United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment
Home > NRC Library > Document Collections > ACNW > Meeting Transcripts > 2001 > 125th Meeting - March 21, 2001

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 125th Meeting, March 21, 2001


                Official Transcript of Proceedings

                  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION



Title:                    Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste
                               125th Meeting



Docket Number:  (not applicable)



Location:                 Rockville, Maryland



Date:                     Wednesday, March 21, 2001







Work Order No.: NRC-125                               Pages 1-144





                   NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
                 Court Reporters and Transcribers
                  1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
                     Washington, D.C.  20005
                          (202) 234-4433.                         UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                       NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                 + + + + +
                ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE MEETING
                                  (ACNW)
                               125TH MEETING
                                 + + + + +
                                 WEDNESDAY
                              MARCH 21, 2001
                                 + + + + +
                            ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
                                 + + + + +
                       The ACNW Committee met at the
           Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North,
           Room T2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:32 a.m.,
           DR. JOHN GARRICK, Chairman, presiding.
           COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
                 DR. JOHN GARRICK, Chairman
                 MR. MILTON LEVENSON, Member
                 DR. RAYMOND WYMER, Member




                       .           ACRS STAFF PRESENT:
                 DR. ANDREW C. CAMPBELL
                 LYNN DEERING
                 SAM DURAISWAMY
                 CAROL HARRIS
                 CAROL HANLON
                 DR. JOHN LARKINS
                 HOWARD LARSON
                 JAMES LYONS
                 RICHARD K. MAJOR
                 AMARJIT SINGH
           PRESENTERS:
                 PAUL HARRIS
                 ROBERT A. NELSON
                 MIKE RIPLEY









           .                                 I-N-D-E-X
           AGENDA ITEM                                     PAGE
           Opening statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
           ACNW Planning and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . .16
           DOE's Status Report on Key Technical Issue . . . .44
           Resolution
           Partial Release of a Reactor Facility or Site
           for Unrestricted Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
           License Termination Plan Review and. . . . . . . 108
           Lessons Learned
           Adjourn













           .                           P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
                                                    (8:32 a.m.)
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Good morning.  Our
           meeting will now come to order.  This is the first day
           of the 125th meeting of the Advisory Committee on
           Nuclear Waste.  My name is John Garrick, Chairman of
           the ACNW.
                       Other members of the committee present are
           Milt Levenson and Ray Wymer.  George Hornberger is
           absent today.  During today's meeting, the committee
           will discuss the following.  We will do our usual
           planning and future items discussion this morning.
                       We will talk about DOE's status report on
           technical issue resolution.  We will talk about the
           ACNW 2001 Action Plan, and I will note that that was
           originally scheduled for Thursday for those of you
           still have an old agenda; and partial release of a
           reactor facility or site for unrestricted use.
                       We will discuss license termination plan
           review and lessons learned.  We will look at the
           topics for the March -- for tomorrow's meeting with
           the Commission, the March 22nd meeting with the
           Commission.
                       And look at proposed plan ACNW reports on
           the following topics: entombment, partial release of
           a reactor facility or site for unrestricted use;
           lessons learned; a license termination plan; and high
           level waste chemistry.
                       I should also announce that there will not
           be a formal meeting on Friday.  It turns out that
           unavoidably that two committee members have to be
           absent, leaving us with below the threshold for a
           quorum.
                       There will be discussions of the -- well,
           between the committee members and staff, and there
           will be letter work performed to the extent that it
           can be under those circumstances.
                       Howard Larson 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 comments or requests
           for time to make oral statements from members of the
           public regarding today's sessions.  And should anyone
           wish to do so, please contact one of the members of
           the staff.
                       And if you do, it is requested that the
           speakers use one of the microphones, identify
           themselves, and speak clearly.
                       Before proceeding with the first agenda
           item, I would like to cover some brief items of
           current interest.  There have been a number of NRC
           management changes since our last meeting.
                       Mr. William F. Kane has been appointed
           deputy executive director for reactor programs.  Mr.
           Kane has most recently been the director of the office
           of nuclear material safety and safeguards, where he
           also served as director of the spent fuel project
           office from 1997 to 1999.
                       Mr. Martin Virgilio has been appointed
           director of NMSS.  He current serves as the deputy
           director of NMSS, the position that he has occupied
           since December 1998.
                       Margaret Federline will replace Martin
           Virgilio as deputy director of NMSS, and Ms. Federline
           is currently deputy director of the office of nuclear
           regulatory research, a position she has held since
           July 1998.
                       Before joining research, Ms. Federline was
           deputy director of the division of waste management,
           chief of the hydrology and system performance branch,
           and chief of the performance assessment and hydrology
           branch in NMSS.  So she has a very strong experience
           base and tradition with NMSS.
                       Mr. Roy P. Zimmerman will replace Ms.
           Federline as deputy director of research.  Roy
           Zimmerman is currently the deputy director of the
           office of nuclear regulatory regulation, a position
           that he has held since December 1998.
                       So much for the management changes.  I
           would like to also note that former NRC chairman
           Shirley Jackson has added another distinguished
           achievement to her record, and was recently elected to
           the National Academy of Sciences.
                       She was also the first woman to receive
           the Black Engineer of the Year award, and is also a
           member of the National Academy of Engineering.
                       NAC Worldwide Consulting reported that
           U.S. utilities now have 233 spent fuel casts deplored,
           and plan to load another 107 in 2001.  The report
           estimates that nearly 30 percent of all U.S. spent
           fuel will be in dry storage by 2010.  So, dry storage
           has become a very important component of the spent
           nuclear fuel storage issue.
                       The Commission unanimously voted for a
           formal adjudicatory process for hearing requests for
           the potential high level waste repository at Yucca
           Mountain, Nevada.
                       On February 21 of this year the NRC
           approved the license termination plan for the Trojan
           Reactor.  Portland General Electric plans to load the
           spent fuel into storage casts.  The plant is being
           dismantled and decontaminated.
                       Especially for the benefit of the
           committee and staff as background information, it
           should be noted that there have been several speeches
           given by the Commissioners in the past several months
           on topics of great interest to us, such as the issue
           of communication, spent fuel, research, and the NRC
           work force.
                       We should also note that the primary
           objective of this meeting is to prepare for and
           participate in a public meeting with the Commission.
           That will take place tomorrow as previously noted.
                       Otherwise, this meeting is patched up a
           little bit by unavoidable things that have occurred,
           including the absence of two members on Friday, and
           necessitating the cancellation of that as a formal
           meeting.
                       And we have scheduled today -- we had
           scheduled two meetings with Commissioners, individual
           Commissioners, and one of those has been canceled
           because of illness on the part of the Commissioner,
           but one of those remains.
                       So there will be some interruptions this
           morning, and given that, together with being one short
           in our committee, we will have to work extra hard to
           maintain the agenda and the continuity of discussion.
                       So with that, I think we will proceed with
           our agenda, although where even there we are maybe
           going to modify it a little bit, because this is the
           part of the meeting where we really spend a couple of
           hours trying to figure out how to be most effective
           for the balance of the meeting.
                       So we talk about future meetings, and
           issues, and priorities, and those kinds of things that
           are aimed at making our meeting as effective as it can
           possibly be.
                       And in that regard, and having some
           license to deviate a little bit from standard agendas,
           it might be a good idea to talk a little bit about
           what the meetings today, or the meeting today ought to
           emphasize with respect to Commissioner Dicus.  So
           maybe we ought to chat about that just a little.  I
           don't know, Jim, if you want to --
                       DR. LYONS:  I guess I could walk you
           through this with the staff's help.   I put together
           a little bow tie's list of the items for discussion,
           and really this is more of a laundry list than that
           you need to cover each one of the topics.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  It is a great list, and
           if we go through it, we might be there until
           tomorrow evening.
                       DR. LYONS:  That's right, and so I think
           we need to kind of pick and choose from here.  I think
           one of the key reasons that we wanted to talk to them
           was to talk about low level waste issues.
                       Howard put together a list of topics that
           we might want to talk about, but it seems that maybe
           we would want to focus on the linear non-threshold
           issue, and the release of solid materials, and that
           sort of thing, and to look at that, and maybe on the
           overlaps with the EPA.
                       But I would note -- and maybe you could
           ask the Commissioner about this, but I know that
           Chairman Zerve met with Secretary Wittman of EPA last
           week, and so maybe we will have some feedback.  There
           was some hope that would bring about a new era of
           cooperation between the two.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Has there been any
           official release from those discussions?
                       DR. LYONS:  I haven't seen anything.
                       DR. LARKINS:  I haven't seen anything
           either.
                       DR. LYONS:  And you might want to ask what
           is going on there.  But I think if you look through
           the list that I handed out to the members, there is
           several items on low level waste that you might want
           to talk about, and you might want to pick up on.
                       I think there is always the policy or
           legislative concern of whether there should be new
           legislation on the Low Level Waste Policy Act.  We
           were looking at explaining to the Commissioner that we
           are actually are at this meeting looking at a number
           of low level waste issues, partial site release and
           lessons learned from the site termination plan and
           Part 71.
                       And we are also going to work on the
           letter for entombment, and maybe find out what the
           status of Part 63 and the Yucca Mountain review plan
           are from the Commission's standpoint, and when they
           think they would be ready to come out.
                       If you want to talk a little bit about our
           research report.  The Commission is having a meeting
           in May, May 10th, to talk about research.  They are
           bringing in former Commissioner Rogers, who was on a
           committee that looked at research.
                       Also, representatives from ACRS are going
           to be there to talk about their research report, which
           is about an inch-and-a-half thick.  We are just about
           finished putting that together.
                       And so there are a couple of other items
           as you look through here, and if we are going to have
           additional work in the next year or so in the Yucca
           Mountain area, the Yucca Mountain high level waste
           repository, to make add an additional member to the
           committee to deal with health physics.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Has this subject ever
           been brought up with the Commission that you are aware
           of, John?
                       DR. LARKINS:  I have had discussions with
           several Commissioners about it, and depending on what
           happens next year with the budget, and if it looks
           like we are actually going to move forward, suggested
           that -- I mean, right now there is a slight increase
           in the budget for 2002 for the ACNW.
                       And so if things move forward, I would
           think that we might want to consider two things.  One
           would be the addition of another member, with
           expertise in the area of health physics.  And maybe
           going back to or from 8 to 10 meetings.
                       But those would all be contingent upon
           what happens with -- whether DOE actually moves
           forward.  I think there is as good a chance now as any
           with all the discussions on the need for a national
           energy policy that something should happen.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.  Right.  Okay.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Jim, can I add one thing?
                       DR. LYONS:  Yes.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  If the focus is low level
           waste, one of the issues that may come up is greater
           than Class C waste.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  And it is directed related
           to Part 61, because the way that Part 61 is worded is
           that you either have to modify Part 61 to dispose of
           greater than Class C waste in a near surface
           environment, which is shallower than about 30 meters
           as defined in the regulation, or you have to regulate
           by exception on a case by case basis.
                       So it may come up, particularly with
           Commissioner Dicus, because of her experience with the
           low level waste.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, I think that the
           thing that precipitated the desire to have the meeting
           in the first place was a feeling of a little bit of
           guilt on the part of the NRC as to how accountable we
           were really being with respect to the whole low level
           waste issue.
                       Because on the one hand, we identify the
           decommissioning as a tier one priority, and while we
           identify low level waste as a second tier priority,
           and yet if you talk to industry, the number one
           problem with decommissioning is what to do with the
           low level waste.
                       So there is a little bit of a disconnect
           there and that somehow I think we need to make darn
           sure that we are aware of the implications here, and
           are doing everything that we can to deal with it,
           because there are real decisions that have to be made,
           particularly in the reactor decommissioning arena, of
           what to do with this massive amount of material.
                       And there doesn't seem to be real answers
           yet, and so I think that is something that the
           Commission is very well aware of.  But I would like to
           get some discussion going such that we would have some
           sort of inspiration if you wish as to what kind of
           advice to offer, because it just doesn't seem to get
           dealt with.
                       It is not very gratifying to industry, for
           example, to be told that you have got the academy
           doing a study on solid materials, because they know
           how the academy works, and that their schedules are
           slow, and that their review process is tedious, and it
           takes a long time to get a report.
                       And they would hate to be caught in the
           position of finally with that report done, and the NRC
           having some real guidance by then from either its
           advisory committees and the academy making a decision
           that would make an already decision that might have
           been made by industry a very costly one, and perhaps
           an unnecessary one.
                       So there is a real accountability issue it
           seems to me on low level waste that I am not sure is
           being addressed with the level of interest that it
           needs.  So that is one of the reasons.
                       DR. LARKINS:  If you will remember the
           Committee is on the record of suggesting that agency
           take the lead in developing a national program.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.
                       DR. LARKINS:  And some change was
           necessary, and this has been what, three years ago?
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.  We were very
           explicit in making suggestions of what would
           constitute an adequate lower level waste program, and
           so we have tried to be responsive to this in the
           context of low level waste as an item.
                       But also in the context of decommission as
           a much more general issue.  Okay.  It looks as though
           we have some interesting things to talk about, and I
           am quite sure that we are not going to get through
           this entire list.
                       DR. LARKINS:  I would suggest that you
           really focus on the low level waste issue, and some of
           the things on the lessons learned from site
           termination, which is related to that.
                       And I think that the entombment and
           greater than Class C status of where the Commission is
           going on the Yucca Mountain review plan and Part 63.
                       I think that she might be interested in
           hearing something about the Committee's views on
           research, because it is a near term topic that the
           Commission is going to be taking up, and the ACNW will
           not be at that meeting on May 10th.
                       So those are four areas that I think that
           we could possibly consume most of your discussion.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  I think so, and
           I guess it is almost time for us to leave for a nine
           o'clock meeting is it not?
                       DR. LYONS:  Yes.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  So, Milt, as a
           committee of one, can you do the best job that you can
           of getting through some of these planning items and
           discussions items?
                       And normally we don't have this part of
           the meeting recorded, but, Ray, I am going to ask you
           to join me to go see Commissioner Dicus.  And we well
           be back in about 35 minutes and continue.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Is there any suggestions
           as what could be done usefully in the absence of a
           quorum?
                       MR. SINGH:  We can follow the items from
           the 124th meeting if you want.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.  I think the
           planning activity associated with future meetings, and
           what have you, you can do with the help of Jim.  Jim
           is going to lead that discussion.
                       DR. LYONS:  Right.  I was going to lead
           that discussion anyway.  So we will try to work
           through some of these.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.  So we will
           excuse ourselves.
                       (Brief Pause.)
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  I think let's work
           through the table of contents under Tab 2, which is
           where we are.  And we will start off with the follow-
           up items from the 124th ACNW meeting.  I will turn
           this over to Amarjit and let him walk us through that.
                       MR. SINGH:  We have three letters, KTI,
           Staff's, and TPA and the report to the commission.
           Then we finalize the ACNW past inspection plan.
                       DR. LYONS:  Well, we approved it in
           principal, but we are going to finalize it today.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  And that needs voting,
           too.
                       DR. LYONS:  Right.  But there is time set
           aside in the agenda to do that.
                       MR. SINGH:  And we also distributed the
           minutes from the last meeting and the assignments and
           the commitments, KTI vertical slice, and TSBA is Andy
           Campbell and John Garrick.  CLST is also Andy Campbell
           and Ray Wymer.
                       DR. LYONS:  Saturation zone.
                       MR. SINGH:  Saturation zone, George
           Hornberger and thermal effects with Milt and Richard
           Major.  We also have consulting news to explore, and
           one of the members has some more names for that.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Let me ask a question in
           that context.
                       MR. SINGH:  Yes, sir.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  I can't think of a
           specific name, but the CDC in Atlanta has been charged
           with reconstruction of old heritage sites and so
           forth, and there is a substantial number of people
           involved in that program who are getting good
           backgrounds in data and information, and maybe that is
           somewhere to look for someone that might be a
           consultant since that is such a very active activity.
                       We have a draft report almost finished on
           the Savannah River site, and we are in the midst of
           reviewing one right now on the Idaho site, and we
           might find somebody who could be a consultant.
                       And the National Academy Committee that
           reviews the CDC is chaired by a guy by the name of
           Schule Texas, and he might be a contact.
                       DR. LARSON:  We have really been most
           successful in getting consultants when they have been
           people that the staff or the members know, and they
           can talk to them and sort of preface them, and tell
           them that they are going to work for the Federal
           Government at the going rate.
                       Because if we call up somebody that we
           don't know and say would you be interested in being a
           consultant, one of the first things they want to know
           is how much are we going to get paid, and what are the
           conflicts of interest.
                       And so they need a prep and pep talk from
           people such as yourself and other members.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  One of the things about
           people already out on the academy committees is that
           they are already working for free.  I know some fair
           fraction of these people, and this committee that
           Schule chairs is 14 people, and 12 of them are medical
           types, such as biologists, or epidemiologists, and
           there is one statistician, and then me.  I am the
           reality check.  So I know a number of these people.
                       DR. LYONS:  As I said, Rod Ewing has
           declined the invitation to be a consultant, but he
           said he would continue to serve as an invited expert.
           And Chris Whipple --
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  And Chris Whipple has also
           declined.
                       DR. LYONS:  Oh, he has also declined?
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Yes, for the same reason.
                       MS. HARRIS:  Is he going to be an invited
           expert?
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Probably not.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  All right.  We looked
           at meeting attendance, and Lynn went to the NWTRB
           meeting in Amargosa Valley.  We sent a consultant to
           the repository design meeting in Las Vegas in
           February.
                       We had a high level waste chemistry
           working meeting here on February 21st and 22nd that
           Andy ran, and I think that turned out to be
           successful.
                       Ray and I attended the Waste Management
           2001 Symposium in Tucson and I only got to stay for
           two days and Ray got to stay for all four.
                       Upcoming meetings.  There is the
           International High Level Waste Conference that is
           coming up in April, or the end of April and the
           beginning of May.
                       Right now, Milt, you and John are
           scheduled to go there.  Also, I think George
           Hornberger is scheduled to be a speaker at that.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Right.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  I want to raise a
           question.  George is a speaker in the one session, and
           he can stay and I will bow out.  I can continue to
           plan to go, but I think you can resolve that today or
           tomorrow.  You don't need an extra person there.
                       DR. LYONS:  All right.  The TSPA and
           integration technical exchange; we had it down here
           that it would be in May tentative.  Has that been
           changed?
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  No, if you look at your
           handout, titled DOE Interactions Calendar.
                       DR. LYONS:  Agenda Item 2?
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Yes, Agenda Item 2.7.
           Right now the May dates may -- well, it looks 14, 15,
           and 16 are the FEPs meeting, Features, Events, and
           Processes meeting in Las Vegas.
                       You will notice that it overlays exactly
           with the ACNW meeting in May.  So it is unlikely that
           we will be able to attend that.  The TSPAI meeting is
           the last week of June, the 25th through the 29th, and
           it is a five day schedule.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  So those are upcoming
           meetings.  There are some -- in talking to Jim Ferth,
           there may be some Appendix 7 type of meetings in the
           interim, between now and June, and I will get further
           information from GMS as they firm those things up, and
           the topics and stuff.
                       DR. LYONS:  Good.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  But right now it is FEPs in
           mid-May, and TSPAI at the end of June.
                       DR. LYONS:  All right.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  And we don't have a
           consultant for FEPs.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Or TSPA.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  We don't really have a
           consultant who is a FEPs person.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  Any other meetings that
           are scheduled?  I see we have down here a tentative
           visit to Invirocare?  Would somebody -- I am not even
           sure who is --
                       DR. LYONS:  Well, the members had said
           that they thought that that would be an interesting
           visit sometime, and I think that's why she put it down
           here.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Sometime when we are in
           that part of the country.
                       DR. LYONS:  So that was just sort of a
           place holder, and was put down there, I think, to
           visit that.
                       MS. DEERING:  Jim, there was another memo
           that came out of the staff that went to DOE agreeing
           on some meetings, and ones that I wanted to note where
           there is a preclosure safety on July 23rd.  It is in
           another one of these pick handouts.
                       DR. LYONS:  Thirteen?
                       MS. DEERING:  Yes, 13, and Milt, this may
           be of interest to you.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Are those firm dates then?
                       MS. DEERING:  I think these are proposed.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Because the
           interactions calendar said that this is the preclosure
           issues.
                       MS. DEERING:  Well, no, this is just all
           the meetings that are coming up, and one on July 9th
           on repository temperature, which is proposed.  I don't
           believe that -- you know, I think it was a follow-up
           to a conference call that they had, and they are just
           kind of reaffirming these dates.
                       I don't know if they are engraved in stone
           yet.  They agreed on five technical exchanges in the
           conference call, and I just wanted to bring them to
           Milt's attention so that he could consider them,
           because they are both probably interesting to him.
           Thanks.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  Good.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  The only reason I
           interrupted, Lynn, and I am sorry, is that the
           Interactions Calendar says preclosure issues, 7/24
           through 7/26.  But it does say TBD and tentative
           dates.
                       MS. DEERING:  I don't know.  This memo is
           March 11 and so it may be out of date.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Or it may be that they just
           have not settled on the times yet.
                       DR. LYONS:  It is almost two weeks old
           now.  Okay.  On to the next page, and we keep moving
           through these follow-up items.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Excuse me, but it is the
           week of July 9th, and I am not available that week.
                       MS. DEERING:  For the temperature -- okay.
                       DR. LYONS:  The next page talks about
           possible working groups on above and beyond TSPA, and
           propagation of uncertainty, risks and applicability of
           the New Mexico environmental evaluation group process
           for Yucca Mountain, State and local public
           involvement. Do we have any more information on those?
                       DR. LARSON:  Well, no, those were just
           things that we -- remember we were talking about the
           action plan and future things, and various committee
           members pitched in with what they thought might be
           interesting working group things, but we never picked
           any dates or topics, or finalized anything, and once
           again it is more or less a place holder for the
           committee to decide what they want to do, if anything,
           on these topics.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  There is one more
           possible space holder, because we are sort of waiting
           for some feedback from the Commissioners, is the area
           of transportation.
                       DR. LYONS:  Right.  T here is a possible
           working group?
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Right.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:   Realistically, these are
           -- most of these are different aspects of the same
           issue, which is really how do you handle uncertainty
           in the context of doing a total system analysis, and
           if we want to develop a working group on that area, we
           are probably going to have to do it after the TSPAI
           technical exchange.
                       And so we are looking at -- and then it
           usually takes a number of months to develop the
           necessary invitations and find out who can attend, and
           put it all together.
                       So we are looking realistically at the
           fall and into the next fiscal year before we could
           have this kind of working group.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  The rest of that talks
           about future activities, and really talks about what
           we are going to do about this meeting.  I don't think
           we need to go through that.
                       What I would like to do then is turn to --
           and again under Tab 2, to page 5, and look at the
           reports and letters scheduled for consideration during
           this meeting.
                       The first letter that we are going to look
           at is the entombment option for decommissioning
           nuclear powered reactors.  We had discussed this at
           the 122nd and the 124th meeting.  We have a draft
           letter to look at.  So we will be looking at that
           later on.  The 2001 --
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  We do have the draft?
                       MR. SINGH:  Yes, sir, we do.
                       DR. LARSON:  Yes, Ray redid it based on
           the input that you have got in the plan, the draft
           plan.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  The 2001 action plan,
           which discussed -- and which we approved in principle
           at the last meeting, we are going to finalize that
           later on today or actually this morning.
                       MR. MAJOR:  This morning, yes.
                       DR. LYONS:  We are going to work on that
           and talk about that a little bit more, and talk about
           our self-assessment.  We were talking about a letter
           on high level waste chemistry.
                       But we are not really ready at this time
           to go forward with that, and so that will be something
           that we will deal with in the future.  So don't worry
           about that one.
                       Partial site release of a reactor facility
           or site for unrestricted use.  We are going to be
           hearing about that at this meeting.  The staff is
           requesting a letter with any of our conclusions and
           concerns, even if it is a brief letter.
                       DR. LARSON:  Yes, they said even an e-
           mail, and I talked to them yesterday, and they would
           like something from the committee of some sort, and
           they will give you the timing that they have to get to
           the Commission this afternoon.
                       DR. LYONS:  Yes.
                       DR. LARSON:  And it is your first real
           presentation from NRR.  So it would be an interesting
           discussion.
                       DR. LYONS:  And then the last letter that
           we are going to consider -- no, there is two more.
           License termination plan, review the lessons learned
           that we got.  The committee is going to give a
           briefing about that at this meeting, and we will have
           to determine whether or not we need a letter.
                       The staff right now is not requesting one.
           So we will see if as a result of that that we decide
           to write a letter.  And then the final one is on the
           proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 71, the packaging
           and transportation of radioactive material.
                       Again, we are going to hear about the
           proposed changes to Part 71, and the staff again is
           not requesting a letter from us at this time, but if
           we decide to, we could always write one.
                       Okay.  Let's move on to future activities.
           Our plate is not that full in the next few months.  We
           are looking at next month's meeting that the NMSS
           through the EDO has requested to brief us on the
           status of the sufficiency review, and an update on
           preclosure approach.
                       But of those are information briefings,
           and so those ought to be interesting.  And on the page
           following there are some of the things that we were
           looking at adding, is more discussion on our vertical
           slice reports by the committee members and the staff.
                       And a response to the Commission briefing
           that is going to be held tomorrow if we have any, and
           if there is anything that we need to do there.  And
           then I guess the other thing is to talk about the
           international high level waste conference in Las
           Vegas.
                       There was some discussion if there was a
           number of people going to that whether or not we would
           want to try and have a meeting there, rather than
           having a meeting here.
                       DR. LARSON:  That was discussed at the
           last meeting whether the committee wanted to do that,
           but at that time you didn't have the agenda.  But the
           agenda is now in your notebook, and you can look at
           that.
                       And then one of the things that we have
           asked the staff in the meantime is the presentations
           that they scheduled for that meeting, and whether they
           would be able to give those in Las Vegas.
                       Now, there are papers being given by the
           staff in the center on the same topics, but I have not
           heard whether it is possible to do that, or whether
           the members want to do it.
                       But John there wanted that as an option,
           and several of the other members raised that
           possibility once they saw the agenda, which is in your
           book.
                       DR. LYONS:  So we can talk about that some
           more.  For June, we don't have any topics right now
           other than we have to do an election of officers.
                       DR. LARSON:  I got two topics this
           morning, Jim --
                       DR. LYONS:  You do?  Good.
                       DR. LARSON:  -- from the staff at 7:30.
           One is that Janet Kocher would like to come in and
           talk to us on public outreach activities, and it is an
           information briefing.
                       And, of course, this is a topic that the
           committee has indicated a lot of interest in over the
           years.  And the second one was a discussion of the
           integrated issue resolution status report, and that is
           another information briefing with medium priority.
                       And so they have indicated that they want
           to come in and talk about those two topics at the June
           meeting.
                       DR. LYONS:  Good, because we are having
           our coordination meeting next week with EDO, and so we
           will have -- and I am sure that these two will be
           picked up there and we will look at some more.
                       DR. LARSON:  Yes.
                       DR. LYONS:  And then I am looking forward
           to July, and that we probably need to start making
           some preparations for our meeting in October in the
           Las Vegas area, in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain
           site.
                       DR. LARSON:  It may seem early, but you
           have no meeting in September.  So if you talk about it
           in July, you can finalize it in August, and then
           that's it, and then you are there.
                       DR. LYONS:  Yes.
                       DR. LARSON:  And so that is the only
           reason I put it on there for July.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  One additional -- I'm
           sorry, Milt, go ahead.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  I was just going to say
           should this have been an item on the copy for John to
           bring up with the Commissioners?
                       DR. LYONS:  Oh, yes, whether or not they
           wanted a meeting held out there?
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Yes.
                       DR. LYONS:  That might be -- I am trying
           to think.  I think that is something that he has
           raised to them, and that they are thinking about.
                       DR. LARSON:  Well, you put it in a letter.
           We got a response back from the EDO who said it was up
           to the Commission.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  I know that, and so the
           preliminary feedback was that it made sense, and that
           we are thinking about it or forget it.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  I was going to add that
           there is an additional potential topic.  I got a call
           from Rick Hulse at INEL over the greater than Class C
           waste issue.
                       DOE, under the Low Level Waste Policy Act,
           as amended, is responsible for developing a strategy
           for disposing of greater than Class C waste.
                       They also have a whole bunch of sealed
           sources that are being returned to them from
           commercial entities, and they are trying to develop a
           plan of what to do with this stuff.
                       They are looking at disposal options in
           deep bore holes.  But any facility that they develop,
           since these are commercial sources, would require an
           NRC license.
                       So it would be a DOE facility under an NRC
           license.  So at some point they are going to be
           wanting to talk to ACNW and give a presentation on the
           various options that they are considering.  So that is
           a possible topic in the next six months or so.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  I was going to say I
           was wondering what the time frame was.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Andy, let me ask you a
           question since that becomes technically complicated or
           just policy and politics, that it seemed to me that if
           the Commission is going to go ahead with the can and
           canister program, and that is a good safe way of
           getting rid of kernels from bombs, and you have got
           the facility and the program to just throw these,
           certainly any of these commercial sources are much
           less an environmental threat than a couple of pounds
           of plutonium.
                       You have got a facility and you have got
           a program, and it seems like a relatively simple way
           to handle it rather than starting a whole new major
           thing.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Well, they are looking at
           options right now, and that's --
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  I guess the question
           really comes back to a philosophical one, and that is
           while these are licensed sources, and a lot of them
           are made by the Commission -- radium material come
           from our energy facilities, et cetera -- can you de-
           license a source like you can de-license a reactor,
           which would allow DOE to just use them in one of their
           existing unlicensed facilities, like the can and
           canister?  That would simplify the hell out of things
           if it is possible.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  That would be a good
           question to ask them if they came in.  I can't give
           you an answer on that.  He did indicate to me that
           they see the disposition of the sources as a segaway
           into the larger issue of the disposition of greater
           than Class C waste in general, which they are also
           responsible for, and which also requires an NRC
           licensed facility.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  I know that is the
           approach that they are talking about, but it doesn't
           seem to make sense to me, because generally the
           greater than Class C waste is voluminous, and
           unconfined, unpackaged, et cetera.
                       There is one sort of risk family, and a
           sealed source that is small, and sealed, and packaged,
           and directly handable, and a relatively small volume,
           as compared to greater than Class C.  That really
           ought to be a basis for trying to at least thing about
           it differently.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Apparently they tried to
           extract useful radioisotopes out of these sealed
           sources and failed, and ended up with more waste than
           what they started with.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Sure.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  They are not just cesium
           and strontium.  There are neutron sources which have
           actoncites in them, you know.  And there are thousands
           of them.  It is not a small number.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  They are all small, but
           greater than the Class C, it is very small.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Right.  What is happening
           apparently is because they are small, they tend to get
           left and abandoned.  They are finding them in -- you
           know, they are used in bore hold logging and stuff
           like that, and they end up getting left and abandoned.
                       So they are trying to gather them all in
           at this point, but that's a collection issue rather
           than a disposal issue.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  They are still finding
           radium in the free world from World War II days and in
           old medical buildings and stuff.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Well, I can follow up with
           Rick at some point in time to see when it might fit
           into your schedule.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Well, I was at Hanford
           a few weeks ago, and I was absolutely appalled to
           discover that they are thinking -- you know, they have
           got all of this cesium and strontium sources from when
           then had a packing program, and they are now building
           a facility to dispose of the cesium and the strontium
           that is in the waste tanks.
                       And they are thinking about breaking open
           all those capsules and redissolving it, and dumping it
           into the tanks so that it can go through the
           processing plant so that they can condense it to a
           finite volume when it is already in a finite volume.
           So it is not our role to introduce rationality to the
           world, but we can try, I guess.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  The next thing on the
           agenda here is to look at the reconciliation of
           responses to ACNW reports.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Oh, one other thing.
                       DR. LYONS:  Go ahead.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  The sidebar to the visit
           to Envirotech in fact is tied to this item at the July
           meeting, I think, was that if we had a meeting out in
           Las Vegas and the whole ACNW is out there, would
           people be interested in a side trip to Envirotech.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  The next thing on the
           agenda is reconciliation, and I was wondering -- we
           were just talking about this, and whether we should
           wait until there was more members and everybody is
           here to go through those.
                       So let's table that for now, and then if
           you go through the rest of the information that is in
           your notebook, we have the proposed agenda for ACRS
           and ACNW meetings that we get from the executive
           director for operations that lists the items that we
           had provided already.
                       The ACNW stuff actually starts on page 20,
           the handwritten 20 at the bottom of your page.  Again,
           we are having a meeting with them next week, and we
           will have an updated list at that time to work with.
                       And we used this to develop our calendars
           and our schedules for future meetings.  And we have
           picked up on all of these that are in here now.
                       Then also there is the calendar for the
           ACNW and ACRS that follows that, and that is just
           really for your information.  And then a list of M&O
           meetings status, and that is from March 5th, and I
           guess some of these other documents that we have help
           update that list.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Let me ask you a
           question about the transportation workshop, and that
           kind of drifted into being, and with Part 71 coming up
           as a more substantive part of our agenda along the
           way, would that have any impact on the value or
           probability that we should hold a workshop?
                       Originally there wasn't any official thing
           on our agenda that was justification for the workshop.
           It was a feeling that some of the committee members
           that transportation was a drifting item; and now with
           Part 71, there is a place to anchor.
                       DR. LARSON:  And as you know, the Part 71
           thing is a pretty finite discussion.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Oh, yes.
                       DR. LARSON:  Dick, there is something that
           is being drafted to go in the self-assessment and
           operating plan that mentions transportation.
                       MR. DURAISWAMY:  It is already in the
           action plan.
                       MR. MAJOR:  We did move transportation
           from a first tier issue last year to a second tier
           year this year.  I think the original topic arose when
           we were looking at the draft environment impact
           statement for Yucca Mountain, and that seemed to be
           something that was of high concern to the public.
                       And we kind of picked up on that following
           that.  My impression right now is that we are taking
           on a lot of transportation issues, but we are taking
           them on piece by piece, rather than in one fell swoop.
           So that seems to be the course that we are taking.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.  And I guess what I was
           saying is that the rest of this, beyond the calendars
           and the meeting status -- well, are there any of these
           meetings that we should highlight?  I think we already
           discussed them.
                       MS. DEERING:  Jim, the calendar isn't
           complete.  Are you concerned about that?
                       DR. LYONS:  Well, yeah.  In what way?
                       MS. DEERING:  Well, just a couple of
           things come to mind.  I see right away that there is
           an NWTRB on April 13th, a panel meeting in D.C. on
           multiple lines of evidence, which I think is a really
           important meeting.  Somebody needs to go.
                       I know that Milt says he couldn't go, but
           I think we should tap the other members and see if
           they could attend that since that is such a key issue
           and it concerns -- we have our own opinions on that,
           John Garrick does.
                       And there is another TRB meeting here in
           D.C. on May 8th and 9th, which I don't think I see on
           here.
                       DR. LARSON:  We have to tell Sherry.  I
           mean, Sherry only puts in there what we tell her to
           do, and of course the KTI meetings and the tech
           exchanges, and other things, are pretty dynamic in
           their dates.
                       MS. DEERING:  And then there is another
           one in September, the 11th and 12th, and that should
           be noted on here.  I mean, I will give this to Sherry.
                       DR. LYONS:  Okay.
                       MS. DEERING:  But for planning purposes,
           some of these are coming up pretty fast.
                       DR. LYONS:  Are they on this M&O status,
           or are these separate?
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  What date is the April
           meeting?
                       MS. DEERING:  The April meeting is on the
           13th, Milt.
                       DR. LARSON:  Friday the 13th?
                       MS. DEERING:  I don't think you can go.
           I think you already checked.
                       DR. LYONS:  Yes, I don't see that on here.
           The one in April, what was that?
                       MS. DEERING:  What was it, the title of
           it?
                       DR. LYONS:  Yes.
                       MS. DEERING:  Multiple Lines of Evidence.
           The board wants to explore further as I understand it
           what they themselves mean by that when they ask DOE to
           make sure that they are looking at multiple lines of
           evidence.  And I don't have an agenda for this, but I
           got this from their website.
                       DR. LYONS:  All right.  I think that is
           something that we should start trying to see who we
           want to send to those.  I would like to go to one of
           these meetings and so on April 13th, if that fits in
           with anything else in my calendar, I wouldn't mind
           going to that.
                       MS. DEERING:  I highly recommend it.
                       DR. LYONS:  Somebody can go with me and
           explain the process and lead me through it.
                       MS. DEERING:  Of course, you know what?
           Just for your information, that would be a panel
           meeting, which is different than their full committee
           meeting.  But I am sure that it would still be
           extremely well attended.  But they just break off a
           piece of the larger group and explore.
                       DR. LYONS:  Right. Okay.  Maybe we should
           raise those meetings up to the others when they come
           back.  And then the other thing we have here is the
           agenda for the international high level waste
           management conference, and so you can look at that,
           Milt.
                       And that gets up through this, and so what
           I would propose at this point is to take a break until
           John, John, and Ray come back.  So let's take a break
           until 9:45.  I would hope that they would be back by
           them.
                       (Whereupon, the meeting recessed at  9:31
           a.m. and was reconvened at 10:21 a.m. in progress.)
                       MEMBER WYMER:  All right.  The coupling is
           between the dripping in of the water out of the waste
           package, which is one process, and radiolysis, which
           is another.  That is an example, Milt.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Are secondary products
           an example?
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Yes, but that wouldn't be
           a surprise since everybody has anticipated that, but
           they have not really anticipated the effect of high
           acidity.  People have mentioned it, but they haven't
           really dealt with it.  But it was specifically
           mentioned.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, I am thinking of
           secondary products in the context of inhibiting
           corrosion, for example.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  No, not really.  People
           haven't, for example, thought about what might happen
           when the grout around the rock bolts dissolves, and
           then drips down on the waste package, and then
           resolidifies into a coating that might then prevent
           future corrosion and cracks, and something like that.
                       These are plucked out of the air, I want
           you to know, but they are still the kinds of things
           that might be surprises.  That kind of stuff.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  We can come back to
           that again when we do our Commission work.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  In this example, you
           reduce the mobility of the neptium, right?
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Yes.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Pleasant surprise.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  It is a pleasant surprise.
           Not all surprises are bad.  I think that is your point
           of several meetings ago, Milt.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Yes.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Now, there may be some
           colloid formation surprises that would go in the other
           direction.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Well, that is another
           issue, but something about colloids that bother me is
           that people only seem to be talking about pseudo
           colloids these days, and they have forgotten about
           real colloids.  They are talking about attachment to
           silica colloids, and things like that, clays, and I
           don't hear much discussion anymore for some reason
           about the fact that the aconites form real true
           colloids all by themselves without attaching to
           anything.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.
                       DR. LYONS:  That's all that we have for
           the reconciliation, and that really wraps up all the
           planning procedures, and so I am going to turn it back
           over to you for the next item on the agenda.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  All right.  I
           guess we are going to receive an update on the current
           status of KTIs, the KTI resolution.  Carol, we know
           you, but would you for the record introduce yourself.
                       DR. LARSON:  You might notice on the
           agenda, and I think other than Carol, that at the last
           meeting the members were concerned that they weren't
           getting enough time for discussion.
                       So we have indicated on the agenda that
           the presentation is supposed to be so long, and then
           the questions are afterwards, and it depends on how
           you interact with the speakers, so that you get an
           adequate amount of time to ask questions and
           interacting in the presentation doesn't take up all
           the time.
                       MS. HANLON:  Good morning.  I am Carol
           Hanlon with the Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain.
           Up until recently, I have been responsible for the KTI
           meetings.  I have been facilitating those.  I have
           recently transferred back into the site recommendation
           realm, where I am the product to lead for the site
           recommendation.
                       But I want to give you an update -- one of
           the highest levels, a very high level -- of the
           progress that we have made and basically what has been
           going on in this key technical issue, key technical
           exchange, which we feel have been very, very valuable.
                       Basically, we could easily just read along
           in our handout.  There is not a lot of new material
           here.  So, 11 out of approximately 13 technical
           exchanges are complete, beginning with the total
           system performance assessment and integration meeting
           that we had last year, last June, in San Antonio.
                       And going through the most recent meeting,
           which was repository design and thermal mechanical
           effects, in February, the first week in February, in
           Las Vegas, we mentioned earlier this morning that
           tentatively we have two more meetings planned.
                       And actually the key technical issue
           meeting is total system performance integration.  As
           we mentioned earlier, that is at the end of June, and
           in order to plan for that, and to facilitate that
           meeting and make it more effective, there will also be
           a features events and processes meeting held in May.
                       And there is talk of a preclosure issues
           meeting to be held later, and we are waiting for some
           planning information on that, and as to exactly how we
           will focus that.  The preclosure issue, of course,
           does not have a key technical issue associated with
           that.  So it falls into a different category
                       It is rather a different type of situation
           than with the other key technical issues which do have
           the issue resolution status report, and how to
           identify issues and sub-issues, and therefore can be
           addressed specifically.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Do you have specific
           dates yet on the TSPA meeting in June?
                       MS. HANLON:  I think that the date -- when
           I left the office the date had not been set.  I
           understand that it has tentatively been set or perhaps
           more firmly than that for June 25th through 29th.  Is
           that correct, Jim?
                       We have several people from the staff  who
           are very familiar with these, and they can correct me
           whenever I stray.  I have put in the package the issue
           progress sheet, and you can look at it more closely as
           I think you go through this.
                       Five of its sub-issues are totally closed,
           and five of the sub-issues are open.  There are 27
           sub-issues that are closed-pending.  We have
           approximately 215 agreements for the nine issues so
           far.
                       Some of those are multiple.  They address
           more than one item.  So we have captured them more
           than once for completeness, but there are actually not
           that many unique agreements.  And to date we have
           submitted to the NRC 56 documents which address 45 of
           these agreements.
                       We have put every effort into very
           carefully meeting our commitments, our agreement
           items, to make sure that with the agreement items and
           the dates that we have committed that we keep those.
                       We feel that that is very, very important.
           There are occasions where we have fallen behind a bit,
           and so I am just going to call these to your
           attention.  One of the ones that I think is almost out
           is this features events and processes analysis report
           for the unsaturated zone.
                       Another is the feature event and processes
           database, which is in DOE's hands.  We are reviewing
           it and we will make final changes and get that to the
           Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, I hope, still in
           March.
                       A couple of others are the summary of in-
           package chemistry for waste forms, preliminary
           assessment of radiolysis affects from criticality and
           in-package chemistry abstractions.  So those are
           forthcoming.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  What is radiolysis affects
           from criticality?  Who is going to worry about
           radiolysis?
                       MS. HANLON:  You know, I would have to
           look into that.  Katherine Napp hasn't joined us yet,
           and she may be here later, and she can say a bit more
           about that.
                       It is one of the things that came out of
           the container life and source term agreements, and I
           can also look that up, that specific agreement, Dr.
           Wymer, so that we have a little more information on
           that.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  I would be interested to
           see what that really means.
                       MS. HANLON:  Sometimes we lose a little
           bit when we summarize.  So I am not going to go over
           the next several slides for you as basically those are
           just summarizing by the key technical issues, but we
           will put it up briefly.
                       The number of sub-issues which are closed,
           and which are closed-pending, and which are still
           open, and you can see that we are making quite a bit
           of progress.  But to get us back on track, I really
           won't go over those.
                       The total system performance assessment
           and integration meeting is in June, and all four of
           those sub-issues remain open.  So they will be
           addressed at that time, and that is really
           appropriate, I believe, because it is dependent on
           information that is going on to date, and also it
           depends upon future events and processes discussion.
                       I have also put by each key technical
           issue a status of items the sub-issues which are
           closed and closed-pending, or in some few cases open,
           and again I won't go through those in the interest of
           time.
                       Since last we spoke, we have had four
           meetings.  We have had the radionuclide and transport
           meeting, the thermal effects on flow, near-field
           environment, and the repository design, and thermal
           mechanical effects.
                       So it may be worthwhile just going through
           those briefly.  With radionuclide and transport, there
           were four issues.  Sub-issue 1 was closed-pending,
           with five agreements.  Sub-issue 2 was closed pending,
           with 11 agreements; and we have identified the
           duplicate agreement from radionuclide transport.
                       And Sub-issue 3 is closed-pending, with 10
           agreements; and Sub-issue 4 is also closed-pending,
           with 3 agreements.
                       Thermal effects on flow had two sub-
           issues, and closed-pending for Sub-issue 1, with two
           agreements; and Sub-issue 2 is closed-pending with 13
           agreements.
                       Evolution of near-field environment.  All
           five sub-issues are closed, with the associated number
           of agreements, and we have again listed the
           duplicates.
                       Repository design and thermal mechanical
           effects, and the last meeting which was conducted in
           February has four sub-issues.  Sub-issue 1 and 4 are
           closed, and Sub-issue 2 and 3 are closed-pending, with
           the number of agreements; two for Sub-issue 2 and 21
           for Sub-issue 3.  And it specifies quite specifically
           the types of analysis that we need to do to close
           that.
                       And so the Department feels that these
           technical exchanges have been extremely productive
           and that we have made progress in moving forward.  We
           of course understand that the staff will continue to
           apply a great deal of scrutiny and evaluate the
           information that is forthcoming.
                       We appreciate that and that agreements may
           be revisited.  The strong point that we see here is
           that we have defined information that the staff
           continues to be interested in, and that they feel is
           important to see as we move forward.
                       So we continue to work to completely
           satisfy those agreements.  And I would note that there
           is a peer review that has been started.  I think that
           this is an item of interest to Dr. Wymer and others on
           the committee on the waste package acromion issue.
                       Dr. Joe Payer (phonetic) has been
           identified as chairman of that sub-group, and that
           other peer review group members will be identified
           soon, and when we have a schedule and an opening
           meeting for that, you will be notified of that.  We
           invite you to participate if you would like to.
                       We hope to have the interim report on that
           before the end of the calendar year.  And in terms of
           being able to close out any of the key technical
           issues, we are still hopeful that we may be able to
           make -- I know that both the staff and we have
           interests in being able to totally close out some of
           the key technical issues.
                       And we are hopeful that it may be possible
           to close the key technical issue on igneous activity,
           and perhaps a structural deformation and seismicity,
           and we are working through that to see what kind of
           informational meetings that we need to have to be able
           to move forward and close those items.
                       One other thing that I have that may be
           useful to you is that we have developed a matrix that
           takes the items -- I will make copies of this if it
           will be useful to you, that takes the agreement items
           and goes through them by date of the agreement, and
           then correlates that with a number of the other --
           excuse me, the specific key technical issues that they
           address.
                       I had mentioned earlier that we have a
           number of issues that address more -- a number of
           agreement items that address more than one issue, and
           so we have attempted to make that a little clearer by
           doing this interim chart, and it goes through month to
           month, and so that will also allow you to see the
           scheduled date for things that are out in front.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I think that would be
           very helpful.
                       MS. HANLON:  So I will make sure that you
           get copies of this.
                       DR. LYONS:  I think we passed out copies
           of those to you.
                       MS. HANLON:  Are there any questions?
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Is this gentleman going
           to lead the corrosion the same one that was involved
           in the TSPA peer review?
                       MS. HANLON:  Joe Payor.  You know, I am
           not so sure.  I think he has been in our program, but
           I couldn't say that for sure.
                       DR. CAMPBELL:  Yes.  He was also one of
           our panelists in the engineer barrier working group in
           '98.  Joe Payor.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  Joe Payor.  Yes.
           Very good.  Any questions?
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Carol, at the KTI
           meeting on repository design, as I wasn't there, but
           it was reported -- and I will read you the statement.
           "DOE stated that the project design goal for
           preclosure emplacement is a wall temperature of 96
           degrees, below boiling."  Is that a decision that has
           actually been made?
                       MS. HANLON:  I think right now currently
           we are looking at a range of that, and Dr. Hanner may
           want to add to this, but we are looking for a range
           between the cooler temperatures and the warmer
           temperatures.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Well, as it relates to
           KTI, the question is that if you make -- and that is
           a somewhat significant change.  Is it in your plans or
           programs to go back and review all of the sub-issues,
           because some of them will probably no longer be
           relevant, and somebody shouldn't necessarily invest a
           lot of effort and time generating information to
           respond.
                       And conversely the whole series of new
           sub-issues that become important.  How does that get
           handled with major changes?
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Actually, I can answer
           that.  At the Waste Management 2001 meeting a couple
           of weeks ago, a statement was made that it will not be
           a complete redo with the low temperature, but it will
           just be a fix on the high temperature case.
           They are going to go in and patch and fill.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Well, it's not that
           simple.
                       MS. HANLON:  Actually, I would prefer to
           say that we are looking at whole range of temperatures
           from the current repository reference design that we
           are using, and down to a cooler, and the range is in
           between.
                       So we will be looking at a range, and one
           of the things that we are doing is sensitivity
           studies, which will come out later this summer, that
           address that range.
                       So the information and the documentation
           that we are putting together will look at that range
           of temperature.  And I think that Mr. Levenson's
           question was how does that relate to the issues and
           sub-issues, and the key technical issues that we have
           looked at.
                       And I know that the staff has been very
           interested on the range of temperatures that we are
           looking at, and what that variation will do.  We are
           also interested in that, and basically after we finish
           these sensitivity studies, what we would propose is a
           discussion with them to discuss what the range is, and
           information that we see coming out of that and what
           effect we have.
                       And I am sure that the NRC staff will be
           looking very closely and will have questions of their
           own.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Carol, when you look at
           this, and you evaluate it at the sub-issue level, and
           you put your score card on it of the ones that are
           closed, and closed-pending, and so forth, one can be
           encouraged by the progress that has been made.
                       But we also know that these issues are not
           all equally important.  Some of them are at the sub-
           issue level, and some of them are 10 times, or maybe
           a hundred times more complex or more difficult than
           the other.
                       Has anybody thought ahead enough to know
           what the real binding issues are going to be?  You
           know, you suspect that there is going to be an isotope
           that we get to what looks like total resolution pretty
           quickly.
                       But that the last few are really going to
           determine the amount of resources that will have to be
           allocated to deal with them, and will probably drive
           the schedule.
                       Has anybody thought about it enough to
           identify what they consider to be the over-arching
           sub-issues, in terms of getting resolution?
                       MS. HANLON:  Well, Dr. Garrick, I think
           there are a couple of answers to that, and one is that
           we have tried previously on repository safety strategy
           to identify those things that we think are most
           important.
                       And therefore to prioritize our work, and
           to prioritize our emphasis.  Previous to that we had
           done a similar thing as you recall in the viability
           assessment, where we had gone over the other principal
           factors and identified which ones that we felt  had
           the greatest significance, and therefore, needed the
           same attention.
                       And that has been carried forward into the
           TSPA that we currently have and will be continued to
           be reevaluated in the sensitivity assessments ongoing.
                       But I think another thing is the features,
           events, and processes assessment that we have ongoing,
           and I believe that is why the staff is placing the
           amount of emphasis they are on features, events, and
           processes, so we can go through those, and they can
           fully understand how we have considered them, and how
           we have excluded them, included them, and treated
           them, including secondary processes, so that they can
           be sure that we are putting our emphasis where they
           believe it should be.
                       And following that meeting, it will carry
           forward into the total system performance integration.
           So I believe that is how we are trying to identify the
           most important of these issues.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  For example, one of the
           sub-issues that the TSPA is going to be the scenarios.
           Do you envision that the features, events, and
           processes activity is going to provide the source
           material necessary to deal with that particular issue?
                       That is, the structuring of the details of
           the scenarios?  That is one of the four sub-issues.
                       MS. HANLON:  Well, the FEPs are intended
           to look at that, as well as the analysis and modeling
           reports, and the PMRs are intended to set up the
           scenarios based on the FEPs and how they are derived.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.  I think the more
           that we could telegraph what we consider to be the
           most important things that are yet to be resolved, the
           better we will be in a position to address them, and
           allocate our own resources.
                       MS. HANLON:  I know that has been a
           concern of yours previously on many occasions, and it
           came up earlier this morning, and I made sure I took
           a note of that.
                       And I will be speaking with Bob Andrews
           when I go back, and perhaps you would like a
           presentation later on, perhaps this summer, in which
           we make that a bit more clearer for you.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.  The Committee is
           trying to come to grips with this whole issue through
           a vertical slice process, and you would like to
           maximize the benefit of what you choose as a vertical
           slice.
                       And whatever additional insight we can get
           from the DOE and the NRC staff as to the most
           important issues might influence what we would focus
           on in attempting to get a better indication of the
           readiness if you wish of the NRC to actually process
           the license application.
                       So we really are looking for what are
           considered to be the most important issues, and trying
           not to get lost in the large number of issues that
           exist, and be more focused on what the TSPA is telling
           us is really the drivers here.
                       MS. HANLON:  Great, and understand that we
           would be very interested in doing that for you.  Up
           until June, that time frame is going to be very, very
           busy with completing these analyses.
                       But in the July-August time frame, if that
           worked for you, I think we can make speakers
           available.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  Thank you.
           Questions?  Milt?
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  No, thanks.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Staff?
                       DR. LARSON:  There is no SRCR anymore,
           right?
                       MS. HANLON:  There is not.
                       DR. LARSON:  And so what is taking its
           place?  Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of
           engineering report out last week?
                       MS. HANLON:  It is a science and
           engineering report, and it is looking as if that will
           be available at the end of April now, in that time
           frame.
                       And basically that is what -- it is the
           requirements out of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
           Section 114, I think it is, Sections A, B, and C, for
           a waste form, waste package, repository design, site
           characterization depth and analysis.
                       So that document is coming together, and
           we hope that it will be released in the April time
           frame, and the rest of our schedule is evolving a bit.
                       We hope to have the site recommendations
           still available this calendar year, but as soon as
           that schedule becomes more tied down, Howard, I will
           be happy to brief you on that also.
                       DR. LARSON:  Okay.  Thank you.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Any other questions
                       (No audible response.)
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Thank you very much.
                       (Whereupon, meeting recessed at 10:47
           a.m.)












           .                     A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N  S-E-S-S-I-O-N
                                                    (1:03 p.m.)
                       MEMBER WYMER:  All right.  This afternoon,
           we are going to hear an interesting -- or interesting
           to me anyway -- report on Partial Site Release.  I
           don't know who is going to start off.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Mike Ripley.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  There are a lot of
           interesting and somewhat difficult issues, and I think
           we will be interested to hear what you have to say,
           please.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Great.  I appreciate the
           opportunity.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Ray is going to lead
           our discussion on this.  This happens to be one of his
           topics.  So he will be pushing us all to get involved.
           So, carry on.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Good afternoon.  My name is
           Mike Ripley, and this is my colleague, Paul Harris.
           Both of us came out of the Division of Licensing
           Projects, and we are both project managers in the
           decommissioning section.
                       As many of you may know, that section was
           essentially dissolved, and some of us stayed behind on
           projects and others moved over to the rule making
           group.
                       I have been on the rule making for partial
           site release since the middle of last year, and come
           May, I will be returning back to a project management
           assignment, and I will be turning over partial site
           release to Paul.
                       So probably after about the middle of May,
           Paul Harris will be your prime contact if there is any
           questions on partial site release.  I am going to
           brief you pretty much on the background, and a lot on
           the rule itself.
                       And then I will finish up with 2 or 3
           items that came up during our concurrence reviews that
           causes to make some non-editorial changes to the rule
           making, and so that you are aware of those, and bridge
           the gap if you had an opportunity to look at the
           package that was distributed a month or so ago.
                       And I think it will also be appropriate if
           I gave you an indication of what I would like to see
           come out of this other than just a good transfer of
           information between you and I.
                       I would like to go away with any comments
           that you would have on the rule making that would help
           us maybe clarify things in the rule, or maybe things
           that we want to carry to the public and what not.
                       And hopefully I would like to receive
           back, preferably in writing, some kind of feedback
           that indicates that the committee doesn't have any
           objections to us proceeding ahead and publishing this
           proposed rule for public comment.
                       As I will indicate, our schedule right now
           has us a commitment to have this to the EDO for his
           approval prior to giving it to the Commission on the
           1st, and we still have some significant concurrence
           reviews to go through between now and then.
                       What I would like to do, and my preference
           is, is that as I go, if there are any questions that
           anyone has or any comments, that we could field those
           as we go in real time rather than waiting until the
           end, although hopefully we will have some time at the
           end to wrap things up and talk about anything that you
           guys want to talk about.
                       I am prepared to talk in so many details
           in everything that I am going to go through fairly
           quickly.  Again, stop me, but on the other side of the
           coin, if I get into too much detail, and more than you
           really want to hear, give me the old across the neck
           sign and I will move on.
                       So with that, with the next slide.  First,
           as a definition, a partial site release means a
           release of a part or a portion of a power reactor site
           for  unrestricted use prior to NRC approval of the
           license termination plan.
                       The need for the partial site release
           rule making evolved out of our experience in dealing
           with the Oyster Creek site in late 1998 and 1999.
           Basically, in 1998, they submitted a license amendment
           application to revise their tech specs to delete a
           requirement in there that restricted them from selling
           a new part of their exclusion area, and they want to
           pull it out of their tech specs.
                       They, and many other of the older plants
           as they transition to the standardized tech specs, are
           removing such things as that, including site boundary
           descriptions from their technical specifications, and
           moving the rules in the FSAR.
                       It was, however, in response to some
           queries from the State of New Jersey on whether or not
           as it turned out Oyster Creek's plans to sell off a
           good portion of their site, some 600 acres.
                       And in our return correspondence to the
           State of New Jersey, uncovered the fact, if you will,
           that we really didn't have a process for handling
           partial site releases for Part 50 licensees.
                       And as a result of that, it wasn't clear
           whether or not a licensee would need to come to the
           NRC for approval of a partial site release; and also
           as I indicated here, it wasn't clear if the
           radiological criteria for release of the property fell
           under the license termination release requirements,
           which are given in Part 20, Subpart E, which we will
           talk about.
                       So because of this regulatory gap, it was
           decided that it would be appropriate to do a generic
           rule making, and we submitted a rule making plan to
           the Commission in February of last year, and the
           Commission approved that rule making plan in their SRM
           issued in April of last year.
                       The generic schedule that we had, as
           indicated here, was to issue a proposed rule this year
           and a final rule next year.  As part of the
           Commission's SRM or staff requirements manual, back to
           the staff in approving the rule making plan,  they
           directed the staff to issue a generic communication to
           power reactor licensees indicating to them that a rule
           making was pending involving a partial site release.
                       And also described in somewhat specific
           terms what the process that they would use on a case-
           by-case basis to request and gain our approval for a
           partial site release.
                       And that generic communication as I
           indicated here was issued as an RIS, a regulatory
           issue summary, in October of last year.  Next slide,
           Paul.
                       Our regulatory approach to partial site
           release is to narrowly focus the release on, one,
           unrestricted releases only; and only at power
           reactors, however, that would be both operating, as
           well as plants that are in the decommissioning phase.
                       Basically, the rule making adds  a new
           section to 10 CFR 50, which provides the procedural
           guidance for licensees submitting information
           sufficient for us to be able to review and then
           approve a partial site release.
                       The first step in the process that a
           licensee undergoes would be to perform what is called
           a historical site assessment.  A historical site
           assessment is a MARSSIM term.
                       It consists of a review of essentially
           plant records, and it may also consist of personnel
           interviews, to determine whether or not radioactive
           material has been deposited anywhere on the area to be
           released.
                       This historical site assessment has the
           purpose of classifying the proposed release area in
           one of two classifications, again using MARSSIM
           terminology, as either an impacted area, which means
           that the area has some potential for residual
           radioactivity.
                       Or a non-impacted area, which means that
           there is no reasonable potential for residual
           radioactivity.
                       In the case of an impacted area, the
           licensee would be required to perform surveys adequate
           to demonstrate compliance with the radiological
           release criteria, which I will talk about in some
           detail in a minute.
                       On the other hand, if the area can be
           demonstrated to be non-impacted, then there are no
           radiological surveys required.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Now, what is the basis
           for deciding whether it is impacted or non-impacted?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Not impacted or impacted
           means whether or not there is a potential for residual
           radioactivity, and it is based on a records review,
           and a records search.  Sometimes augmented by
           radiological surveys, but not necessarily.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Which is related to the use
           for which that part of the site has been put to?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Yes.  Yes.  The kinds of
           things that are looked at are events such as spills
           that have occurred historically, and whether or not
           the area was ever used to store contaminated material.
                       And whether it was ever part of the RCA
           boundary, and whether or not it was in the downstream
           of an elevated release from the plant stack.  Those
           kinds of things.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  You are probably going
           to get to this, but does this open the way for a phase
           decommissioning process?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Well, this is in fact and
           could be termed a phase decommissioning process in
           respect of the fact that the essence of it is a
           partial license termination if you will.
                       I think that phase decommissioning process
           is a terminology that is used by the material sites,
           by the material licensees, where in their regulations
           Part 30, 40, 70, 72, there are provisions for a phased
           release such as this
                       This is in so many words a Part 50
           equivalent of that kind of thing, is the way that I
           would characterize it.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, it seems to me
           like a good idea, but what got me to thinking about it
           is that there aren't many situations quite like Oyster
           Creek.  They had very special circumstances as to why
           they wanted to pull that particular part of the site
           out.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  I will give you some examples
           of --
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  So the question is,
           well, how many cases are there that are going to
           employ --
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Well, I will talk about that.
           It is an emerging issue, and there are a number of
           sites who have requested information on the process
           that they need to go by.
                       Maine Yankee, in January, submitted a
           license and memory application for the sale of
           property that they were obligated to sell off as part
           of an agreement with their DPUC some 200 acres, I
           believe it is, and that they are going to donate
           rather than sell to an environmental organization.
                       So we are considering that, and Haddam
           Neck in Connecticut will be submitting a formal
           request for partial site release in the next month or
           two for an area that is currently their parking lot,
           and essentially in the middle of their site, which
           they are going to use -- which a developer is going to
           use to build a gas-fired -- a dual-unit, gas-fired
           power plant.
                       And along with, by the way, a liquid
           natural gas storage facility.  So that is coming at us
           as well.  Limmerick has questioned that, and we are
           going to be meeting with Trojan at the end of the
           month.
                       They have already submitted their license
           termination plan and it has been approved by the
           Commission.  However, they are now looking at selling
           a part of their property as well.  I don't know if
           that answers your question or not.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, yes, but what I
           was thinking of -- and maybe this is off the track,
           but it would seem to me to be a good public process to
           be in a position to say that we have got this site
           with all this land and we are going to decommission
           it, but in the meantime we are going to release a lot
           of the land for unrestricted use.
                       Now, does this specifically allow this to
           happen, and wouldn't that be a good strategy on the
           part of applicants or licensees?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  I think yes, yes.  This is
           really put in place to provide the mechanisms for
           those who desire to do that, and obviously there is
           economic advantages, and there are public confidence
           things as well that goes along with that, but I think
           you are right.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  And most of these
           sites, you are probably in a position to -- and I
           don't know what the number is, but it is a large
           fraction.  Maybe 80 percent of the land could come
           under this immediately.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Yes.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  And that sounds like a
           very --
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Well, what we envisioned, and
           what we expect to be the case will be those partial
           site release requests that have to do with parcels out
           at the edge of their site boundary.
                       Limmerick was talking about that they
           wanted the local regional sewer district wanted to
           build a small facility out in an area at the edge of
           their boundary.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Probably the exception to the
           rule -- Haddam Neck is probably the exception to the
           rule, where they are releasing property right in the
           middle of their existing site.
                       MR. NELSON:  I guess -- I'm Paul, and if
           I could be presumptuous here and assume that what you
           are getting at is will this rule circumvent the
           license termination rule.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.
                       MR. NELSON:  And the answer is, no, it
           won't.  This rule is based upon the license
           termination rule, and when this comes to conclusion,
           and let's say a licensee opts to release a portion of
           the site, under this portion of the rule, the license
           termination rule upon that phase of their
           decommissioning, will envelope these areas which are
           released under partial site release.
                       So in the aggregate the site as licensed
           originally will be looked at for license termination.
           So the advantage to a licensee would be on a case-by-
           case basis, where they have a specific need to release
           a portion of the site for their own use.
                       But that doesn't preclude them from being
           looked at from the license termination umbrella.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  That's exactly right, and
           that is part of the purpose of making this a formal --
           well, part of the regulations, is to prevent those
           licensees who may feel that they can go ahead and do
           a partial site release without gaining NRC approval
           under 50-59, for instance.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I guess the impacted
           area issue would address those situations where
           decontamination activities are on at a reactor, for
           example, could lead to some contamination of the
           nearby regions; is that part of the consideration?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Yes.  That would also be
           looked at as well, especially when these
           decommissioning activities are going on at the site.
           We will talk a bit more about that in a while.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  All right.  Thank you.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  The approval process for a
           partial site release, the mechanism, then depends on
           this area of classification, impacted versus not
           impacted, which I will show you right now.
                       Where the area cannot be demonstrated to
           be non-impacted, which is almost the same thing as
           saying an area that is classified as impacted, but
           using the MARSSIM approach and philosophy of you are
           guilty until proven innocent.
                       So you assume that it is impacted unless
           you can clearly demonstrate that it is not impacted,
           and so we are using this kind of wording.  Where an
           area cannot be demonstrated to be non-impacted, the
           license must submit an application for amendment of
           his Part 50 license.
                       And that amendment application must
           include the methods used and the results from those
           radiation surveys that he is obligated to perform to
           demonstrate compliance with the radiological release
           criteria for unrestricted use.
                       This is the same criteria that is used at
           license termination and is found in Part 20, Subpart
           E, which is 25 MILLIREM per year, and as reduced to as
           low as reasonably achievable or allowed.
                       He also needs to include the results of an
           evaluation of the impacts to reducing or changing his
           site boundary.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  What kind of impacts are
           you talking about?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  I will be talking about that.
           I have a slide devoted to that, but basically other
           kinds of things other than radiological things;
           impacts on security, and evacuation plans, the other
           limits and standards associated with public dose
           limits, et cetera.
                       And because a license amendment is
           involved, the licensee would be required to also
           provide a supplement to his environmental report
           describing any information based on any changes or
           impacts as a result of the partial site release.
                       In response to a licensee's amendment
           application for a partial site release, the NRC will
           conduct confirmatory parallel sampling of surveys as
           warranted, and "as warranted" are the words that are
           used in the rule.
                       We have stated in a number of public
           meetings that it will be our policy to conduct
           confirmatory and parallel sampling in conjunction with
           those that would typically be expected to be done by
           the States as well.
                       In addition, prior to taking any action on
           a partial site release, we will complete any Subpart
           L or informal hearings that may be granted as a result
           of a partial site release amendment being challenged.
                       And based on a demonstrated compliance
           with the release criteria the NRC would then be able
           to approve the amendment application.  Next slide.
                       Where the area can be demonstrated by the
           demonstrated by the licensee to be non-impacted.  A
           license amendment is not required.  A written request
           may be submitted for NRC approval.
                       What I am getting at here is that it
           allows for those licensees who wish to submit a
           license amendment application, even for the cases
           where they are not otherwise required to.
                       And where, for instance, the area is not
           impacted.  A case in point is Maine Yankee which I
           mentioned a few minutes ago.  Maine Yankee has
           submitted a license amendment application for approval
           by the NRC to release a couple of hundred acres of
           land that is as they claim, and which is under review
           currently, is not impacted.  So that was their choice.
                       And the Commission cannot take a posture
           of denying such a license amendment application as OGC
           has told us because we don't do that unless there is
           a safety reason for denying an amendment application.
                       The application itself needs to include
           again the results and evaluation of the impacts of a
           change in the site boundaries before, and includes a
           description of the facility, and a schedule for the
           release.
                       And in this case, because there is no
           amendment involved, they need to include an evaluation
           that demonstrates that the environmental impacts are
           bounded by previously submitted environmental impact
           statements.  The next slide.
                       In response to a letter submittal for a
           partial site release, the NRC will determine whether
           the licensee's historical site assessment is adequate,
           and those will be primarily by regional inspections of
           the report itself, and the supporting data, records,
           et cetera.
                       And provide the basis for the NRC agreeing
           with the conclusions of the historical site
           assessment.  We will again conduct confirmatory
           surveys, or  whatever surveys we deem is warranted.
                       And upon determining that the licensee has
           met the regulatory requirements, and that there is
           otherwise no other safety impacts as a result of their
           planned release will approve that release by letter.

                       For all partial site releases, and here I
           mean both the case where amendments are required, and
           an amendment is not required, the licensee would
           submit the results of their evaluation of the impacts
           of reducing a site boundary.
                       In most cases this will include some site
           specific kinds of things, depending upon their
           circumstances.  However, the proposed rule includes
           five areas of review that are specifically specified
           or specifically required to be included in an
           evaluation, and I have listed those as you can see.
                       One, the public dose limits of Part 20,
           Subpart D, and these are the regulations involved with
           the dose limits to individual members of the public
           are not exceeded, and requires an evaluation of the
           emergency planning or physical security as I
           mentioned.
                       And that the regulatory standards involved
           with gaseous and liquid effluent releases are not
           adversely impacted, and that their environmental
           program, ODCM, that may require revision is being
           addressed.
                       And then finally that the Part 100 siting
           criteria are still being met.  Next slide, please.
                       Our rule making specifies that the license
           termination plan must consider all site areas
           controlled during the duration of the Part 50 license
           in order to demonstrate that the entire area meets the
           radiological release criteria.
                       In that regard, we are proposing to amend
           50-82, which is the license termination portion of the
           regulations, to require that license termination plan
           to specifically include identification of any parts of
           the site that have been previously released.
                       As well as including in the documentation
           that demonstrates compliance with the release criteria
           for license termination, and consideration of the
           previously released areas of the site in ensuring that
           the release limits of 25 MR per year is reduced and
           met for the whole site.
                       In addition, at Part 20, Part 20 is being
           revised to bring into the scope of the criteria by
           which the NRC could require additional cleanup at a
           site, partial site releases.
                       This would be the case where new
           information may come forward following release that
           indicates that the results of the surveys and
           assessments that were done were in error and in fact
           the release criteria is exceeded and also specifies
           that it would be the case that there would be a
           significant impact on the health and safety of the
           public.  Next slide.
                       Section 50-75 in 10 CFR already includes
           a number of specific records that must be maintained
           by licensees.  These are records termed in the
           regulation as being important to decommissioning.
                       Our proposed rule making would require
           that some additional record keeping be established and
           maintained related to property line changes, and
           changes in site boundary, as well as the records
           related to the radiological conditions of portions of
           their site that have been released under the partial
           site release rule.
                       And it includes as I indicated there
           records of the site boundary as it was originally
           licensed, and in addition any records of acquisition
           to the original site, including records of the use of
           any acquisitions outside of the original site boundary
           for handling license material.
                       And finally records of the disposition or
           the release of any areas of the site, including the
           records that support the submittals to the NRC per the
           requirements of our partial site release rule.
                       The purpose of this record keeping is to
           ensure that the dose contributions of these partial
           site released areas can be adequately accounted for at
           the time of a subsequent partial site release, and at
           the time of license determination when the balance of
           the site is released for use.
                       Our proposed rule specifically provides
           for public involvement in that, and that the NRC will
           notice the licensee's request letter or licensee
           amendment application as applicable, and make it
           available for public comment.
                       We will also hold at least a public
           meeting, if not more public meetings, in the vicinity
           of the site prior to taking any action relative to
           approval of a partial site release request.
                       And that would be the case regardless of
           whether it was a letter or an amendment, and again
           which means regardless of the potential for residual
           radioactivity.
                       And we have already held several workshops
           and public meetings where a partial site release was
           discussed with both members of the public, as well as
           licensees.  Most recently in November of last year at
           the NEI licensing forum, and a few days later at the
           NMSS decommissioning workshop.
                       As part of our rule making effort we plan
           on holding probably two more workshops, one in the
           west and one in the east, to give an opportunity for
           public dialogue and comment.  We probably plan on
           doing that in the summer to fall time frame of this
           year.
                       Finally, a note that 10 CFR, Part 2, would
           be revised by this rule making to bring into the scope
           of the informal Subpart L hearing procedures
           amendments for partial site release that may be
           successfully challenged and require a hearing.
                       I note here in the bottom bullet that we
           recognize that the Commission has just recently
           approved with comment a substantial proposed rule
           modifying Part 2, which would include expanding the
           informal hearing procedures to include amendments such
           as partial site releases.
                       So if this ruling then becomes final,
           there would be no need for a partial site release rule
           making to amend Part 2.  So we are telling the
           Commission that we will continue to monitor the status
           of that rule making and delete our proposed changes to
           Part 2 as appropriate.  The last slide.
                       As I indicated, our rule making has been
           in office concurrence since the middle of January, and
           since that time we have incorporated several
           significant changes that I would like to discuss
           briefly with you, which were not, I don't believe,
           reflected in the package that you were given.
                       These are late breaking changes if you
           will.  One, we have eliminated distinguishability from
           background as a release criteria.  In the initial rule
           making plan, and in our initially distributed proposed
           rule package, we offered two cases where a licensee
           could receive NRC approval for a partial site release
           by amendment, as opposed to letter approval.
                       The first case is if the area is not
           impacted, which I have already talked about and
           remains a criteria.  The other is that a letter
           approval would be permissible if the licensee could
           for impacted areas that had been remediated to some
           low level of radioactivity, but still is impacted, if
           he could demonstrate that the remaining residual
           radioactivity is not distinguishable from background.
                       Now, the comments that came to us in
           regard to that was that we needed to provide a little
           more detail on the technical basis for that criteria,
           as well as what he licensing guidance would be -- you
           know, which new reg he would go to, for instance, to
           find out how to make that determination that the
           residual radioactivity was distinguishable from
           background.
                       In response to some comments and
           discussions that we held with the Office of Research,
           their technical people concluded -- and I see Mr.
           George Powers back there.
                       We also spoke with Dr. Carl Gogalak, who
           some of you may know is with DOE and whose office is
           in New York City, and was primarily involved with the
           statistical analysis involved with releases.
                       And they recommended to us that we not use
           distinguishability from background as a criteria
           unless we could also provide an indication of how
           closely a licensee needed to look at to what degree it
           was differentially different than from the background
           radiation.
                       The thrust of that is that it would
           require us to specify a number, a quantity, a minimum
           amount of either -- in terms of concentration or dose
           by which it did differ from background.
                       And the problem there is, and as would
           seem obvious I guess to us now at the time now as we
           speak about it, is that such a minimum number really
           -- although it has been batted around about a small
           fraction of the release limit, or one MR per year or
           something like that, there is not currently endorsed
           number.
                       And therefore as a result of that, there
           is no existing technical basis for using that as a
           criteria and so we deleted it.  What this means is
           that those licenses who would otherwise have been able
           to gain NRC approval of an impacted, yet remediated
           area, by letter approval would now -- those folks
           would require the same process, and would require a
           license amendment as those who would otherwise would
           have activity well above background, but less than the
           release criteria.
                       The other thing we did was in the original
           rule making plan we had words in there for the
           amendment case that the licensee needed to submit his
           plan for demonstrating how he was going to comply with
           the radiological release criteria.
                       This kind of wording really comes from the
           license termination plan, where in fact it is a plan
           that is submitted to the NRC for approval for license
           amendment, and in the case of a license termination
           plan, at least two years prior to their proposed date
           of license termination.
                       In this case, we are looking for the
           evidence that demonstrates that they meet the
           criteria, as opposed to a plan.  However, we have
           added words to the statements of consideration noting
           to licensees, and in fact they certainly already know
           this, that it will be to their benefit to review their
           survey designs and their survey plans with the NRC
           prior to performing those surveys.
                       Lastly, we will incorporate -- we have not
           yet received it yet as it is in the concurrence
           process -- NMSS's review of interactive or so-called
           synergistic dose effects.
                       Back during the drafting of our original
           rule making plan, NMSS and others, I believe, raised
           a concern that there may be what was termed at the
           time as a synergistic effect between partial site
           releases or between a partial site release and the
           balance of the site as it is released at license
           termination.
                       Synergism would imply a multiplicity of
           dose if you will, where you would get more and end up
           with a higher dose if you will than the sum of the
           parts.
                       And that would probably violate the laws
           of physics and that's why synergism is not a good
           term.  So we are not using interactive, I believe, is
           the operative word.
                       And interactive to the extent that -- and
           just to give you a rough example, and there are others
           here in the room that can provide more depth if we
           need to talk about it.
                       But if I release Parcel A today, and maybe
           it was a small area, and if you look in the  MARSSIM
           guidance, the survey area that is assumed for the
           resident former scenario, which is a scenario assumed,
           is 2,400 square meters.
                       Well, if there is less than that, and he
           didn't use that whole area, but then Parcel B next
           year is released, and so now he can now take his 2,400
           square meters and move it around if you will, his
           residence, the well that he drinks water from, and now
           possibly the crops that he would probably be eating,
           could now extend over what was originally his boundary
           at the time of the initial part site release.
                       And the conditions over there may be that
           there is some radionuclides that didn't exist in
           Parcel A over in Parcel B, such that now due to his
           lifestyle scenario that is described in the dose
           modeling assumptions, would cause him them to receive
           a higher dose than was assumed at the time of the
           release of Parcel A.
                       This is a hard one.  The thrust of NMSS's
           work was to respond to specific questions that the
           Commission raised in their SRM, and they have done
           that, that related to this dose impact, as well as
           identifying what the guidance needs to be for the
           licensees to be able to assess those contributions
           both from the balance of the site on the partial site
           release, as well as the dose contributions from the
           partial site release on subsequent releases or the
           balance of the site, it would go either way.
                       The primary benefit of this guidance will
           be to allow licensees when they do partial site
           release, number one, let's say, to be able to look
           forward based on this guidance to what the impact
           could be down the road when they go to release another
           part of the site or the balance of the site.
                       So they can make intelligent decisions on
           the degree of remediation that they think they might
           want to do if it is an impacted area in both Parcel A,
           if you will, and the other releases.  I hope that you
           follow that.
                       So this guidance is currently being
           developed and will be done in the June time frame of
           this year, and then incorporated into the appropriate
           guidance document in NMSS, which we think will
           probably be there in the NMSS standard review plan.
                       And that will ultimately be the case, and
           what they are planning on doing now is issuing what is
           called a staff position document that will provide
           that guidance in the interim before the new reg is
           finally revised.
                       The Commission, by the way, when they
           approved our rule making plan, were notified that the
           expectation was that this guidance would probably be
           factored into the rule making at the time of the final
           rule making.
                       So we don't intend to discuss this in any
           depth in our proposed rule because it is still
           somewhat preliminary and the guidance has not yet been
           drafted.
                       However, we will take the attachments that
           describe the guidance process in general terms, as
           well as the specific responses, to the Commission's
           questions in the proposed rule.  Like I said, it is
           not in there yet.
                       And that is pretty much the significant
           changes that were made, and I guess that pretty much
           concludes my prepared slides, and I would be happy to
           answer any questions.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Thank you very much.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  I have some comments and
           questions, or observations.  You wanted the ACNW to
           tell you whether or not you had responded adequately
           and completely to the issues.
                       You have responded, but there are still a
           number of pending things to be done, like this new Reg
           70-27 has to be --
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Yes, some guidance.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  -- added to.  But with
           respect to involving research in this thing with
           respect to dose measurements, where do you stand on
           that?  What have you done?  I know that you have
           appointed a contact, but that doesn't mean much.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Okay.  We have met with
           research to a large extent to discuss both the rule
           making in general, and specifically most of our time
           has been in discussion of this distinguishable
           background criteria.
                       And as a result of that, research now
           concurs with our rule making based on us deleting --
           and which we have already deleted -- that
           distinguishability from background as a criteria.  So
           that is a done deal.
                       In addition, let me just point out that
           the guidance that is needed to address the interactive
           dose effects is exactly that guidance.  In NMSS's
           response, they have concluded -- and we specifically
           asked them to conclude -- that in the time that they
           have spent since October of last year there is no
           further changes or modifications needed to the rule
           making or any of the things that are proposed in the
           proposed rule as it stands today.
                       So further guidance will be provided to
           licensees on one element of it.  However, it does not
           impact our ability to go on and publish the rule and
           get in this public comment period.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  I have a question that I am
           just curious about.  I think there is something about
           having to amend the license if the site boundaries are
           defined by a map, but are there actually sites that
           have been licensed for reactors where they have not
           defined the site boundaries?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  They have all defined the
           site boundaries.  In fact, every one has a map, and
           many times the site description -- its size, and its
           areas and what not -- were an earlier technical
           specification, and were included in the tech specs or
           in the license.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Then why make the
           distinction then?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Well, we are not really
           making the distinction.  What we are saying is --
           well, we are not really making any distinctions.  I am
           just pointing out that most sites had moved over to
           the FSAR.
                       Oyster Creek in 1998 had not done that
           yet, and we make the distinction in our rule making in
           the statements of consideration that the licensee
           needs to be aware of that if he still has a
           description of his site in the license or in the tech
           specs, which are a part of the license, and then he
           would need an amendment in any case, regardless of the
           radiological conditions.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  So some do and some don't
           have it?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Some do and some don't.
           Really, it is a transitional thing as the plants have
           done the work to go ahead and remove some of these
           things that makes them transition into the
           standardized tech specs, which do not include the site
           descriptions within the tech specs, per se.
           They belong in the FSAR and that's where they are.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Another question I had is
           that if you release part of a site to unrestricted
           use, then that means that somebody can do anything
           that they want to on that site.
                       And it seems to me that there are some
           things that they could do which could impact the
           licensed site.  How is that handled?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Well, it depends on what kind
           of impact we are talking about.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Let's say a really bad
           impact.  Like somebody builds an oil refinery there or
           something.  I am taking something out of the air, but
           something really bad.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  The siting rules in Part 100,
           as well as -- and which include the requirement for an
           exclusion area, inside which the licensee is precluded
           to allow certain things from happening, like building
           something that would be a hazard to the site.
                       And it could be that depending on how much
           the site boundary was shrunk as a result of the
           partial site release, that those kinds of impacts
           would need to be released, or need to be judged.
                       But the licensee is obligated to know and
           document what the proposed use of that property is.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  It is unrestricted.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  That's right, but he is still
           required to assess that in determining what the
           potential impacts are, and taking any actions at the
           time of the release.  Now, you are right.  Downstream
           it is in fact unrestricted.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  It is in fact a pretty
           loosy-goosy thing.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  But when you think about it,
           that is really no different than the existing case of
           a licensee today.  Outside of his light and sight
           boundary at the edge of his owner controlled area,
           anything can go on out there.  And whatever local
           regulations or whatever --
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Except that now you are
           closer.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Except that now you are
           closer, that's right, and because of the fact that you
           are closer, then it needs to be looked at closer.  But
           you are right.
                       Unrestricted use is unrestricted use, and
           OGC has already weighed in other than that exclusion
           they talked about in the case where exceeding the
           criteria based on new information, we probably had no
           jurisdictional authority once the release is done.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Okay.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  So it requires having our
           head together at the time that we approve the release.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  And then one final
           question.  It seems the factor having to do with this
           interaction effect, if you release part of the site to
           unrestricted use, and it is a long time between that
           and the time that you actually go to a license
           termination process, then during that period of time
           it seems to me that there is a possibility of some
           radioactivity from the license site to kind of move
           over there, depending on the length of time and what
           is involved, and something like that.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  To move from the released
           area to --
                       MEMBER WYMER:  No, to move from the still
           licensed area to the released area, and what are the
           odds of that happening?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Well, in fact the most
           credible examples of that would be possibly ground
           water would shift and change.  And I see that Chris
           McKenney stood up, and he might respond to you on
           that.
                       MR. MCKENNEY:  I am in charge of the NMSS
           group to develop the guidance.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Do you want to give
           your name?
                       MR. MCKENNEY:  My name is Chris McKenney,
           NMSS, Division of Waste Management.  That was
           specifically an issue, which was that we want to look
           at both processes that could make the partial site
           release effect the reactor site as it is operating, or
           as it is in the decommissioning mode.
                       And which has been discussed previously,
           and changing the site boundary, and all those issues.
           Additionally, we wanted to look at processes that
           could affect a partial site release that could come
           from the facility, and because it is all their land
           right now, that does need to be considered.
                       And so those issues would need to be
           looked into; is there potentials through different
           pathways, like ground water, or surface water, or
           other ways, to recontaminate or add contamination to
           the other land and that isn't there today.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  There is always potential,
           but the question is --
                       MR. HARRIS:  Right, using a risk approach,
           a credible potential that actually results in actual
           impact to the decision.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Well, a licensee is
           actually required to address that issue.
                       MR. HARRIS:  Right.  They would have to
           look into it and go into the process.  And then in the
           future this would be the source of possibly a new
           source of information if the assumptions and
           everything else turned out to be false.
                       Or depending on how it is, it could just
           limit the amount and they can decommission the rest of
           the site.  In other words, having the rest of the site
           decommissioned to 25 MRN, and they may only be able to
           do it to 10 or 15, because the partial site may have
           such a dose impact to somebody who lived on both the
           partial site and the main facility.  They would have
           to take that into consideration.
                       That's why we are  requesting a
           progressive or future look at the site so that people
           are aware of those sort of issues to weigh out, and
           that they are aware of those issues, and the licensee
           can decide what the risk is to them in releasing this
           property.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  That's why the license
           termination process goes back to the whole site again.
                       MR. HARRIS:  Right.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Okay.  Thank you.  That's
           all I have.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  It seems as if this
           rule is coming about like so many other rules.  The
           problem develops and you need to deal with it, and the
           existing rules don't work, and so you create another
           rule that will.
                       Supposing Oyster Creek's request had not
           come along and that you envisioned that there could be
           an improvement in the license termination rule,   or
           another rule enhancing the flexibility of what the
           license can do with respect to the release of a site
           that is going to be decommissioned.  What you have
           written it any differently?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  I would say no.  I think that
           was probably the approach that we took is a proactive
           approach without regard to what has happened in the
           past and balancing the various pillars involved and
           the public confidence, versus the need for effective
           and efficient regulations.
                       I know that sounds like preaching to the
           choir, but that is the approach that we would have
           taken in any case.  I think the rule would have come
           out the same.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Is this going to come
           out as a separate rule?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Yes.  There is a new section,
           50-83, that is being added to 10 CFR 50, which is the
           procedural portion of it, and provides the process.
           And then there are amendments to the other sections as
           I indicated, to 50-75, record keeping, et cetera.  So
           it is not an integrated rule.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I guess what I am
           getting at is there -- if we had approached it just
           from the standpoint of modifying the license
           termination rule, but to give the licensee a lot of
           flexibility in releasing the land, if we think of it
           that way would we do it the say way that we have done
           it?  It is kind of the same question, but from a
           little different perspective.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Would we approach it from
           the --
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes, I see this a
           little differently, I guess.  I guess I see that there
           is a real opportunity here for enhancing the way in
           which sites are decommissioned, and releasing land
           quickly rather than -- well, sooner rather than later.
           And yet that is not quite this rule was put into
           place.
                       MR. RIPLEY:   That's right.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  And so my thought here
           -- and which is probably not a very good one, is that
           could we have written this a little differently to
           provide for much greater flexibility and much quicker
           release of lands that are tied up in these large
           sites.
                       Because they are large sites, and had we
           approached it more globally, more from the standpoint
           of decommissioning rather than the releasing of land.
                       It is not unlike a strategy that has been
           suggested many times for some of the nuclear weapons
           sites, where you take a Hanford that has 460 square
           miles, and really the problems reside in something
           that is only about 10 percent of that.
                       So you could release 90 percent of the
           land in a very quick and short order if you didn't get
           the whole process completely entangled in a kind of a
           legal maze that stands in the way of doing it.
                       And I was just struck by the idea that
           maybe now that we are going to have partial release
           there are some things that could be done with this
           rule that would give it a lot more flexibility,
           improve the public participation and image, and
           acceptance, and at the same time probably save a lot
           of money.  And I was just very curious as to how
           visionary you were when you did this.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Well, I don't think we were
           visionary to the extent that you are talking about.
           I don't believe it was viewed, or at least I don't see
           it in thinking about it -- and this is the first time
           that I have thought about it as you have brought it
           up, that really there is enhancing the decommissioning
           process by purposely going in and providing the
           mechanism for a partial site release.
                       I think to the contrary that it is really
           providing something to the benefit of licensees who
           would like to do that for their benefit.  That is a
           large site, and maybe there are some reasons to say
           that from an overall global decommissioning process
           standpoint that it may be better off to reduce the
           size of the site.
                       But I don't see that myself, and so maybe
           to answer your question that the answer is no.  I
           don't think  we would have headed off in that
           direction.
                       Really, it is reduced down to providing a
           process to licensees, and to prevent them from
           circumventing the license termination rule, a stop gap
           because of this gap in the regulations that I talked
           about.
                       That is really the thrust and purpose of
           the rule making and therefore would be the way that we
           would go if we didn't otherwise see a benefit in any
           case to partial site release, which I am not sure is
           there from our standpoint.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  Milt.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  I have a one question.
           It seems to me that there is a somewhat difference v
           between partial site release of a piece of property
           out there at the end of the site somewhere, and your
           comment that one of them is internal to the site.
                       That the unrestricted release internal to
           a site, I must admit that we worry about the things
           that we know less about.  I would be very nervous
           about putting an LNG tank in the middle of my reactor
           site if it were my reactor.  How are things like that
           controlled?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Well, let me recharacterize
           my statement that Haddam Neck was planning on this
           release in the middle of their site, and it is a
           parking lot area that is currently in the middle of
           their owner controlled area currently.
                       Their release is going to -- well, it is
           to the northwest of their reactor building and fuel
           facility, et cetera.
                       MR. HARRIS:  Northwest.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Northwest.  It is everything
           that side of it, and so they will own that parking
           lot, and then they will have to grant back to
           Connecticut Yankee access to the road, because the
           road that now is coming in is now that parking lot to
           the site area is the site access road.
                       So when the release is finished, it will
           no longer be in the middle of their site.  So I
           mischaracterized what is now currently in the middle
           of their site.
                       Now, as far as this liquid natural gas
           storage facility, that is the subject of a very huge
           hazards analysis that is ongoing right now that will
           come for our approval because it is an unreviewed
           safety question and is another amendment process all
           of its own, and the impact on the existing facility.
                       It is some several hundred yards from
           their fuel storage building, and they envision this
           humongous concrete structure around it and what not,
           which is part of their safety hazards analysis.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  But you said they
           envisioned bringing it to you as an unresolved safety
           issue, but if the land is not under your jurisdiction
           because it is completely released, what forces people
           in the future to bring things to do, to the NRC?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  On the --
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Well, suppose at the
           moment they just said that we don't want this piece of
           land, and we don't need it.  We want to see it and we
           want to get rid of it.  And then two years later
           somebody decides to put an LNG tank there.
                       What mechanism or regulation, or how do we
           assure that such safety issues get reviewed?
                       MR. HARRIS:  Well, it really comes down to
           -- this is no different than a decommissioned power
           reactor and sort of test reactor out there, where the
           environmental exterior of the licensed facility
           changes.
                       The licensee still has the safety analysis
           report that needs to be maintained and updated, and
           that in Chapters 1 and 2 of that FSAR describes the
           environment off-site of the site, and the licensee is
           required and it is their responsibility to keep that
           updated.
                       Any change to the final safety analysis
           report requires a 50-59 review, and that requires a
           hazards analysis, and if they determine that there is
           a safety question there, they are required to come to
           the NRC.
                       The LNG scenario is pretty well known
           within the industry and within the staff, and that is
           clearly --
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Yes, but what I am
           following through on is that that is correct, and the
           utility owns the reactor, and brings you the issue,
           and you come to the conclusion that it is  an
           unresolved safety issue, but you don't have
           jurisdiction over that land anymore if it is
           unresolved.
                       How do you prevent somebody from doing
           that?  Do you force the utility to shut down its
           reactor for an unresolved safety issue off-site?
           Jurisdictionally, this is very --
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Well, I guess as Paul said,
           this is the same case of property outside the owner
           controlled area that someone would choose to do
           something on, and whatever existing requirements that
           they would have to meet, in terms of their being
           adjacent to a licensed facility, I don't know for sure
           exactly what it is.  But those controls exist, but I
           can't describe them to you.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  But presumably in the
           past those areas were big, and the probability that
           something off-site could impact the reactor was quite
           different than when you use the terminology that this
           is on a piece of land that originally was in the
           middle of the site.  That is the thing which I wonder
           about.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  And it is a good question,
           and it again speaks of this unrestricted use.
                       MR. BECKNER:  Mike, can I address that
           quickly?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  Sure.
                       MR. BECKNER:  My name is Bill Beckner, and
           there is an answer to your question, but we just don't
           know it right now.  Off-site hazards do change with
           time, whether you have made the site small or not, and
           there is some provision for looking at that.
                       And I was talking to my colleagues at the
           table, and we are not sure what they are, and we will
           get back to you with what that answer is, and what the
           controlling provisions are to periodically look at
           off-site hazards.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Well, it seems to me
           that it isn't so important that you get back to us as
           it is that the new rule extends whatever that is in
           the past to this new land.
                       MR. BECKNER:  It is a valid concern.
           Thank you.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  John, you had a question?
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I just wanted to ask
           one final question.  How do you -- in this era of when
           the NRC is trying to adopt a risk-informed
           performance-based way of looking at issues, and making
           decisions, how do you risk informed decisions on
           partial site release?
                       MR. RIPLEY:  A good question.  I don't
           have a ready answer for you.  I can't really address
           that.  I am not sure how you would accomplish that.
                       There is an in-process review of
           decommissioning related rules and bringing them into
           an integrated rule making process that would address
           risk informing those regulations.  However, partial
           site release was not part of the scope of that effort
           either.  So probably nothing is envisioned now and I
           am not sure how you would accomplish it.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  And in final conclusion,
           let me say that we do note your request that we
           respond in some way so that we don't hit you with
           something after you have already put the rule in
           place.
                       MR. HARRIS:  Just to answer that one,
           understand that the intent here is to brief the
           committee.  There is by no means a closed door here.
           We expect to continue dialogue, especially during the
           public comment period after the proposed rule comes
           out and something getting published.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.
                       MR. RIPLEY:  We would expect to be
           briefing this committee at that time.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Okay.  Thank you very much.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes, thank you.  Okay.
           License termination plan and review and lessons
           learned.
                       (Brief Pause.)
                       MR. NELSON:  Good afternoon.  My name is
           Bob Nelson, and I am Chief of the Facilities
           Decommissioning Section in the Decommissioning Branch,
           Division of Waste Management.
                       And I am here today to discuss the topic
           of lessons learned in the license termination plan
           review process.  I am also going to sneak in a little
           status report on where we stand on the license
           termination plans and give you some background
           information on that.
                       And then discuss in some detail some
           lessons that we have learned during this process, and
           improvements that we plan as a result of those
           lessons.
                       I am going to start with the Trojan plant.
           I am not going to read through all these dates, but
           the Trojan plant was the first license termination
           plan that we initiated a review on.
                       In fact, it was the first plan submitted
           under the license termination rule.  It was the first
           plant to submit a MARSSIM type final survey plan.  So
           it represented a lot of firsts for us.
                       We completed the review of that license
           termination plan, and the plan was approved by license
           amendment last month.
                       And for Maine Yankee, we have completed
           our initial review, and you will note here that I have
           identified a two-phase review process, and that's
           because of the involvement of a contractor supporting
           a technical staff under a different time frame than --
           the contractor's portion was under a different time
           frame than ours, the portion that we were reviewing
           in-house.
                       And so we decided to break the review into
           two parts rather than hold up the whole review until
           the contractor could finish.  So we finished Phase One
           in October, and Phase Two in January.
                       But I should note that the licensee has
           indicated that they will submit a revised license
           termination plan, and currently that their date is
           April 15th of this year.
                       At which time we will have to look at that
           revised plan and make an assessment about what
           additional reviews are required.  And just for
           scheduling purposes, we have made some assumptions,
           and based on what we believe will be changed, we
           believe we can complete the review by January of 2002.
                       But we will need to reassess that date
           after we have received the revised license termination
           plan.
                       Connecticut Yankee.  Again, we have
           conducted a two-phased review of that licensed
           termination plan, and we just recently completed the
           second phase.
                       We will be meeting with the licensee
           shortly to discuss our comments on that, our specific
           comments on phase two.  We have already made on phase
           one.
                       Responses to both sets of questions are
           pending, and we hope to be able to complete the review
           in September of this year.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Is there any reason why
           Connecticut Yankee takes 6 or 7 months less than Maine
           Yankee?
                       MR. NELSON:  The substantive difference
           between the two is that we are going to get a new LTP
           for Maine Yankee in April, and that compounds -- and
           to what degree we have to go back and reexamine
           things, we don't know.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Is that because the
           original one was not as complete?
                       MR. NELSON:  No, the original plan
           included a concept called rubblization, and also there
           original plan addressed compliance with NRC's dose
           standards in the license termination rule.
                       They have made a commitment to the State
           to comply with more restrictive standards that the
           State has established by legislation, and to eliminate
           basically the rubblization concept.
                       So there are some substantive changes, but
           exactly how those will be reflected in the plan we
           don't know.  But that is the driver on the schedule
           right now.
                       MR. NELSON:  The Saxton plant.  We again
           completed the two-phase review.  Unfortunately in this
           case, substantive additional characterization is
           needed at the site, and because of weather conditions
           at the site and other factors, they have informed us
           that they won't be able to complete that
           characterization and provide that data to us until
           late in December of this year.
                       Therefore, we have moved out our schedule
           for completion until April of 2002.  Any questions on
           the review status before I go on to lessons learned?
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Did all of these go
           through pretty much very similar steps?
                       MR. NELSON:  Yes, they did.  We did an
           acceptance review in all cases, and we did or had a
           public meeting at the licensee's or near licensee's
           facilities within a few months after the receipt  of
           the LTP.
                       Then with the exception of Trojan, we have
           imitated this two-phase review process.  Trojan was
           different.  We didn't do that because we didn't have
           a contractor involved.  Trojan was a little simpler.
                       The Trojan plant decided to use the
           generic screening criteria rather than develop site
           specific.  So we had no dose modeling needs for this
           site.
                       And the Trojan also had a previously
           developed EA for a decommissioning plan that they had
           submitted earlier.  So we had a simpler analytical
           task, and some of the work had already been done to
           support the amendment review.
                       So it was a different approach that was
           taken for Trojan, but the other three have been
           essentially the same.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Do you have a sense of how
           many more are in the pipeline?
                       MR. NELSON:  Not many.  Fermi One may
           submit a license termination plan in the next couple
           of years.  I believe that they decided to go into
           active decommissioning, we believe.
                       Big Rock Point, they had said that they
           want to have their license terminated by -- I believe
           it is July of 2005, which would mean that they would
           have to submit a decommissioning plan no later than
           July of 2003 to meet the two year requirement.  Those
           are the only two that I can speak to.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  So you don't anticipate a
           staffing problem, or any big problems?
                       MR. NELSON:  No, for planning purposes,
           for our budget planning purposes, we are assuming
           essentially one LTP per year, and I don't see anything
           more than that.
                       I certainly don't see the four LTPs at one
           time that we have experienced within the last year to
           year-and-a-half.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  You don't have a sense of
           how many are coming along each year at the end of
           their 40 years?
                       MR. NELSON:  No.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  But you could get that if
           you wanted it?  I know that a lot of them are getting
           renewed, but some of them won't.  So just by going
           back to when they were licensed, you could sort of
           calculate how many could come.
                       MR. NELSON:  Could, but many of them may
           stay in safe store for years.  So it is difficult to
           make that estimate.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Okay.  I was just curious.
                       DR. LARSON:  Other than Maine Yankee, are
           they all going with the 25 MREM and don't worry about
           ground water?
                       MR. NELSON:  Yes.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  It appears that plant
           type and size is not as much a factor as site problems
           and communication issues, and what have you.  Is that
           a fair assessment?
                       MR. NELSON:  I think that is a fair
           assessment.  You will see that as we go through the
           lessons learned.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Because this is a very
           small plant?
                       MR. NELSON:  A very small plant, but
           historically it has been around for along time, and
           the unique feature of this site is that there was a
           coal-fired plan right next door.
                       And the Saxton plant used that steam
           turbine as basically its energy sync, and that plant
           was cleaned up or was removed many years ago.
           Fortunately, the footprint is contaminated, and which
           they just discovered.
                       And they also have other hazardous wastes
           buried in the footprint, which complicates the
           characterization process.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  An interesting question
           is can you take these lessons learned and feed them
           into the existing plants who may have similar
           situations?  When you said a coal plant next store, I
           immediately thought of Beaver Valley.
                       It is not quite as close as this, but they
           do have right next door a very large coal plant.  Are
           these lessons learned valuable to other installations
           such as Beaver Valley, and the way that they conduct
           their maintenance?
                       MR. NELSON:  Well, I can't speak
           specifically to any plant, but I will say that, yes,
           I think they are a valuable lessons learned, and that
           will get to the implementation of -- which is the last
           slide in my presentation.  So if you hold on that, I
           will come to it, I promise you.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Good.
                       MR. NELSON:  Okay.  If there are no other
           questions on plant status, then I will transition into
           lessons learned.  First of all, and maybe most
           importantly, is that early and frequent consultations
           between NRC staff and licensee are needed and
           encourage during the planning and scoping phase of not
           only LTPs, but decommissioning plans.
                       And I will now speak to both because
           really these lessons learned apply to both
           decommissioning plans and license termination plans.
           In this context, we encourage an early meeting between
           NRC and the licensee to discuss the planning and
           content of the LTP or DP.
                       We believe that these discussions should
           address such things as past and current licensed
           operations, types and quantities of radioactive
           materials used or stored; activities that may have an
           impact on decommissioning operations, decommissioning
           goals, such as restricted versus unrestricted license
           termination.
                       Basis for the cleanup criteria, and
           development of specific cleanup goals, and whether the
           licensee plans to use default cleanup values or site
           specific cleanup values, and any potential impact on
           the environment that may result as a result of the
           cleanup.
                       To support these meetings, we developed
           Appendix A to new reg  1727, which is the NMSS
           decommissioning standard review plan.  It is developed
           in the form of a checklist.  During the meeting, we
           would with the licensee go through this checklist and
           address site specific requirements that ought to be
           included in the decommissioning plan or LTP, and make
           a record of that checklist for future reference.
                       That and product, and then as a marked up
           checklist, which defines the technical elements and
           regulatory requirements that should be covered in the
           upcoming submittal.
                       We hope that this process provides a
           better understanding of the type of information that
           we feel we need to be included in either document, and
           familiarize the licensee with the process that the
           staff will use to evaluate their submittal.
                       This approach is anticipated to minimize
           the need for request for additional information, and
           reduce the number and iterations of submittals, and
           expedite the staff technical review.
                       In fact, we have implemented this process
           with several upcoming decommissioning plans with three
           different licensees.  And in each case the licensee
           has told us after the meeting how useful they found
           it, and we had the same reaction to that process.
                       Fortunately, we did not have this process
           in place prior to or at the time that we started
           receiving the license termination plans.  The second
           lesson that I have enumerated here is that operational
           environmental monitoring of ground water is unlikely
           to be adequate for site characterization to support
           dose assessments.
                       Environmental monitoring is normally
           conducted at the fence line or even off-site,
           particularly in the ground water area, and this does
           not provide the information needed to support a dose
           assessment.
                       For example, monitoring off-site doesn't
           tell us what the ground water -- whether there is any
           ground water contamination on-site.
                       In fact, the use of the screening criteria
           for soils, one of the fundamental assumptions, is that
           there is no current ground water contamination unless
           you have data on site ground water contamination, and
           you don't know whether you can use the default soil
           values or not.
                       Also, on-site wells normally provide
           information regarding the hydrogeologic parameters of
           the site, which would be needed for dose assessment,
           and knowing the types of soils, and rock, and the
           depth of those, and the depth of the ground water, and
           soil types.
                       And some of the information that you would
           gather during the installation of a well that would be
           needed to support a site specific dose assessment.
                       The design of the final survey must
           involve the application of appropriate data quality
           objectives.   In this context the licensee needs to
           identify all appropriate data quality objectives, and
           planning and designing the final status survey plan.
                       I summarize this bullet by saying you need
           to know where you are going before you plan how to get
           there.  And the DKO process provides the structure to
           do just that.
                       The process identifying the DKOs ensures
           that the survey plan requirements, and survey results,
           and survey evaluation are of sufficient quality,
           quantity, and robustness to support the decision on
           whether the cleanup criteria have been met using this
           required statistical test.
                       Major elements of the process include,
           first, a clear statement of the problem; the
           identification of all related decision statements and
           alternative actions, including selection of the most
           appropriate scenario to be analyzed.
                       The identification of the information
           needed to support this decision making process; the
           definition of the site physical, temporal, and
           spacial boundaries for all environmental medias and
           structures, including reference areas that would be
           covered by the decision process in any subsequent dose
           modeling.
                       The development of the appropriate
           decision rules and identification of the cleanup
           criteria; specifying types of the limits for the type
           one and two decision areas in support of the no
           hypothesis, and impacts on sample size.
                       And finally the optimization step, looking
           at the process of collecting data and updating the
           survey design to meet those DQOs.
                       We have observed that licensees have
           difficulty in scoping out the DQOs, and have not taken
           full advantage of the DQO process, especially the
           final step, the optimalization step.
                       Experience has shown that the process is
           often rigidly structured rather than relying on too
           much characterization data, and not being readily open
           to the possibility of incorporating new information as
           it becomes available.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Don't most of the sites
           have ground water monitoring programs of some sort
           going because they are looking for Tritium and other
           --
                       MR. NELSON:  Some do, but not necessarily
           in all the right places that you need to support a
           dose model.  This is the problem that we experienced
           at Trojan.
                       The Trojan plant decided to use the
           default screening criteria, but didn't have data to
           show that they didn't have ground water contamination
           on-site.
                       So as a condition of approval of the
           license termination plan, we included a requirement in
           that approval for them to collect that data, and if
           necessary, come back and revise the cleanup criteria
           if they found any ground water contamination on site.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  If the site had a coal
           plant on it, how would you differentiate whether the
           contamination in the ground was what legally came from
           the coal plant that is not radioactive?
                       MR. NELSON:  That's true, but the
           contaminants that they are finding at Saxton are
           clearly Cesium 137, strontium.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  They are not finding
           uranium?
                       MR. NELSON:  No, that is not the problem
           at all.  It is clearly contaminants resulting from the
           operation of the nuclear power plant.
                       In-process inspections are more efficient
           than a one-time after the fact confirmation surveys.
           As a result of the final survey problems experienced
           at the Sherm nuclear plant, an in-process final survey
           approach was developed at the Fort St. Vrain plant.
                       At the Sherm Plant, the confirmatory
           survey was conducted after the licensee had completed
           most of the final survey and many of the staff
           involved in that survey were no longer available to
           address questions and issues that were identified by
           the staff during the confirmatory survey.
                       Simply put, we were too late.  The in-
           process approach we are now implementing at all of our
           sites has allowed the NRC and the licensee to make
           side by side measurements, compare instrument
           readings, and sensitivities, and address survey issues
           early in the process, rather than at the end of the
           process.
                       The in-process approach would result in a
           significant cost savings and would show a more
           accurate survey, and help the licensee in maintaining
           their release schedule.
                       Following on the first point about having
           the conversations early, a continuous dialogue is
           needed throughout the process so that the licensee can
           take advantage of the inherent flexibility in MARSSIM,
           the multi-agency site survey investigation  manual.
                       In reviewing LTPs and DPs, we have
           observed that licensees are often boxing their
           approaches into rigid formats and structures, thereby
           locking out any operational flexibility that may be
           available.
                       Frequently we find that the derivation of
           the derived concentration guidelines, or DCGLs, are
           not fully justified, and they should include all
           assumptions and justifications for the parameters
           used.
                       For example, area factors.  Area factors
           are needed in the final survey status to determine
           such things as required scan, minimum detectable
           concentration, and a developed, elevated measurement
           limits or values, which we call DCGL/EMC, or elevated
           measurement comparisons.
                       These are needed to identify small areas
           that may require further investigation, and frequently
           these area factors are not provided for residual
           activity on building surfaces.
                       Volumetric contamination is another
           problem area, because volumetric contamination does
           occur, and often does occur within building
           structures, some licensees have assumed that it is
           appropriate to use the DCGLs that have been developed
           for building surface contamination for these areas
           without additional justification on the
           appropriateness of that use.
                       We advise licensees to develop specific
           DCGLs for volumetric contamination, which would
           consider the potential routes of exposure to residual
           activity in the material if the structure is
           eventually torn down, for example.
                       As an alternative , licensees can
           demonstrate that these cleanup values developed for
           surface contamination will bound the possible effects
           from exposure from other configurations in the
           building structure.
                       A third area under this bullet is modeling
           results.  Licensees frequently use RESRAD or D&D to
           generate the DCGL values and to perform dose
           assessments, and these often do not include printouts
           from the codes as part of their submission.
                       This information is typically omitted
           simply because of its size.  It can be voluminous.
           However, without this information, it is difficult for
           us to undertake confirmatory analyses, or to complete
           our review of the licensee's analysis.
                       We suggest that the licensees provide
           output results from their analyses that they used to
           develop the DCGLs, and if the output values do not
           provide an echo of the input values, then we would
           also ask that that also be included in the submission.
                       Licensees often use a combination of
           default and site related parameters in their analyses
           to develop the cleanup criteria.  In many cases,
           little or no justification is provided for the reason
           for using the site specific parameter values, or the
           defaults.
                       This can lead to enormous uncertainties in
           assessing the appropriateness of the cleanup values or
           the calculated dose to demonstrate compliance with the
           dose standard.
                       We categorize the parameters in the models
           in one of three ways; the behavioral, metabolic, and
           physical parameters.  Licensees may use the default
           values for the behavioral and metabolic parameters as
           long as these values are consistent with the generic
           information, or generic definition of the average
           member of the critical group, and the screening
           scenarios that are used.
                       Site specific physical parameters should
           be used and justified, and we found this not to be the
           case.
                       A clear relationship is needed between the
           planned  decommissioning activities and the estimated
           cost.  In order for us to make a finding that
           sufficient funding is available to complete
           decommissioning, the updated cost estimate and the
           remaining site dismantling activities, and the
           remediation plan must be consistent.
                       The updated cost estimate should be based
           on the remaining activities, and the plans on how
           these actions will be completed, and this has not
           always been the case.
                       It has not always been a direct or easily
           detectable tie between the elements and the cost
           estimate, and what the licensee says they are going to
           do in the other sections of the LTP; almost as if two
           entirely separate entities developed the sections
           without discussing those.
                       The next point goes to the matter of
           characterization.  Experience has shown that old
           records and results of operational surveys, and post-
           shutdown scoping surveys, have been submitted as
           substitutes for characterization surveys.
                       While these records are important and
           should be looked at, they are not a substitute for
           characterization.  We certainly do encourage licensees
           to review old records and to conduct personal
           interviews of both current and past employees, and key
           contractors.
                       However, there is still a need to present
           this information in its proper context, and to qualify
           its usefulness in how it might be supplemented.
                       When digging a little further into the
           characterization issue when we see that the
           characterization information is lacking, we found that
           the characterization data in often cases does exist,
           but it just simply has not been submitted to us for a
           review.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Bob, how are you --
           what action if any are you taking to overcome some of
           these deficiencies?
                       MR. NELSON:  Well, in this specific case,
           where we note just a serious deficiency in
           characterization information, we have had knowledge
           and had every reason to believe that the information
           was available, but it just wasn't submitted.  So we go
           looking.
                       We ask, and we go back to the files, and
           find it, or go to the site and say we have it.  It is
           right here.  So we look at it, and so it is going back
           and asking questions, and pulling the threads that
           lead us to the data.
                       Clearly it is better if that information
           is presented as a package, rather than us having to go
           back and ask the questions to find it.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I guess what I am
           getting at is there any requirements that should be
           changed, or modified, or added in the operating
           license to minimize some of these difficulties?
                       MR. NELSON:  I don't see it as any
           requirement.  New requirements would have to be
           replaced on the operating license to collect more
           data.  It is a matter of packaging that data and
           providing it to us.
                       Now, there have been cases -- and I
           mentioned Saxton earlier, where there was
           contamination found after the license termination plan
           had been submitted, and that really goes back to my
           point about relying exclusively on old records to
           determine that an area is unimpacted.
                       For areas close into the site, you
           probably need to take some confirmatory samples to
           determine that what you have deduced from the record
           review is in fact the case.  They did that, but they
           did it after the fact.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  So you get this information
           out to the potential people putting in an LTP at these
           public meetings that you have, like the Waste
           Management 2001 meeting that you presented them at and
           that sort of thing?  Is that how you get it out to
           them?
                       MR. NELSON:  Well, this particular
           presentation has been given several times, and it
           wasn't done at Waste Management 101.  I am going to
           get to who we plan to implement these lessons learned
           at the last phase of this discussion.
                       But right now we have been doing it
           through presentations such as this, and of course
           direct discussions with the licensee during the LTP
           review.
                       But hopefully as a part of this process
           and in implementing the steps that we are going to
           take, we can prevent these types of things in the
           future.
                       In the area of environmental reviews the
           licensee needs to address both non-radiological as
           well as radiological.  While most licensees normally
           provide sufficient information for the staff to assess
           radiological impacts in the human environment, most
           licensees fail to provide information related to
           current site-specific, non-radiological impacts.
                       Such areas could, but don't necessarily
           include, land use, future land use, transportation
           impacts, ecological, hazardous wastes, public and
           occupational health, water quality, air quality,
           historic and cultural resources, noise,
           socioeconomics.
                       Again, these might -- all of these may not
           apply to every site, but normally some of them do, and
           they are not addressed, or haven't always been
           addressed.
                       Well, I promised you the improvements that
           we plan to implement as a result of this, and this
           goes back to my very first bullet.  We are, and
           scheduling, and having these pre-submittal
           consultations and we are finding them very useful.
                       The checklists that are developed are --
           and I don't know if you are familiar with Appendix A,
           but it gets pretty specific, and basically we go down
           and just put a check mark by every item that should be
           in the LTP, and we discuss that, those items.
                       And if there is more information that we
           need to annotate, then we annotate the checklist with
           notes about what else needs to be provided.  We found
           that very useful, and I think if we would have done
           that in the cases of the LTPs, a lot of the problems
           that we have seen would have gone away.
                       On our side, we need to develop project
           plans and schedules early in the process and
           communicate those with the licensees so that they know
           exactly when we are going to be doing things, and what
           they can expect to see, and when they can expect to
           see it, and what we expect to see as far as response
           times.
                       This will allow us to schedule meetings up
           front or ahead of time, rather than ad hoc, and to go
           through the process in a more orderly fashion.
           We also believe a more expansive review is needed at
           the time of the acceptance review.
                       Our current practice on acceptance review
           is that acceptance review is defined to be basically
           an administrative review, and by guidance it is
           designed to be conducted by an administrative staff,
           a licensing assistant, for example.
                       And the acceptance review is basically
           just a look at the outline and a quick read of the
           document to see if the licensee has addressed all of
           the necessary topics.
                       In practice, our project managers do those
           acceptance reviews, but the project managers aren't
           versed in all the necessary technical areas that are
           needed to conduct the ultimate review.
                       We believe that if we expand the technical
           review to bring in the full project team, and look at
           targeted areas of the submittal, we can identify
           significant deficiencies and turn the document back,
           rather than initiate a full or very intensive
           technical review and wind up with literally hundreds
           of requests for additional information.
                       In other words, enforce the quality on the
           front end rather than bringing the quality in
           piecemeal during the process.
                       The other improvement that we plan is a
           generic communication, which will basically put in
           words what I have discussed with you today.  An
           information notice that would identify these lessons
           learned, and discuss in more detail what we have seen
           and how we think that they can be corrected in future
           submittals.
                       We are currently working on that generic
           communication and hope to have that published in April
           of this year.  That concludes my comments and I am
           open for any questions that you may have.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  What has been the
           biggest surprises in this process that you didn't
           really expect to be the way they are, if any?
                       MR. NELSON:  Well, I would say one
           surprise was the reliance on environmental monitoring
           to provide ground water characterization. That took us
           by surprise.
                       Internally, we weren't real familiar with
           the REM process, the radiological environmental
           monitoring program at reactor sites.  And we weren't
           aware that that might be relied upon as
           characterization for ground water.
                       I think generally the problems were with
           just characterization in general was surprising.  That
           characterization information was provided in a very
           summary nature or not at all, or not referred to.
           That was a surprise.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  And I would guess that
           part of that is brought about by the fact that the
           mentality of reactor safety has always been accidents,
           and the pathway of greatest concern in that regard has
           always been air.
                       And next maybe surface liquids and so on,
           and that it has taken a little while to develop a real
           environmental perspective as far as site contamination
           is concerned.  But I would think that that would be
           changing now.
                       MR. NELSON:  I think those are the two big
           surprise areas.  I think we anticipated that
           implementing the MARSSIM process would be challenging
           at the outset.
                       Both the industry and the agency was
           embarking on a new guidance that we had really not
           implemented anywhere before.  So I think the growing
           pains with that were anticipated, although I don't
           know that we specifically had or knew where those
           growing pains would be.
                       I think we knew that they would be there,
           and so I don't think that was a surprise. But it has
           been a learning -- implementing MARSSIM has been a
           learning process I think for everyone.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  With this being a bit
           of a surprise, then the thing that we were talking
           about earlier, about a partial site release, makes it
           all the more important to be very focused on things
           like ground water pathways and what is happening in
           the subsurface.
                       MR. NELSON:  You are absolutely right, and
           I think we had enough experience with these concerns
           to do it right at Oyster Creek.  We did a very
           concentrated effort at Oyster Creek, and I think it
           was well done.
                       But we at that time had been involved
           already in some of these issues and we knew what to
           look for and where the problems might be.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  How significant an economic
           impact was it for these utilities to go back in now
           and drill these wells and get this information?  Is
           that a big deal?
                       MR. NELSON:  I can't give you an exact
           cost estimate.  I think there may be 3 or 4 wells that
           Trojan has to drill.  I am not sure of the exact
           number.  It might be up to five.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Not a whole lot?
                       MR. NELSON:  Not a whole lot.  There are
           certain specific areas that we wanted them to look at
           because of the specific hydrogeologic structure of the
           site.  They are basically upon a rock platform, but
           there is on both sides -- well, there is Columbia
           River on one side, and then there is an old stream bed
           on the other.
                       So it is conceivable that spills could
           have traversed down or even through the bedrock into
           the underlying aqua fern, and we are just looking for
           some confirmatory measurements to say that that did
           not happen.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  The reason that I ask is
           because I know that is a big cost deal out at Hanford,
           and I was just wondering what the relative size was.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  There is a big
           difference in the -- well, in Idaho, the USGS put some
           30 or 40 wells in in 1949 all over the whole site, and
           have been monitoring it continuously.  So it varies
           tremendously.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  That's because they
           have a big river running under the site.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  But they didn't do
           anything like that at Hanford.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.  Right.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Milt.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  I had one other
           question.  The Saxton removal which left the footprint
           was a long time ago.
                       MR. NELSON:  A long, long time ago, yes,
           sir.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Do you think that they
           really missed the contamination back then, or is this
           a case of much more sensitive instrumentation today
           that detected what was probably missed then?
                       MR. NELSON:  I honestly don't know.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Is it quite low level?
                       MR. NELSON:  We don't know exactly yet.
           I mean, they have not done enough characterization  to
           know how extensive it is, or what exactly they are
           going to haver to do.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Well, sensitivity of
           instrumentation has changed enough so that if you go
           back to things done 40 or 50 years ago, they --
                       MR. NELSON:  Yes, sir, but I don't
           actually know whether it is that.  The ground water
           there is very high, and so it may just be a transport
           issue.  I don't know.
                       There is another portion of the plant that
           also needs to be characterized, and it is a discharge
           tunnel, where the effluent is discharged to the river.
           It is a rather long tunnel, and actually traverses the
           switch yard, the active switch yard at the site.
                       And they haven't fully characterized that
           tunnel or what may be underneath the piping that
           compromises the tunnel.  It is a difficult area to get
           into.  And that is another area where they owe us some
           information.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  We got into a little
           discussion this morning about decommissioning and
           license termination for sites, and what was brought up
           and practically everything that we have heard from the
           staff is related to reactor decommissioning.
                       I wonder what is the status of
           decommissioning other kinds of NRC licensed sites that
           may have significant amounts of radioactive materials
           on them, like fuel fabrication plants?  Does it say
           anything about that, or is that --
                       MR. NELSON:  Well, I can give you another
           hour long briefing on that.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Give us the 5 minute
           version.
                       MR. NELSON:  Well, a lot of the lessons
           learned that I summarized here would apply to
           materials facilities as well I would expect as they go
           into or they submit decommissioning plans under the
           license termination rule.
                       We have no decommissioning plans for
           material or fuel cycle facilities.  Well, I will
           correct that.  We do.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Isn't Sequoia Fuels in
           this stage?
                       MR. NELSON:  Yes, it is, but it is a
           little different, in that their plan was submitted
           before MARSSIM, and so it is a unique character.  I
           would say that we have reviewed one plan, and it is
           actually a partial cleanup at NFS Irwin, which was
           developed basically under the license termination rule
           concept in MARSSIM.
                       But most of our experience with applying
           the LTR and the supporting guidance has been in
           reactors.  But we are expecting more Dps in the
           future.  Several in the next couple of years, and
           which would be LTR compliant.
                 So we are hoping that these lessons learned will
           positively impact those submittals.  But the overall
           process is not dissimilar.  I mean, we are conducting
           the same types of reviews or would conduct the same
           types of reviews on those sites as well.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Many of the same type of
           considerations apply.
                       MR. NELSON:  Basically the same
           considerations apply, yes.  And the up-front
           consultation with the materials facilities I think is
           even more important, because most of those, with the
           exception of fuel cycle, but at the other STNP sites
           are basically in a possession only status.
                       They don't have an in-place significant
           RAD health and safety program.  They probably only
           have environmental monitoring data, and until they
           start characterizing, they would not have installed
           wells.
                       So there are some substantive difference
           in the types of organizations and the problems that we
           might anticipate from those different organizations,
           just simply because of the type of business that they
           are in.
                       So I think that it is even more important
           with the materials facilities that we have these up
           front discussions and work with them, and have the
           prelicensing consultations to make sure that we get
           the right plan in the door when it is submitted.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Anybody else?  Staff?
                       DR. LARSON:  You have the agreement of
           States involved in some of the other facilities;
           whereas in reactors you don't, and you haven't seen
           any problems with their involvement?
                       MR. NELSON:  Well, I wouldn't say the
           States aren't involved in reactor facilities.  They
           clearly are.  The State of Maine is very active at
           Maine Yankee.
                       The State of Connecticut is very active at
           Haddam Neck.  The State of Oregon was very much
           involved with the review of the LTP for Trojan.  So I
           would say the States are involved very much so at the
           reactor sites.
                       DR. LARSON:  But a Part 50 license is an
           NRC license.
                       MR. NELSON:  Absolutely.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Well, if there are no more
           questions, we thank you very much.
                       MR. NELSON:  Thank you very much.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Is it worth asking Bob
           the question of what does he want from us?
                       MR. NELSON:  I meant to say that at first.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, maybe you did.
                       MR. NELSON:  No, I omitted that and I
           should have addressed it.  This was principally an
           information briefing.  We are not looking for any
           specific feedback.  If you have any recommendations,
           clearly we would welcome them.  But we are not asking
           for a critique or any specific memo back form the
           committee at this time.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Good.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Let me ask a curiosity
           question, because you say you have to look at the
           environmental issues other than the radiation from the
           source.
                       MR. NELSON:  Yes.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Back to this situation
           where there is a joint site that has a coal plant.
           What would be your response if there were significant
           amounts of either uranium or mercury in the ground
           water, both of which are fairly likely from coal
           plants?
                       MR. NELSON:  I don't know.
                       MEMBER LEVENSON:  Would you have to do
           something about that, or do you just ignore that?
                       MR. NELSON:  Well, I don't know that we
           would ignore it.  We have to look at cumulative
           impacts.
                       So if there is an existing impact on the
           site resulting from something that is not on site,
           then we would have to address that the combined
           impact, the environmental impact in our assessment of
           our licensing actions.  So it very well could impact
           or very well could be an impact from an off-site
           source.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Just a final comment.
           We mentioned earlier the Sequoia facility and that it
           came in early and maybe was started under a different
           set of rules.  But that one has always intrigued me,
           and we have heard very little about it.
                       It intrigues me because of the diversity
           of the facility.  It has a front end solvent
           extraction process, and it has oxidation reduction
           activity.  It has high temperature components,
           autoclaves, and it has very interesting material
           handling problems.  It has storage all over the place.
                       One of these days it might be interesting
           for this committee to get a real -- from the
           standpoint of experience, to get a real briefing on
           what is going on there in the context of license
           termination activities.  Is that a reasonable thing to
           put on some future agenda?
                       MR. NELSON:  Certainly.  We have just had
           in-house a staff presentation on that site, and we
           briefed one of the Commissioner several weeks ago on
           Sequoia Fields.  So we would welcome the opportunity
           to do that.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  I think the committee
           would be very interested in it, because it is real
           problems.  It is real issues, and the plant has been
           through some very stormy times in its history.
                       MR. NELSON:  It is a timely topic.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes, and I was thinking
           about it as you were giving us your lessons learned.
           So we may want to take advantage of that and maybe
           piggy-back on the presentation to the Commission or
           something.
                       MR. NELSON:  We would be glad to do that.
                       MEMBER WYMER:  Thanks again.
                       MR. NELSON:  Thank you.
                       CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  We are going to take a
           15 minute break.
                       (Whereupon, the meeting was recessed at
           2:58 p.m.)



Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 27, 2014