119th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) Meeting, June 15, 2000

                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

                                                       Thursday, June 15, 2000

               The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:31
               B. JOHN GARRICK, Chairman, ACNW
               GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Vice Chairman, ACNW
               RAYMOND G. WYMER
               MILTON LEVENSON.

			   				C O N T E N T S
     ATTACHMENT                                              PAGE
     Regulatory Guides Review                                 326.

	 					P R O C E E D I N G S
                                                      [8:31 a.m.]
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Good morning.  The meeting will
     now come to order.  This is the third day already of the
     119th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
     The entire meeting will be open to the public.
               Today, we will meet with John Greeves, director of
     the division of waste management, to discuss items of mutual
     interest.  We will also review and discuss two draft Reg.
     Guides, DG 1067, Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors,
     and DG 1071, Standard Format and Content for Post Shutdown
     Decommissioning Activities Report.  And we will probably be
     spending most of our time today continuing our preparation
     of ACNW reports.
               Richard Major is the designated federal official
     for the initial portion of today's meeting.
               This meeting is being conducted in accordance with
     the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  We
     have received no written statements or requests to make oral
     statements from members of the public regarding today's
     session, and should anyone wish to do so, please contact the
     committee's staff.  And, also, if you participate, please
     use the microphone, identify yourself and speak clearly.
               Okay.  Well, John, I think we are anxious to get
     an update.  We know you have had a busy week.  We have been
     a little bit tied up ourselves, so, we are anxious to talk a
     little bit about what is going on what we might do with it.
               MR. GREEVES:  Good.  Okay.  Is this working?
     Good.  All right.
               Good morning.  I am going to go through the usual
     topics that we cover and I think serve both of us well.  I
     had a couple of administrative ones.  One first, we have had
     a little bit of a reorganization.  I believe the committee
     is somewhat familiar with this.  We moved one of our
     programs, the uranium recovery program, from the division of
     waste management to the fuel cycle safety safeguards group.
     And, in doing that, we had to make some adjustments in the
     staffing level within the three branches within the
     division.  And, as a result of that, in fact, you should
     have a copy in front of you of the impact of that.
               As far as the decommissioning branch, the only
     change there, of course, Larry Camper is the branch chief
     and Robert Nelson is a section leader and both these
     individuals have been down to brief you in the past.  A new
     section chief was selected for a vacant position, Scott
     Moore will be coming on a delayed basis.  It is going to
     take about three months for him to make the transition.
     Scott is from the industrial, medical and nuclear safety
     division, and he is an experienced section leader.  He has
     got a lot of experience with materials licensing and we look
     forward to adding that level of experience to the
     decommissioning group.
               The next branch is the environmental and
     performance assessment branch, which Tom Essig is the chief,
     and I believe Tom briefed you yesterday.  Tom comes to us
     from NRR, he has got a strong background in health physics.
     He has been with us for a while, and I believe he may have
     been down to brief you in a meeting or two.  This branch now
     has performance assessment and integration, and an
     environmental and low level waste project section.  And poor
     Tom was limping along with two vacant sections, so, we are
     pleased to have filled both of those with people you are
     well familiar with, Sandra Wastler is the chief of the
     performance assessment integration section.  You have known
     Sandy for a long time, and we are pleased to have her
     promoted to a section chief position.  And then Charlotte
     Abrams, one of your own staff at one point in time, was
     chosen as chief of the environmental low level projects.
     So, you can look forward to interfacing with both of them.
               And then the high level waste branch, the result
     of the reorganization moved the performance assessment
     activities over into another branch to do a bit of a load
     leveling.  Obviously, Bill Reamer is the branch chief there,
     and King Stablein and Dave Brooks, you are well familiar
     with.  So, the branch is a little bit smaller and a little
     bit more manageable in the process.
               This is going to force, and which I see as a good
     thing, some integration issues, but, as you know,
     performance assessment actually serves all three of the
     program areas, high level waste, decommissioning, low level
     waste.  So, we think this is a bit more efficient and Joe
     and I are looking forward to the opportunity to focus on a
     few less issues with uranium recovery, moving on.
               So, unless you have some questions, I just wanted
     to update you on where that was.
               MR. LARKINS:  This is a bit of matrix now.
               MR. GREEVES:  We have always operated as a matrix.
     Bill Reamer had the advantage of having a lot of the
     performance assessment horsepower in his branch and didn't
     have the matrix to cross.  Decommissioning had the matrix
     over to that branch to get the work done for
     decommissioning.  So, somebody is always matrixing, it is
     just a question of efficiency.  How can you put these
     elements together, but carrying -- we basically have five
     programs, or had five programs in the decommissioning
     division, including uranium recovery, and each one of them
     has its set of minefields associated with it.  It is very
     difficult to keep your eye on all that.
               I think it was a good decision to move uranium
     recovery off to fuel cycle, it is a Part 40 licensing
     activity.  They do a lot of that already.  I think it will
     help us have more focus and attention on the topics that
     remain within the division.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  John, just to give us a sense
     of the size of the operations, what is the approximate FTE
     or population of each of these branches?
               MR. GREEVES:  Joe knows the numbers better than I
               MR. HOLONICH:  Decommissioning has about 30 FTE
     associated with it.  Environmental performance assessment is
     approximately 25 FTE, and high level waste has about 32 FTE
     in it.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Thank you.
               MR. GREEVES:  It is a little deceiving because you
     add all that up, you don't get over a hundred, but we have
     -- we actually over-hire some of these positions.  So, how
     many people do we have when you count the number of --
               MR. HOLONICH:  The division FTE count is at around
     90, including six at the director's office, and the division
     probably has somewhere about 100-102 in terms of staff on
               MR. GREEVES:  And then you add to that the center
     staff.  So, it is a rather large group of people for us to
     manage and that is without the uranium recovery program at
     this point in time.  So, we are looking forward to a little
     bit tighter focus in that process.  Okay.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Thank you.
               MR. GREEVES:  The second topic is your recent
     letter on your plan and priority issues.  We have responded
     -- the Commission has responded to it.  I just want to
     remark that when I read it, I was very pleased with it.  It
     showed a lot of thought.  Again, I was quite pleased with
     what I read there.  It looks like we are pretty much in
     alignment in terms of the goals that we have in our plans
     and what you have, and I see that as a good mesh.  You got
     the letter back from the EDO's office and I just wanted to
     comment that --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, I think one of the things
     we are learning is being more timely on getting input from
     the division and the office, so that we have a good
     information base to work from when we do the planning.  I
     think we had maybe greater success at doing that this time
     around than ever.
               MR. GREEVES:  We, too, are going through much the
     same process in putting these types of plans together, and
     you get better at it over time.  So, I will just give you
     that feedback.  So, like I say, I think your plans and ours
     are in alignment in terms of relative priorities.  Just one
     thing, I am going to have to keep my eye on John Larkins
     now.  He might be getting encouragement to look for more
     high level waste resources.
               MR. LARKINS:  Well, actually, I looked at --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  We do have to keep our eye on
               MR. GREEVES:  I have got to put an eye on him.
               MR. LEVENSON:  We did go through the list in
     there.  We are going to respond to Carl's letter.  But there
     are some things on here which were a little lower tier on
     our priorities, so, we may not be able to.  We wanted to get
     some feedback and, so, we thought we should put the effort
     on some of the areas.  I don't have my list in front of me,
     but we are going through all of them.
               MR. GREEVES:  It may pay.  You are here all the
     time.  We could sit down and go over with you.  But, as you
     know, there is a tension over the high level waste
     resources, they are a fixed set.  So, I mean we can sit down
     and talk about it.
               MR. LARKINS:  Well, some of these were not
     necessarily in the high level waste area, there were other
               MR. GREEVES:  I recognize that.  The high level
     waste one is the arena that, again, we are a bit concerned
     about the resources, because there is a fixed set of
     resources in that program area.
               MR. LARKINS:  Well, we assumed we just send you
     the bill.
               MR. GREEVES:  You can send all the bills you want.
     It is paying them that is a problem.
               MR. GREEVES:  Okay.  The next item that I want to
     touch is decommissioning, and, you know, we cover it every
     time because it is one of your priority areas and one of my
     priority areas.  We are pretty much at the end of a two-year
     run.  The Commission put in place the rule on license
     termination and asked the staff to go out and develop the
     guidance and gave us pretty much a two-year run to put that
     together, and we are pretty close to the end of that.
               We had the last of a series of workshops on June
     7th and 8th, earlier this month, on what we call the
     technical basis document.  It is the guts of the dose
     modeling activities.  It is an appendix to the standard
     review plan.  That workshop focused on dose modeling
     activities and, with that, the staff plans to have a
     standard review plan pulled together in the July timeframe.
               I would commend that workshop to you, -- it was
     transcribed, as all our workshops are, -- as an excellent
     reference material.  I understand you are pulling together
     an October working group to go over dose modeling issues.  I
     think this workshop that was just completed on the 7th and
     the 8th is a very good reference material.
               It was well attended.  EPA was in attendance, DOE,
     Nuclear Energy Institute, EPRI, many of the utilities were
     there, because they are focused on their license termination
     plan reviews.  The fuel cycle community was there with many
     members, focused on the problems that they have.  A lot of
     architect engineers.  Corps of Engineers was a part of the
     group.  Had a healthy contingent from the Agreement States
     and the Non-Agreement States, because they are going to be
     picking up a lot of the licensing activities over time.
     Also, Argonne National Lab, who is responsible for the
     development of the RESRAD code and my staff and Research.
     So, it was a very good discussion.
               There are still some debates, and there will
     continue to be, but I see that as healthy.  So, I am not
     familiar with, you know, how much you were aware of that,
     but, to the extent you can, you might want to get that
     transcript and take a look at it.  It is probably -- it has
     got -- I want to go back over it, it has got a number of
     topics that are still being debated in some part, and I
     think that is healthy.  So, I urge you to take advantage of
               MR. LARSON:  It was the intention to be there, and
     we were aware of the meeting and the topics, and had the
     agenda, and had several of the papers that were presented by
     the staff, but just for various reasons, people were unable
     to attend it.  You say the transcript is available?
               MR. GREEVES:  Yes.
               MR. LARSON:  It is going to be on LICET ADAMS --
               MR. GREEVES:  As with all our meetings.
               MR. LARSON:  Or is it going to -- is there another
     source, Joe?  That's it, it is on ADAMS?
               MR. HOLONICH:  I don't know.
               MR. LARSON:  Okay.  Nick would know, right?
               MR. GREEVES:  Yes.
               MR. LARSON:  Okay.
               MR. GREEVES:  And Boby Eid is in the audience.  Do
     you know the answer, Boby?
               MR. EID:  I have a hard copy of the transcripts
     already.  I will be glad to provide you a hard copy of that
     on loan basis.
               MR. LARSON:  That will be terrific, and if you can
     give us two copies anyway, and Ray and I will study them.
               MR. GREEVES:  And that will be one FTE per copy,
               MR. GREEVES:  A tough crowd.
               SPEAKER:  We can make our own.
               MR. GREEVES:  You have to get them first.  Okay.
     Enough banter.
               Just a little topic associated with that, we did
     have the document up on the web by May 15th, so that people
     had a chance to look at it and come to the meeting, you
     know, armed with their questions.
               MR. LARSON:  Nick sent that to us.
               MR. GREEVES:  Okay.  So, we asked for comments to
     be received by the 18th, because, as I said, our target is
     we want this thing pretty much wrapped up in a package in
     July, so, we received a number of comments at the meeting
     and, you know, we may be getting a few more.
               I talked about the large number of participants.
     I am really pleased to see that, because these are the
     people that are doing the work, and they come and they
     contribute, and we learn a lot in these meetings.
               The meeting also included a demonstration of
     advances we have made with both RESRAD and DandD in the
     meeting.  It gave people a chance to see that process.  And
     it ended up in a roundtable discussion, so, as you look at
     the transcript, I was able to sit in on the roundtable
     discussion and people kind of let their hair down and said,
     you know, this is the issues that I have, and a number of
     constructive comments about you are going in the right
     direction.  So, it gives me a sense of feedback.  Is this
     something that is value to the community?  And the answer is
     yes, as you will see in the transcript.
               Just a little advertising in terms of what we can
     expect in terms of the code development.  We have worked on
     a probabilistic DandD Version 2 that should be available in
     August.  The same timeframe for the probabilistic update of
     RESRAD that Argonne is working on through Research for us.
     And, also, the probabilistic RESRAD-BUILD Version 3.0.  All
     of those should be available in August.
               Following that, by October, the RESRAD and the
     RESRAD-BUILD user's manual and documentation should be
     available.  And in December, the probabilistic DandD Version
     2, site-specific dose analysis and associated documentation.
     So, that is kind of the schedule we are on to have these
     tools and their documentation available.
               If there are no questions about that?  I think the
     workshop we just had, the one you had, or will have in
     October will be a nice lead into a November 7 and 8 workshop
     that we are planning to bring back the community that is
     actually working various plans in terms of the license
     termination rule.  We have got a couple of volunteers,
     Rocket Dyne in California and Nuclear Fuel Services down in
     Tennessee will come in and kind of give us a rundown and we
     are going to look for other volunteers, too, to show exactly
     how are these tools being used.  So, I just put on your
     calendar in terms of your staff participating in the
     November 7 and 8 workshop.
               Following the development of the standard review
     plan, we have had a number of requests to update the NMSS
     handbook for decommissioning.  This is a handbook that
     describes to a project manager how to get his job done.  How
     do I develop an EA?  How do I put notices up about meetings?
     And how do I work with very simple cases and the very
     complex cases, which are what the standard review plan is
     focused on?
               The Agreement States are quite interested in this
     document.  Actually, the version we have now predates the
     license termination rule, so, even some of the terminology
     needs to be updated.  So, we intend to turn to that, and we
     are going to try and engage the states to see if they can
     help us.  We have a good relationship with the Conference of
     Radiation Control Program Directors Decommissioning
     Subcommittee, and we are working with them on topics such as
     this, so, you can look forward to our development of the
               We believe that, as we have developed the standard
     review plan over the two years, it has been very useful to
     come to the committee and do briefings.  We learn things, we
     develop a better technique as we make these presentations to
     you.  Also, you have provided a series of comments to us on
     the standard review plan, and we think that the briefings
     and the comments have helped us perfect this document.  Like
     a lot of review plans, we will be revisiting it over time.
     But we feel comfortable and we have enjoyed some of the
     comments we have gotten back from it.
               In April, the staff also finalized NUREG-1700, it
     is the standard review plan for evaluating nuclear power
     plant license termination plans.  We liberally referenced
     the standard review plan for decommissioning in that
     document.  We didn't want to duplicate that text, so, there
     is a lot of reference to the standard review plan that we
     are completing this summer.
               I am just going to keep moving.  If you have got
     comments or questions, let me know.
               As far as decommissioning, let me focus a little
     bit on reactor decommissioning.  I think, as you are aware,
     we have had three reactor license termination plans
     submitted, the first of which was Trojan, the second was
     Saxton and, mostly recently, Maine Yankee.  Each of these
     activities included a public meeting and, for context, they
     varied in terms of extent of public involvement.  I went to
     the Trojan meeting and there were like one or two people
     that attended that meeting.  It was mostly the licensee, the
     NRC staff and, you know, we had some discussion, but it was
     on that level of interest.  I mean we had, you know, EPA,
     other federal stakeholders participating.
               And then you compare that with the Maine Yankee
     public meeting.  I was unable to attend that, but it was
     well attended, a lot of stakeholders and I think it went to
     like midnight.  So, there was a lot of interest in that
     case.  It gives you a flavor of the spectrum of activities
     associated with this.
               We also expect the Connecticut Yankee application
     in here soon, so, we will be busy working on these four
               With regard to Maine Yankee, you are probably
     aware that the State of Maine recently passed legislation
     that does impact criteria associated with that site.  The
     utility, Maine Yankee has committed to update their license
     termination plan with a revision and we are in the process
     of sorting that out and understanding what that would be.
     So, I just make you aware of that.
               We have also been supporting nuclear reactor
     regulation in their revision of the Generic Environmental
     Impact Statement for reactor decommissioning.  This is a
     document that was put out, I believe, back in the '88
     timeframe, and it needs to be updated.  There is a series of
     public meetings that have been held around the country,
     Chicago, up in Boston the day after the Maine Yankee
     meeting, I believe Atlanta and San Francisco.  And these
     also have been well attended, and we will look forward to
     the results of that.
               MR. GREEVES:  The next point is the SECY
     Commission Management Program.  Recently we submitted a
     Commission paper, SECY 0094, and we've also commend that
     that paper to you, and the original comprehensive report on
     the status of our decommissioning program.  That's pretty
     much got everything that we've been working on for the past
     couple of years, and I would urge you to look at that in
     terms of a reference.
               The Staff does plan to remove three sites from the
     SD&P program this year.  We've already gotten one.  That's a
     lot, but that's pretty much what I was going to say on
               MR. LARKINS:  There was a petition that came in,
     or letter that came in from NEI a couple of months ago that
     asked the Agency to take a look at integrating all of its
     rulemaking activities in the area of decommissioning,
     together, and to come up with an integrated rule, I guess,
     over the next two years.
               NMSS was involved with this on the reactor side?
               MR. GREEVES:  That pretty much is a reactor issue.
     It's the fire issue, it's the safeguards, emergency
     planning.  I am aware of it.  I've sat through a briefing or
     two on it.
               I think that's something that probably somebody
     like Stew Richards or John Zwolinski would be best to fill
     you in on.  In fact, I think Phil Ray is with you after
     this, and you might ask him.
               I'm not sure he's the right person, but we worked
     very closely with NRR, mostly on the license termination
     plan review.  As far as operational issues, they're pretty
     much NRR's issues.
               MR. LARKINS:  Okay.  One other thing you may not
     be aware of:  We are in the process of -- well, we've better
     defined the separation of responsibilities between the ACRS
     and the ACNW in the area of decommissioning and putting
     together a package that will probably go the Commission.
               I might want to ask you to take a look at it and
     make sure we have everything correct.
               MR. GREEVES:  We'd enjoy doing that.  Joe, let's
     make sure we follow up with John on that.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Just to follow up on that a
     little bit, John, are you suggesting that maybe the
     consolidation of decommissioning activities into a
     decommissioning regulation or rule is applicable for
     reactors, but not necessarily applicable for non-reactor
               MR. GREEVES:  I'd almost like to think about that
     and talk to you another time.  Just off the top of my head,
     I think the consolidation is a Part 50 issue.
               You would look into Part 50 and in various places
     you will see the decommissioning topic discussed, and I
     think the hitch was, is there a way to either separate that
     into a separate part, or put it within all one spot within
     Part 50.
               So that's my understanding of what that was
     supposed to be.  But I'm not quite sure that was -- I think
     you were on to a different question.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
               MR. GREEVES:  You know, decommissioning affects
     all parts, and that's why you will see decommissioning
     language in Part 40, 30, 70, in fact, the timeliness
     requirement, which is -- a decommissioning artifact, is in
     all those parts.
               We want to make sure that all the licensees know
     that if they have an outdoor area that is contaminated, you
     just can't leave it that way.  Even if they're going to
     operate for another 15 or 20 years, they need to get on that
     and clean it up within about a two-year timeframe.
               So, what I'd like to do is think about it and
     maybe talk to you separately, if you've got some ideas on
     that, but there is no notion on our part to try and
     consolidate and come up with a new Part for decommissioning
     materials facilities.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.
               MR. GREEVES:  But maybe we could talk a little bit
     about it.  I'm just not ready to do much more on it today.
     Is that fair?
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
               MR. LARSON:  One other question, John.  You know,
     when you started, you indicated that you were aware that the
     Committee had talked about having a working group on
     decommissioning-related things in October.
               And now you've been through a litany of various
     things that are in progress.  Does that seem like a
     meaningful to time to do that, or would it be better a month
     or two later?
               I know it's always evolving, so --
               MR. GREEVES:  I learned about it yesterday, and my
     staff briefs me on what's going on.  When I looked at it, I
     said, that sounds great to me.
               MR. LARSON:  Okay.
               MR. GREEVES:  As I said, I think you have a nice
     resource document in the June 7 and 8 meeting that we had.
     Collectively, we have a nice resource.
               And we are planning a meeting in November with our
     licensees to, you know -- where are you?  How are you
     working these issues?
               So, I would benefit from the results of an October
     venue by the Committee, and I think our stakeholders would,
     too.  So, it struck me as a good timeframe.
               The only thing I'll add -- and it really doesn't
     mean a lot -- is that there is already a lot of stuff in
     October.  It's a popular month.
               Tom LaGuardia is having his usual thing.  There is
     an IAEA activity, and there are like three things that I'm
     signed up for in October already.  I don't have anything in
     September, but October, I've got three things on my calendar
               Have you picked a date?  Maybe we could avoid some
     of these dates that -- basically they're going to attract
     your stakeholders away from your meeting, so I'll let you
     know of a couple of competing events in October.  We can
     talk about dates.
               No, the timing is good for me.  As soon as I saw
     it, I said, that's good.  I think it will help our November
     meeting, okay?
               Now, we'll move on to low- level waste.  Staff was
     down to brief you, Tom Essig and Jim Kennedy, Mr. Low-Level
     Waste, was the last resource we have on low-level waste
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  How does that make you feel,
               MR. GREEVES:  Tom's a Branch Chief.  He's got more
     than low-level waste issues, but he's finding ways to steal
     some additional resources to apply to the low level waste
               As you know, we owe the Commission our performance
     assessment document, and you were briefed on that, so we
     would plan on forwarding that, and if you see some hard
     spots in that, we need to know what they are, and talk about
     that soon because that document is scheduled to be completed
     this year.
               I'm sure that Tom and Jim told you, you know,
     about the status of what's going on in the states, which I
     think you're very well aware of.  We help where we can and
     when asked, but, frankly, we don't get asked very often by
     the states anymore.
               In years past, two or three special things were
     going on and they asked for the staff support on it, and
     we're not getting a lot of requests recently.  They're in
     and out, but not significant requests that require a lot of
     staff energy.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  But, John, isn't this because
     there's not much going on?
               MR. GREEVES:  Well, there's things going on, but
     certainly the track record is that there are no new compact
     disposal facilities.  The big thing that's going on, I
     guess, is the EnviroCare issue.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
               MR. GREEVES:  Will there be a license out there
     that passed one hurdle?  And I think we talked about that
     the last time.
               And the next one is can they take B and C waste
     and, you know, the country is watching that process.  And if
     the State of Utah wants our help on it, they'll ask, but so
     far it's been discussion but no substantive request for us
     to participate.
               I think we all recognize that the low level waste
     program isn't so much about Part 61 anymore; there are a lot
     of cross-cutting issues that I'm sure Tom and Jim mentioned
     to you, the concept of rubbelization is being looked at in
     various forms.
               Entombment is a topic, and there is a fair amount
     of interest in this, and I think we, collectively, are going
     to have to do something on this topic.  I invite you to keep
     that on your radar screen.
               There is a stream of questions coming in about
     what we call low-end source material, TENORM, topics like
     that.  The assured isolation proposal keeps cropping up, so
     that may get onto our plate later in the year.
               I don't have anything definite on that.  So, we
     would look forward to your views on topics such as this.
     The mixed waste topic from time to time comes up, and
     particularly I expect that entombment will be a topic that
     either we're going to recommend we come back and talk to you
     about, or you'll pick it up yourself, depending on how that
     plays out.
               I just will say a postscript.  The National
     Research Council asked us to participate in their study on
     low-level rad waste, the disposal challenge and
     opportunities ahead, and we are going to -- we have
     responded positively to that, and the Committee, I'm sure,
     is aware of that, so that's something we can keep our eye
               I think it's a nice leverage over our resources,
     too, for the Board on Radioactive Waste Management to delve
     into that, and I'm sure we'll be down briefing them from our
               MR. LARKINS:  Quick question:  I see your staff is
     doing some things with EPA on the mixed waste issue.  Do you
     see a role or do you see any value in having the Committee
     involved in those?
               MR. GREEVES:  There are two pieces, and one's just
     about done.  That's the piece at the utilities, and
     everybody's -- that's a win/win for everybody, and I think
     you're aware of that one.
               The other piece is a RCRA facility, and it fell on
     a little bit of hard ground here recently, but it is the one
     that you should -- in fact, I'll be back when it warms back
     up, and discuss it with you, because it is a concept that
     basically is going to be a modeling approach and something
     that I think we could benefit from the Committee's view on
               Unfortunately, I think it's on hold right now.
     The EPA has resource issues associated with that.  They're
     working all their other topics, so as that comes back on the
     burner, I think it is something that I will be giving you a
     heads-up on in terms of a timeframe of my expectations, and
     we probably want to engage you on it.  It is an important
     topic and we would look forward to making some progress on
               MR. LARSON:  You mentioned a couple of other
     topics that Tom and Jim Kennedy mentioned yesterday, and one
     was assured isolation.  Do you have any sense as to when
     that would come up and be ripe for the Committee too look
               MR. GREEVES:  I think that what that's going to
     take is a state coming in and saying we're serious, would
     you look at this and help us?  So far, we have contractors,
     we have people coming in the door, and I think it's going to
     take a state with a we're serious, we're looking at it,
     would you please -- and the Commission, I believe, in
     letters in the past said that if somebody is serious about
     this, please come in and talk to us and show us the
               I know that it's being considered in states like
     Texas.  It's being discussed in California, but there's no
     piece of paper coming in from either of those states, asking
     either the Staff or the Commission to look at it.
               MR. LARSON:  You're right, the contractors have
     written things, but we haven't got any --
               MR. GREEVES:  Lots of visitors on that topic, but
     I think it takes a real stakeholder walking in the door,
     saying I've got one, and I want your assistance or you view
     on this.
               When that happens, we'll all know and we'll do the
     right thing.
               MR. LARSON:  And another topic they mentioned
     yesterday was the entombment thing, as you said.
               MR. GREEVES:  Yes.  I fully expect that to be an
     agenda item.
               MR. LARSON:  Do you have an idea on timing?
               MR. GREEVES:  Could be late this summer.  I can
     maybe visit with you separately.
               MR. LARSON:  Okay.
               MR. GREEVES:  I don't want to speculate in this
     meeting.  I can actually do better with you separately, and
     I need to talk to Research about that, too.  But it should
     be a planning wedge in terms of a topic.
               Okay, I have pretty much finished my low-level
     waste issues.  I think the Committee is aware that I need to
     be upstairs at 9:15.  What I'd like to do at this point is
     to ask Bill Reamer to run through the high-level waste
     issues, and I'll apologize if I get up and leave during the
     middle of it, if that would be acceptable.
               MR. REAMER:  Okay, I'm Bill Reamer, NRC Staff.  I
     think there are about a half a dozen items I can touch on
     for you in the high-level waste area.
               As to Part 63 and defense-in-depth, there's not
     really any change to report to you on that.  The Staff's
     paper was given to the Commission on April 12th.  Of course,
     the Commission also has the Committee's letter.
               And we're really basically awaiting Commission
     action on that paper.  In addition, publicly, EPA has said
     that they hope to issue their final Yucca Mountain standards
     sometime this summer.  That's really the best information I
     have on the standard, the EPA standard.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Later this summer?
               MR. REAMER:  Later this summer.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  They don't talk about weeks or
     even months.  They now talk about seasons.
               MR. LARKINS:  Yes, but it's this year.
               MR. REAMER:  Right.  Yucca Mountain Review Plan,
     the Rev O post-closure only version was given to the
     Commission at the same time as the Part 63 paper in April.
     We, the Staff, are now devoting our efforts to Rev 1, which
     would be a complete review plan, that is, pre-closure,
     post-closure, administrative, and general information items.
               Of course, there is Commission direction to the
     Staff to work with the Committee on Rev 1 in terms of
     assuring that the review plan is risk-informed and
     performance-based.  And so we will be interacting with you
     on that quite a lot.  That's good for us.
               MR. LARKINS:  Bill, that's on a pretty tight
               MR. REAMER:  Yes, it is.
               MR. LARKINS:  You're talking about September, as I
     recall.  So once we get into it, we'll have to sort of see
     if we're going to be able to keep pace.
               MR. REAMER:  Yes.  Rev 1, remember, is a version
     to publish for public comment; it's not like the last, the
     final, the end-all/be-all, so we're on a tight time schedule
     for this phase.  But I think there's also a time after this
     phase to continue to interact with you and the other
     stakeholders who are interested in that document.
               I'd move on to the Department of Energy site
     recommendation and the NRC requirement to provide comments
     on the sufficiency of certain information for inclusion in a
     possible license application.
               The Staff is close to completing its preliminary
     strategy document.  We're building on the briefing and the
     structure that we presented in March to the Committee.
     We're putting it into words.
               Our plan is to have a preliminary strategy
     document complete and to the Commission by the end of this
     month.  We also have a milestone of completing our final
     guidance, which would be a further elaboration of the
     strategy, how we would plan to review and prepare, review
     the technical basis documents, the technical documents that
     support the Department of Energy's site recommendation
     documents that we're all getting right now.
               Our review guidance, our plan is to complete that
     by the end of September, and provide it to the Commission at
     that time.
               I think we have a meeting with you in October, if
     I remember correctly, on that guidance -- September, okay,
               The Department of Energy's siting guidelines were
     provided in draft final form to the Commission in May, May
     4.  The Staff's milestone is to complete its review of the
     draft final guidelines and provide the Commission with the
     Staff's recommendation by the end of June.  We will meet
     that milestone.
               There are two requests to the Commission, one from
     Robert Lux of the State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear
     Projects; another from Mr. Bradshaw on Nye County,
     requesting that the Commission have a concurrence process
     analogous to the concurrence process that was used in 1984
     for the original siting guidelines.  That involved public
     comment, as well as, I think, a couple of public meetings.

               I believe the Commission is planning to respond to
     those letters in the near future.  I don't have any
     information on what the response will be.
               The key technical issue, closure, closing key
     technical issues as a goal before any license application.
     We had the technical exchange that you received the report
     on in April 25 and 26.  We're scheduled to brief you in July
     on that topic.  I'd be very interested in any guidance that
     you would like to give us as to what you'd like to hear in
     that briefing.
               And so we would be very interested in that.  Also,
     we recently completed a technical exchange with the
     Department of Energy on a particular KTI, the total system
     performance assessment.  That was earlier this month.
               The next item would be pre-closure.  We're very
     interested in working on our capability in this area, which
     is not quite up to where we are in post-closure.
               Of course, the Department of Energy's focus right
     now is on site recommendation, and we need to be consistent
     with their emphasis, so we are providing more resources
     internally to work on our capability in this area.
               We did have a meeting with the Department of
     Energy on May 31 on their pre-closure design, and, of
     course, you had your briefing on that earlier in this
               And that pretty much covers the status of things
     in the high-level waste area.  Any questions?
               MR. LARKINS:  Bill, I think that at some point,
     the Committee would be interested in taking a look at the
     performance confirmation work that the Department is doing.
               Do you right now have any plans to do anything, or
     comment on what the Department is doing in the near-term?
               MR. REAMER:  Not immediate plans.  We're -- I
     think at various times, we've had tentative plans to meet on
     that topic.  But it's not one of our priority items.
               On the other hand, we understand the Committee's
     interest, so we'd do what we could to support that.  Your
     December meeting, is that right, is where you're --
               MR. LARKINS:  Well, actually we were thinking
     about having the Department in in July.
               MR. REAMER:  In July, okay.  Were you also looking
     for something from us in December?  Do I have that right?
               MR. LARKINS:  Not that I recall.
               MR. REAMER:  Okay.  Well, maybe the July meeting
     can give a little more orientation to the Committee's
     interests, and we can adapt to that.
               MR. LARKINS:  The other thing is that we're trying
     to sort through this mass of documents that are starting to
     come in, the PMRs, the AMRs, and everything else, and
     establish some priorities for reviewing and actually
     developing a framework for or strategy for reviewing some of
     these things.
               At some point we'd probably like to get some
     feedback on your agreement or disagreement on some of the
     Department's priorities.
               MR. REAMER:  I think that would be a good idea.
     That's clearly part of our working on the site
     recommendation and the sufficiency comment process.  We'd be
     happy to engage in that.  That would be good for us.
               MR. LARKINS:  Especially since we're all limited
     in resources.
               MR. REAMER:  Absolutely.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Bill, is there anything coming
     out of the DOE siting guidelines that would constitute
     bigger issues than anticipated, or surprises or what have
               MR. REAMER:  Basically at this point, I'd say, no,
     not to my knowledge.  We're at the beginning of the process,
     however.  There are requests pending before the Commission
     that relate to important procedural issues to stakeholders.
               You know, a number of comments were received by
     the Department of Energy on the guidelines, but with respect
     to your specific question, do I see issues, no, subject to
     what I said about the procedural questions.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Are there questions from the
     Committee?  Staff?
               [No response.]
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay, I think we appreciate the
     update.  If there are no further questions, we will move to
     the next item, if they're here.  You're going to -- the next
     item on our agenda, if the people are here, is to review
     Draft Regulatory Guides DG1067 and DG1071, et cetera.
               I guess Philip Ray was going to do that
     presentation.  Is he here?
               [No response.]
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay, all right.
               MR. LEVENSON:  If we've got a couple of minutes,
     I'd like to propose  --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Microphone.
               MR. LEVENSON:   -- next year's meeting --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Oh, that's a good idea.  It has
     been suggested, because some of the Committee members have
     to do two-year planning with respect to some of their
     activities, that we look at least into half of next year as
     far as ACNW's schedule is concerned.  Is that a possibility?
     Can we do that?
               You've got to give me two minutes to get my
     calendar, too.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Ray Wymer, I'd like you to lead
     the discussion on the Draft Regulatory Guides.
               DR. WYMER:  Well, we are very interested, at least
     I am, in particular, in this topic, and especially the
     decommissioning of nuclear power reactors, since that's one
     of my assigned areas of responsibility.
               So I will be very interested to hear what you have
     to say.  So without any further ado, let's commence.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  We would encourage you to
     introduce yourselves, et cetera, so that it gets on the
               MR. RAY:  All right.  Good morning.  My name is
     Philip Ray.  I'm a Project Manager with the Decommissioning
     Section in the Division of Licensing, Project Management in
     NRR.  To my right is the Decommissioning Section Chief, Dr.
     Michael Masnik.
               For my presentation this morning, I'd like to
     discuss the decommissioning process as described in the
     final Regulatory Guide entitled Decommissioning of Nuclear
     Power Reactors, and then after questions, I'd like to
     discuss the post-shutdown decommissioning activity report as
     described in the final Regulatory Guide entitled Standard
     Format and Content for Post-Shutdown Decommissioning
     Activities Report.
               On July 29th, 1996, a final rule amending the
     regulations on decommissioning procedures was published in
     the Federal Register.  This rule clarifies the regulations
     for decommissioning nuclear power facilities.
               The final rule reflects the experience and
     knowledge gained during the actual facility decommissioning,
     industry and government-sponsored workshops, and conferences
     on decommissioning.
               The rule clarifies ambiguities in the previous
     regulations; reduces unnecessary requirements; provides
     additional flexibility; and codifies procedures and
     terminologies that have been used on a case-by-case basis.
               I would now like to quickly go through the
     decommissioning process, and describe the steps:  The
     beginning of the process is when the licensee determines to
     permanently cease power operation.
               In accordance with the regulations, a licensee who
     has determined to permanently cease operations is required
     to submit written certification to the NRC within 30 days of
     the decision or requirement to permanently cease operations.
               Once the fuel has been permanently removed from
     the reactor vessel to a spent fuel pool, in conformance with
     the facility's technical specification, and a certification
     of this event has been received and docketed by the NRC, the
     Part 50 license will no longer authorize operation of the
     reactor or allow the movement of fuel within the reactor
               This certification entitles the licensee to a feed
     reduction, and eliminates the obligation to adhere to
     certain regulatory requirements needed only during reactor
               Examples include monitoring the vessel for
     pressure and temperature shock, and containment leak rate
     testing.  The power reactor license -- for power reactor
     licensees, the regulation states that decommissioning must
     be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of
               In accordance with the regulations, prior to or
     within two years following permanent cessation of
     operations, the licensee is required to submit a
     post-shutdown decommissioning activities report known as the
     PSDAR.  The PSDAR will include a description of a licensee's
     planned decommissioning activities, with a schedule for the
     accomplishment of significant milestones and an assessment
     of the expected costs.
               Although these activities in support of
     decommissioning may occur within the two years prior to
     submission of the PSDAR, no major decommissioning
     activities, per the regulations, may be performed within 90
     days after the NRC receives the PSDAR.
               The purpose of the 90-day period is to allow
     sufficient time for the NRC Staff to examine the PSDAR, to
     publish notification of receipt of the PSDAR in the Federal
     Register, to hold a public meeting in the vicinity of the
     facility to discuss the licensee's plan for decommissioning,
     and to conduct any necessary safety inspections prior to the
     initiation of major decommissioning activities.
               I will discuss the PSDAR in more detail when
     addressing the second Regulatory Guide.  Major
     decommissioning activities, as defined by the regulations,
     any activity that results in permanent removal of major
     radioactive components, permanently modifies the structure
     of the containment, or results in dismantling components for
     shipment containing greater than Class C waste.
               The regulation states that the licensee shall not
     perform any decommissioning activities that 1) forecloses
     release of the site for possible unrestricted use; 2)
     results in any significant environmental impact not
     previously reviewed; or, 3) results in there no longer being
     reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available
     for decommissioning.
               This point in the decommissioning process is where
     the guidance of this Regulatory Guide ends.  I will spend a
     few minutes going through the remainder of the
     decommissioning process.
               No later than two years into decommissioning, the
     regulation requires the licensee to submit a detailed
     site-specific cost estimate.  There are a number of cost
     estimates required by the regulations related to plant
               There is a requirement under 50.75(f)(2) for the
     licensee to submit a preliminary cost estimate, five years
     prior to permanent shutdown.  In addition, there is a
     requirement for the licensee to submit an estimate under
     50.82(a)(4)(i() of expected costs that is contained in the
               Also, there is a requirement under
     50.82(a)(8)(iii) for the licensee to submit a site-specific
     cost estimate.  And finally, there is the requirement in
     50.82(a)(ii)(f) for the licensee to submit an updated
     site-specific estimate for the remaining decommissioning
     activities to be submitted in the license termination plan.
               Draft guidance for these various estimates have
     been prepared and is in the concurrence chain.  You should
     have the opportunity to review these draft guides in the
     next several months.
               The licensee is also required under 10 CFR
     50.54(b)(b), to submit a program describing how the licensee
     intends to manage and provide funding for the management of
     all irradiated fuel at the reactor site following permanent
     cessation of operation until title and possession of the
     fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy.
               The licensee must submit this program for staff
     review and approval, two years following permanent cessation
     of operations.
               Licensees must apply for a termination of their
     license.  An application for termination of the Part 50
     license must include a license termination plan known as an
     LTP.  The LTP must be a supplement to the final safety
     analysis report or equivalent, and must be submitted at
     least two years prior to the expected termination of the
     license as scheduled in the PSDAR.
               This LTP will be reviewed and approved as an
     amendment to the license.  The NMSS staff has published both
     a final Standard Review Plan and a standard format and
     content guide for the LTP.
               This concludes the presentation on this
     Regulatory Guide, and I'll now take any questions.
               DR. WYMER:  Did you say that there was a 60-year
               MR. RAY:  Yes, that is correct; you have 60 years
     from the time you shut down permanently to decommission the
               DR. WYMER:  That seems like an incredibly long
               MR. RAY:  It does seem that way.
               MR. MASNIK:  There are, of course, some reasons
     for that.  One of the options that the licensee has is to
     put the plant in long-term storage.  What that gains, of
     course, is, you take advantage or radioactive decay.
               If you compare that to the rest of the world, in
     Europe, they typically are talking about a 100-year period
     of time.  They seem to have a little bit more confidence
     about things being around for longer periods of time than we
               So, 60 years is a somewhat arbitrary number, but
     interestingly enough, it has not been questioned, either by
     the industry or the public over the years.
               DR. WYMER:  That is interesting, yes.
               MR. LEVENSON:  The 60 years is to complete it all.
     Are there any requirements for what needs to be done in an
     interim period?  Once they've completely de-fueled it, can
     they just close the door and let it sit there for 60 years,
     or are there some interim levels of cleanup or what have
     you, that have to be done?
               MR. MASNIK:  There are requirements.  They would
     maintain a license.  There are requirements for monitoring,
     maintaining a safe, stable condition at the facility.
               Once you get past the two-year mark, and they
     comply with the PSDAR and the cost estimates, the licensees
     can then place this plant in a safe, stable condition, and
     essentially do almost nothing for 60 years.
               Now, there's always routine maintenance, there's
     infiltration of water, there is processing.  We have several
     facilities in that condition.  LaCrosse is one of them,
     TMI-2 is another.
               DR. WYMER:  The requirements for the spent fuel
     that you've taken out of the reactor --
               MR. MASNIK:  The interesting thing is that when
     these regulations were being developed in the 80s, there was
     no consideration of spent fuel because spent fuel was not
     going to be a problem.  And that was because it was all
     going to be taken from the facility.
               So as a result, these regulations don't reflect
     storage of the spent fuel, but spent fuel storage, of
     course, is found in a different part of the regulations, and
     what we're finding the licensees are doing is that they're
     building ISFSIs and transferring the spent fuel into dry
               And some of them are doing it under a general
     license, some of them are doing it under a site-specific
     license.  It really is not a problem, in that there is
     typically a five-year period after the plant shuts down
     before we could even put the fuel, or the licensee could put
     the fuel into dry storage.
               In that time, there's a lot of other activities
     that occur during the decommissioning process, and it
     doesn't cause problems from the standpoint of the
     decommissioning process.
               DR. WYMER:  And there are no problems because of
     having to plan five years in advance, and then two years in
     advance.  The shutdown people don't find that a problem?
               MR. MASNIK:  Well, you know, we haven't had much
     experience in this because all of the plants that we have,
     have prematurely shut down.
               So, the five-year, the preliminary cost estimate
     that's supposed to be submitted five years in advance, we
     have actually never received one because the plants have
     shut down and we've actually gone to site-specific.
               Most utilities have -- I would venture to say that
     all utilities have some sort of a site-specific cost
     estimate for decommissioning, even though they're not
     required to submit it until two years after they permanently
     cease operations.
               And that's primarily because of the energy
     regulatory bodies within the states within which they reside
     have required it.
               DR. WYMER:  Do you have a pretty good sense of
     what reactors are queuing up to come in to you for
               MR. MASNIK:  You mean plants that are anticipating
               DR. WYMER:  Yes.
               MR. MASNIK:  We thought we used to, and we were
     actually pretty good at predicting them about three or four
     years ago.  But recently, we've kind of -- our experience
     has indicated that we're not quite as good as we thought we
     were at predicting.
               We have not had a plant shut down for a couple of
     years now, and the general consensus is that we probably
     won't see a plant shutting down for a couple of years, at
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  A lot of this is being brought
     about by the consolidation of ownership of the plants, and a
     change in the whole infrastructure, if you will, of the
     operations companies, operating companies.
               And do you -- I think most of us were quite
     confident a few years ago that there were would be very few
     license renewals, whereas now that picture has changed quite
               So, that's going to have, I guess, an impact at
     least on the level of your activity.
               What if de facto dry storage becomes the preferred
     option for high-level waste storage for the next 100 years?
     How does that change things?  How would that change things?
               MR. MASNIK:  It certainly would not affect the
     process, because the process that we have here is for the
     balance of the plant, and that's what our focus is on, the
     radiological decontamination of the facility.
               What we're finding is that licensees are building
     ISFSIs on the site.  We're going from a 1,000 acres to 8,000
     acre sites that the licensee has ownership.  If they pursue
     decommissioning and they decommission the facility, they can
     release lot of that property and ultimately, you know, we're
     talking about maybe 10 or 15 acres of area that would have
     to remain under a license for the 100-year period.
               But there is no conflict between dry storage and
     decommissioning activities.  The licensees have
     de-conflicted that reasonably well.
               DR. WYMER:  Some of these sites have a couple of
     reactors on them.  You might shut one reactor down and leave
     another one running, and then actually decommission one.
               But there are things that are in common between
     the reactors.  Does the -- do the regulations specifically
     address this, or is it just sort of handled as it comes
               MR. MASNIK:  We've had that experience at several
     facilities.  San Onofre Nuclear-1 is one; TMI is an example,
     and Millstone, also.
               During the period of time after the licensee
     declares permanent cessation of operations, there is
     generally -- well, there's not generally; there is a
     top-down review of the facility, and an effort on the part
     of the licensee to identify shared systems, and then to
     isolate those.
               Typically what happens is, they're isolated from
     the shutdown reactor, and they could go so far as to build
     redundant systems at the other two facilities so that they
     can take the facilities related to the shut-down reactor out
     of service.
               DR. WYMER:  But this situation is not specifically
     addressed, and you don't think it needs to be addressed?
               MR. MASNIK:  No, it's not, no.
               DR. WYMER:  Are you going on to the rest of the
     viewgraphs then?
               MR. MASNIK:  Yes.
               MR. LARSON:  Is there any -- I know that EPA every
     now and then says they're interested in being involved in
     decommissioning, but that's more in the license termination
     process than in the process you're talking about here, and
     the same with the states; is that correct?
               MR. RAY:  They are interested in, and we do keep
     in contact with them during the decommissioning process, but
     as far as being involved in a regulatory sense, they haven't
     been; they have just been very cooperative, and we let them
     know what's going on.
               MR. LARSON:  The Committee has heard about the
     Maine Yankee situation and the 25 and the 15 and the 4, and
     the state and the law.
               MR. RAY:  That's license termination.
               MR. LARSON:  That's the part that's beyond.
               MR. MASNIK:  One thing that we are doing is we're
     updating the generic environmental impact statement for
     decommissioning, which looks at the entire process from
     start to finish, and we've been working very closely with
     EPA on that.
               They have been attending our meetings, our scoping
     meetings, and we've had several meetings with them, so we're
     trying to get their input into the process.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  Just a point of information, the
     Committee was in the UK and France a month ago, and we got a
     presentation on it from EDF on what they're doing in France.
               They were thinking about 25-50 years storage for
     -- I think they have nine reactors in shutdown and
     undergoing decommissioning.  Now they're looking at
     decommissioning all nine of them in the next 25 years.  So
     rather than long-term storage, they're actually going to
     green-fields, or the plan is at this point to go to
     green-field in that period of time.  By 2026, they'll have
     all nine in third stage decommissioning.
               MR. MASNIK:  I know.  I've toured a number of
     facilities in England and Wales that have been put into
     long-term storage.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  Yes, England is still using and
     still considering long-term storage.
               DR. WYMER:  Please continue.
               MR. RAY:  I'd like to continue with the next final
     Regulatory Guide entitled Standard Format and Content for
     Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report.  According
     to the regulation, the licensee is prohibited from
     performing any major decommissioning activities until 90
     days after the NRC has received the licensee's PSDAR
     submission, and until the certifications of permanent
     cessation of operation and permanent removal of fuel from
     the reactor vessel has been submitted.
               For a quick overview, the purpose of the PSDAR is
               1) Inform the public of the licensee's planned
     decommissioning activities;
               2) Assist in the scheduling of NRC resources
     necessary for the appropriate oversight activities;
               3) Ensure the licensee has considered the cost of
     the planned decommissioning activities and considered the
     funding for the decommissioning process; and,
               4) Ensure the environmental impacts of the planned
     decommissioning activities are bounded by those considered
     and existing environmental impact statements.
               A PSDAR should include a description of the
     licensee's planned activities for decommissioning.  The
     purpose of the description is to inform the NRC and the
     public of the planned decommissioning by providing a general
     overview of the proposed decommissioning activities, and
     identifying specific activities to be accomplished or
               The licensee should describe in general terms, the
     method or combination of methods selected for
     decommissioning.  For example, long-term storage followed by
     decontamination and dismantlement known as safe-store, or
     prompt decontamination and dismantlement known as decon, or
     partial decontamination and dismantlement followed by
     long-term storage and then final decontamination and
               The purpose of the schedule is to provide
     information to the NRC and the public on the anticipated
     timing of decommissioning events, as well as to allow the
     NRC to scheduled resources necessary for appropriate
     oversight activities described in the Planned Activities
     section of the PSDAR, so that the reader understands the
     sequence of events, as well as the timing of the events.
               The level of detail of the schedule will depend
     upon the timing of the activities and will assist NRC in
     determining the degree of necessary oversight required.
               The schedule for major activities in the near-term
     should be given to the nearest month and year.  The
     activities that will follow a storage period of at least
     five years may be scheduled to the closest year.
               The PSDAR should include an updated estimate of
     the expected decommissioning costs.  The updated cost
     estimate required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i) may be one of the
               The amount of decommissioning funds estimated to
     be required pursuant to the regulations as currently
     reported on a calendar year basis at least once every two
     years to the NRC;
               A site-specific cost estimate that is based on the
     activities and schedules discussed in the first two sections
     of the PSDAR;
               And an estimate based on actual costs at similar
     facilities that have undergone similar decommissioning
               Or a generic cost estimate.
               The PSDAR should include a discussion of the
     reasons for concluding that the environmental impacts
     associated with the site-specific decommissioning activities
     will be bounded by previously issued environmental impact
               Prior to preparing the PSDAR, the licensee should
     evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with
     the site-specific decommissioning activities, including
     those activities listed in the Planned Decommissioning
     Activities section of the PSDAR.
               The potential environmental impacts associated
     with the decommissioning should be compared with similar
     impacts given in the final environmental impact statement
     known as FES, for the plant, or as supplemented in the GEIS
     on decommissioning, the site-specific environmental
     assessment, and the GEIS on radiological criteria for
     license termination.
               If significant environmental impacts are
     identified that have not been considered in the
     plant-specific FES, or in the GEIS on decommissioning, and
     on radiological criteria for license termination, the
     licensee is prohibited by regulations form undertaking the
     activity that will result in such an impact, without first
     complying with 10 CFR Part 51.
               The licensee must submit a supplement to its
     environmental report that relates to the additional impacts
     covered under this regulation.
               MR. RAY:  Upon receipt of the PSDAR, the NRC will
     docket the PSDAR and place a notice regarding its receipt in
     the Federal Register to solicit comments on the PSDAR from
     the public, pursuant to the regulations.  A copy of the
     PSDAR will be made available to the public at the public
     document room and other electronic medium.
               The NRC will schedule a public meeting in the
     vicinity of the site to discuss planned activities and to
     hear public comment.
               A number of factors could cause the NRC to find
     the PSDAR deficient.  These factors are directly related to
     the topics included in the PSDAR, as discussed.  The NRC
     could find the PSDAR deficient in the following
               The licensee's plan for decommissioning could not
     be completed as described.
               The schedule included in the decommissioning
     process, that could not be completed within 60 years of the
     permanent cessation of operation, as required.
               The licensee's decommissioning plan, as presented
     in the PSDAR, included a decommissioning process that could
     not be completed for the estimated cost using the generic
     guidelines and the GEIS, and using previously facility
     decommissioning costs, or if the estimated costs were less
     than the amount estimated by the method in the regulations.
               The PSDAR included activities that would endanger
     the health and safety of the public by proposing activities
     that do not comply with the NRC's health and safety
     regulations, or would result in a significant detrimental
     impact to the environment that would not be bounded by the
     current Environmental Impact Statements.
               According to the regulations, the licensee must
     notify the NRC in writing, with a copy to the affected
     states, before performing any significant decommissioning
     activities that could be considered to be inconsistent with
     or a significant schedule change from the list of planned
     decommissioning activities or schedules described in the
     PSDAR.  Changes to the PSDAR may be in the form of a written
     letter to the NRC, or may be an actual revision to the
     PSDAR.  Changes that result in any type of environmental
     impact not bounded by previous issued Environmental Impact
     Statements would need a supplement to the environmental
               This concludes my presentation for today and we
     will take any further questions.
               DR. WYMER:  Are there any questions?  John.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, one of the priorities of
     this committee is to look at things, look at regulatory
     activities from the point of view of implementing
     risk-informed, performance-based practices.  How do you see
     RIPB entering into the decommissioning process?
               MR. MASNIK:  Well, first of all, what we are
     describing here is a process, and it is primarily a
     notification process.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
               MR. MASNIK:  And where we see, of course, the risk
     base would be perhaps in the inspection program or in that
     area.  There also are a number of rulemakings that are going
     to be coming forth over the next couple of years.  We are
     going to reevaluate the regulations that govern the
     different types of decommissioning.
               For example, in the area of emergency
     preparedness, how the regulations would be relaxed over
     time.  And we are attempting to do this in a risk-informed
     manner.  These particular Reg. Guides, though, talk about
     the process, which is really just outlining the steps for
     the paper, and it is primarily a notification process.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yeah, I was looking at the
     PSDAR descriptors you have here.  They are mostly discuss,
     describe, schedule, cost estimates, et cetera, and trying to
     envision what is changing here, if anything, as a result of
     this transition in regulatory philosophy.  And I think that,
     you know, until we see some of the documentation, of course,
     we can't speak to it very specifically.
               But, at the same time, one of the places where
     this usually gets started is in the guidance, is in the
     guidance documentation.  A lot of the guidance documents,
     further activities, other licensing activities do include
     specific reference to methods, techniques of implementing a
     form of risk-informed analysis.  And I was just curious, I
     was looking for your expertise to tell me where are the
     opportunities in decommissioning.
               MR. RICHARDS:  I am Stu Richards, I am the branch
     chief in NRR for this area.  Just to get in my two cents on
     it, one area I think we can pursue to address your question
     is, if you go back in time, I think previously, before 1996,
     utilities had to come in with a decommissioning plan on the
     front end, and we asked for a lot of detail, and then we had
     to approve it.  And then in 1996, the Commission elected to
     go to what appears to me to be a performance-based approach
     where we said, in order to terminate the license, here is
     the criteria, the 25 millirem all pathways in ALARA, and how
     you get there is largely up to you.
               The PSDAR is not a document that the staff reviews
     and approves, it is a fairly small document, I guess it runs
     12 to 25 pages.  It provides an informational outline of how
     a utility intends to proceed.  It is used to inform the
     staff of their intentions.  It is also used to inform the
     local public of what they intend to do.  But they are free
     to change their approach.  They can go from SAFSTOR into
     decommissioning and dismantlement if they want to.  So,
     actually, the process is fairly performance-based because
     they have a lot of latitude, as long as they can get to that
     25 millirem ALARA.
               So, I think, from where we were probably five, six
     years ago, we have gone a long ways towards being
     performance-based in decommissioning.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yeah.  You could interpret that
     change in the PSDAR as being driven by adopting a
     performance-based perspective, and a direction in making the
     process a little simpler.
               What is done now in the way of safety analysis
     with respect to decommissioning?  Have there been any
     changes there?
               MR. MASNIK:  One of the -- well, first of all, the
     '96 regulations require an updating of the FSAR, and they
     maintain what they call a DSAR.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
               MR. MASNIK:  Or decommissioning safety analysis
     report.  We also process a number of amendments to the
     license once a plant shuts down.  Probably the most
     significant is top to bottom review and approval of their
     technical specifications.  So, there is a significant safety
     review at that time.
               There are also other amendments for operator
     licensing, for example, is another one.  There is probably
     between seven and ten that come in during the first two
     years that relax some of the requirements, and those, of
     course, have an associated safety analysis with them.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  From the utilities'
     perspective, it seems that one of the biggest question marks
     that they are facing is, of course, what to do with the low
     level waste, and rubbleization is an option that is under
     some consideration, and could be greatly affected by changes
     in the standard such as the Maine Yankee example.  So, when
     you talk to the reactor operators, they identify this as the
     big pain in the neck in terms of being able to control costs
     and being able to have -- being able to fix schedules.
               From the perspective of regulation, what do you
     see as the gorillas in the process?
               MR. MASNIK:  Well, clearly, disposal of the low
     level waste is going to be a problem in the next couple of
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Same problem.
               MR. MASNIK:  And maybe even after that.  With the
     agreement down at Barnwell, that is going to have some
     effect.  And what we are seeing now is a state by state
     position on disposal of low level waste, and we find that
     that clearly is going to affect the total cost of the
     decommissioning effort.
               Rubbleization, you know, is an option that was
     proposed by Maine Yankee.  We, NMSS, prepared a Commission
     paper on that and, basically, have said that we would
     consider this on a case-by-case basis.  I think it is going
     to be probably, without a clearance rule, it is going to be
     one of the most significant issues that the industry has to
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yeah, I think this is a real
     problem.  Do you have any evidence at all to indicate that
     other states may follow the lead of Maine, for example, of
     taking the NRC requirements and just adding additional
     safety margin to those requirements?  Because that could
     really ratchet this into a nightmare.
               MR. MASNIK:  I see that in some states and others,
     not.  We are at a point now where we have several license
     termination plans in-house for review in NMSS, and we are
     seeing a slightly different approach on each of them,
     depending on where they are located.  We have some
     indication that we will continue to see that for some time.
               I don't know, Robert, if you wanted to add to
               DR. WYMER:  Identify yourself.
               MR. NELSON:  Bob Nelson, chief of the facilities
     decommissioning section, NMSS.  We have three license
     termination plans in-house now, Trojan, Maine Yankee,
     Saxton.  We are expecting Connecticut Yankee very shortly.
     They all have, as has been stated, a different approach, and
     all are at various stages in the process, actually, of
     cleaning up.  And to some degree, the question on low level
     waste not only depends on the state that they are in, but,
     also, where they are at the present time.
               For example, Trojan, most everything has been
     cleaned up at this point, and, of course, they have access
     to the Northwest Compact.  So, low level waste doesn't
     appear to be a real problem there.  And they are going to
     repower the site, a portion of it, so, they are leaving a
     lot of buildings standing.
               Saxton, on a case, is going to basically tear
     everything down, but they prefer to do that after the
     license is terminated.  Maine Yankee, we are going to see a
     revision to their license termination plan in the near
     future, but their plan is to leave some concrete on-site.
     So, there is a mixed bag of approaches.  And I think we will
     continue to see that, depending on where the state is --
     where the utility is located, what state it is in, and
     whether there are other state regulations that exist or that
     the utility voluntarily decides to try to meet.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Thank you.
               DR. WYMER:  George, any questions, comments?
               I have one that maybe is a little bit off the
     wall.  The goal is to decommission down to 25 MR per year or
     less, with an override of ALARA on top of that.  It is not
     inconceivable, to me at least, that some of the reactor
     sites won't make that, in which case you get into some
     license termination considerations.  How do you handle this
     interface, if you can't get down to -- if they find out they
     really can't get down to those levels?
               MR. RICHARDS:  This is Stu Richards.  As far as I
     know, I think we anticipate all the reactor sites making 25
     ALARA.  There might be some question on materials sites, I
     have heard that from NMSS.  But as far as reactor sites go,
     we don't think that is going to be a problem.
               MR. MASNIK:  And the industry doesn't either.  I
     mean they are reasonably confident that they can get down to
               DR. WYMER:  They are sanguine and that comes from
     the word "blood."
               Okay.  Any other staff questions?
               MR. LARSON:  The Reg. Guide talks about, you know,
     DECON, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB and says entombment really doesn't
     look good for too many people.  And, yet, John Greeves just
     finished talking to the committee saying that, well, we are
     reevaluating entombment.
               MR. RAY:  Right.
               MR. LARSON:  And yesterday we heard that maybe --
     actually, throw concrete and other things in here.
     Although, if I look at entombment definition in here, it
     says "involves encasing radioactive structures in long-lived
     substance such as concrete," but that doesn't sound like
     what they are talking.  I guess you are really in the
     process of reevaluating entombment and what it means, and
     the definition.  Yeah.  And that would address one of John
     Garrick's comments on low level waste disposal, et cetera.
               And there is no -- is there a timeframe on that?
               MR. MASNIK:  Well, the Generic Environmental
     Impact Statement which we are working on, which we are
     hoping to get out by the end of this year, at least the
     draft form, will address entombment options.  And I am sure,
     as you know, that it is not just encasing it in concrete.
               MR. LARSON:  No, I mean that --
               MR. MASNIK:  There are a lot of other options that
     are being considered.
               MR. LARSON:  And, you know, we realize that NEI
     has come into the -- has written a letter and asked that the
     process be expedited.  I guess there has not been an
     official response from the agency on that yet.  Or has
               MR. MASNIK:  You know, we are kind of shared on
     our responsibilities.
               MR. LARSON:  Right.
               MR. MASNIK:  And I am not aware of it, but I don't
     know, Robert, do you know anything about it?
               MR. NELSON:  No, I don't.
               MR. MASNIK:  Okay.
               DR. WYMER:  Well, if there are no further
     questions, we thank you for the presentation.
               MR. RAY:  Thank you.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  Unless there are --
     well, do you want to talk a little bit about whether there
     is a basis for a letter here, or a report?
               DR. WYMER:  It doesn't seem like it to me, just
     off the top, without giving it a lot of thought.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  What is the feeling of the
     staff here?  Are they --
               MR. MAJOR:  The EDO, just stating you have no
     objection to these Reg. Guides going forth.  They are fairly
     procedural in nature.
               DR. WYMER:  Yeah, that is that reason I say I
     don't see a letter.
               MR. MAJOR:  There is nothing in the notebook that
     has these margins.  I think it is the near the end of the
     last --
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Right.  So what you are
     suggesting here is we do something similar to what we are
     doing on sufficiency?
               DR. WYMER:  Where is the Larkins?
               MR. LARSON:  It is three pages from the end of the
               DR. WYMER:  Three pages from the end.
               MR. LARSON:  And, of course, as Rich's description
     and the summary point out, you know, it has already come to
     the committee years ago, and you said you didn't have any
     objection for sending it out for draft comments.  And the
     comments that have been received back from industry and
     everybody has said, you know, we really don't have any
     problems with what has been issued.  So, if you wrote a
     letter now saying you have got some problems with this, --
               DR. WYMER:  It looks like the letter is already
     written, it is just in draft.  You might as well send it on,
     it seems to me, since these are procedural and we don't
     really get into this.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  There is very little technical.
               MR. LEVENSON:  One suggestion I might offer is, in
     order to try to reaffirm the fact that this committee is
     principally technical, is to include some wording which says
     that these guides are principally procedural and not
     technical in content and, therefore, the committee has no
     objection, et cetera.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  To their issuance.
               MR. LARSON:  But you don't want -- I mean I guess
     the only thing in making that comment is, are you sending a
     message to the staff that we don't want to look at anything
     that is not technical?
               MR. LEVENSON:  No.
               MR. LARSON:  Because, you know, this is -- as you
     know, in some other things, they have come in to the
     committee on things before that have been purely procedural
     and, yet, it is a process on the reactor side that almost
     everything that has to do with the reactors or Reg. Guides
     or anything should come and be reviewed.
               DR. WYMER:  I would be inclined to go with just
     what is written here.
               MR. LARSON:  And I am not disagreeing with you, I
     am just saying that that is -- that is a question you have
     got to get back from.
               DR. WYMER:  Yeah.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  All right.  So, let's put
     closure on it and say we accept his proposed letter.  But I
     know what you are saying, Milt.
               DR. WYMER:  And that is our philosophy, all right.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  It is our practice to want to
     address the technical issues.
               MR. LARSON:  Another thing that the ACRS has
     decided at the last couple of meetings is that, because of
     just what I described, there is a practice on the reactor
     side that almost everything since 1954 that is related to
     reactors has come to the ACRS.  But they are saying, you
     know, we have got a lot of things going on now.  There is a
     lot of reactors that are asking for license extensions.  And
     they see like eight of these coming up and they are actually
     going to form two subcommittees to look at license
     extensions for next year, are in the process of doing that.
               So, 25 or 30 percent of their time is just going
     to be involved in only license extensions for 20 years or
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Keep them out of mischief.
               MR. LARSON:  The chairman has said, well, maybe we
     want to be more selective in where we spend our time.  Maybe
     we don't even have the luxury to spend an hour or two just
     looking at Reg. Guides that are purely procedural.  So, I am
     only bringing that up as a question to look at as these
     things come to you, because you are going to see more and
     more and more of them over the next --
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Yeah.  I mean I suppose my
     reaction to Milt's suggestion was, yeah, we should do that
     and, if, in fact, we are asked whether we wanted to look at
     purely procedural things, I would argue that we would want
     to be very selective, that, in fact, spending 45 minutes or
     an hour takes 45 minutes or an hour that we could be doing
     something else.
               MR. LARSON:  Well, the process is they come to the
     staff and we should look at them and make a recommendation
     as to whether we think it is worth your time.  In this
     particular one, since decommissioning is a major thing, it
     probably was worth some time.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Fair enough.  No, that is fine.
     That's right.  And that is fine.  So, if staff makes that,
     you know, if you have made that decision, that is fine.
               MR. LARSON:  Well, we don't make any decision.
               DR. WYMER:  I thought it was worthwhile to hear
     this, even though it was purely procedural.  I am glad I
     heard it.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.
               MR. LARSON:  You want technical or not?
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  No, no.  We are going to -- we
     are accepting the letter as written.
               And with that, I would like to declare a recess
     for 15 minutes, and we will come back and plan our letter
     writing session.  As a matter of fact, I think what I would
     like to say about that is that we have a meeting of a couple
     of the members that starts at 10:45 and runs through lunch.
     The other members, I would encourage to review, study the
     letters that have been written and to continue the work on
     the reports that they are working on such that we can get a
     pretty good running start at 1:00.
               So, we will take a 15 minute break, reconvene.
               MR. LARKINS:  Before you break, I just had a call
     from SECY about potential dates for Commission meetings.
     And the only open dates they have right now are like --
     well, not open dates, dates when everybody is going to be
     here, all the commissioners would be.  October 24th or 25th,
     which is the week right now after our meeting, and November
     17th, which is the time you are scheduled to be in San
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Well, 24-25, there is a meeting
     here that I just got a letter on regarding WASH-1400.
               MR. LARKINS:  The water reactor safety meeting.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yeah, the water reactor safety.
               MR. LARKINS:  Right.  Yeah.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  And some activities related to
     WASH-1400, 25th anniversary, that I am involved in.  But I
     think my involvement is the 23rd, so it would work out fine
     to have it either the 24th or 25th, for me.
               DR. WYMER:  Between those two, the 24th would be
     preferable for me because I have --
               MR. HORNBERGER:  So, this would be like a day that
     we would come in in addition to.  For me, it would have to
     be the 24th.  I cannot schedule any Mondays, Wednesdays or
     Fridays other than those I am already committed to.
               MR. LARKINS:  Okay.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  So let's see if we can pull it
               MR. LARKINS:  See if we can lock it in on the
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.
               MR. LARKINS:  I don't think you want to do
     anything with changing the San Antonio meeting.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  No.  No.  No, you know, --
               MR. HORNBERGER:  But if we don't change the San
     Antonio meeting, I am not going to be there.
               MR. LARKINS:  Oh, that's right.  Yeah, we were
     exploring it.  What did you --
               MR. HORNBERGER:  Well, we were going to check to
     see, I think it hinged on whether that was when they were
     having their management review down there.  And if they
     were, then we had to do it at that time.  But, again, I just
     wanted to reiterate my warning that, depending upon what
     happens at GSA, I simply will not be able to make that.
               MR. LARKINS:  Is it a necessity that we have it
     during the management review at San Antonio?
               MR. LARSON:  No, the only reason it was scheduled
     then was it was thought that they were going to be nice to
     the staff.  They wouldn't have to have separate
     presentations of ACNW.  And they were already preparing
     presentations, we would there, and it wouldn't take up any
     more additional time, other than just separate meetings that
     you wanted to have.
               MR. LARKINS:  But there emphasis may be different
     than the committee's emphasis.  So, I mean, I don't think it
     is critical.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  In terms of preparation, they are
     going to have a similar preparation, so, they will have
     viewgraphs, for example,, that would do double duty.  But
     the management reviews that I have seen tend to me -- oh,
     here are the projects the center is proposing to do the next
     year.  They don't necessarily represent the projects they
     are actually working on or have the same level of focus.
     For example, you get a tech exchange.
               MR. LARSON:  Yeah, it is just NMSS staff time.
               MR. CAMPBELL:  Right.  They will all be down there
     in that same time.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  What happened, what are you
     saying, what is in your notes about what we decided on this?
     We have already had this discussion.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  It is fine.  We don't need to
     have it.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yeah.
               MR. HORNBERGER:  That's fine, I agree.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Okay.  So, we are shooting for
     October 24th for the Commission meeting.  Okay.  Let's
     take --
               MR. LARKINS:  Go back and call them right now.
               CHAIRMAN GARRICK:  Yes.  Let's take a 15 minute
               [Whereupon, at 10:21 a.m., the recorded portion of
     the meeting was concluded.]

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 02, 2017