies of the
     document in response to that Federal Register Notice, and we
     only got comments from 17 different organizations.  These
     included Agreement States, Non-Agreement States, two federal
     agencies and some other organizations such as NEI and some
     of the low level waste disposal facility operators.
               On balance, the comments that we got were somewhat
     favorable.  We got comments such as the document fulfills a
     need, it is well written.  It reinforces ongoing efforts,
     and it provides helpful and useful guidance.  So, on
     balance, the comments we got were favorable.
               The comments that we did receive focused primarily
     on those four regulatory positions I just touched upon.  We
     also got some comments on the dose methodology, ALARA,
     institutional controls and groundwater protection, and I
     will go over these in a few minutes.
               A key revision that we are going to make to the
     document, as I pointed out at the beginning, is that we are
     not going to publish the document as a branch technical
     position but now our intention is to simply publish it as a
     NUREG.  So, the positions in the document are going to be
     the positions of the Performance Assessment Working Group.
               Okay.  Now, I would like to touch upon some of the
     key comments we got.  First, the comments on the time of
     compliance seemed to be a big issue.  And we got, basically,
     comments all over the place.  Some commenters suggested that
     a shorter time should be used, such as 500 years.  We also
     got comments that the 10,000 year compliance period that is
     recommended is appropriate, it serves as a good balance
     between these two.  And then we got comments that the 10,000
     year period was not long enough, that the dose should be
     carried out to peak regardless of what time that is.
               And our response is, right now is that we believe
     that the 10,000 year compliance period is still appropriate
     because it generally includes the period of time when the
     waste is most hazardous.  It is sufficiently long to allow
     evaluation of the natural system, whereas, if you use a
     shorter time, you are primarily look at an evaluation of the
     performance of the engineered barriers.  And, also, it is
     consistent with the other regulations, not only NRC
     regulations, but EPA's regulations.  So, we feel that the
     10,000 year compliance period is still appropriate.
               Just to give you a little bit more information on
     that, some of the rationale we came up with for developing
     the 10,000 years is that we think that the time of
     compliance should provide a good basis for distinguishing
     between good sites and bad sites.  And what I mean by that
     is that -- one of the comments that we got on the document,
     people suggested that, well, we should use a shorter time
     period such as 500 years because there is so much
     uncertainty in the analysis that we won't have much
     confidence in the results beyond a fairly short period of
     time.
               And our position is that the goal of the analysis
     is not to come up with a true prediction of what the doses
     are going to be, but, you know, to test the robustness of
     the facility.  And, so, we don't necessarily have to get an
     accurate estimate.
               The other thing is that we think that the time of
     compliance should allow us to look at multiple barriers,
     whereas, if we were using a shorter time period such as 500
     years, we would be primarily just looking at the performance
     of the engineered system, whereas, if we allow a longer time
     period, that allows us to evaluate the performance of the
     natural setting.  And, also, we believe that the time of
     compliance should not arbitrarily limit the information to
     decision-makers.  And we think that the approach that we
     have come up with, the approach that we have advocated in
     the document allows us to do this, and this was also a
     recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences of the
     technical basis for Yucca Mountain.
               Some other considerations for the use of the
     10,000 years is we believe that, generally, PA calculations
     are more reliable for estimating dose than estimating the
     time of occurrence of the dose.  And, so, you may wind up
     having to do some complex analysis to demonstrate compliance
     if you are relying on delaying the releases.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Mark, do you have any basis for
     that first bullet, or is that just the gut level feeling of
     the working group?
               MR. THAGGARD:  I think it is the gut level
     feeling.  Although I think the genesis of this actually came
     from some analysis that was done in the high level waste
     program.  I think they did a lot of analysis in there, and I
     think this was the general conclusion that they were drawing
     from their analysis.
               Also, there was limited support for a shorter
     compliance period such as a thousand years when EPA went out
     for soliciting comments on their proposed 10,000 year
     compliance period.  A 10,000 year compliance period was -- I
     mean a 10,000 year timeframe was also used by several of the
     states in their assessments, and it was also used in the
     draft EIS in developing the rule.  So, those are just some
     other considerations.
               Okay.  Now, to move on to another regulatory
     position.  We got comments on the position on the
     performance of the engineered barriers.  The general
     comments that we got is that the assumed 500 year life is
     arbitrary and without technical justification.  We also got
     comments that having a 500 year performance life would tend
     to discourage research to improve barrier performance.
               And our general response is that we think 500
     years is appropriate because it allows, it generally allows
     sufficient time for decay of the short-lived radionuclides,
     which is primarily what the engineered barriers are designed
     to protect us from.  And, also, we reiterate the fact that
     the document does allow people to assume longer time
     periods, they just need to justify it.  So, although we do
     provide a 500 year timeframe in the document, people can use
     longer timeframes if they can justify it.
               And the other thing that I point out is that the
     document reiterates the need that, no matter what time
     period you use, whether it is less than 500 or beyond 500,
     you need to provide a justification for it.  And the simple
     fact that the document reiterates the need for this
     justification, we think that in itself should help continue
     to encourage research into the performance of the barriers.
               We also got comments on the position on future
     site conditions.  Some of the comments we got were that
     uncertainties in human activity should be considered, use of
     the "critical group" concept was not justified.  And our
     responses are that consideration of future human activities
     we think is highly speculative, and there is really no
     scientific or technical answer on that.  The use of the
     "reference biosphere" and "critical group" concept is
     consistent with international opinion and practice.
               We also got comments on the treatment of
     uncertainty.  Some of the general comments we got are that
     use of the mean is not justified.  Use of the mean is
     appropriate, but it may be difficult to communicate to the
     public.  And we took that to mean that it may be difficult
     for the public to accept.  Also, we got comments that use of
     probabilistic analysis in general could be an invitation to
     failure.
               And our response is the selection of the mean has
     both policy and technical considerations, so, we can't just
     give a technical reason for why we selected the mean,
     although we believe that the use of the mean provides the
     best estimate of the system performance.  We think that the
     approach that we have laid out for doing the performance
     assessment in the document will help identify the sources of
     uncertainty and that in itself should help build confidence
     in the results.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I don't suppose you would want
     to be so bold as to say that the use of the whole curve
     provides the best estimate of the system performance.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Excuse me, did I miss --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Instead of a part of the curve.
     Well, I am just needling you a little bit.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Okay.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I can't agree that the mean
     provides the best estimate of the system performance.  It is
     the best estimate if you are going to have to lean on a
     central tendency parameter.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yes.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  But the best estimate is to
     tell a whole story, and the whole story is the whole curve.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Okay.  The last point on this is
     that the proposed approach that we are taking is consistent
     with approaches that are being used in other program areas.
               Okay.  Now, those were some of the comments that
     we got on the four regulatory positions.  Now, I would like
     to walk through some of the other comments that we received.
     We got some comments on the fact that the document
     recommends that people use the conventional TEDE calculation
     in doing their dose analysis, whereas, the standard is based
     on this ICRP whole body -- ICRP 2 whole body methodology.
     And, so the, standard is a little bit outdated, and, so, we
     got some comments on that.
               And our response is that the Commission, as a
     policy, the Commission generally considers the use of the
     TEDE to be appropriate for evaluating against the ICRP 2
     whole body methodology.
               We also got a suggestion that the document needs
     to provide guidance on how people should do ALARA,
     demonstrate ALARA, because that is a requirement in the rule
     And, so, we have included some discussion in the document to
     spell out a little bit how people can do that in terms of
     looking at the cost and benefits of various designs.
               We got a comment on institutional controls and
     that institutional controls should be maintained at the
     disposal site as long as the waste remains hazardous.  And
     our response is that Part 61 obviously limits reliance on
     institutional control to 100 years, but we think in most
     cases they are going to probably be maintained much longer
     than that.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Now, is hazardous greater than
     25 mr, is that what you mean by hazardous?
               MR. THAGGARD:  Well, I am just restating what the
     comment is, so you kind of have to leave it to your own
     interpretation of how want to interpret that.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.
               MR. THAGGARD:  That is what I would -- that is how
     I would interpret it.
               We also received comments from EPA that meeting
     61.41 will not ensure compliance with the EPA's MCLs.  And
     our responses are that the comment, for the most part, is
     beyond the scope of the document, since it deals with the
     specific language in the rule.  But we feel that the current
     regulations provide adequate protection.  MCLs were not
     developed specifically for groundwater protection and MCLs
     are based on an outdated modeling approach.
               Some other comments that we received, we got some
     suggestions that the test case analysis that we worked on
     should be documented, because it could provide a useful
     example.  And our response is that, because of limited
     resources and other priority work, the agency has decided
     not to publish the document.  However, it was presented as
     part of a two day public workshop, so it was made available
     to the public.
               We also got a suggestion that the document should
     advocate the use of peer reviews, and we kind of agree with
     this suggestion, and, so, we have included some language in
     the document encouraging the use of peer reviews and expert
     elicitation.
               We got a comment that the document should address
     the issue of criticality.  And as noted by the commenter, we
     feel that there is an extremely remote possibility of this
     occurring, because in most cases we think that appropriate
     measures are going to be taken during site operation to
     prevent this from happening.  And, also, we note that the
     agency is also planning to develop some additional guidance
     on this.
               Okay.  Now, I would like to just touch upon some
     of the key revisions we are planning to make to the
     document.  First of all, we have responded to every comment
     that we got.  As I indicated, we got 175 comments, depending
     upon how you count them.  We have developed a response to
     each comment, although I have tried to summarize them here
     today, and that is going to be included as an appendix to
     the document.
               We also felt that it would be important to include
     the Commission's policy statement on the use of PRA methods,
     and, so, we are going to include that as an appendix to the
     document.
               We got a couple of comments suggesting that we
     provide additional information the performance of engineered
     barriers and, so, we have included a bibliography on
     engineered and natural barriers.
               We have also revised the approach that we are
     advocating on how to deal with the treatment of uncertainty,
     and I am going to touch upon that in a few minutes.  And, as
     I indicated, we have provided some discussion in the
     document on the Commission's position on the use of TEDE,
     and we provided some information on how to demonstrate
     ALARA, along with recommendations on the use of peer review
     and expert elicitation.  And throughout the document, we
     have tried to provide additional clarification in some other
     areas where we felt that was needed based upon the comments
     that we got, including expanding the glossary.
               And as the last bullet here, which you may not be
     able to hardly see, notes, as I have stated before, our plan
     is to publish the document now as a NUREG.
               Okay.  I would just to touch upon what we are
     proposing to do with this approach on the treatment of
     uncertainty.  As I indicated before, in the previous
     approach, we were advocating for probabilistic analysis that
     the mean of the distribution should be less than 25 millirem
     and the 95th percentile of the distribution should be less
     than 100 millirem.  That was the approach that we previously
     advocated.
               Now, we are advocating something slightly
     different in that we are saying that the peak of the mean
     dose as a function of time should be less than 25 millirem
     and the plot of the upper 95th percentile should be less
     than 100 millirem.  And I will give you an example of this
     in a minute.
               Now, the reason for this change is not based upon
     the comments that we got, but we feel that this approach is
     generally consistent with the approach that is being used in
     the high level waste program and, also, what we are
     proposing in the decommissioning program.  And, also, we
     think that this provides better representation of risk to an
     individual and, so, it should be a little it more in line
     with the agency's risk-informed regulatory philosophy.
               Okay.  We look at these two curves here, this kind
     of shows what we are doing.  In the previous approach for
     the treatment of uncertainty, what we were saying is that if
     you take a look at the distribution of peak doses, the mean
     of that distribution should be less than the 25 millirem,
     and the 95th percentile of the distribution should be less
     than 100 millirem.
               The approach that we are advocating now is that
     you take a plot of mean doses, these are mean doses at
     individual times and if you plot those over time, that
     should be less than 25 millirem.  And if you take the 95th
     percentile doses at time and plot that over time, that
     should be less than 100 millirem.  So, that is the approach
     that we are advocating now.
               Okay.  It is not clear?
               MR. HORNBERGER:  It is clear, but I can't believe
     that that is an approach used in high level waste.  You are
     taking the mean dose at time K.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yes.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  From a variety of realizations.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yes.  And you are plotting that
     over time.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  And you are plotting that over
     time.
               MR. THAGGARD:  And you are taking the peak of
     that.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  I think that I could -- it
     wouldn't take me long to think of a pathological case that
     would give you the nonsensical result.  I'm sorry.  Never
     mind.  Go ahead, Mark.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Okay.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Well, I guess, for high level
     waste, I mean we are taking -- Tim McCartin, NRC staff.  For
     high level, I mean we are creating a mean dose curve that is
     the summation of all the different realizations, and then
     you are just taking the highest dose on that curve at each
     -- at a particular instant in time, say, at 100 years, if
     you did 100 realizations, you would have 100 estimates of
     the dose.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Yeah.
               MR. McCARTIN:  And you would take the mean.  And
     if you go to 200 years and do the same thing.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Right.  And Part 63 is based on
     the peak of that curve?
               MR. McCARTIN:  Right.  From a risk standpoint, you
     are looking at -- previously, as Mark indicated, if you just
     took the mean of the peaks, you would be averaging a peak
     at, say, a 2,000 year dose with a 200.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Right.
               MR. McCARTIN:  And then you don't -- in terms of
     an individual risk, it wasn't a good reflection of
     individual risk is why we went to the peak of the means.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Did you consider doing it in
     CCDF form?  Where you have probability as a parameter, and
     each member of the family constitutes a percentile.  So that
     would be a nice way to do this, too, I would guess.  We can
     talk about that offline.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Okay.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Let me make sure that the
     difference between the previous approach and the proposed
     approach are clear.  The distribution that Mark is talking
     about in the previous approach was really, say, you did
     several hundred realizations, from each realization, you
     would find the peak dose.  Then you would take the mean of
     that value and that is what you would compare to the Part 61
     dose limit.  As Tim pointed out in the --
               MR. McCARTIN:  And you are talking any account of
     the time that that occurs?
               MR. THAGGARD:  That's correct.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  That's right.  And the approach
     that Tim is talking about, you take whatever, several
     hundred realizations and you make a mean dose versus time
     curve, and then pull the peak off of that, so there is a
     significant difference between how you do it.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Yeah, I can understand the CCDF
     approach quite clearly that John mentioned, but there is
     something logically wrong to me doing the calculation the
     way you just described and using that as a standard.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  We need to pursue this further.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Yes.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Okay.  Now, I would just like to
     summarize real quickly.  As I stated, on balance, the
     comments that we got on the documents were fairly favorable,
     although I kind of gave you the bad side of the picture by
     giving you the comments.
               The positions in the document remain largely
     unchanged, except with this treatment of uncertainty issue.
     The other positions remain pretty much unchanged, although,
     as I indicated, because we are going to publish the document
     simply as a NUREG, these are going to reflect the views of
     the Performance Assessment Working Group.  And, as I
     indicated, we revised the position on the treatment of
     uncertainty to try to be more consistent with what is being
     done in the other program areas.
               We have responded to all the comments
     individually, so, if you go to the document and look in that
     appendix, you will see that we responded to each of the
     comments.  And then we just tried to provide additional
     information as needed in the document to make it a little
     bit clearer.  So, that pretty much concludes that I had to
     go over and I will try to answer your questions.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, let me go around the
     committee.  Milt, do you have some questions?
               MR. LEVENSON:  No.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Ray?
               MR. WYMER:  I have a comment.  At a very high
     philosophical level, I was struck by the very great
     similarity, in general, in how this was treated and how the
     high level waste in the Yucca Mountain repository is
     treated.  I mean the whole strategic approach was very
     similar, with an outstanding exception, and it seems to me
     sort of anomalous.
               The exception is that you limit the lifetime of
     barriers, without additional justification, to 500 years.
     This is for low level waste.  There is no such limit on the
     high level waste repository.  And it seems to me that it
     would be more desirable for that situation to be reversed,
     considering the hazard posed by the types of waste.  So, I
     wondered why you stuck the 500 years in there when it is not
     there in the high level waste.  It seems sort of
     inconsistent.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah.  We got a lot of comments on
     that, people suggesting that we shouldn't have any time
     limit in there.  One of the reasons for the 500 years is
     because it is the general feeling that, for low level waste,
     most of the hazard -- I mean most of the short-lived
     radionuclides are going to be decayed after 500 years.  And
     that is primarily what the barriers are designed to protect
     you for.
               MR. WYMER:  But that is no justification for
     putting a 500 year limit on it.  Anyway, that is an
     observation.
               And my second observation is -- okay, Tim.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Yeah.  Tim McCartin.  I mean we did
     not impose a strict limit of 500 years.  We thought after
     500 years it would be increasingly difficult, with little
     benefit.  But there is not -- as Mark indicated, whatever
     credit they -- likewise, we weren't giving 500 years credit
     with no support.  Whatever a licensee came in with, they
     would have to defend.  We only gave the idea that after 500
     years, the benefit of taking credit for it would be fairly
     diminished, because you would have to go to very long
     periods then because, you know, the remaining hazard is
     there for almost forever.
               MR. WYMER:  Really, the thrust of the comment had
     to do with the difference between the high level waste and
     the low level waste, as opposed to what you did for low
     level waste.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah, but you are probably looking
     at a different type of barriers, too.  I mean what we did in
     coming up with the 500 year number is the engineers that
     were involved in this effort, they looked at the different
     type of engineering components that you are likely to see in
     a low level waste site.  And, quite frankly, it was their
     expert opinion that they didn't think you could rely on
     these any more than 500 years.
               Now, if they looked at the type of components that
     is in a high level waste program, they may have looked at
     something -- I mean they may have come up with a different
     number.  Unfortunately, they have since retired, so, we
     can't -- we can't get into that discussion with them.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Well, with respect to high level
     waste, I mean, once again, DOE has the flexibility to come
     and defend whatever number they come up with.  We haven't
     specified any minimum value.  There is a difference in that
     there is a -- the hazard level is higher for the high level
     waste repository, and, so, they may -- there is
     justification and merit in creating, obviously, a much
     longer-lived container.
               Low level waste, it was primarily earthen covers
     and concrete.  And so --
               MR. WYMER:  Yeah, I realize that.  It just seems
     to me you sort of set yourself up for a problem.
               My second observation is you have managed to
     destroy my confidence in the use of NUREG documents.
               [Laughter.]
               MR. THAGGARD:  Okay.  Well, at least I
     accomplished something here today.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Mark, following up on Ray's NUREG
     versus BTP again, somewhere in here, in your presentation, I
     can't find it right now, but you said that the positions
     were going to be taken out of the document.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Well, what I said was that the
     positions were going to be rephrased as being positions from
     the Performance Assessment Working Group, as opposed to --
               MR. HORNBERGER:  But I mean you are still going
     to --
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah, the positions are going to
     still -- yeah.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  The position was going to still
     be given that 10,000 years was the correct timeframe.
               MR. THAGGARD:  That's correct.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  And all the other things that you
     mentioned.
               MR. THAGGARD:  That's correct.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Okay.  And do you give any
     guidance in the BTP -- well, the NUREG, the NUREG for how
     one would use the information on calculations beyond 10,000
     years?
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah.  I mean one example is, as I
     indicated, maybe to possibly identify the need for inventory
     limits.  There may be some other --
               MR. HORNBERGER:  I mean what would lead you to
     conclude that inventory limits were necessary?
               MR. THAGGARD:  Well, obviously, if you are getting
     doses that is going to exceed the limit -- I mean the
     standard, that may be something you need to take a look --
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Exceeding 25?
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah.  I mean if you are getting
     significant doses at that point, then you -- I don't know if
     we specify a specific number in terms of --
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Yeah.  Well, that was --
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah, I don't believe the document
     does that.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  But I mean is the general gut
     level feeling, again, of your group that if you calculated a
     peak dose at 50,000 years of 100 millirem, that that would
     be what would lead you to conclude that something was
     needed?  Or 26 millirems --
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah.  We didn't really specify
     that and maybe, you know.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Well, I wasn't asking for -- I
     mean I don't think you would want to specify a number, or
     else it would become a de facto regulation.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  But I was just curious whether
     you think guidance --
               MR. THAGGARD:  Well, I think the -- well, the
     general intent was not to throw that information away, to
     look at it.  And, obviously, it is a qualitative decision,
     so, I think the main emphasis is not to throw that
     information away, to look at it.  And if it tells you
     something that you can use, to help you -- I mean help guide
     you, you should take a look at it.
               I don't know whether we had a particular number.
     I mean maybe Andy can answer that because he wrote the
     original position on that.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  I guess now I am the guy left
     standing.  There were a number of issues, and, in fact, the
     committee had a working group on timeframe of compliance a
     number of years ago, I believe in '96.  We also, the
     committee wrote a letter in '97 on low level waste time of
     compliance.  At the time we were putting this document
     together, there were proposals to put very, very large
     inventories of depleted uranium into a low level waste site.
     And, of course, the doses, because it is depleted uranium,
     don't become apparent till long timeframes.
               And, so, Part 61 clearly provides for the
     specification of an inventory limit, although it doesn't say
     that you have to do that, but it provides for that
     capability.  And, so, there are scenarios in terms of what
     kinds of waste and how much you are disposing that long
     timeframes, you might very well want to look at them,
     because the dose is not necessarily in the 25 millirem but
     much, much higher range.
               The other issue in terms of time of compliance for
     the more mobile radionuclides, which tend to be the drivers
     in terms of peak doses, the real concern about the
     engineered barriers and why 500 years was kind of an
     arbitrary number, I mean there are parts of the regulation
     that, for example, in a BTP waste form requires a 300 year
     lifetime for a Class B and C HIT, high integrity container.
               There was a concern that -- how long do covers
     perform?  Well, in wet climates that may be driven by how
     long it takes trees to establish themselves on the covers
     and the roots to penetrate the multiple layers and so on.
               The engineered vaults, the concrete vaults, we
     were seeing proposals in DOE space for vault systems where
     it was claimed that they would last, you know, 10,000 years
     with no leakage.  And, so, the 500 years was a judgment on
     the part of the engineers to say, look, we don't exactly
     know how long the cover is going to last, maybe a few
     hundred years, maybe a little bit longer.  We do know that
     concrete vaults, when they start cracking, even a small
     series of say 50 micron cracks, it doesn't take very many of
     them before they are not a barrier to infiltration.
               So, the key driver was how long you can keep water
     out of the system.  And if you push your timeframe to a
     short enough period of time, essentially, you never analyze
     what the potential dose is from the facility and what the
     site will do for you.  You essentially end up saying, well,
     my engineered barriers are going to last, my cover is going
     to last, you know, eight, 900 years, and if I have a 500
     year period of performance, then I am done.  Essentially, I
     don't need to do a PA at that point, all I have to do is
     make a demonstration my cover will last X hundred years.
     And, so, that was another rationale in terms of looking at
     these timeframes.
               Clearly, you go way out in time, the value of a PA
     becomes less and less because the uncertainties are just
     getting larger.  Did that help?
               MR. McCARTIN:  Tim McCartin, if I could add one
     thing, Dr. Hornberger.  If you look at how the -- the
     qualitative look, I think is the right way to look at the
     beyond.  In terms of what kind of -- how you treat those
     doses, I think it depends on how far out it is, et cetera.
     But another way to look at it, if you are looking for any
     quantitative feel for how the staff would perceive things, I
     think if you look at the way the dose limit is met, we want
     the mean to meet 25.  The 95th percentile only has to be
     below 100.  And, so, clearly, we are allowing some doses of
     realizations to be above 100 millirem.  So, as you go out, I
     think you get a sense that we aren't looking at -- we are
     not going to give any number, but you can see that there are
     doses that certainly could exceed 100 potentially.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  No, and, as you know, I would not
     be in favor of stating a number that far out either.  I
     think what Andy just said helps in terms of the kind of
     scenario that one would envision requiring inventory
     control, where you have large amounts of depleted uranium.
     I was more curious about whether you had that kind of
     guidance, which is more qualitative.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Just a couple of questions of
     clarification.  When you talked uncertainty, you talked
     pretty specific in terms of the peak of the mean dose as a
     function of time should be less than 25 millirem, et cetera,
     et cetera, and that as a function of time should be less
     than 100 millirem for the 95th.  How are you assessing the
     relative contribution to uncertainty of modeling uncertainty
     versus -- I can certainly -- certainly, there is a lot of
     experience in addressing the issue of information
     uncertainty.  Where there is increased controversy is how
     you quantify modeling uncertainty.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah.  In the document, we don't
     really take a strong stance on advocating people quantifying
     model uncertainty or, for that matter, even scenario
     uncertainty, I mean.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.
               MR. THAGGARD:  So we are primarily looking at here
     parameter uncertainty, although we think that, to some
     extent, we may be looking at alternative conceptual models
     based on some of the range of parameters that we are --
     people are going to be using in the way these models are
     constructed.  But, so, to some degree, you may be having a
     back-end way of calculating model uncertainty, but we don't
     have really real guidance on --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  So, most -- this is
     referring mostly to information uncertainty?
               MR. THAGGARD:  It is mostly, yeah, information
     uncertainty related to the parameters, so, it is primarily
     parameter uncertainty.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Although, as I indicated, for some
     of the parameters and how the parameters may be treated in
     the models and the range of the parameters, you may be
     looking at the effects of different models to some extent.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yeah.  One of the things I
     noticed in reading the draft, speaking of scenarios, there
     was a footnote, in reference to analytical approaches, that
     said, "Assigning probabilities to scenarios, which is
     characteristic of some probabilistic approaches, is not" --
     and "not" is in bold letters, the only bold letters that I
     saw in the whole document -- "recommended by the staff for
     low level waste performance assessment."  That almost comes
     on like it is a condemnation against scenario based risk
     assessment, which is, in my opinion, the best way to do risk
     assessments.
               Does that mean that if a licensee came in with a
     scenario based risk assessment, that it would be looked upon
     negatively?
               MR. THAGGARD:  No, that is not the intent.  And
     maybe we need to look again at how that is worded.  But the
     idea was, I think there was a lot of concern, when we first
     went out with the document, people were saying, well, you
     know, when you start getting into things like scenario
     uncertainty and things of that nature, that there is a
     tremendous amount of uncertainty just in terms of trying to
     assign probabilities to that.  And I think there was some
     concern that we didn't necessarily want to be putting people
     in the position that they had to necessarily go into an
     expert elicitation process just to come up with
     probabilities for these scenarios and so forth.
               So, that may have been the genesis for that
     language.  It is more in terms of trying to tell people that
     they didn't necessarily have to do that.  I don't think
     there is any thought on the staff's part that we would look
     disfavorable is somebody chose to go down that path.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I think it comes across in the
     wrong way.  I think if you were to turn it around and just
     say that this need not necessarily include a propagation of
     uncertainties through the scenarios, or the identification
     of scenarios, because you do talk a lot in the report about
     models, almost in the context that you substitute the word
     "models" for "scenarios."  And one could argue that all a
     structured set of scenarios is is a model.
               So, I think that one might get the wrong
     impression from this, and we may want to comment on that.
               MR. THAGGARD:  Okay.  Do you want to add something
     on that, Mike?  I mean I think that would be --
               MR. LEE:  Yeah.  This is Mike Lee.  We can work
     with that language.  That may not have been the best
     language to select.  But our concern was that we wanted to
     remind the developer that in selecting the proposed disposal
     site, they were to be reminded that they were to select
     sites that were geologically quiescent.  We didn't want --
     we wanted to avoid situations where the developer would
     start doing scenario analyses of a probabilistic nature to
     drive his site selection process.  We wanted to kind of get
     out of that space, because that is contentious and certainly
     inconsistent with what the regulations call for.
               We are not adverse to them considering scenarios
     that are consistent with the evolution of the site as part
     of the performance assessment, but we didn't want to be
     pushing them in that direction.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, of course, the kind of
     scenarios that I am thinking of are assessment scenarios
     that respond to the issue of what can go wrong with the
     site.  So, that is how I would answer the question, -- What
     could go wrong? -- is with the structured set of scenarios.
               MR. LEE:  Right.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  And, so, I would hope that this
     wouldn't discourage people from --
               MR. THAGGARD:  Yeah, I don't think that was the
     intent, and we can certainly look at the language there, to
     tone that down.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Because it really almost looks
     like a kind of condemnation, especially with the emphasis
     put on it with the bold type on the word "not."  So, okay.
               Any other questions?  Comments?  Yes, Howard.
               MR. LARSON:  When do you plan to finalize it?  I
     gather that -- you know, has the document received a final
     tech editor review?
               MR. THAGGARD:  No, it is --
               MR. LARSON:  You are satisfied with the writing?
     When would the final document be available for the committee
     to look at insofar as, you know, the way it is put together
     and everything?
               MR. THAGGARD:  Probably, my guess would be late
     summer, maybe in the fall some timeframe.  Our plan is right
     now we are still getting comments on the document, internal
     -- I mean still going through an internal review.  And once
     it has finished that, then I don't think there will be a
     problem with showing it to the committee.
               I would like to touch upon one thing that Dr.
     Wymer said about the fact that we are going to publish the
     document as a NUREG.  That shouldn't -- it is not really our
     intent to necessarily diminish the recommendations in the
     document.  And I apologize if that is the impression I gave,
     because I mean the ideal is that this was an agency, a group
     of agency experts working on this.  And people should be
     able to take that and say, well, you know, this group of
     agency experts looked at this, and these are the
     recommendations that they came up with.  This is the
     information that they provided.  And they should be able to
     use that however they see fit.  But it wouldn't necessarily
     say that this is the overall agency's position, but people
     should be able to recognize that this is a group of experts
     from the agency and this is their position.  And, so, I
     think that should still carry a lot of weight.  So, I didn't
     mean to diminish the role of what we are trying to
     accomplish here.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you
     very much.
               I guess, since we have a little time here, it
     might be appropriate to raise the question with the
     committee of what kind of response do we think this out to
     have at this time.  And can we give a response without the
     committee members actually reviewing the document itself?
     We can give a response on the basis of the presentation to
     be sure.  But some of the questions the committee is asking,
     they are probably going to require a little digging into the
     report.
               Anybody have an opinion on how we should respond?
               MR. WYMER:  There are two or three things we could
     respond to, they have already been brought up, having to do
     with George's concerns about the meaning of these doses
     interpretation.  And I would like to comment, I think, too,
     on the fact that I think having the low level waste document
     and the high level waste document, I mean differently with
     respect to what engineered barriers can mean, even allowing
     that there is a flexibility, and that is allowed in the
     language, a justification of a longer lifetime is certainly
     within the scope, but to say for the low level waste there
     is a 500 year limit with exceptions allowed, and then not to
     say something comparable in the high level waste area, it
     seems to me you are sort of setting yourself up for a
     problem.  And I think we might comment along those lines.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  And I think we definitely --
     maybe that is what you mean when you say the dose
     calculation, but I think there is definitely a sense of
     maybe we want to comment on the form of the results, the
     actual form of the dose assessment results.
               MR. LEVENSON:  Do we recognize the difference
     between Classes A, B and C?
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I don't know.  Tim.
               MR. McCARTIN:  There are slightly different rules,
     primarily depth of burial for the different classes.
               MR. LEVENSON:  Integrity of containers.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Class B and C waste, Milt, is
     required to have an intruder barrier that has a lifetime of
     at least 500 years.  Class B and C waste has to be put in
     containers that have been -- essentially gone through a
     topical report review by the NRC that shows that they will
     have about a 300 year stability lifetime.  There are some
     other differences between Class A and Class B and C, but the
     analyses done to support this document looked at a facility
     that had both Class A and Class B and C.  In fact, the
     inventory was derived from manifest information and reports
     about what was being disposed.  Now, mind you, that was a
     number of years ago, but the radionuclide content hasn't
     changed that much, the volumes have changed.
               MR. LEVENSON:  Back then I think there was more
     perception that a low level waste facility would maybe take
     them all.  We don't know what will have with Envirocare,
     but, clearly, it is a facility that for some time has been
     only Class A.  So, I wondered whether this document
     recognized the difference between a single category and some
     of the general facilities.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Well, I mean in doing the
     performance assessment, you certainly would tailor it to the
     inventory you are expecting.  Other than that, there is no
     preclusion of having to have one class or three classes,
     whatever.
               MR. LARSON:  As a NUREG, if it was an Agreement
     State and they were going to put in a low level waste
     disposal facility, and they felt that they needed no help
     from anybody, what would be the impact of this document upon
     them?  I just -- for my own clarification.  Do they have to
     follow it or is it -- it is only whatever value they want to
     use, right?
               MR. THAGGARD:  That's correct.  I mean as a BTP,
     they wouldn't necessarily have to follow it, and they can
     use whatever approach they think is necessary.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  One of the things that I was
     struck by in the limited reading of the report was the
     emphasis that was given to the distinction between
     uncertainty analysis, sensitivity analysis and probabilistic
     analysis.  I am still wrestling a little bit with how you
     address uncertainty analysis, say, out of context with the
     probabilistic analysis.  But maybe when I see what you have
     done, I will understand that better.
               I could make the same comment relative to
     sensitivity analysis, because, to me, probability is the
     language of uncertainty.  And, so, if you are going to do a
     reasonable job of uncertainty analysis, you have to do a
     considerable amount of probabilistic type investigation.
     And I hope that is all sorted out in the report.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Yeah, I guess -- Mark had limited
     time to go through everything.  But when we first went down
     this approach of doing -- and it is a probabilistic
     approach.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.
               MR. McCARTIN:  I mean most people would --
     however, having said that, probabilistic in the terms that
     your parameters have distributions and you are sampling
     among those distributions, and each value has a certain
     probability assigned to it.  To the broader low level waste
     community throughout the United States, we did not want to
     -- there was a worry of confusing people with a
     probabilistic approach with assigning probabilities to
     scenarios in disruptive events, what is typically done in
     high level waste.  And, so, we tried to draw some
     distinctions there.  As Mark indicated, we aren't
     recommending scenarios with probabilities, primarily because
     the siting conditions preclude many of the disruptive events
     from occurring at the site, except at a very low
     probability, albeit, because it is sited properly.
               But it was trying to -- to date, when we first
     went down this way, this approach, people had been doing
     single deterministic analyses, and to move over to this
     approach, we wanted to make it clear that it wasn't the full
     -- some people consider the high level waste approach
     probabilistic, because you have scenarios with
     probabilities.  And, so, we were trying to bridge a wide
     variety of capabilities to conduct different analyses and
     experiences in doing PAs, and a lot of the people we talked
     to aren't familiar with the high level waste program and
     what that means, and, so.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yeah.  Well, as we have said
     many times, this whole issue is a classic case of risk
     communication, and our inability at times to do a reasonable
     job of communicating what we mean.  If we could ever get to
     the point where we get across the message that by
     probabilistic approaches, we don't mean something in place
     of or instead of, we mean something in addition to, that,
     essentially, by definition, we mean additional information,
     when we go from deterministic to probabilistic methods.
     And, obviously, in that structure, in that framework, it
     would seem that it is a more saleable concept to say that
     all we are really talking about here is getting additional
     information, additional insights and additional
     understanding of how much confidence we should really have
     in these deterministic results.
               I have found that when you deal with students and
     the public in that context, with respect to the introduction
     of probabilistic notions, it takes some of the fear out of
     what you are trying to do.  And, so, I think it is kind of a
     classic case of risk communication that we have not really
     been able to achieve and still represents one of our
     challenges.  So, I am always disturbed when I hear that
     there is a fear of probability.  That always signals to me
     that we are not, you know, we are not doing a very good job
     of telling them what we mean when we talk about that next
     level of analysis, and that is what it really seems to me
     should be, is just the next level of analysis.  Because that
     is the reaction you get.
               You know, I once heard a utility executive say we
     would never use probability as a basis for any decisions
     that we make.  Well, how nonsensical a statement that has to
     be, because that is saying we only make decisions about
     which we are 100 percent certain, and you never do that.
     Never have that.  So, you are using probability all the
     time, implicitly as it may be.
               Okay.  Any other comments from staff or anybody in
     the audience?  Yes.
               MR. LEE:  In the spirit of communication, I think
     at the beginning of the presentation, Mark noted that the
     BTP is currently in concurrence and we expect to get it to
     the Commission in July.  And just to reinforce a point that
     Mark made earlier, the hope and desire is that we, in
     parallel with that concurrence, which we have recently met
     with OGC and they have given us some comments and
     recommendations which we are addressing, but we don't expect
     the BTP to change substantively between now and when it goes
     to the Commission.
               MR. McCARTIN:  You mean the NUREG.
               MR. LEE:  The NUREG, excuse me.  Freudian slip.
     But our hope and desire is that we get a letter -- in the
     past, what the committee has done is it has sent a letter to
     the Commission with its recommendation as to finalize the
     document that the staff happens to be working on.  In some
     cases we have gotten that recommendation with no comment.
     In other cases, we have gotten comments, and we welcome any
     comments from the committee and we can work those out in
     parallel with what we have to do to finalize the document.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  Sounds like a real
     challenge if we are going to get any letter out that will
     have any impact on the submittal to the Commission.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  One comment here.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  One of the things that I noted as I
     read through the document is that there are a number of
     references that have developed since the technical parts of
     the document were written back in the mid '90s, and that
     those references need to be updated, and there certainly
     should be some effort -- there are a number of NUREG reports
     and ACR reports that have come out since that was done, that
     really need -- otherwise, the document appears to be very
     dated, and that would be important to get into the document.
               MR. LEE:  We welcome those updates, Andy.  When
     can you get them to us?
               MR. CAMPBELL:  Well, I think there were a number
     of people in Research that were involved in the document,
     and that needs to come over to you guys as a list of things
     that need to be changed, but it needs to be done soon.
     Otherwise, the document will appear to be fairly dated.
               MR. LEE:  Well, as part of the finalization of the
     document, we have redistributed the document to remaining
     members of PAWG and I know -- including those members that
     currently reside in Research, and I know they are working on
     -- one individual in particular is getting us some new and
     updated references, but any contribution any PAWG member
     current, living, whatever, happens to make, we are more than
     welcome to get that.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Living or not.
               MR. LEE:  That's right.
               MR. McCARTIN:  Comments from the beyond.
               [Laughter.]
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Actually, I think the report
     will be very helpful to all parties, including states.  And
     as far as the analytical process that is involved, and I
     suspect it will be an evolving NUREG as we update it and
     learn more about how to do things.
               Okay.  Well, I think, unless there is additional
     comment, we will adjourn for lunch.
               [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the meeting was
     recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., this same day.].                   A F T E R N O O N  S E S S I O N
                                                      [1:30 p.m.]
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Good afternoon.  The meeting
     will come to order.  This afternoon, we're going to start
     off talking about West Valley, and we are, in particular,
     going to hear about some public comments on a draft policy
     statement on decommissioning criteria for the West Valley
     Demonstration Project.
               Ray Wymer of the Committee is the lead on this
     subject, so I'll let Ray introduce our speaker.
               MR. WYMER:  Okay, before I do, I'll make a few
     comments, Jack.  I hope I don't steal your thunder.  I don't
     think I will because I don't know enough to steal your
     thunder.
               [Discussion off the record.]
               MR. WYMER:  The West Valley site is a particularly
     complex site with a lot of people in the act and a lot of
     timing considerations with respect to when various things
     kick in and various people gain and lose responsibility for
     a license termination.
               I don't know how many of you know that the West
     Valley site is located within the Western New York Nuclear
     Service Center, so-called, which is something over a
     3300-acre site, and ore of less in the middle of that is a
     200-acre site which DOE has responsibility for.
               They're operating under the West Valley
     Demonstration Project Act, a Congressional act, actually
     that gives DOE responsibility for a segment, a piece of that
     site.
               The other parts of the site are also complex.
     There is a five-acre site that's licensed by the NRC.
               There is a 15-acre site where the waste disposal
     activities are governed by the State of New York.  There is
     a memorandum of understanding between DOE and NRC that
     governs this, completed in 1981 and governs the
     interrelationships and the New York State Energy Research
     and Development Authority has the responsibilities on the
     site.
               So, it turns out to be -- and there will probably
     be incidental wastes associated with the site, which is
     another whole issue.  So, it turns out to be an
     extraordinarily complicated issue.
               I hope that Jack Parrot will explain all that,
     elucidate it, and in particular, tell us about the
     decommissioning criteria associated with the site.  Jack,
     please?
               MR. PARROT:  Okay, thank you.  Good afternoon.  My
     name is Jack Parrot.  I'm the NRC's Project Manager for
     interaction with West Valley and the West Valley
     Demonstration Project.
               The focus of my presentation today was going to be
     -- or is going to be on the draft policy statement that was
     issued last December for the decommissioning criteria.  But
     before I go into that, I was just wondering what the
     Committee would like to hear as far as background.
               I don't want to just launch into where we are now
     without a little bit of background if it's all right.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I think that would be
     appropriate.
               MR. PARROT:  Okay.  Briefly, the site, the West
     Valley site, was the only commercial spent fuel reprocessing
     site ever operated in the country.
               It was licensed by the AEC in 1966.  It processed
     some 640 tons of spent fuel.  Along with that were a number
     of wastes produced, as you can imagine.
               Also, next to the site in one corner of the site
     is a state-licensed disposal area, licensed by the State of
     New York, a pre-Part 61 disposal area that took some wastes
     from the operational facilities at West Valley, in addition
     to commercial wastes and waste from other government
     facilities.
               The reprocessing continued until about 1972, when
     the operator of the site NFS, decided to shut down
     operations, and no more reprocessing occurred.
               And then in 1980, the West Valley Demonstration
     Project Act was signed by President Carter.  This Act
     requires DOE to come onsite, solidify the high-level waste
     that was produced from the spent fuel reprocessing,
     transport it and dispose of it.
               In addition, the Act required DOE to decontaminate
     and decommission the tanks and project facilities and
     materials used with the Project, two requirements prescribed
     by NRC.
               With the realization that the solidification
     portion of the Project is almost complete, attention turned
     to establishing decommissioning criteria in the late 1990s.
     At about the same time, as you know, the license termination
     rule was promulgated in 1997, so this led to the beginning
     of prescribing the decommissioning criteria for West Valley.
               The NRC's decommissioning criteria for West Valley
     was issued on December 3rd of 1999, as a draft policy
     statement by the Commission.  Basically what it says is, to
     apply NRC's license determination rule to the site as the
     decommissioning criteria -- I'll go into a little bit more
     detail in the next slide, but after the policy statement was
     issued, we held a public meeting up at near the site on
     January 5th, 2000.
               At that meeting, we heard comments from the
     public, DOE, NYSERDA, and other agencies and groups.  We
     received about 60 comments and questions at the public
     meeting, and the written comment period closed on April 1st.
     We received about 28 comment letters with about 200
     individual comments.
               Basically, the draft policy statement consisted of
     three components of a process for prescribing the
     decommissioning criteria:
               First of all, it was to apply the NRC's license
     termination rules to the decommissioning criteria for both
     the West Valley Demonstration Project and for the portion of
     the site that would remain under a license to NYSERDA.
               As you know, the range of decommissioning criteria
     range from an unrestricted release limit of 25 millirem per
     year, and then if you want to apply institutional controls
     to the site, you can do restricted releases up to a range of
     between 100 and 500 millirem per year, if those restrictions
     were to fail.
               The next step in the process was for DOE and
     NYSERDA to propose a preferred alternative and develop and
     EIS to support that preferred alternative.
               That's what they're working on actually right now,
     and that our decommissioning criteria would fit into.
               And then the final step described in the policy
     statement was that the NRC would verify that the specific
     criteria chosen for the site meets the range of the LTR, and
     prescribes its use after considering the impacts in the EIS.
     I should mention that NRC is a cooperating agency in this
     EIS process.
               And let me briefly contrast how this to a typical
     licensing case:  In a typical licensing case, we wouldn't
     have to do the first step, because we would already have the
     license termination rule to apply to all our licensees.  So,
     this is one way that the site is unique, is, we've got
     actually -- do a two-step prescription.
               Okay, first, we've got to say that the LTR applies
     to the site, and then after they go through the process of
     developing a decommissioning plan, specifically how the
     criteria would be applied.
               Okay, as I mentioned, we had a number of comments.
     The Staff is currently evaluating and developing responses
     to the comments.
               The comments could fall into basically three broad
     categories:  A lot of the comments had to do with NRC's
     process for finalizing these or prescribing these
     decommissioning criteria.
               A lot of the comments were more on the license
     termination rule itself, the guidance and the implementation
     license termination rules.
               A number of comments were also on jurisdictional
     cooperation with other agencies that are involved with the
     site.
               Let me briefly try to summarize some of the
     comments here, some of the major comments.
               There were a lot of comments, but I'll try to
     summarize the major comments.  DOE, their main comment
     really focused on the process that we were going to use for
     prescribing their criteria.
               They felt that the prescription of the criteria
     should happen after the EIS process is completed.  The State
     of New York had certain concerns -- and when I say the State
     of New York, I'm including NYSERDA, the New York Department
     of Environmental Control, and we also got some comments from
     the New York State Attorney General's Office.
               Their main concern seem to focus on not allowing
     shifting of federal responsibility onto the state.  They
     also wanted us to consider the SDA, the state-licensed
     burial ground that is in one corner of the site, in the
     overall criteria, even though it's under a separate license.
               And also they were concerned -- and this relates
     back to the first comment -- that there be consistent
     criteria, decommissioning criteria, for both the Project,
     DOE's Project, and the eventual license.
               EPA had similar comments they have made for other
     decommissioning sites of NRC; that the license termination
     rule may not be protective; that the groundwater needs a
     separate protection; and that there should be coordination
     with EPA for both the remediation of the hazards and the
     radioactive contamination at the site.
               We received a number of other comments, and some
     of these other comments also were made by the agencies
     described here, but because of the type of waste at this
     site and the nature of the site, a lot of the other
     commenters had concerned about relying on institutional
     controls to control the dose from this site.
               A lot of commenters believed that institutional
     controls cannot be relied on at this site, and therefore
     want all of the waste and material removed from the site,
     eventually.
               At the very least, a number of them wanted to get
     a better idea of what was the definition of an institutional
     control for NRC; does it include the use of engineered
     barriers and to what extent?
               A number of the other comments also had to do with
     the SDA and the fact that that should be considered with the
     overall criteria for the site.
               And there were a number of comments on incidental
     waste and the fact that a lot of them did not want DOE to be
     able to reclassify any of the high-level waste that is at
     the site into incidental waste.
               This is our schedule for completing the policy
     statement.  Our plan is to respond to the comments and make
     any revisions to the policy statement that is needed and to
     get that to the Commission by August, the end of August;
               To receive input from the Commission on that by
     the end of October, and then to revise the policy statement,
     as needed, and then publish it in the Federal Register by
     the end of the year.
               Briefly, I wanted to touch on some other
     activities we've got going with West Valley.  We're working
     on a cooperation agreement with NYSDEC, the state
     environmental control authority up there.  They license the
     SDA and they're also responsible for the hazardous waste
     component on the rest of the site.
               We're working on a Commission paper that sets out
     some guidelines for interacting with stakeholders at the
     site.  Because of the sort of informal relationship we've
     got with DOE at the site and the fact that the license is
     actually in abeyance, and the other unique qualities, we
     felt that we needed to set out specific guidelines of how we
     were going to interact from here on out with the different
     parties.  As you mentioned, it's a very complicated
     situation.
               We're also reviewing a preliminary safety
     evaluation report for a planned facility called the Remote
     Handled Waste Facility.  This is related to another one of
     NRC's authorities at the site, and that is to review and
     comment on safety evaluation reports for facilities that are
     going to be built at the site.
               And as I mentioned, we're a cooperating agency on
     the EIS, and there will be upcoming, hopefully before the
     end of the year, review of some technical sections of the
     EIS, and the preferred alternative.
               Our plan for interacting with the ACNW on West
     Valley is to provide the Committee with the draft responses
     to the comments we received, and the final policy statement
     at the same time we submit it to the Commission for a
     parallel review.
               So, with that, that concludes my prepared
     presentation.
               MR. WYMER:  I was reading through some of the
     testimony that was given back in January.  One of the things
     that came out loud and strong was that the stakeholders and
     the State of New York, the various agencies of the State of
     New York, speaking generally, don't -- they don't really
     care much about the formalities of who does what, or what
     the license termination rule is or what they are responsible
     for.
               What they want is the site looked at holistically,
     and they want the whole darn thing cleaned up, and forget
     about the legal obligations for the moment.  And that's sort
     of their point of view; let's clean up the site as best we
     can to protect the citizens of the State of New York.
               So, the question I have then is, how broad a
     brush, how broad a sweep is the NRC taking with respect to
     license termination?  Are they narrowly focused on the DOE
     license which will kick in 2010, or are they concerned with
     that, plus the NRC licensed little piece of the site, in
     addition, or are they considering the whole thing and will
     the EIS address the whole thing?
               In other words, how broad a cut is NRC going to
     take on this?
               MR. PARROT:  Okay, well, first of all, the EIS
     that they're working on for the closure of the site does
     consider the entire site, including the state-licensed
     disposal area.  The EIs is a joint project between DOE and
     NYSERDA.
               They are both lead agencies on the EIS, and they
     are considering the whole site.  Now, when we put the draft
     policy statement out, we tried to take as broad a brush and
     sweep as possible, given our limitations and the fact that
     we don't license the entire site.  Part of the site is
     licensed by the state.
               And that was what was pointed out in the policy
     statement.  We want the license termination rule to apply to
     DOE's portion and the part of the site that's licensed by
     NRC.  And anything beyond that, for instance, the SDA, that
     will have to be worked out with the proper authorities.
               MR. WYMER:  Okay, is it your view that the
     Environmental Impact Statement effectively replaces the
     project decommissioning plan?
               MR. PARROT:  No, no.  The Environmental Impact
     Statement needs to be done, and a preferred alternative
     chosen, and what we'd like to see, I think, at NRC, is that
     whatever the preferred alternative is, that it falls within
     the range of the license termination rule.
               But there still is a requirement that DOE and
     NYSERDA will have to submit decommissioning plans which
     will, hopefully, specifically point out how they intend to
     meet the license termination rule.
               MR. WYMER:  And I have one final question.  To
     what extent will the NRC be involved in institutional
     controls after the site is closed?
               MR. PARROT:  Well, only in a very general sense,
     from the license termination rule, there would be, you know,
     some requirement, if they do a restricted release, to have a
     periodic recheck of the site.
               Now, the specifics of that, it's too early to say
     how that would work out.
               MR. WYMER:  NRC would probably accept the
     responsibility for carrying out the periodic re-checks into
     the indefinite future?
               MR. PARROT:  Well, to the extent that, yes, it
     would be an NRC-licensed site, I imagine that it would be
     either NRC or --
               MR. WYMER:  Those parts that are NRC-licensed.
               MR. PARROT:  Yes.
               MR. NELSON:  Excuse me, this is Bob Nelson,
     Decommissioning Branch, NMSS.  We would not -- we do not
     envision a role in which NRC would be doing periodic
     rechecks.  If there are rechecks that need to be done, they
     would have to -- the license termination rule does not
     envision NRC physically doing those rechecks.
               The license termination rule requires that
     financial assurance be put in place, such that an
     independent third party can do the rechecks.  That's not
     NRC, so --
               MR. WYMER:  That's all I have at the moment.
     John, do you have any followup questions?
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, I don't think I have very
     much.  But when you were summarizing the comments, with
     respect to the State of New York, one of the comments was
     that they wanted to be sure that there was no shifting of
     federal responsibility to the state.
               But isn't there a point beyond which that's what's
     supposed to happen?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes.  There will be a point where DOE
     feels that they have satisfied their requirements under the
     Act, the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, at which
     point NYSERDA would take back the site and the license would
     be renewed or pulled out of abeyance.
               The question is, what is that point?  And the
     State of New York and DOE are actually in negotiations right
     now over where that point is.
               It's not real clear, and, you know, the Act
     doesn't give a lot of definition of where that point is, but
     they're in negotiations right now, I think, to work that
     out.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  What alternatives are being
     considered for the final disposition of the site?  Supposing
     they can't do what Ray is indicating they want, namely,
     complete cleanup of the site?  What alternatives are under
     consideration?
               MR. PARROT:  In the Draft EIS that they published
     in 1996, they looked at range of various alternatives,
     everything from cleaning up the site entirely to doing just
     a minimal stabilization and leaving everything there.
               Based on a lot of the presentations that I have
     seen from DOE, they seem to be actively considering leaving
     at least the structures of the process building and the high
     level waste tanks there, and stabilizing them and using a
     lot of engineered barriers, and also --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Does this include subsurface
     barriers?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes.  And it's the same thing for the
     NRC-licensed disposal area, perhaps engineering a new cover
     for the facility, but leaving it in place.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  So, they're looking at
     alternatives that vary from green fields to some degree of
     stewardship?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes, and depending -- there is kind
     of a mix they're looking at right now that some areas may be
     able to be cleaned up completely, relatively easily, and
     then some areas not.  But again, they haven't established a
     preferred alternative yet though.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  How do you think the NRC is
     going to respond to the EPA continued anxiety about the
     license termination rule perhaps not adequately protecting
     them?
               MR. PARROT:  My guess is that we will, as we've
     done at other sites, decommissioning sites, say, well, this
     is our criteria and we believe this to be protective.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Where does the state come down
     on this?
               MR. PARROT:  Well, I think that they would like to
     see a consistent message, because they are worried, of
     course, that the site's decommissioned to NRC criteria, and
     then EPA might come in and say, okay, we may apply CERCLA to
     this site, and require different criteria.
               So, I'm sure that they would like to see something
     worked out beforehand.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Do you know, is there a
     schedule in place yet for what happens beyond the issue of
     this decommissioning criteria?  What are the future events
     and when are they likely to occur?
               MR. PARROT:  The future events would be that the
     DOE and NYSERDA complete their EIS, establish a preferred
     alternative and issue a record of decision.
               The trouble is that the completion of that depends
     on now these negotiations turn out between New York State
     and DOE, and those aren't completed yet.  So there is
     something of an uncertainty there about when that will be
     done.
               And they're on the line.  I don't know if you care
     to ask them about that.  But then the next step would be
     then for DOE to submit to NRC, a decommissioning plan.
               And then we would look at that, and because of the
     unique relationship, we don't actually approve it; we review
     it and comment on it.  And then they would implement it.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Now, as far as the action from
     this Committee, your final statement said that Staff will
     provide ACNW with the draft response to comments and final
     policy statement at the time of transmittal to the
     Commission for parallel review.  Is that the action you want
     us to take, based on that review?
               Or are you asking for something earlier than that?
               MR. PARROT:  I think that was the action we
     anticipated, yes.  We're still working through the comments,
     and writing responses to those comments.  It really won't be
     ready until the time we give it to the Commission.
               MR. WYMER:  We haven't really come to the criteria
     yet.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Go ahead.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  This is a fairly complex site, so
     when DOE gets to developing a decommissioning plan, is there
     anything in the policy statement that would offer them
     guidance on how they would demonstrate that the plan was
     successful; that is, is what is envisioned a probabilistic
     performance assessment?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes, I believe we would use the same
     kind of guidance that we would apply to any licensed site
     that's decommissioning.  And to the extent that that is a
     probabilistic analysis, yes, we would like to see that.
               And especially this site, with the amount of
     uncertainty, it definitely would be important to consider
     that, yes.
               MR. LEVENSON:  I have two questions:  One is --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Put your mike down.
               MR. LEVENSON:  I have two questions:  One is a
     matter of catching up on history.  The law setting up West
     Valley as a demo project, did it mention at all, any role
     for NRC at that time?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes.  The roles that NRC is involved
     with are prescribing the decommissioning criteria; also,
     reviewing safety analysis reports for facilities that are
     built at the site; a monitoring role, where, I guess you
     could liken it to an inspection role where we send an onsite
     person up there a few times a year, and review things and
     write a report, but it's not an inspection report; it's a
     monitoring report.
               And, let's see, there's a role of -- I think
     that's it.
               MR. LEVENSON:  But the act does specifically
     exclude any activity of NRC with respect to the licensing of
     the site until such time as DOE quits the site?
               MR. PARROT:  Right.
               MR. LEVENSON:  It was, of course, licensed by the
     AEC up until that is done.
               MR. PARROT:  Right.
               MR. LEVENSON:  My other question, I guess, has
     been answered, and that is, you have used the term -- like
     for the new remote handled waste facility, you're going to
     review and comment.  So none of those new facilities will be
     NRC-licensed; is that right?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes, until such time as the site
     reverts to New York control and those facilities are still
     there, then they would be licensed.
               MR. WYMER:  Well, as I look at the t.v. monitor, I
     see a whole group of people off there in the State of New
     York.  I'd like to solicit questions of comments from that
     group now.
               SPEAKER:  This is Melissa -- I'm the Director for
     DOE here, and Paul -- .  Paul is with the New York State
     Energy Research and Development Authority.
               I also want to mention we have a number of folks
     from our staff, as well as a couple members of the Citizens
     Task Force who wanted to sit in and listen to this as well.
               Ray -- and McNeil.  And what we were prepared to
     do is just make some comments, some prepared comments, and
     if you want to ask any questions of us, we'd be happy to
     answer anything.
               And really, all my comments really do, in terms of
     the Department of Energy -- basically, we really appreciate
     your involvement in this process, and we just want to sort
     of reiterate the comments that we made on the draft policy
     statement, if that would be okay.
               MR. WYMER:  Sure, go ahead.
               SPEAKER:  I'm just going to read this prepared
     statement:  The Department of Energy welcomes and
     appreciates the involvement of the Advisory Committee on
     Nuclear Waste in the process for developing decommissioning
     criteria for West Valley.
               The West Valley site is unique, and I think you've
     pointed that out already, in terms of NRC-licensed sites and
     the process for developing policy for West Valley should
     consider the unique aspects of the site and be in compliance
     with NEPA.
               Based on the Advisory Committee's expertise and
     experience in dealing with complex waste management issues,
     the Committee is uniquely qualified to advise the Commission
     on the development of the decommissioning policy that is
     well founded in terms of risk considerations.
               As indicated in DOE's formal comments on the draft
     policy statement, the Department does not agree with the
     NRC's current position of prescribing the license
     termination rule for West Valley before the ongoing
     site-specific closure Environmental Impact Statement is
     completed.
               Because of the unique and previously un-evaluated
     waste management and environmental issues associated with
     the former spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, DOE
     does not believe that NRC has adequately enveloped the
     potential disposition alternatives and impacts in any
     generic Environmental Impact Statements that they have
     completed or conducted to date.
               Therefore, in order to comply with NEPA, the
     environmental impacts of dispositioning facilities like
     those at West Valley should be evaluated prior to developing
     a policy on decommissioning.
               DOE continues to endorse the process for
     prescribing decommissioning criteria that is outlined in
     SECY 98-251, and the memorandum of understanding that was
     spoken of previously, between the Department of Energy and
     NRC that was signed in 1981.
               Both of these documents envisioned a sequence of
     activities where DOE would first perform an analysis of
     impacts and risks of potential disposition modes, and then
     upon receipt of the analysis, the NRC would prescribe
     decommissioning criteria.
               This type of process is consistent with NEPA, and
     essential for informed risk-based policymaking.
               I just want to thank you again for your
     involvement.  We really think it's going to be value-added
     to the process, and for your consideration of our comments.
               MR. WYMER:  Will that statement -- can it be made
     available to this Committee -- that you've just read?
               SPEAKER:  Certainly.  Yes, we can fax it to Jack.
               MR. WYMER:  Fine, if you can see that we get
     copies, we'd appreciate that.
               SPEAKER:  Okay.
               MR. WYMER:  Thank you very much.
               SPEAKER:  I'm -- with the New York State Energy
     Authority.  And I'm sure Jack can share with you, the letter
     that we provided to NRC and our comments on LTR.  And there
     is some background letters also.
               I just want to say thank you that you're taking a
     look at the West Valley decommissioning criteria.  I think
     it's very important.
               I would suggest that you take a look at the
     history of how the site got here, perhaps in an earlier
     time, to help you understand the complexity -- help you
     better understand the complexity of the issues that are
     here.
               Clearly, it may be likely that some materials have
     to stay here at this site, at least over the long term, and
     will require some monitoring and institutional control.
               I think there's help that you can give in helping
     to establish that kind of perpetual or long-term management
     of the site, and would be very well warranted.
               There are a number of comments that we do have.
     Our last letter to NRC kind of spelled out a number of the
     concerns that the state has regarding the future of the
     site.
               MR. WYMER:  Thank you very much.  Are there other
     comments from other members of the group there in New York?
               There was a hand raised.
               SPEAKER:  Yes, this is Ray -- of the West Valley
     Citizen Task Force.  I'm also a member of the citizens group
     known as the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Waste.
               I would just like to disagree slightly or
     partially with one point that was being discussed just
     before you came to talk to us -- while you were talking
     among yourselves and with Jack Parrot.
               The question you were discussing was whether there
     was any provision for NRC licensing involved in the West
     Valley Demonstration Project Act that might involve DOE's
     role.
               And Jack Parrot and others, I think, said, no.
     That's what I want to partially disagree with.
               If you look at the West Valley Demonstration
     Project Act -- I don't have it in front of me, but I believe
     it's Section 2(a)(4), I think you will find the requirement
     that any disposal of low-level or transuranic wastes be done
     in accordance with applicable licensing requirements.
               The Act does not specify what the licensing body
     would be, but since DOE does not license its own facilities,
     our presumption has always been that it would be either the
     NRC or the New York State Department of Environmental
     Conservation that would need to provide the applicable
     licensing requirements for disposal of low-level or
     transuranic wastes.
               The way I understand it that means that if there
     actually is onsite disposal of low-level or transuranic,
     that would require licensing in accordance with the West
     Valley Demonstration Project Act.
               It's not been well defined or discussed very much,
     but I think that that needs to be considered before
     everything is done with this EIS process.
               MR. WYMER:  Okay, well, thank you very much.  In
     my reading of the minutes of the meeting that was held with
     the Commissioners here last January, it came up that there
     are legal gaps in area responsibility; that there are
     certain parts of the responsibility that clearly belong to
     DOE and certain parts to NRC, certain parts to the state,
     but there are gray areas which are not clearly spelled out
     legally, and these will either require agreements,
     understandings, or litigation to eventually resolve them.
               This may be one of those gray areas where it's
     clear that something needs to be done, but it's not clear
     who has responsibility for doing it.
               SPEAKER:  Yes, I think that's true.  Thank you.
               MR. WYMER:  Are there any other questions or
     comments from that end of the business?  Go ahead.
               SPEAKER:  I was just going to say that I don't
     think so.
               MR. WYMER:  Okay.
               SPEAKER:  I think we're finished here.
               MR. WYMER:  Thank you very much.  Let us know if
     you have any additional comments from either the Committee
     or the Staff.
               MR. LARSON:  You said that you were going to write
     responses to each of the comments you got.  You're going to
     do each individually, or you're going to combine them all?
     I know there has been some discussion on the way the Staff
     handles these.
               MR. PARROT:  My plan was to combine as many of the
     comments as I can, summarize them as much as possible.
               MR. LARSON:  Then you wouldn't specifically
     address the comments DOE or NYSEC or the West Valley
     Coalition or anything, as an individual?
               MR. PARROT:  No.
               MR. LARSON:  Okay.  I guess from what you said
     that you did not want any comments, or it's almost
     impossible for the Committee to give you any comments now,
     since you wouldn't give them the final document until
     August, I guess, but is there an intention to come in and
     explain it to them later on?
               It isn't in our schedule, I don't think, Rich.
               MR. WYMER:  It would be nice to have something
     about the criteria, which we have not already had.
               MR. LARSON:  That's a logistics question for the
     Committee.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  And the question is, how do we
     get involved in such a way that we can help you?  We need to
     see the criteria, and I guess that's the thing that you're
     talking about making available simultaneously to the
     Commission and to us?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes.  The criteria -- I mean, the
     criteria will be the criteria of the license termination
     rule.  Now, what's going to be described or explained in
     this next document to the Commission is how that's going to
     be applied at the site, given the unique features of this
     site.
               MR. WYMER:  So it would be premature of us to
     comment on the comments before we see the criteria on which
     the comments will be made.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  We haven't heard anything about
     what the West Valley -- how the West Valley people view the
     criteria; in other words, what are some of the trouble
     spots, if any.
               MR. PARROT:  Well, I can give you what I
     understand what, if they have a problem with it, what they
     are.  DOE mentioned in their comments that specifically this
     NRC-licensed disposal area will not be able to meet the
     license termination rule.
               And the question is, where does that leave them if
     there's a part of the site that can't meet the license
     termination rule?  You know, a number of questions come up:
               Does that mean that DOE can't leave the site?
               MR. WYMER:  You're talking about that five-acre
     lot?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes.  Does that mean -- DOE has got
     some questions about institutional control or permanent
     license, perhaps, if that's what's needed.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  That's something then totally
     different from the license termination.
               MR. PARROT:  Yes.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  That's not covered in the license
     termination rule.
               MR. PARROT:  Right.  You know, we're not --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  This is on a much gander scale.
               MR. PARROT:  It may impact DOE's ability to meet
     the requirements of the Act.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  But presumably then is this the
     main conflict here as to whether it makes sense to have a
     policy before you have the EIS, or wait for the EIS and then
     develop the policy?  Is this the sticking point?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes, that is -- maybe I could go back
     to one of my slides here. Page 3.
               SPEAKER:  Jack?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes?
               SPEAKER:  I was just going to suggest that you
     might want to provide the Advisory Committee with a copy of
     our comments.  It kind of describes that whole issue in
     pretty good detail.
               MR. WYMER:  That's an excellent idea.
               SPEAKER:  I think the question surrounds if the
     criteria actually apply to the whole site, the whole site.
     You know, we're supposed to look at this as one picture that
     includes the NDA and the SDA, and the license termination
     rule includes those.
               And those units must be considered in the
     performance assessment that looks at the whole site.  So
     it's just not clear how it all might work out.
               So our thinking was that, you know, if the
     criteria were prescribed as draft criteria and incorporated
     into the final Environmental Impact Statement, then you
     could get a picture of truly how the criteria might apply to
     this site, specifically, and to the preferred alternative.
               And then NRC could finalize their criteria, after
     which time, DOE and NYSERDA could issue their records of
     decision.
               SPEAKER:  I think the other part of the issue is
     that you've got to look into -- and you can do this by, as
     you suggested, looking at the policy statement or the prior
     staff requirements, and also the comments from the various
     commenters.
               There is the issue of having -- being sure that
     there is the same set of criteria.  NRC is tasked with
     establishing decommissioning criteria under the Act, whereas
     the state, as the licensee, would be held to the criteria of
     the license termination rule, since this site was licensed
     by a Part 50 license.
               So it's very important that whatever happens,
     whatever the criteria are that are established by the
     Commission, that those criteria are the same for the
     Department was well as for the state.
               Nobody wants to have a situation where a facility
     is decommissioned under the Act, and yet has to be cleaned
     up again.
               The NDA creates some challenges for that.  The
     SDA, as Jack as said, is regulated by the state, and will
     have to be managed in the future, probably under a state
     license.
               And the NDA may also have that issue.  There are
     some materials in the NDA, for example, spent nuclear fuel
     in a DOE facility, that raise some very unique challenges
     for this site.
               MR. WYMER:  West Valley, when you fax us your
     prepared comments, can you also fax us a list of people
     sitting there in the audience with you, attendees?
               SPEAKER:  Certainly.
               MR. WYMER:  Thank you.
               MR. PARROT:  I was just going to say that based on
     the comments, what this issue seems to boil down to is --
     and, admittedly, it's somewhat ambiguous in the draft policy
     statement -- is when exactly are the criteria prescribed?
               Let me put this in terms of a licensee:  Do we
     prescribe their decommissioning criteria with the
     promulgation of the license termination rule, or is it
     prescribed when they send in their decommissioning plan and
     we review and approve that?  Then is there decommissioning
     criteria prescribed?
               When is it prescribed?  I'm not saying I know the
     answer yet, but --
               MR. WYMER:  We don't have a rhetorical answer.
               Are there any other --
               MR. LEVENSON:  I have one comment.  You said you
     would like the ACNW --
               MR. WYMER:  Microphone.  We can't get you.
               MR. LEVENSON:  Your last slide says you would like
     the ACNW to review this policy statement in parallel with
     the Commission.  The schedule you have shows it going to the
     Commission on August 1st.  The ACNW does not have a meeting
     in August.  The September agenda is pretty full.
               What did you have in mind about this?
               MR. PARROT:  Actually, the plan is to get to the
     Commission by the end of August, and I think our thinking
     was that any comments that you had on it would be given to
     the Commission because they will be reviewing it at the same
     time.
               MR. WYMER:  Sure, so we can do it a little later.
     Well, are there any other questions, comments, gratuitous
     remarks?
               If not, why, thank you very much.  This is
     certainly and interesting --
               SPEAKER:  I'm sorry, I'd like to make one more --
               SPEAKER:  I'm sorry, Ray from the Citizens Task
     Force wanted to make one additional comment.
               SPEAKER:  Let me just add one last point:  There
     has been some discussion of whether the issuance or
     prescription of the criteria should precede or follow the
     EIS that is being prepared by DOE and NYSERDA with NRC as a
     cooperative agency on that.
               I think part of the thinking on that is erroneous.
     My concern is this; that DOE certainly, and, I think, to
     some extent, NRC staff, view this EIS that's now in progress
     as something that NRC can rely on to support its
     decisionmaking with regard to criteria.
               There are some substantial questions about that.
     They mostly revolve around the question of whether, on the
     one hand, the legal requirements have been met to comply
     with the NEPA requirements on scoping, the proper degree of
     involvement for an agency that really has decisions to make,
     as opposed to exert advice to offer.
               And on the other hand, there are the problems with
     relying on West Valley EIS is that the West Valley EIS does
     not really go into the major issues that NRC would have to
     consider, namely, the durability of institutional controls.
               That is a very tough question.  As you probably
     know, 10 CFR 61, the LTR, and various other NRC policies
     have had to try to look at that question of the long-term
     durability of institutional controls.  For a site like this,
     we're talking about thousands of years into the future.
               The ongoing West Valley EIS looks at what happens
     if institutional controls remain in place, and takes at
     least a quick look at what happens if they fail.
               But the important ethical and social questions of
     how much dependence should be put on institutional controls,
     that sort of serious discussion is absent from this EIS.
     That's the sort of thing that NRC has traditionally grappled
     with with regard to institutional controls.
               So I question the idea that NRC will be that much
     further ahead from a NEPA standpoint in waiting for answers
     from the West Valley EIS.  I don't think it provides the
     sort of thing that NRC needs to make its decision, and I
     don't think NRC has ever been involved as a full-fledged
     party to this EIS.
               Thank you.
               MR. WYMER:  Thank you very much.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  It might be appropriate to ask
     what has been the NRC's involvement, if any, in the EIS.
     Has there been any kind of an exchange process?
               MR. PARROT:  The NRC became a cooperating agency
     in the EIS in 1991.  The draft EIS was issued in '96, and it
     discussed four or five alternatives, but it did not have a
     preferred alternative.
               And NRC didn't have decommissioning criteria, but
     we reviewed it anyway.  I think we looked at it against the
     criteria in Part 61.  That was the best we could do at the
     time.
               And then since then, they've been working on
     different sections of the updated EIS, and we've looked at
     parts of those that have to do with more of the performance
     of the site.
               MR. WYMER:  It's my understanding that as far as
     responsibility for the EIS is concerned, it's DOE and New
     York State.
               MR. PARROT:  Yes, they're the lead agencies, yes.
               MR. WYMER:  They have the responsibility?
               MR. PARROT:  Yes.
               MR. WYMER:  Okay, well, thank you, Jack. We'll let
     you off the hot spot now.  We want to thank the participants
     from West Valley, and we look forward to receiving the
     various pieces of information that you've said you would
     send to us.
               We'll continue to look at this issue.
               SPEAKER:  Thank you very much for allowing us to
     participate by video conference as well.  It was very
     informational.
               SPEAKER:  Thank you.
               MR. WYMER:  I don't know, but the agenda says we
     have a roundtable discussion of possible elements of an ACNW
     report.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  One of the things here that is
     very important is to, of course, apply the NRC's license
     termination rule as the decommissioning criteria.  That
     suggests that there was considerable study, was there not,
     of the applicability of the rule to West Valley?
               Obviously, you want your regulations to be
     generic, to be general, but I'm sort of reminded a little
     bit of Yucca Mountain where we have a high-level waste
     regulation, and we decided it was not applicable because of
     the uniqueness of Yucca Mountain.
               Do we have a similar situation here?
               MR. WYMER:  The problem, John, is that there is
     not "a" West Valley; there are West Valleys.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I know, I know.  Well, I'm
     talking about the complexity of the site, that's right.  Are
     we trying to force-fit something here that just was not a
     part of the criteria that went into the development of the
     license termination rule in the first place?
               What kind of a problem do we have?
               MR. NELSON:  Well, I'll try.  This is Bob Nelson,
     Decommissioning Branch, NMSS.
               I'll try to answer that.  I think it's safe to say
     that when the license termination rule was formulated, we
     did not envision within the EIS that supported that rule,
     this type of site, if you include all the elements at the
     West Valley Project, including the NDA, in that.
               And so -- but when the decision was made, at least
     to propose using the license termination criteria rule at
     the site, a lot of the logic elements that went into the
     formulation of the license termination rule were still
     there.
               For example, what is the appropriate does limit
     for an unrestricted release?  At what point should you
     require institutional controls?
               Those types of questions seem to be rather
     generic, and would be somewhat independent of, in my mind,
     anyway, of the specifics at the site.
               At what point do you require durable institutional
     controls, so what should those institutional controls
     consist of?  Those types of questions, to me, anyway, are
     generic and seem to apply to this site.
               Why should you develop, for example, a different
     unrestricted release criteria for West Valley?
               Why should you change the upper limit for
     institutional controls?  There doesn't seem to be any
     compelling reason to do that.
               So, I think that the decision was that we had a
     framework for decommissioning; there really didn't seem to
     be a compelling reason to significantly alter that
     framework, at least at the time the draft policy was
     formulated.
               So, in short, that's basically the logic and the
     thinking.  Was there an extensive detailed analysis done?  I
     don't think that would be correct to say that that's what it
     was.
               I think it was looking at the framework, and did
     the framework appear to bound the elements at West Valley,
     and the preliminary answer was yes.
               MR. WYMER:  Are there any other comments?
     Questions?
               I don't know what the possible elements would be
     of a report, but we will have to think about that.
               The issue is so complex, and there are so many
     gray areas.  For example, you have some of the problems here
     that DOE has on its site with respect to closing out tanks.
     That's sort of a novel area for the NRC to be getting into
     and discussing what are you -- they've not closed out those
     tanks, and those are clearly within the West Valley
     Demonstration Project Act, because they're part of the
     high-level waste associated with the reprocessing, with the
     vitrification, and getting the high-level waste off the
     site.
               And so there is the whole idea of can you fill the
     tanks with a friable grout, as is being proposed, say, at
     Savannah River?  Can you have incidental waste left on the
     site?  What are incidental wastes?
               And so there are a lot of new issues here that
     certainly were not contemplated in the license termination
     rule.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  It reminds me a little bit of
     at Hanford you have a 460 square mile site, and it looks as
     though the opportunities for decontamination are pretty
     good, except for the 200 area.
               MR. WYMER:  Yes, that's very similar.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Those are the high-level waste
     tanks.  And so here you have 3300-plus acres, of which five
     acres are high level waste?
               MR. WYMER:  No, it's an NRC-licensed waste
     disposal area, mainly for the stuff that came out of the
     reprocessing activities.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  But it's basically the
     equivalent of a high-level waste tank?
               MR. WYMER:  No, it's related to reprocessing, but
     it's not the equivalent of the tanks, no.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Oh, okay.
               MR. WYMER:  That's my understanding that it's not,
     certainly.  And then there is the other state licensed
     15-acre site, which is totally separate.  But of the 3345
     acres, I suspect that a lot of those are buffer and can
     eventually be turned over totally green field and shrink the
     site down substantially over time.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, that was the point I was
     going to make.  The opportunity for Hanford is maybe to go
     to complete green field is one thing, but to go from 460
     square miles maybe down to 20 square miles is very
     reachable.
               So what the equivalent of that here is from 3300
     acres down to maybe 20 acres.  I don't know what the amount
     is.
               MR. WYMER:  But if the thrust of our report is to
     comment on the decommissioning criteria, then clearly we
     need some information about the criteria, and we need the
     West Valley input with respect to their view on the
     criteria.  So it means we're not done with this topic with
     respect to even formal --
               MR. LARSON:  I don't see how you could write a
     letter on the final policy statement and the comments, which
     is what the Staff has asked you to do, until you see them.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, one of the things that
     would be helpful has already been suggested.  That would be
     for us to see the comments.
               MR. WYMER:  Then we could work backwards and
     figure out what the criteria were.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Then when we get the comments
     and we get the criteria, we can put it together.
               MR. LEVENSON:  I think what Howard said is a key
     point.  In August, we are going to get the draft policy
     statement with the comments and replies to comments, and
     there's only a little we can do before see that
     documentation.
               The other thing, as has been mentioned, this is a
     very complex site with some highly fractured lines of
     responsibility, and most of the members of this Committee
     have their own opinions on many topics, but for a Committee
     letter, we have to limit ourselves to those things that are
     NRC responsibilities.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right, right.  But the comments
     on the NRC criteria would be very relevant.
               MR. WYMER:  Maybe we ought to close it out for now
     and revisit this after we've had a chance to review some of
     the information that will be sent to us.
               Thank you very much.  We'll close out this topic.
     Thank you for your participation from West Valley.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Thank you.  Well, we've got two
     choices.  We can jump into the next topic, if the people are
     here.
               We'll take a break now, and then by the time the
     break is over, the viewgraphs may be ready.
               [Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the recorded portion of
     the meeting was concluded.]

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 27, 2014