Official Transcript of Proceedings 

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Title: Potential Rulemaking for Spent Nuclear 

 Fuel Reprocessing Facilities 

Docket Number: (n/a) 

Location: Augusta, Georgia 

Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 

Work Order No.: NRC-947 Pages 1-237 

 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. 

 Court Reporters and Transcribers 

 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20005 

 (202) 234-4433
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 1

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

3 + + + + + 

4 MEETING ON A POTENTIAL RULEMAKING FOR SPENT 

5 NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING FACILITIES 

6 + + + + + 

7 WEDNESDAY 

8 JUNE 22, 2011 

9 + + + + + 

10 AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 

11 + + + + + 

12 The Meeting was held at the Hilton 

13 Garden Inn Augusta, 1065 Stevens Creek Road, 

14 Augusta, Georgia, at 8:30 a.m., Chip Cameron, 

15 Facilitator, presiding. 

16 PARTICIPANTS:

17 SVEN BADER, AREVA 

18 JIM BRESEE, US Department of Energy 

19 TOM CLEMENTS, Friends of the Earth 

20 SUSAN CORBETT, South Carolina Sierra Club 

21 DENNIS DAMON, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

22 YAWAR FARAZ, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

23 JOHN GREEVES, JTG Consulting 

24 BRITT HILL, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

25 MARSHALL KOHEN, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 2

1 BRET LESLIE, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

2 ROD McCULLUM, Nuclear Energy Institute 

3 ALEX MURRAY, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

4 MARY OLSEN, Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

5 WENDY REED, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

6 KEVIN STRICKLAND, South Carolina Department of 

7 Health and Environmental Control 

8 STEVE WARD, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

9 DEREK WIDMAYER, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety 

10 MARK YEAGER, South Carolina Department of Health and 

11 Environmental Control 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 3

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

2 ITEM PAGE

3 Opening Remarks .................................... 4 

4 GAP 5 Safety & Risk Assessment .................... 12 

5 GAP 9 General Design Criteria ..................... 18 

6 GAP 10 One-Step Licensing ......................... 20 

7 GAP General Discussion ............................ 23 

8 Water Quality and Water 

9 Availability Issues ........................ 106 

10 Technical Specifications ......................... 110 

11 One-step v. Two-step Licensing ................... 117 

12 Public Comments .................................. 137 

13 Material Control and Accounting .................. 158 

14 Discussion ....................................... 164 

15 Wrap Up and Close ................................ 234 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 4

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 8:30 a.m. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Good morning, everybody. I 

4 guess even though this is Georgia, there was good news 

5 from Omaha last night, the Gamecocks won, okay. 

6 And a second public service announcement, 

7 the items that are in the -- what's called, I think, 

8 the Market Pantry, they are food items, you do have to 

9 pay for those, and so, the -- I guess a number of 

10 items have been walked off with, so, that's just a 

11 reminder. 

12 And in terms of agenda for today, before 

13 we get into our first substantive discussion, I just 

14 want to see if there is any burning issues, 

15 clarifications, observations, questions from 

16 yesterday, and our agenda is going to be, we're going 

17 to start off with safety, risk and licensing, and we 

18 have John Stamatakos, who is over there, who is going 

19 to be doing the presentation, and we also have Yawar 

20 Faraz. Yawar is up at the table, and Alex Murray and 

21 Dennis Damon, who is here with us, are going to be 

22 assisting John with that discussion. 

23 This afternoon, we have the security and 

24 material accounting and -- material control and 

25 accounting issues. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 5

1 I thought your discussion yesterday was 

2 good and coherent, and I'll open the floor to Jim 

3 Bresee. 

4 MR. BRESEE: Yes, I just wanted to -- 

5 MR. CAMERON: And we need to get this on 

6 the transcript. 

7 MR. BRESEE: Thank you. 

8 MR. CAMERON: There we are. 

9 MR. BRESEE: I wanted to finish a topic, 

10 which we started with yesterday. We talked a bit 

11 about the difference within the Department of Energy, 

12 the difference between what is called spent fuel and 

13 what is called used fuel. 

14 For convenience only, we have been 

15 treating used fuel as fuel capable of recycle, with 

16 some potential fuel value and spent fuel, as fuel 

17 which has been -- gone through sufficient burn up, 

18 that it no longer has economic value and would be a 

19 candidate for deep geologic disposal. 

20 I'll have to admit that in the discussion 

21 of these terms, and they have no legislative basis. 

22 They're simply a convenience. 

23 But in the discussion of these terms, 

24 there were several of us who felt that even the word 

25 'used' wasn't a very good description, it has a sort 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6

1 of broken, worn out sound to it. 

2 So, I put forth the idea that we'd call it 

3 previously owned. That's enough of that. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Like the automobiles, okay. 

5 MR. BRESEE: Thank you. 

6 MR. CAMERON: So, now, and within DOE next 

7 week, it's going to be previously owned. So, 

8 everybody is going to be doing that. 

9 Okay, thank you, Jim. Mary? 

10 MS. OLSEN: You asked for any 

11 clarifications, updates from yesterday, and first, I 

12 want to acknowledge that I had a prior commitment to 

13 teach a class this afternoon. So, I'll be leaving in 

14 the middle of the day, and it's not under protest. 

15 It's just previously committed. 

16 But I do want to state that of all the 

17 meetings I've been invited to participate in, in 20 

18 years, I really did contemplate not participating, or 

19 making some stronger statement than sitting here at 

20 the table, because in our view, the actions of 

21 Presidents Ford and Carter were stellar moments in the 

22 history of our country. They were little, teeny, tiny 

23 brights spots of sanity in what we otherwise call 

24 nuclear madness. 

25 We do not, for an instant, think that the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 7

1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission can set standards for 

2 reprocessing that will not be implemented. Build it 

3 and they will come. 

4 But as far as we're concerned, 

5 reprocessing is the dirtiest part of the fuel cycle. 

6 It is considered, in our community, worse than 

7 building new reactors, and the whole idea that regs 

8 would be set and not used is just lunacy. 

9 I mean, go to the page in the NEI paper 

10 that talks about certification of operators. Certify 

11 that they are mentally, physically and technically 

12 fit. 

13 Well, NRC, you're flunking that, to have 

14 the idea that you're going to write regs that nobody 

15 is going to use, and you don't think you're not 

16 setting policy? That's a triple negative. You are 

17 setting policy, by setting regs. 

18 So, I'm yelling at you this morning, and 

19 I'm slightly miffed at myself for getting this loud 

20 about it, but quite frankly, it's a mild act, compared 

21 to what I think many people would peacefully do. 

22 You know, anger is one thing. Violence is 

23 another. We're really pissed about this. Peaceful 

24 action, to oppose it, is what I think you can 

25 anticipate, because it is not a right action. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 8

1 I'm going to say one more thing, and then 

2 I'll be quiet. 

3 At the moment that I brag on Ford and 

4 Carter, I do have to, when I face a room of people, 

5 like I was at Clemson, maybe six months ago, talking 

6 about this history, I feel some shame. 

7 Why do I feel shame? Because it was India 

8 getting the bomb that made them have a little bit of 

9 sanity about plutonium, but what a racist act. Oh my 

10 God. The brown people have the bomb, and so, now, 

11 we're going to stop playing with plutonium. 

12 But we're still going to have all our big 

13 weapons on hair-trigger alert, and we're still going 

14 to run the whole world with that supremacy and we're 

15 going to make this little, teeny action and say, we're 

16 not going to reprocess. 

17 And yet, that little, teeny action has 

18 been one tiny light on the Hill, that maybe, the super 

19 powers could move away from mutually assured 

20 destruction and, you know, it just cracks me up, this 

21 nuclear threat initiative, that the same guys -- 

22 that's another whole subject. 

23 But the long and the short of it is, NRC 

24 is moving towards inculcating the cult of plutonium in 

25 the United States, and that's what it is, and it is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 9

1 the biggest, dirtiest process. 

2 And so, the final little update I want to 

3 add is that there was a reference to meeting Part 20, 

4 and that's all well and good, but I would direct the 

5 entire attendance, and those reading this transcript, 

6 to page 312 of the Biological Effects of Ionizing 

7 Radiation Beer 7 Phase 2 report, where we get Table 

8 12D-3. 

9 If, in fact, we have a Constitutional 

10 Democracy, which we do have in the United States, that 

11 goes guarantee equal protection under the law, NRC 

12 really needs to look at this table of data reported on 

13 health effects, and square that with Part 20, because 

14 the data in this table shows that women are 50 percent 

15 more likely to get cancer and 50 percent more likely 

16 to die of that cancer, compared to a similar dose to 

17 men. 

18 I just need to add, this isn't our being 

19 pissed, okay. This isn't our happening to like to do 

20 whatever we like to do. This has to do with 

21 percentage of reproductive tissue in the body, and the 

22 fact that reproductive tissue is more sensitive. 

23 So, as I sit here in the Augusta and South 

24 Carolina area, knowing the number of people that I 

25 know who are already sick, and knowing just 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 10

1 anecdotally, how many of them are women, and looking 

2 at the possibility that NRC is going to open the flood 

3 gate on one of the most effluent-rich opportunities 

4 for the nuclear industry, to dump more radioactivity 

5 into the environment, I want to affirm the comment 

6 that was made yesterday, that there is a difference 

7 between meeting dose levels and talking about total 

8 emissions. 

9 And when you look at total emissions from 

10 a processing worldwide, and I understand, I'm talking 

11 about old technology and you're talking about new 

12 technology, but your new technology is not proven. We 

13 are talking about massive effluent. 

14 So, really, these are not hypothetical 

15 actions that NRC is considering taking, and the 

16 biggest gap is the health and the future of our 

17 species, because women getting more impact doesn't 

18 work, for that. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Mary. One 

20 function that these gatherings serves is to allow 

21 opinion leaders, like yourself, to give strong words 

22 about heart-felt, strongly felt issues. 

23 So, we appreciate that, but also, thank 

24 you for participating in the discussion on the issues 

25 that the NRC is trying to address, also. Tom? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 11

1 MR. CLEMENTS: Just a quick point. I want 

2 to make sure that people knew there was an article 

3 today in the Augusta Chronicle, about the meeting 

4 yesterday, and Susan and her greenwashing quote are in 

5 there, and Rod is quoted, as well. It's online, but 

6 you can pick up a copy, as well. Thank you. 

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you very much, 

8 and with that, I think we're ready to go to John, and 

9 he is going to do the presentation, and then, we'll 

10 start the discussion. Thank you. 

11 MR. STAMATAKOS: Yes, good morning. My 

12 name is John Stamatakos, and I'm going to talk through 

13 five gaps, Gaps 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11, and I work at 

14 Southwest Research Institute's Center for Nuclear 

15 Waste Regulatory Analysis. We're an FFRDC charter to 

16 support the NRC. 

17 Okay, so, Gap 5, I think, is probably one 

18 of the heavy hitters in the group. It's the safety 

19 and risk assessment methodology, the approach that 

20 would be used in licensing a reprocessing facility. 

21 The gap itself is that NRC regulations 

22 required licensed facilities to demonstrate adequate 

23 assurance of safety, limiting risk to acceptable 

24 levels, and that the existing regulations in Part 50 

25 and Part 70 don't adequately address the potential 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 12

1 consequences of risks of a reprocessing facility, and 

2 it's really this first sub-bullet that's probably the 

3 most important, and that is based on analysis of what 

4 a reprocessing facility might be like, the potential 

5 source terms, in particular, fission products and 

6 actinides that are part of that stream. 

7 The number of scenarios, the complexity of 

8 the operation are greater than fuel -- existing fuel 

9 cycle facilities, and so, given these potential risks, 

10 the requirements to license a reprocessing facility 

11 solely on the integrated safety analysis approach in 

12 Part 70 may not be adequate. 

13 So, NRC staff position on -- proposed 

14 staff position on a licensing of a fuel reprocessing 

15 facility will be to use the ISA, but to incorporate 

16 quantitative risk assessment methodologies in the 

17 evaluation. 

18 So, the approach that's been proposed in 

19 the Gap summary is to use a hybrid ISA and some form 

20 of a probabilistic risk assessment, to try to capture 

21 the full complexity and source term of a potential 

22 recycling facility, reprocessing facility, excuse me. 

23 So, the notion would be to use the ISA to 

24 identify and categorize that accident sequences and 

25 then use a more quantitative approach to evaluate the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 13

1 high consequence or very high consequence event 

2 sequences. 

3 One of the -- obviously, the important and 

4 big jobs in this approach would be to develop 

5 appropriate guidance to support the application of a 

6 quantitative risk assessment methodology. 

7 In addition to that, the other standard 

8 parts of an approach would be to apply safety 

9 controls, what are called items relied on for safety, 

10 or IROFS, to reduce the total risk and minimize risk 

11 to receptors by applying as low as reasonably 

12 achievable (ALARA) and as low as reasonably practical 

13 (ALARP) concepts. 

14 As we'll talk about in one of the later 

15 gaps, we'd also identify the general design criteria 

16 and controls needed to meet the ALARA and the ALARP 

17 requirements. 

18 So, this is the proposed chart that comes 

19 from, originally from Part 70 guidance, that's been 

20 expanded to incorporate this notion of a very high 

21 consequence and very highly unlikely event. 

22 So, the column and row have been added to 

23 that table, and with the likelihoods given as 

24 probabilities per year, or frequency per year of an 

25 event or event sequence in the ISA. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 14

1 The previous stakeholder input that was 

2 received on this gap comes from a number of sources. 

3 The ACRS (Advisory Committed on Reactor Safeguards), 

4 and Derek, we're hopeful that you can talk through 

5 this some more in our discussion, that NUREG-1909 was 

6 in favor of probabilistic assessment methodologies and 

7 recommends formulating ALARA requirements that are -- 

8 establish design objectives. 

9 The NEI paper September 2010 was in favor 

10 of using the ISA with a quantitative assessment of 

11 fission produce releases to the member of the public 

12 for high consequence events, based on available data. 

13 So, that's, I'm sure, one of the topics we're going 

14 to talk about, when we talk about more quantitative 

15 probabilistic risk assessment methodologies as what 

16 data actually is available to achieve those analyses. 

17 The paper that was published by GE in a 

18 conference, I believe, also discussed the use of 

19 probabilistic or risk assessment methodologies, and 

20 again, referenced the need for reliable industry data 

21 to conduct those assessments. 

22 The second gap that I'm going to talk 

23 about is whether or not and how operators will be 

24 licensed under a proposed Part 7x. 

25 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 15

1 requires production facilities to have licensed 

2 operators. Current regulations in Part 55 are not 

3 applicable in whole to operators of reprocessing 

4 facilities. Those are related to operators of power 

5 reactors. 

6 The NRC staff is developing a framework to 

7 establish regulations for licensed operators and the 

8 criteria for testing licensed operators. 

9 So, the approach, again, is to make this 

10 risk informed and performance based, and so, to apply 

11 those risk informed performance based approaches, to 

12 determine which personnel, including possibly senior 

13 operators, need to be licensed and the requirements 

14 for their licensing. 

15 Personnel actions clearly are related to 

16 the safety of preventing or mitigating the very high 

17 consequence events, will be licensed by the NRC and we 

18 will include requirements similar to those in 10 CFR 

19 Part 55, to develop a systems approach for training, 

20 testing, simulation facilities, re-qualification and 

21 roles and responsibilities of licensed operators. 

22 The stakeholder input largely comes from 

23 the NEI White Paper and their recommendation is that 

24 operators be certified by the facility licensee 

25 according to NRC approved program, defining certified 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 16

1 operators for, again, these event sequences which 

2 would lead to potential fission product releases to 

3 members of the public for the high consequence events. 

4 There is no recommend in the NEI White 

5 Paper for a licensing of senior operators. 

6 Gap 9 speaks to the need for general 

7 design criteria. If you know the terminology, the 

8 general design criteria are these sort of over9 reaching criteria that are used to ensure safety and 

10 safe operation. 

11 So, NRC establishes these minimum 

12 requirements for facilities all of the facilities and 

13 applications of licensed radioactive materials, and 

14 they're in place to assure that safety, the systems 

15 structures importance that are relied on for safety 

16 are reliable and will perform their intended safety 

17 functions when needed. 

18 I think one of the most important points 

19 in this is the second bullet, is that, you know, the 

20 general design criteria are in place because of 

21 uncertainty, of errors, of unknown, and so, they're 

22 there to try to capture additional factors that might 

23 not be considered in the standard design. 

24 There needs to be adequate defense and 

25 depth, redundancy and diversity and that the balance 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 17

1 of plant -- those parts of the plant that are not 

2 considered system structures and importance directly 

3 related to safety, but can have an impact on those 

4 system structures and -- that are important to safety, 

5 that those unanalyzed situations don't negatively 

6 impact plant safety. 

7 So, general design criteria, the issue 

8 here is don't currently exist for reprocessing 

9 facilities. 

10 So, the NRC staff position, in that the 

11 details of this are provided in a table in the gap 

12 summary. There are 10 categories for general design 

13 criteria and the staff have identified 78 potential 

14 general design criteria within these 10 categories. 

15 These include confinement, you know, 

16 process safety, criticality safety, etcetera, that are 

17 shown in this list. 

18 NEI proposed, in their White Paper, 28 

19 general design criteria, and those were largely drawn 

20 from the Part 50 nuclear power plant regulations, with 

21 some additions from other regulations. 

22 They discuss the need to have thresholds 

23 for the applicability of the general criteria. So, 

24 those -- the need to have some risk informed on which 

25 of those general design criteria would actually apply. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 18

1 The applicant would have to explain how 

2 the general design criteria are used to achieve the 

3 performance requirements, and that some general 

4 criteria may not be necessary, based on the results of 

5 the ISA. 

6 Other stakeholder input that was received 

7 was the need to minimize regulatory uncertainty on 

8 general design criteria and establish the general 

9 design criteria by regulation, not simply by guidance. 

10 I think another very important gap that we 

11 discussed is the one-step licensing and inspection and 

12 testing acceptance criteria. This is Gap 10. 

13 Currently, there are no regulations for 

14 one-step licensing or combine license (COL) for a 

15 reprocessing facility. 10 CFR Part 52, which is for 

16 new reactors, doesn't apply to spent fuel reprocessing 

17 facilities, and the requirements for approval of 

18 applications for licensing under 10 CFR 7023 do not 

19 address reprocessing facilities. 

20 So, the general NRC position is, the 

21 general licensing authority similar to that under Part 

22 52 would be adopted, one-step licensing processing, 

23 for reprocessing facilities, including an inspection 

24 process, something that is ITAAC or ITAAC-like. I 

25 don't want to make -- the NRC was careful to make sure 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 19

1 that we were advocating something that was clearly 

2 ITAAC. 

3 This would be to confirm that the facility 

4 meets the design, construction and licensing 

5 requirements. The process could include the 

6 opportunity for early site permitting, that could be 

7 referenced in the license, and that there is the 

8 potential that we have to reserve areas in the 

9 regulation for technology specific requirements and 

10 licensing for the different technologies, such as 

11 aqueous or electro-chemical reprocessing. 

12 Then NEI White Paper, and then industries 

13 other comments on this particular gap, were that they 

14 were generally in favor of one-step licensing, but 

15 they always wanted to have the proposed 7x regulation 

16 include flexibility for either one or two-step 

17 licensing process. 

18 The last of the gaps that I'm going to 

19 speak to are on technical specifications, and the 

20 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, requires 

21 technical specifications for production facilities. 

22 10 CFR Part 70 doesn't require tech specs. It uses 

23 the IROF methodology, but the IROFS to address 

24 technical specifications in Part 7x may be needed, in 

25 order -- because of the higher potential risk of this 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 20

1 kind of a facility. 

2 So, the NRC staff position is to use tech 

3 specs to define space safety limits and limiting 

4 control settings, limiting conditions of operations 

5 and surveillance requirements and design requirements, 

6 for the IROFS that address these high consequence or 

7 very high consequence accident sequences, and that 

8 additional technical specifications may be needed to 

9 ensure that safe operation with the bounds of that -- 

10 of the safety analysis, as well as other 

11 administrative programmatic -- programmatic and 

12 technical specifications. 

13 The NEI White Paper recommended tech 

14 specifications, again, for this category of events 

15 they called high consequence events involving fission 

16 product releases to an individual located outside of 

17 the controlled area. 

18 There are a number of questions that were 

19 provided with these gaps, that are in the handout that 

20 was provided, and I didn't go through those in detail. 

21 I hope that some of those are part of the discussion 

22 on these particular gaps, and that's all I have on the 

23 presentation. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you very much. 

25 Thanks, John. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 21

1 What I'm going to suggest is that we go 

2 through the discussion in a different order than the 

3 gaps were presented, and basically, talk about 

4 methodology, GDC and tech specs, because there is an 

5 architecture there, relationship, and then when we're 

6 done with that, we can talk about the one-step 

7 licensing issue and finally, about operator licensing, 

8 and of course, as John mentioned, there are questions 

9 in the gap paper that the staff prepared, and we can 

10 interject those at any time. Does that make sense to 

11 everybody? 

12 Okay, well, how about methodology, this 

13 issue of the probabilistic risk assessment, the PRA, 

14 versus the -- or in combination with the ISA? 

15 I think John did a great job of laying out 

16 what the staff position is, and what we've heard from 

17 the stakeholders. Let's go to Rod, to lead off on 

18 that. 

19 MR. MURRAY: Yes, and I'll start with a 

20 question for NRC. The terminology very high 

21 consequence event is new to us, and I was wondering if 

22 you could walk us through, what was the rationale for 

23 -- a two-part question. 

24 What was the rationale for defining a new 

25 category of event, number one, and number two, how 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 22

1 dependent is the termination of what events fall into 

2 which ones of these categories on PRA, or 

3 comprehensive PRA for the whole facility? 

4 MR. CAMERON: And okay, we'll go to Alex. 

5 So, two parts, Alex, where did the very high 

6 consequence event concept come from, and how does that 

7 relate to the methodology issue? 

8 MR. MURRAY: Okay, very good. Well, the 

9 staff started looking at what were the differences -- 

10 can you hear me all right? 

11 The staff started evaluating the 

12 differences between reprocessing facilities and other 

13 fuel cycle facilities, and we took note of, from the 

14 NEI White Paper, and also, the Advisory Committee 

15 letters and the report NUREG-1909, and we noted that 

16 there seemed to be all of these, how shall we say, 

17 implicit or implied special events, sort of 

18 categories, which were above and beyond what are 

19 currently considered in Part 70. 

20 In fact, the NEI White Paper actually 

21 introduced this category, although it was unnamed, of 

22 fission product releases to members of the public, and 

23 the staff thought, "Okay, this seems to be introducing 

24 a category that was sort of beyond high consequence 

25 events," and we just used the term very high 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 23

1 consequence events, realizing that that is a sub-set 

2 of high consequence events. 

3 And for that category, it was based upon 

4 actual scientific safety, technical differences of the 

5 materials and types of operations that were occurring, 

6 or might occur, at reprocessing facilities, such as 

7 handling fission products, such as handling reactor8 grade plutonium, such as handling large quantities of 

9 actinide materials, potentially, multiple receptors 

10 being involved, etcetera, etcetera. 

11 And based upon the staff analysis, it 

12 would seem that this would bring in potential 

13 consequences which could be much greater than say, 

14 some of the thresholds in Part 70, as they exist right 

15 now. 

16 Now, on the flip-side of that, the staff 

17 also evaluated and discussed within itself, and 

18 evaluated various documents on -- from industry, from 

19 the Advisory Committees, from other parts of the NRC, 

20 from the general literature, input from members of the 

21 public, and concluded that if you do have a category 

22 of events which, if you will, have a somewhat higher 

23 consequence than high consequence events, this 

24 category, this sub-set that we're calling very high 

25 consequence events, for want of a better name, that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 24

1 commensurately, it should have, if you will, more 

2 rigorous analysis to demonstrate adequate assurances 

3 of safety. 

4 This actually comes directly from some of 

5 the correspondence from the Advisory Committee on 

6 reactor safeguards, and so, based on that, we 

7 concluded it would be necessary to have more rigorous 

8 analyses for this -- for these potentially very high 

9 consequence events, and that would mean quantitative 

10 risk assessment methodologies, such as PRA, and that's 

11 how we got there. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, great. 

13 MR. MURRAY: Thank you. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Let's go back to Rod. 

15 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, just a quick 

16 clarifier. So, the regulation would envision whenever 

17 there is a potential for a fission product release to 

18 the public, or very high consequence event, and that 

19 definition is useful, that a PRA is required in that 

20 event? 

21 MR. CAMERON: Alex, you used the term more 

22 rigorous analysis, and I guess the point is, what does 

23 that mean? 

24 MR. MURRAY: In general, a more rigorous 

25 safety analysis does mean a probabilistic risk 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 25

1 assessment. 

2 At this time, staff is still evaluating, 

3 is it solely PRA? Are there other options? 

4 We do have a Commission policy statement, 

5 which says that we should use PRA methodology to the 

6 greatest extent, practical in all regulatory matters, 

7 okay. 

8 So, we're basically following that 

9 direction of the Commission, and also, from the 

10 Advisory Committee on reactor safeguards, most 

11 recently, in the February 2011 letter to the 

12 Commission. 

13 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I think you may want 

14 to -- 

15 MR. MURRAY: But we're still developing 

16 what that really means, do you understand that, and we 

17 are seeking guidance from members of the panel and 

18 members of the audience here, if they have any 

19 elaboration on what that means. 

20 MR. McCULLUM: That's useful. I think 

21 we'll want to explore that PRA versus more rigorous 

22 safety analysis topic, but I see we have other tents 

23 up, so, we'll hold onto that. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Yes, and let's make sure 

25 that we do have a discussion on this, but let me check 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 26

1 in with Mary and then Tom, and see what else we should 

2 put on the table. Mary? 

3 MS. OLSEN: I like what I heard Alex say. 

4 It makes sense to me, but I get really nervous when 

5 we start talking about risk informing everything, 

6 without having any prescriptive standards that are 

7 set, and somebody has to show that that part is going 

8 to get met. 

9 I mean, if it's just an envelope that you 

10 get to keep pushing around and pushing around and 

11 pushing around, and then the public has no access, 

12 because these things are "proprietary", and so, then, 

13 there has to be all these big agreements signed, and 

14 very expensive experts hired. 

15 And so, I'm just going to put in a pitch 

16 for something Dr. John Goffman used to talk about, and 

17 that they actually do in Canada, which is, you know, 

18 if you're going to do this level of regulatory 

19 interactions, that you actually fund the interveners, 

20 to be able to afford to participate, because 

21 otherwise, it's completely a lock-out. 

22 And I think our current administration has 

23 an emphasis on transparency, and I hope this agency 

24 will continue to have that commitment, as well. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Mary. I'm 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 27

1 going to put the intervener funding issue in the 

2 parking lot here, and I would just ask the rest of the 

3 panel, as you heard Mary's concern about prescriptive 

4 requirements, okay, where are they, and as we go along 

5 in our discussion and perhaps, Alex, you want to say 

6 something about that, right now, let's make sure we 

7 address that. Alex? 

8 MR. MURRAY: We do, the NRC staff does 

9 believe that there should be some prescriptive 

10 requirements. We're not entirely sure of the specific 

11 details right now. 

12 Some of these prescriptive requirements we 

13 will call general design criteria, and these would be 

14 conditions, or situations that the licensee must 

15 address, and there is a table in the summary which 

16 gives some proposed areas for those general design 

17 criteria. 

18 Those areas might actually become general 

19 design criteria, in and of themselves. We use the 

20 term GDC, for general design criteria. Those are 

21 based upon what currently exists in the regulations 

22 for handling radiated materials, such as spent nuclear 

23 fuel. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So, the prescriptive 

25 requirements are going to be the general design 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 28

1 criteria, is what I'm hearing, and you Yawar, do you 

2 want so say something more on this, this prescriptive 

3 idea? 

4 MR. FARAZ: Certainly. In addition to the 

5 general design criteria, there will be technical 

6 specifications and the staff believes that in addition 

7 to the tech specs that are based on the safety 

8 analysis, there might be additional tech specs that 

9 may not have a direct -- show a direct nexus to risk. 

10 Never the less, there -- we would consider 

11 them important from a safety standpoint, that they 

12 would be included in the technical specifications, 

13 which essentially, you know, establish the overall 

14 safety envelope, and you might consider it that way, 

15 for a reprocessing facility, and as a reminder, the 

16 existing fuel cycle facilities are not required to 

17 have technical specifications. Our reactors are. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and we will be -- I 

19 think that aides everybody's understanding on this, 

20 and we will be getting to the discussion of GDC and 

21 tech specs. 

22 Let's hear from Tom and then perhaps, 

23 we're going to be going back to the issue that we 

24 started with. Tom, then we'll go to John Greeves. 

25 MR. CLEMENTS: Thank you. On the slide on 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 29

1 the screen now for Gap 5, I don't know if will be Alex 

2 to respond, or someone from the NRC. 

3 If you could explain why you've put this 

4 ALARA/ALARP with a slash, and where in the 

5 regulations. We didn't get an explanation yesterday, 

6 a good explanation about as low as reasonably 

7 achievable. 

8 Where is the as low as reasonably 

9 practical coming from? There is -- although I may 

10 have problems above these, I think there is a big gap 

11 between those two, and why is it kind of an and/or on 

12 -- in the presentation, and what is the definition of 

13 as low as reasonably practical, in this sense of this 

14 gap? 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay, who wants to address 

16 that, and I think it's clear, what Tom's question is. 

17 Yawar? 

18 MR. FARAZ: Yes, the reason we added ALARP 

19 to the ALARA concept, generally, when you think of 

20 ALARA, you think of radiation dose and to reduce the 

21 radiation dose as much as possible, primarily for 

22 workers. 

23 There are -- existing licensees are 

24 required to implement ALARA per 10 CFR Part 20, 

25 although here in this -- on the Gap 5, you are talking 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 30

1 about the risk of accidents, and we're discussing, you 

2 know. 

3 So, the same kind of philosophy we expect 

4 to apply to minimizing risks of accidents. So, you 

5 would minimize the risk, as low as possible. We 

6 didn't intend to use, you know, existing terminology 

7 from regulations and the same kind of philosophy. 

8 So, we just wanted to kind of explain that 

9 what we mean is minimize as much as possible, you 

10 know, and you might even include, based on some cost 

11 benefit type evaluation, but that was the purpose. 

12 MR. CAMERON: And is there -- Tom, is part 

13 of your question, what is this concept of as low as 

14 reasonably practical? 

15 MR. CLEMENTS: Well, now, another term has 

16 been introduced, as low as possible. So, I'm a little 

17 confused, as to what the point it. 

18 MR. FARAZ: The term ALARP is used in the 

19 UK, very widely. It's as low as reasonably 

20 practicable, and it's not so much the terms, the 

21 application of the terms, it's the philosophy that we 

22 want to explain, that that philosophy would be applied 

23 to potential accidents in minimizing the risk of those 

24 potential accidents. 

25 MR. CAMERON: So, this term ALARP, as you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 31

1 called it, is from -- it's not from the United States 

2 regulatory philosophy. It's something that's used in 

3 the UK, and I guess one of the questions is, is what 

4 is the difference, and maybe you hit that. 

5 But what is the difference between ALARA, 

6 our concept of ALARA, and this as low as reasonably 

7 practicable, and I know Alex is -- 

8 MR. CLEMENTS: Well, I think you mentioned 

9 cost benefit. I'm not sure if there is anywhere in 

10 the regs, that cost benefit analysis on a licensing 

11 proceeding is part of the licensing. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, let's go to Dennis. 

13 Dennis Damon. 

14 DR. DAMON: It's not in the regulations. 

15 It's in the Atomic Energy Act. It's in the statute, 

16 okay. 

17 The words are -- well, actually, it is in 

18 the regulation, because it was imported into the 

19 regulation. It's in 70.22, okay. The words are, "The 

20 Commission is authorized to set standards, to minimize 

21 danger to life and property," okay, that's the 

22 concept. It's the same thing as ALARP, only what -- 

23 the distinction we're trying to make here is ALARA is 

24 a terminology from Part 20, which has to do with 

25 planned exposures and effluence, that kind of thing. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 32

1 ALARP is a broader concept. It involves 

2 minimizing risk from accidents, as well as routine 

3 releases. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Dennis. Alex, 

5 do you want to add anything onto that? 

6 MR. MURRAY: If I could, please, just a 

7 very quick comment, and we can let someone respond. 

8 The concept, in all of the NRC 

9 regulations, and it would carry over into any proposed 

10 regulation on reprocessing facilities, is that not 

11 only do licensees have to meet the requirements, if 

12 you will, the limits, if you will, that are in 

13 regulations, but they also have to look and go beyond 

14 those limits, such as to use the term from Atomic 

15 Energy Act, minimize risks to the lowest extent 

16 practical. 

17 Okay, we use terms which are in the Atomic 

18 Energy Act, and carried over into our regulations, as 

19 low as reasonably achievable. As Yawar and Dennis 

20 pointed out, those usually are more in the context of 

21 planned or routine exposures. The term ALARP is a 

22 term that we're considering from the United Kingdom's 

23 regulatory structure, which brings in more of the 

24 context of unplanned or accidental conditions, i.e., 

25 don't just meet the limit, go beyond it, and by 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 33

1 beyond, I mean, below the limit, as much as you 

2 reasonably can. 

3 MR. CAMERON: so, the same philosophy? 

4 MR. MURRAY: Yes. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay, just applied to 

6 different things, and you're going to -- 

7 MR. MURRAY: Yes. 

8 MR. CAMERON: We're going to go to the 

9 presenter. 

10 MR. MURRAY: May I just add one last 

11 thing? As part of the discussion this morning, we 

12 appreciate any input that the members of the panel, 

13 the members of the audience might have, as to how we 

14 would define ALARA and ALARP, in the context of 

15 potential regulations for reprocessing facilities. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and let's hear from 

17 John, and then let's see what the panel -- we'll go to 

18 Rod, and see what the panel has to say about that. 

19 John? 

20 MR. STAMATAKOS: Yes, Tom, the analogous -

21 - I think an analogous approach is the SAMA approach, 

22 that's used in reactors. This is severe action 

23 mitigation analysis. That's a cost -- that includes a 

24 cost benefit, and has a cost benefit component to it, 

25 as well. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 34

1 So, that philosophy, I think, is embedded 

2 here. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, John. Rod? 

4 MR. McCULLUM: John Greeves has had his 

5 tent up for a while. I think he's got a lot of 

6 expertise on this, and I'd like to hear what he has to 

7 say first, and then I'll comment. 

8 MR. CAMERON: Well, I just want to make 

9 sure that we close out the ALARA/ALARP. 

10 MR. McCULLUM: Yes. 

11 MR. CAMERON: And I thought his point was 

12 on something. 

13 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, briefly on this -- 

14 MR. GREEVES: Yes, a problem we didn't 

15 close out earlier, yes, you're correct, but I'd say 

16 something about ALARP, too. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay, do we -- well, if you 

18 have something on the -- 

19 MR. McCULLUM: I'll say very quickly that 

20 I am concerned that reprocessing would be the only 

21 type of facility in the United States where we would 

22 define this term. 

23 I think we have ways of assuring, and this 

24 goes back to the ISA, maybe this will link to John's 

25 discussion. You know, we certainly want to assure 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 35

1 that items relied on for safety will function. We 

2 certain want a high level of control there, and we 

3 certainly want to make sure that's reflected in the 

4 regulations. 

5 But I think it only becomes confusing if 

6 this new definition of safety comes into play, that 

7 only exists in this type of facility, not lower hazard 

8 facility or not high hazard. 

9 Let's use the terminology we already have, 

10 for assuring that systems function and -- as opposed 

11 to introducing a new -- 

12 MR. CAMERON: So, do you think that -- you 

13 think that what we have now can be used to achieve the 

14 same objective that the staff is concerned about, and 

15 that the use of a new term, that doesn't have any rich 

16 history, I'll use John's phrase from yesterday, rich 

17 history here may be problematic and counter18 productive? 

19 MR. McCULLUM: Exactly, because we -- the 

20 history of assuring that systems that are important to 

21 safety work, we have that, and if we stick with that 

22 terminology, all the folks that design these things 

23 and operate these things, they know exactly what to 

24 expect. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and I think you know, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 36

1 the reason for Tom's question and confusion is because 

2 we're -- where did this come from? 

3 Let's go to John and then to Sven. John? 

4 MR. GREEVES: Yes, just to finish on the 

5 second item, I really want to go back to the first 

6 item, then. 

7 ALARA has been addressed by the Part 70 

8 people for a long time. I would ask you, don't 

9 introduce new terminology. You're going to get these 

10 kinds of questions from people, what is a lab, 

11 etcetera? This kind of discussion is going to happen. 

12 The Commission has done ALARA for a long 

13 time, and Part 70 and Part 20 and Part 40 and Part 30. 

14 It's not new. There are ways to do that. 

15 What I raise my tent on was the discussion 

16 that Alex went through, on the ISA/PRA piece, and this 

17 is very complicated and I frankly, think there is 

18 going to be more meetings on this, rightfully so, 

19 rightfully so. 

20 Surprised to see you introduce a new 

21 concept, very high consequence events. Two points. 

22 I'm sympathetic with what Mary Olsen said 

23 earlier. You introduce this new concept, another 

24 layer in two dimensions, and it is going to be very 

25 difficult for the stakeholders to follow this. It's a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 37

1 point. 

2 We've been working on ISA's and edging 

3 toward PRA for a long time. The staff has done these 

4 Part 70 reviews. I don't see the need for a new 

5 category. It's just, how do you implement the 

6 approach you've used in the past? 

7 The NEI White Paper acknowledged that for 

8 events that could be risk offsite, that you should 

9 move towards quantitative approach, in those cases. 

10 I don't think it requires defining another 

11 level, and it's going to -- if you do that, it's going 

12 to induce a level of complexity that will make it less 

13 transparent, and I think there is a lot more we're 

14 going to have to talk about this process. But I'm 

15 surprised and concerned about additional prescriptive 

16 layers in this process. 

17 The Commission has urged the staff to use 

18 risk informed performance based approaches, and not to 

19 add prescriptiveness to this process. 

20 So, I think it's going to take a lot of 

21 dialog, to get there, but the NEI White Paper 

22 acknowledged, in those cases, where you do bump up 

23 against the current standards of high consequence 

24 event, that using quantitative techniques is something 

25 that should be pursued. So, I'll stop. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 38

1 MR. CAMERON: So, John, your concern with 

2 this is similar to the concern that Rod expressed, 

3 with ALARP, that the existing framework can 

4 accomplish, can meet the concern that the staff is 

5 trying to address, but the introduction of a new term 

6 can only create confusion and as you noted, less 

7 transparency. Is that it? 

8 MR. GREEVES: That's certainly part, and I 

9 think Alex understands what I'm saying, that the terms 

10 that you have, the approach that you have, can achieve 

11 the same ends, and it's just a question of how do you 

12 introduce the PRA concepts, when needed? 

13 MR. CAMERON: And before we go to Alex and 

14 Yawar, let's hear from some -- from Sven and Mary and 

15 then, have the NRC staff jump in, and then go to Rod. 

16 Sven? 

17 MR. BADER: I'm a safety analyst at heart, 

18 and what perplexes me here is, if we're going to stick 

19 with the term IROFS, and then go with this ALARA/ALARP 

20 and PRA approaches, I'm not sure how you're going to 

21 come up with IROFS, other than designating everything 

22 in a facility IROFS. 

23 The majority of the facilities are 

24 designed with the ALARA concepts. So, you know, if 

25 we're going to have to apply these to facilitating 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 39

1 some of these events, we're talking about significant 

2 number of IROFS, and I think one of the complaints 

3 I've heard in the past about some of the Part 70 

4 facilities is they have too many IROFS, that makes 

5 inspections hard to do. 

6 So, you know, I just want you to 

7 understand that from a safety analyst standpoint, if I 

8 have to apply the PRA, which goes through a rigorous 

9 assessment of facility crediting all portions of that 

10 facility, you know, I see Alex is flapping his hand, 

11 so, clearly, he wants to address this. So, I'll stop 

12 there. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Yes, it's a nervous habit. 

14 For those of us who are not familiar with this, can 

15 you just explain what IROFS are and what that acronym 

16 stands for? 

17 MR. BADER: Items relied on for safety, 

18 and so, those are essentially your most important 

19 items that you're protecting -- that are protecting 

20 you against the hazards in the facility. 

21 You know, and with this concept of very 

22 high consequences, I wonder if our IROFS now become 

23 doubly important in those cases, versus the IROFS that 

24 are necessary for worker protection. 

25 MR. CAMERON: And so, that your point is, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 40

1 is that with this ALARP concept, that IROFS -- that 

2 the concept of IROFS is going to lose its viability, 

3 because everything is going to be an IROF, okay, and I 

4 want to get Mary on, before we go to the NRC staff, 

5 and then we have Rod and Derek. Mary? 

6 MS. OLSEN: Yes, I don't mind agreeing 

7 with anybody at this table, but I just want to clarify 

8 that these very high consequence events don't 

9 necessarily translate into prescription, nor do they 

10 necessarily make probabilistic risk assessment more -- 

11 you know, less transparent. 

12 So, I just want to clarify that my own 

13 views weren't be reflected in a previous comment about 

14 possible agreement, because quite frankly, I think 

15 that you should have a prescription about how high 

16 your sea wall is, if you're in a high earthquake area, 

17 and we have seen the consequences of not having, you 

18 know, very big IROF met, and so, yes, I really think 

19 there needs to be prescriptive things. 

20 On the other hand, I'm really happy to 

21 hear that maybe somebody is recognizing that a really 

22 high consequence events needs to be a little bit more 

23 weighted than that ten to the minus, however many 

24 zeros you put on it, because you think you're just 

25 never going to see if in your lifetime. I mean, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 41

1 that's that old joke about, what was his name, got hit 

2 by a meteor, when Three Mile Island happened? You 

3 know, that was the big probabilistic -- first 

4 probabilistic risk assessment guy. I'm forgetting his 

5 name. But you know, that was the joke, he got hit by 

6 a meteor. 

7 So, I think both things are tremendously 

8 important, that we weight certain factors in a risk 

9 assessment differently, and that there are some 

10 prescriptive levels that just -- you look at the 

11 situation and you go, "Oh my God, how could they put 

12 the diesel generators so low down on that site?" 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and Mary is talking 

14 again, about prescriptive, and I think as we go 

15 through our discussion of general design criteria and 

16 tech specs, I mean, you hear Mary's concern, and I 

17 think that in your knowledge around the table, you can 

18 address those concerns, as we have the discussion on 

19 that. 

20 Now, let's go to Alex and then, you don't 

21 want to -- let's go to Alex, and then let's go to Rod 

22 and Derek. Alex? 

23 MR. MURRAY: Yes, I heard several times, 

24 Part 70 was mentioned. I just first want to clarify 

25 that reprocessing facilities are not regulated under 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 42

1 Part 70. They are currently regulated under Part 50, 

2 okay. 

3 So, they are different from the fuel cycle 

4 facilities in Part 70. In some of the slides here, in 

5 some of the discussions in the summary, some of these 

6 differences are pointed out. I mentioned some of them 

7 previously. I'll just repeat a couple of them, right 

8 now. 

9 You do have the presence of fission 

10 products, okay. These give high gamma fields. They 

11 are a potential hazard for both workers and members of 

12 the public. 

13 You do have the presence of reactor-grade 

14 plutonium, okay, which presents more inhalation and 

15 direct dose hazards, okay. Fundamentally different, 

16 okay. 

17 You also have the presence, or potential 

18 presence of greater quantities and types of other 

19 actinides, americium, curium, neptunium, okay. All of 

20 these have much higher dose conversion factors and 

21 potential health consequences, which translate, of 

22 course, ultimately, we use the term hazards in the 

23 NRC, and these hazards are different above and beyond 

24 what currently exists at Part 70 facilities, okay. 

25 So, please understand, these are 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 43

1 fundamental, technical safety differences. In the 

2 staff's discussions and analyses, based on what we 

3 have reviewed from previous meetings and discussions, 

4 on NRC documents, on industry documents and multiple 

5 sources, other regulators overseas, the Department of 

6 Energy, we've done an exhaustive look and have 

7 listened to a lot of people. These differences are 

8 real and any potential or proposed new regulation for 

9 reprocessing facilities needs to accommodate and 

10 address those fundamental hazard differences. 

11 Okay, now, the staff also recognizes that 

12 the Part 70 approach, where we're bringing in risk 

13 informed performance based has some merit, okay, and 

14 that's why if you look at that matrix, that was 

15 presented by John, about 15 minutes ago, and it's in 

16 the summary handout that Tom is looking at right now, 

17 okay, it builds upon the Part 70 concept and says, 

18 "Hey, let's risk inform this extra category, in order 

19 to address these different and potentially greater 

20 hazards from reprocessing," okay, and make sure that 

21 the regulatory approach ultimately, for a reprocessing 

22 facility, will come about and bring adequate 

23 assurances of safety. 

24 Yes, if you have something that is 

25 potentially more hazardous, we need to look at it more 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 44

1 thoroughly and address the hazards. 

2 Now, the questions which the staff has is, 

3 how do you do that? Okay, we have come up with one 

4 approach, based on previous discussions, that builds 

5 upon the NEI approach. It builds on the Department of 

6 Energy approaches. We're open to more input. 

7 So, please discuss it with that frame in 

8 mind. Thank you very much. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and Rod, do you mind 

10 if I go to Derek first, because I think there may be 

11 something is says that -- 

12 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, just be warned that 

13 the more these people talk, the more things I think of 

14 to say. 

15 MR. CAMERON: But you know, the one thing 

16 that that would -- I think the NRC staff should 

17 address, you heard a concern from Rod, you heard a 

18 concern from John, about one -- one, about ALARP and 

19 two, about the very high consequence event. 

20 This concern that introducing the new 

21 concept doesn't add to the safety, but could add to 

22 the complexity and confusion, and certainly, that's 

23 something the NRC would have to take into account, in 

24 terms of, you know, its regulatory philosophy on this. 

25 You may want to respond to that, that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 45

1 concern, those concerns, at some point. Derek? 

2 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes, I also agree with John 

3 and others, about introducing the concept of ALARP. 

4 MR. GREEVES: Which John do you agree 

5 with? 

6 MR. WIDMAYER: All of the John's. This 

7 John, okay, as far as introducing the new topic, and 

8 that's all I have to say on that. 

9 The rest of my comments would tend to, I 

10 think, change the course of the conversation. So, I 

11 don't know if Rod actually wants to go ahead first, 

12 and then C13 MR. CAMERON: Okay, let's -- thank you. 

14 Thank you, Derek. Let's go to Rod, and then we'll 

15 come back. 

16 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I think this a great 

17 discussion and I appreciate the fact that staff is 

18 still open to input, and I understand that in the NEI 

19 White Paper, we talked about the role of ISA and there 

20 may be some -- I think we see them as fairly limited 

21 instances, where PRA might be useful. 

22 I think there is a couple of concepts that 

23 need to be clarified here. I think a couple of areas 

24 where it's confused. 

25 There seems to be, and I'm kind of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 46

1 thinking quantitatively here, seeing equations in my 

2 head, there seems to be an equal sign being put 

3 between level of rigor and quantitativeness and level 

4 of control. 

5 I don't think that equation works, and 

6 also, you know, there seems to be an idea that the 

7 level of hazard should drive the level of 

8 quantitativeness, or the need for a PRA, and in 

9 reality, it is the function of the system, the way the 

10 system works, that drives the utility of a PRA, 

11 whether you can even do one. 

12 I think, you know, a PRA is -- or an ISA 

13 is sufficiently rigorous, if it identifies the items 

14 relied on for safety, and the designers can design 

15 those items, appropriately, to mitigate the risk 

16 that's being dealt with. 

17 Mary brought up an excellent example with 

18 the sea wall. Your ISA would identify the sea wall as 

19 an IROF, if you were in an area where a tsunami was 

20 credible. You would bring in a level of 

21 quantitativeness, because you'd have historical data 

22 that would tell you what the probability of what sort 

23 of a tsunami was, and I would admit, in the recent 

24 event in Fukushima, they simply missed that one by a 

25 lot, and that's not good. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 47

1 But that doesn't drive the need for a PRA, 

2 number one, and also, a PRA for a sea wall is not 

3 possible. Remember what PRA ties to. It comes from a 

4 reactor world where you have a number of inter-related 

5 systems that prevent a core damage accident. 

6 What PRA lets you do is figure out which 

7 ones of those systems are important, or how important, 

8 in mitigating or preventing the possibility of a core 

9 damage accident. 

10 So, you know, this pump has to function. 

11 This valve has to open. This system has to have power 

12 from this system, and that system can't get in the way 

13 of this system, you know. That is why a PRA becomes 

14 necessary. 

15 In a reprocessing facility, you don't have 

16 this chain of inter-related systems, that stand 

17 between you and a core damage accident. You don't 

18 have that level of complexity. You, in fact, can 

19 better achieve safety, with an integrated safety 

20 analysis. You identify the IROFS. It can be a fairly 

21 straight forward process, as is the example of the sea 

22 wall. 

23 And once you do that, it becomes a 

24 question of designing the IROFS to meet that intended 

25 function, so that you do assure safety. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 48

1 A more quantitative analysis won't 

2 necessarily get you there, and so, really, it has to 

3 be driven by how the system functions, not by the 

4 level of hazard, and just being more quantitative. If 

5 you throw a quantitative analysis, in some instances, 

6 a PRA won't even be meaningful, but it makes the 

7 safety analysis harder for everybody to understand, 

8 and you get a number that is not meaningful. 

9 You don't have the data. You don't have 

10 the system interactions that are being described. You 

11 just have something that you would have had anyway, 

12 had you just designed the IROF to the appropriate 

13 standards, to assure its function in the appropriate 

14 events. 

15 So, I'll summarize, I know Chip wants me 

16 to summarize here, it's let's think about what is 

17 needed, given the way the system works, to assure 

18 safety in the most straight line path possible, as 

19 opposed to adding initial -- additional concepts and 

20 jumping too far. 

21 We have a greater need to assure safety, 

22 so, we have to be more complex, and introduce new 

23 terms and be more quantitative. 

24 That's not the straight line path to 

25 safety, that we really need to best protect the public 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 49

1 here. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Rod. I think 

3 that is a very useful caution, and I would, you know, 

4 look to all of you around the table, about whether it 

5 is a useful caution. 

6 But the caution is, is that increased 

7 quantitative analysis, even if you could do it, but 

8 that doesn't necessarily equate to more safety. 

9 MR. McCULLUM: Well said. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Before we go to 

11 Dennis and the rest of the cards, let's hear from 

12 Susan. 

13 MR. CORBETT: I just want to say briefly, 

14 as speaking for the public, I welcome this break-out, 

15 these additional break-outs. I think the public wants 

16 to know the details of a very highly unlikely high 

17 consequence event, and that according to what it says 

18 that, you know, the presence and processing of large 

19 qualities of fission products and transuranic isotopes 

20 has the potential to greatly increase consequences far 

21 above the 10 CFR Part 70 high consequence thresholds. 

22 I think the public wants to see the worse 

23 case scenario, and we want to be able to ask questions 

24 about that, and I welcome the additional break-outs, 

25 just as a member of the public. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 50

1 MR. CAMERON: And that's something, I 

2 think that all of you should think about, too, in 

3 terms of Susan's statement about the public would like 

4 to see this. Think about how -- what you would say to 

5 that, in terms of assurance to the public. 

6 Let's go to Dennis and then, to Yawar and 

7 then, let's come back and see where Derek was going to 

8 take us, and also, talk to John. 

9 DR. DAMON: I thought I'd clarify 

10 something for those, unlike the members of the staff 

11 here that have been in fuel cycle for a long time. We 

12 know what the regulations say, and why you go -- you 

13 really do need a very high consequence event, and it's 

14 very risk informed, okay. 

15 The highest consequence threshold for 

16 radiation exposure of a member of the public, in the 

17 Part 70 rule, which doesn't apply, but we're thinking 

18 of have a 70x that does, is 25 rem, exceeding 25 rem. 

19 That's a pretty modest dose. 

20 There is at least two break-points in 

21 health effects above that, that are much more serious. 

22 One is 100 rads, where you get into acute radiation 

23 syndrome, which is a very severe health effect. 

24 So, 100 to 350 rads, you're talking about 

25 very sick people, you know, hair falling out, you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 51

1 know, nausea, fever, all that kind of stuff. 

2 Then you go above 350 rads, you're talking 

3 about life threatening, okay. In the chemical 

4 consequence criteria that are in the current rule, we 

5 follow the EPA's acute exposure guideline levels that 

6 define health effects in terms of qualitative levels, 

7 and they go for workers, all the way to life 

8 threatening. 

9 We don't have an analogous thing for a 

10 member of the public in the current rule. We have two 

11 other break points above 25 rem, that give very 

12 radically different health effects, and consequently, 

13 the staff believes that for those events, we want 

14 greater assurance that the protective measures are 

15 adequate, and I might address what Rod was talking 

16 about, the difference between reactors and 

17 reprocessing and the complex control systems and PRA. 

18 It's not the complex control systems that 

19 I, personally, am concerned about. It's external 

20 events, earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding, what else is 

21 there? It's that kind of thing that we want a greater 

22 quantitative assurance, that the plant has been 

23 designed to resist the most severe events that can 

24 occur, and that's the mistake the Japanese made. 

25 They quantified the magnitude of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 52

1 earthquake and tsunami, that they thought could occur 

2 on the thrust fault, and I don't know how they did I, 

3 because I was able, by a cursory review of megathrust 

4 events, that they go to magnitude 9, and you shouldn't 

5 have assumed that they could only go to whatever they 

6 assumed. It was like an 8.2 or something. 

7 You know, a thrust fault of that size can 

8 produce a 9. They blew it, okay, and consequently, 

9 they didn't make a big enough sea wall, okay. That is 

10 what we want. We want you guys to do a better job of 

11 quantifying things, and that includes -- it's not the 

12 likelihood, and what's the probability of failure of 

13 this control or that control. It's the consequences. 

14 We want to know what the doses are, the 

15 source terms and the releases of radioactive material, 

16 just as is said in the NEI White Paper. 

17 We got these fission products and 

18 actinides that can theoretically produce these larger 

19 doses. We want to know will they, in fact, produce 

20 these larger doses and what are you going to do, to 

21 provide greater assurance than just preventing high 

22 consequence events, because the current rule was 

23 designed for the facilities that existed at the time 

24 the rule was promulgated, which was the year 2000, and 

25 we didn't have a MOX facility, and we didn't envision 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 53

1 reprocessing. 

2 So, the rule didn't really include 

3 consequence categories appropriate for that kind of 

4 facility. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Let me just get Rod. 

6 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I could -- I'd 

7 actually like to agree with what -- one key thing that 

8 Dennis said, which is that we should quantify the 

9 probabilities of external events. 

10 I mean, once your ISA has identified the 

11 sea wall as an IROF, then you need to figure out what 

12 the probability of what tsunami hitting that sea wall 

13 is, and that's exactly the point. 

14 That doesn't mean you want to do -- or 

15 even, it's useful to try to do a PRA to identify the 

16 sea wall as being needed. 

17 So, yes, absolutely, we should be 

18 identifying the probabilities of tornadoes, 

19 earthquakes, floods, and we should design against very 

20 low probability events, when the protection of public 

21 health and safety is involved. 

22 Now, as far as defining it as a very high 

23 consequence event, Dennis talked about, you know, some 

24 pretty interesting, he called them break points. 

25 You know, we're going to start at a much 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 54

1 lower level, or in other words, a much higher level of 

2 public health and safety protection. You're not going 

3 to wait until you're getting to those break points. 

4 You're going to identify IROFS, in order 

5 to prevent events that could have -- could trigger 

6 EPA's protective action guidelines, which are much 

7 lower, you know, you're talking one rem. I mean, so, 

8 you're going to design against any event that could 

9 have a public consequence well below the thresholds 

10 that we're talking about for these very high 

11 consequence events, and again, adding the extra layer 

12 of complexity, beyond quantifying what events you need 

13 to be worried about, I'm still going to design a sea 

14 wall, just as well, I mean, because at the lower 

15 threshold, the more protective threshold, I think is 

16 the best way to say it. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay, this is a good 

18 discussion. Let's go to Derek and John, Kevin, Tom, 

19 and then come back to Yawar and Sven, and let's see, 

20 let's maybe finish this discussion and go to GDC, with 

21 those tents, or the progeny of those tents, if you 

22 know what I mean. Derek? 

23 MR. WIDMAYER: Okay, the introduction to 

24 the session began with John, and he -- that John over 

25 there, and he talked about an ACNW&M (Advisory 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 55

1 Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials) report, and 

2 I happen to have that with me, if anybody wants to get 

3 the citations and everything. 

4 This actually -- your slide said it was 

5 from the ACRS. It's actually not. It's from the 

6 ACNW&M and the ACNW&M has been absorbed into the 

7 ACRS. 

8 First of all, I want to caveat that I'm 

9 here representing the staff of the ACRS. I don't 

10 represent the Committee. Even if a Committee member 

11 was here, he wouldn't be representing the Committee. 

12 I did do some homework, as far as the 

13 session was concerned, and the -- you know, the best 

14 reference to use at this point it time is the ACRS's 

15 most recent letter, which was February 2011, as far as 

16 what their feelings are on ISA versus PRA. 

17 That having been said, there are some 

18 members of the Committee that, you know, feel like PRA 

19 is what should be done, you know, for -- a full PRA 

20 should be done for reactors. 

21 Now, you can get into a long conversation 

22 about what that means, but there are -- you know, the 

23 members of the Committee are a little less comfortable 

24 with the notion of an ISA, although they're beginning 

25 to understand it a little bit better. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 56

1 With those caveats, you know, I thought 

2 that the hybrid approach was something that you could 

3 potentially explore and bring to the Committee. They 

4 certainly would want some step in the process to look 

5 like a PRA, because what they're interested in is, you 

6 know, prioritizing the risks for inspection and not 

7 having the 10,300 whatever IROFS that you had at the 

8 MOX facility, without also continuing the process and 

9 figuring out which ones are more risk significant. 

10 So, you know, I don't think they object to 

11 starting with an ISA and moving to a PRA. I think the 

12 best probably -- you know, that kind of hybrid 

13 approach would probably work. 

14 One suggestion that I did want to bring 

15 forward was, I didn't -- an approach where you 

16 eliminate the low risk stuff first, I think is also a 

17 useful exercise to try to get to, you know, to the 

18 extent that an ISA does add -- I'm not an ISA or a PRA 

19 person, but if you did some sort of process where you 

20 said, "Okay, we've got a whole bunch of these things 

21 that we can eliminate first, because they're 

22 insignificant to the risk," and then go to the more 

23 quantitative analysis, where you prioritize things, I 

24 think is, you know, kind of like where they might be 

25 headed, as far as bringing in a hybrid approach to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 57

1 them. 

2 MR. McCULLUM: I know I'm not an attorney, 

3 I just want to say amen. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay, do you want to also 

5 say amen? No? Let me get you on here, and then we're 

6 going to go to John Greeves and Kevin and Tom, and 

7 then come back to Yawar and Sven. John Stamatakos. 

8 MR. STAMATAKOS: Yes, Rod, just as a 

9 response, as to what you talked about, you know, with 

10 the sea wall, or the -- you know, designing against an 

11 extreme event. 

12 One of the disadvantages of that approach, 

13 without looking at the entire event sequence, I mean, 

14 you may have a low sea wall, but there may be other 

15 parts of that event sequence that, you know, you have 

16 to have gas diesels that are below grade. 

17 You have to have -- there is a sequence of 

18 events that led to that accident, not just the fact 

19 that the sea wall was too low. 

20 But the other point I want to make, in 

21 adding a quantified approach, for those large 

22 consequence events is that they allow much better 

23 incorporation of their uncertainty. 

24 So, you might say that that tsunami was a 

25 one in 10,000 year tsunami, or one in 100,000 year 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 58

1 tsunami, but there is a huge uncertainty to that 

2 number. 

3 And so, you know, by incorporating some 

4 better risk analysis into that, you're also allowing 

5 to incorporate what that uncertainty of that 

6 probability is. The same thing is true, you know, 

7 with earthquake ground motions. 

8 You know, you might have the one in 2,500 

9 year ground motion that might, for this area, might be 

10 -- have a PGA of .2 or .3g, but there is a huge 

11 uncertainty on that value, and you want to be able to 

12 incorporate that uncertainty into the analysis, as 

13 well as what you think the mean or the median value 

14 is. 

15 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I just want to agree 

16 with that, and indicate that I think you can do that 

17 with ISA, in most cases, and my experts have their 

18 tents up, so, I'll let them go. 

19 MR. CAMERON: So, I guess that's the 

20 question. Let's go to John and then over to Kevin and 

21 then back over to Tom. 

22 MR. GREEVES: Alex, I'm listening very 

23 carefully to what you're saying here this morning, and 

24 you're stressing look more thoroughly, and we 

25 recognize that, when we put the NEI White Paper 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 59

1 together, and stressed that there are times when you 

2 do need to look more thoroughly. 

3 So, the system that we recommended, you 

4 can, in fact, and should do that. That's the 

5 intention, is to look more thoroughly. 

6 You make a point about 7x not being a Part 

7 70 facility. Well, having fission products and these 

8 other radionuclides is not unique to 7x. There is 

9 lots of facilities that have fission products, Part 60 

10 facilities, 61 facilities, 72, Part 30. There is lots 

11 of facilities. It is not new, to have fission 

12 products. 

13 So, and so, I just -- in cautioning 

14 against coming up with new terminology, we've seen 

15 earlier what happens when you do that. I would say 

16 that the system you have extended, when appropriate, 

17 to use probabilistic techniques, is user friendly and 

18 can, I think, be transparent. 

19 You're going to have the same problem that 

20 was mentioned here earlier, on inspection. You're 

21 going to try and separate out what's important, in 

22 terms of where you put your inspection resources, 

23 which again, I think is user friendly, for extending 

24 this quantitative approach along the lines in the NEI 

25 recommendations, and not coming up with, you know, new 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 60

1 techniques. 

2 Some of the speakers were identifying that 

3 they want to see what the worse case scenarios are. 

4 You can actually do that, with those techniques, and 

5 show what, you know -- we can show the whole spectrum. 

6 But I don't think you need to come up with 

7 a new category to do that. 

8 MR. CAMERON: And John's point about 

9 uncertainty, can that also be taken into account? 

10 MR. GREEVES: When you get into these 

11 quantitative techniques, you have to evaluate 

12 uncertainty. You don't have to conclude that the 

13 tails of the distribution are what you have to 

14 regulate by. You don't regulate by tails of 

15 distributions. 

16 But when you go into these quantitative 

17 techniques, you should be filling -- fully showing 

18 that uncertainty, and the sequence of scenarios, that 

19 would have to be done. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

21 MR. WIDMAYER: If I could just add, that 

22 would be another reason, that would be another thing 

23 that the Committee would say was an advantage to using 

24 the PRA, as its treatment of uncertainty. 

25 You know, the notion that you have 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 61

1 difficulty with the methodology because data doesn't 

2 exist for something like that, this approach allows 

3 you to determine and examine the uncertainty, and 

4 understand, you know, what the, you know, faults of 

5 the data and stuff mean, and helping you with your 

6 prioritization. 

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

8 MR. GREEVES: I would just add that -- 

9 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. 

10 MR. GREEVES: -- you wouldn't regulate 

11 with the tails of those distributions, okay. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, John. We're going 

13 to go to Kevin and Tom, and then come back up front. 

14 Kevin Strickland, State of South Carolina. 

15 MR. STRICKLAND: From an agreement state -

16 - standpoint, of course, when we look at a facility 

17 like this, that's NRC licensed, you know, everything 

18 is about containment and confinement. 

19 So, of course, when you're talking about a 

20 reprocessing facility, of course, you have fission 

21 products at other facilities too, but the quantities 

22 of them, and the magnitude of the levels is certainly 

23 greater. 

24 So, therefore, speaking from a regulatory 

25 standpoint, and an agreement state, we would certainly 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 62

1 like to see the higher risk with additional measures 

2 taken to ensure that you didn't have a problem. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 

4 Kevin. Tom? 

5 MR. CLEMENTS: I had just a brief comment 

6 and another question. 

7 I appreciate the discussion about 

8 uncertainty. I think the ball game has changed, in 

9 the aftermath of Fukushima, where we've seen that a -- 

10 if a spent fuel pool accident was ten to the minus 

11 six, two accidents at the same time, I don't know, ten 

to the 9th, three, ten to the 12th, ten to the 15th 12 for 

13 four in a row. 

14 So, I think that the uncertainty with 

15 those accidents is going to be instructive for how the 

16 NRC takes into account events that all of the sudden, 

become from ten to the minus 15th 17 to ten to the zero, 

18 in a matter of hours. 

19 So, I think the NRC -- it's incumbent upon 

20 the NRC to be more cautious in its approach with 

21 determining the uncertainty. I'll leave it at that. 

22 And I had a question about one of these 

23 charts and the term you used here, and I want to raise 

24 again, because I do think that Savannah River Site is 

25 probably the prime suspect for a reprocessing plant, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 63

1 and in NRC terms and what you have on this chart on 

2 page 19, individuals outside controlled area, getting 

3 back to the Savannah River Site, again. 

4 Can I hear from the NRC, now, or how would 

5 you approach this, as you develop the regulations? Do 

6 you -- would you create a separate class of exposed 

7 individuals, outside the controlled area, who would be 

8 DOE workers, or are DOE workers part of the general 

9 public? Thank you. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Yawar, can you answer that, 

11 and then make the point you were going to make? We'll 

12 just go to you, now, if you understand Tom's question? 

13 MR. FARAZ: Yes, I do. I think I do. 

14 Someone who is not trained to respond to certain 

15 events, whether he be an employee of the DOE or 

16 another employee, or from another company that's 

17 nearby or a resident, nearby resident, if that person 

18 is not trained appropriately to respond to certain 

19 events or accidents, then we would obviously identify 

20 that person as a member of the public, or at the same 

21 level. That person needs to be protected at the same 

22 level as a member of the public. 

23 So, that's the assumption that goes into 

24 what we consider this class of person. 

25 Now, that person is a trained employee. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 64

1 He knows what to do, how to respond, because a lot of 

2 the fuel cycle events, you do have time, and there is 

3 a certain procedure that you can follow, to mitigate 

4 the consequences, and if that person is trained, then 

5 yes, it could be considered as a worker. 

6 So, it all depends on what the training 

7 level is for that individual. 

8 MR. CLEMENTS: Could I follow up? 

9 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead, Tom. 

10 MR. CLEMENTS: Maybe this was changing the 

11 discussion a little bit from before, but in an event 

12 of x-consequence, whatever it is, on a site such as 

13 Savannah River Site, where an adjacent facility may be 

14 impacted, which could set off a chain of events that 

15 could have larger consequences, how are you going to 

16 take into account, the presence of other facilities 

17 nearby that may have fission products, transuranics, 

18 plutonium, plutonium processing? How is that going to 

19 enter into your determination of consequence of 

20 events? 

21 MS. OLSEN: Like Votgle. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Again, this is a 

23 hypothetical. 

24 MR. CLEMENTS: Well, perhaps, not so 

25 hypothetical if the industry is looking at Savannah 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 65

1 River Site, but there is a MOX plant nearby, where 

2 there is a very high consequence event, or even lower, 

3 how are you going to take this? 

4 MR. FARAZ: Yes, hopefully, I can explain 

5 this, for an example. It's similar, a similar 

6 situation. 

7 The NRC regulates radioactivity, 

8 radioactive material, and often, these facilities have 

9 chemicals, you know, lots of chemicals present, as 

10 well. For onsite chemical hazards, it's primarily 

11 OSHA. For offsite, it's EPA. 

12 Now, we have an MOU with OSHA, where by if 

13 a chemical event, a purely chemical event occurs 

14 onsite, and it affects the radiological safety onsite, 

15 then the NRC would be responsible for that event, and 

16 the licensee -- and that event would be addressed, a 

17 pure chemical event would be addressed, would need to 

18 be addressed in the ISA. 

19 So, they would have to have appropriate 

20 IROFS, to make sure that that event is appropriately 

21 prevented or mitigated. 

22 So, I hope that similar kind of situation, 

23 that kind of explains, you know, your concern. 

24 MR. CAMERON: And let's let Alex also, go 

25 to Tom's concern, and then let's go to the rest of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 66

1 tents, and I think we need to start our discussion of 

2 general design criteria, before we go to a break. 

3 Okay, Alex, this is on Tom's point, okay. 

4 MR. MURRAY: Thank you very much. I'd 

5 just like to build on Tom's question and points, and 

6 Yawar's discussion. 

7 First off, Tom was asking about basically, 

8 a DOE site worker, and the terminology that is usually 

9 used, that is called a co-located worker. 

10 The NRC Commission has already set policy 

11 on that. I believe the SECY was in 1998. I don't 

12 remember the exact number for the SECY, but it can be 

13 found, and in very simple terms, basically, it's 

14 exactly what Yawar said. 

15 It depends on the level of training. If 

16 other workers on that site, outside of the NRC 

17 facility are not trained, in basically, the hazards 

18 that exist at that facility, they would be considered 

19 to be members of the general public and criteria, 

20 dose-wise, accident-wise, would - that would apply to 

21 those workers, those other co-located workers, to use 

22 that term, would be those criteria for members of the 

23 public. 

24 And it's very well discussed in the SECY. 

25 It points out that often, on these very large DOE 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 67

1 sites, people who are DOE workers include non2 radiation workers. They also include visitors to the 

3 site, which would, under all normal conditions, be 

4 considered members of the public, like mailmen, 

5 forestry workers, FedEx people, HVAC fixer-uppers, 

6 local contractors, etcetera. 

7 Now, just to build upon Yawar's point 

8 about, if you will, co-located -- I'll say NRC 

9 facilities near each other, in the safety analyses for 

10 those respective facilities, they would have to 

11 consider accidents at the other facility as external 

12 events and analyze them, and this is a general 

13 approach the NRC has, whether it's a Part 50 facility, 

14 a Part 70 facility, a proposed Part 7x facility, go 

15 through the entire numbers in the NRC Code of Federal 

16 Regulations. 

17 But if another facility can have an 

18 external event that impacts that one licensed 

19 facility, it has to be addressed, in the safety 

20 analysis, and that is well documented in many, I'll 

21 say both regulatory aspects and guidance documents in 

22 the NRC. Thank you. 

23 MR. CAMERON: And thanks, Alex, and on 

24 this particular point, Tom, if you and Alex and Yawar 

25 could -- if you need to talk more about this, do this, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 68

1 you know, offline, perhaps, so that we can move on 

2 with this discussion, and I think Yawar is going to 

3 kind of put some questions before all of you. 

4 So, let's go to Sven, right now, and then 

5 we'll hear from Yawar. 

6 MR. BADER: Okay, you know, what Alex put 

7 out there is absolutely the right position, you know, 

8 the ISA is a continuous process. So, even if DOE were 

9 to build something nearby, the ISA process would 

10 require us to evaluate that. 

11 So, DOE would have similar activity going 

12 the opposite direction. So, but -- and I'm not sure 

13 I'm going to take us off course, but I have a question 

14 regarding the slide that's not up there right now, but 

15 there is certain likelihoods that were proposed up 

16 there, that were associated with these very high 

17 likely and highly unlikely. 

18 And I guess my questions are, you know, 

19 are there plants that put that into the regulation? 

20 Will you be putting ten to the minus six for very 

21 highly unlikely, or ten to the minus five, for highly 

22 unlikely, or is this going to be something that the 

23 licensee will establish, like Part 70 allows you to 

24 do? 

25 The reason I ask you that is because there 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 69

1 is not much difference between 10 to the minus six and 

10 to the minus 5th 2 , unless you're dealing with 

3 national phenomena, where there is clearly significant 

4 jumps in the probabilities there, in the risks. 

5 So, that's a question I wanted to ask. 

6 MR. CAMERON: And Yawar, you want to put 

7 some questions forward, but can you respond? Are you 

8 the appropriate person to respond to what Sven just 

9 asked? 

10 MR. FARAZ: And I would probably defer to 

11 Dennis Damon, because I think he might be in a better 

12 position to -- 

13 MR. CAMERON: Dennis, do you want to try 

14 to give us an answer? 

15 MR. DAMON: Yes, I might mention what was, 

16 what the rationale was. There's a thing, when we 

17 promulgated the Part 70 Rule for the existing fuel 

18 cycle facilities, there's a thing that goes along with 

19 the rules, called Statement of Consideration. 

20 And it discusses why the Commission chose 

21 not to specify a definition for highly unlikely and 

22 unlikely, in the Rule, and left it to the Licensees. 

23 And it had, go to the Statments of 

24 Consideration for the Part 70 Rule that came out in 

25 2000, and it will discuss it. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 70

1 The rationale went along the lines of the 

2 diversity among the facilities that we were applying 

3 the rule to. In this case, we wouldn't necessarily 

4 have that impediment. 

5 So I'd have to say the rationale is a 

6 little different. You'd be dealing, especially if you 

7 were clear that you were dealing with a, you know, 

8 liquid standard type of reprocessing plant, you 

9 wouldn't have that impediment. Now, you do have the 

10 impediment, that nobody has ever done on quantitative 

11 risk assessment that we have access to a facility like 

12 that. 

13 But the rationale was the diversity and 

14 the difference in the number of sequences that would 

15 exist in plants. So they left a lot of flexibility to 

16 the Licensees to define how they're going to deal with 

17 that issue. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, thank you, 

19 Dennis. Yawar, what's bugging you, so to speak? 

20 MR. FARAZ: I think, you know, I really 

21 appreciate these discussions, they are very good. 

22 However, just one thing I wanted to point out is that 

23 we're talking about accident sequences, individual, 

24 the discussion is primarily based on an individual 

25 accident sequence level. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 71

1 Which is good. But then there are other 

2 questions that you have on Page 17, of the handout, 

3 and they all elude to the total risk or the risk to a 

4 member of the public from, you know, the entire 

5 facility. 

6 You know, the gamut of accident sequences 

7 that are potential at that facility. So, I think if 

8 we can maybe discuss that before going to the next 

9 topic. As well as, there's another point that I'd 

10 like to get input on. It's the prioritization of the 

11 IROFS, is something that we've also added to the list 

12 of items that you would consider. 

13 And if there's any input on that, I think 

14 we'd really appreciate it. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Is that last one on 

16 prioritization of the IROFS, does that fit into the 

17 text fact discussion, or does it flow from this 

18 methodology issue? I'm just trying to -- 

19 MR. FARAZ: I think it flows with the 

20 methodology issue. It's something that we would like 

21 an Applicant to provide in his application. I'm not 

22 sure if the stakeholders have considered that or if 

23 they're prepared to discuss it. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay, well, let's -- 

25 MR. FARAZ: But any input would be good. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 72

1 MR. CAMERON: Two issues that Yawar would 

2 like to get some input from people on. And Rod, I 

3 know you had your tent up, but could you also talk to 

4 those two questions? 

5 MR. MCCULLUM: I might be able to, but I 

6 did want to go way back to what Tom said earlier. He 

7 was raising the question, and I think it's a good 

8 question, of the impact of an event at one nuclear 

9 facility on another nuclear facility. 

10 And, I just want to say, that I think the 

11 answer she got in the context of existing regulations 

12 were correct, but I do want to say that is an 

13 important question. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Oh, you're mic is off. 

15 MR. MCCULLUM: I didn't just say anything, 

16 I guess, officially. 

17 (Laughter.) 

18 MR. MCCULLUM: I just wanted to comment 

19 on, Tom made a very important point. He raised the 

20 issue of the effect of an event at one nuclear 

21 facility on another nuclear facility. 

22 And certainly that's something, that as 

23 Yawar said, we do address. However, I would point 

24 out, and I would caution NRC, as you go through this 

25 process, that something is being considered on a scale 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 73

1 that's much bigger than this regulation, with respect 

2 to Fukushima event. 

3 Where you had multiple events in multiple 

4 facilities and they did have an effect on each other. 

5 So there's always a need to pay attention to what's 

6 going on with the overall NRC task forces and how that 

7 might affect, you know. 

8 Not just to think of it in terms of what 

9 might exist on Savannah River. With regard to 

10 prioritization of IROFS, I think, and I'll go back to 

11 Derek's discussion that I said amen to there. 

12 That's really where the additional 

13 quantitativeness and PRA does come into play, if you 

14 can do it. If you have the data and the type of 

15 system where PRA is useful. 

16 Clearly identifying 382 IROFS and treating 

17 them all the same is not a very focused approach to 

18 ensuring safety. In the hybrid approach and again I 

19 can't say this as well as Derek said it. 

20 That's where the additional 

21 quantitativeness comes in. Is it saying priorities. 

22 You use ISA as your foundation to identify your IROFS, 

23 and then where you can you look at the uncertainties 

24 and the relative importance with the quantitative 

25 methods. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 74

1 That to us, and I think that's what we 

2 meant in our white paper, the more recent white paper, 

3 that's where that white paper approach and the hybrid 

4 approach come together. 

5 So I think we've got good input on that. 

6 And what was the other thing you wanted input on? 

7 MR. CAMERON: The total risk limit? 

8 MR. MCCULLUM: I'm going to defer to Sven 

9 on that one, he fortunately just put his card up. I 

10 think, yeah, I'll defer. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay, well let's go, Derek, 

12 do you want to say anything on these two points that 

13 Yawar asked? 

14 MR.WIDMAYER: No, but, Rod, I was going to 

15 jump in and kind of repeat what I said before that Rod 

16 said. The Committee is thinking that the PRA analysis 

17 type of thing is where you'd be able to prioritize the 

18 IROFS. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good, thank you. 

20 Let's hear from Sven and then Mary, and then we really 

21 need to go to GDCs, although we've been traipsing 

22 around it. So, Sven. 

23 MR. BADER: I'll kind of throw it back at 

24 you. When you say prioritization of IROFS, are you 

25 talking about actually what's coming out of PRA and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 75

1 ISA, or are we talking about prioritization relative 

2 to personnel, public versus worker? 

3 MR. FARAZ: For some of the current, well, 

4 some of the applications that had come in, under Part 

5 70, we don't have a requirement to have them, the 

6 Applicants to prioritize IROFS. 

7 So when the time came to inspect the 

8 facilities, you know, after the license was issued, 

9 there was a need for the NRC to know which IROFS to 

10 inspect to pay more attention to. 

11 And so the NRC internally developed a 

12 prioritization scheme. It wasn't based on a PRA. It 

13 was based on several criteria, several factors we 

14 considered and, based on those, we determined which 

15 IROFS tend to be more important than the others. 

16 For example, the ventilation, if a 

17 ventilation system is an IROFS and it applies to 

18 several accident sequences, it might be more important 

19 to make sure that that ventilation system is, you 

20 know, pay more attention to the ventilation system, as 

21 opposed to a single IROFS that's only applicable to 

22 one accident sequence. 

23 So, there were several factors that went 

24 in and we came up with that scheme. We felt that if 

25 the Applicant goes through and does this 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 76

1 prioritization as for the application, not only would 

2 it help the NRC, obviously the NRC would review, would 

3 conduct the same kind of review that it does for the 

4 application, on the prioritization. 

5 But it would help the NRC in its safety 

6 review as well as in conducting the inspections. And 

7 then we also felt that it would, since the Applicant 

8 or the Operator, in operating facilities, in applying 

9 margin measures to those IROFS. 

10 That was the purpose of that. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Sven, total risk and/or 

12 prioritization. 

13 MR. BADER: Let me go to prioritization. 

14 Because I think the way I understood what you just 

15 told me, is that it's based on the number of events 

16 that rely on a safety system, an IROF, as opposed to 

17 the receptor, or the consequence of the event, is that 

18 right? 

19 MR. FARAZ: That was just one factor. 

20 MR. BADER: That was one factor, okay, all 

21 right. And that's the way I would pose it, if you're 

22 going to do a prioritization scheme there's going to 

23 be a lot of factors involved. 

24 You'll find for a facility, a reprocessing 

25 facility, that there's going to be a lot of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 77

1 protections for facility workers, people that are 

2 actually in the facility, so most of your shaky 

3 systems will be devoted to them. 

4 And, you know, our projects which had 

5 thought about prioritizing and that fact that this is 

6 protecting someone who is paid well, and understands 

7 the hazards that they're working with, to prioritize 

8 those IROFS at a lower level, but it just doesn't fly. 

9 So, we didn't go through those 

10 prioritization processes. You know, we are doing, 

11 there are PRA approaches that are not in licensing 

12 requirements, but you do PRA to look at your risks, 

13 and you compare risks to one another. 

14 And we think that's the appropriate way to 

15 prioritize things. But we're not suggesting that the 

16 PRA be a licensing basis to do prioritization of 

17 IROFS, but I'm not sure, are we talking about making 

18 prioritization of IROFS part of the licensing basis? 

19 MR. FARAZ: Yes, the staff kind of 

20 discussed, you know, Gap 5, as part of the 

21 discussions. We felt that it would be way beneficial, 

22 from a safety standpoint, for an Applicant to 

23 prioritize its IROFS based on its important to safety. 

24 And so, you know, that's based on past NRC 

25 experience with other applications. So we felt that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 78

1 for reprocessing facility that can be done. That 

2 would really, that would benefit our licensing review. 

3 It would make it more efficient and 

4 effective. And not only the NRC's licensing review, 

5 but also its inspections as well as the Operators 

6 application of margin measures to those IROFS. So, 

7 that's a current feeling and we just want your input 

8 or your response to that. How you felt about it. 

9 MR. CAMERON: And, Sven, anything on total 

10 risk? I hate to keep bringing it back and we're going 

11 to go to Mary and then we're going to go on. 

12 MR. BADER: You know, I don't exactly know 

13 what total risk means. You know, I see the question 

14 here and if you want to sum all the numbers from a PRA 

15 approach, that will give you a total risk. 

16 You know, an ISA approach is not going to 

17 give you means to sum something up and give you a 

18 total risk, and I don't know if that's what you're 

19 looking for. 

20 MR. CAMERON: So this, the concept of 

21 total risk is, it's problematic in the sense that 

22 you're not really sure what it means? 

23 MR. BADER: I mean, are we talking 

24 something like core damage frequency? 

25 MR. CAMERON: Yes, I think, that's why I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 79

1 punted as well. When there's no core damage frequency 

2 where there's no core damage event. Again, remember, 

3 we're not at a reactor, we're not a fuel cycle 

4 facility. 

5 It's hard for us, it doesn't compute 

6 really. 

7 MR. DAMON: Let me take a shot at it. 

8 What, there's two different concepts. 

9 MR. CAMERON: You want to press your green 

10 button. 

11 MR. DAMON: It is. Let me take a shot. 

12 The one I'm concerned about is the fact of, the 

13 workers in a facility like this are really not in a 

14 risk position that's that dissimilar from currently 

15 facilities. 

16 But the public is. And the reason is we 

17 have this large radioactivity inventory. So this is 

18 all in principle. It may mean practice these 

19 consequence levels may not be actually occur due to 

20 the nature of the accidents. 

21 But in principle you've got the 

22 radioactive inventory there. You can expose a member 

23 of the off-site public to a high radiation dose. 

24 Okay, that member of the public, presumably a 

25 resident, is exposed to all accidents that could cause 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 80

1 a release that could achieve those dose levels. 

2 So you have to add them all up. That's 

3 what I mean by total. You sum up all of the sequences 

4 that effect that individual. So it's an individual 

5 risk evaluation. Which, in principle, is what was 

6 done for reactors. 

7 The difference being, reactors basically 

8 only have one scenario, a large release of radioactive 

9 material. A facility like this might have others, but 

10 it's really a very similar concept. 

11 In reactors they can use large, early 

12 release frequency. You could, in fact, define an 

13 analogous concept for a reprocessing plant with 

14 respect to the radiological risk. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Dennis. And 

16 we're going to go to Mary. At least we got some 

17 discussion of total risk. We're going to go to Mary 

18 now for final comment on this Gap, and then we're 

19 going to jump into GDC and see how far we get and then 

20 take a break. Mary. 

21 MS. OLSEN: I actually wanted the slide 

22 that was up before, with the chart, but speaking to 

23 the question of the risk goal for worker and member of 

24 the public, I think NRC should be extraordinarily able 

25 to explain why they would regulate risk and protection 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 81

1 differently for anybody impacted by any different type 

2 of facility. 

3 Why would somebody living near a reactor 

4 have more or less protection, than somebody living 

5 near a reprocessing facility? That's the kind of 

6 question you're going to have to answer. If you 

7 don't, just say yes. 

8 So, I recommend that you grapple with 

9 that, and I wanted the risk slide because in a real 

10 incredibly interesting moment in time, in 1990, the 

11 Commission, and I don't know how many people that work 

12 at NRC actually know this. 

13 But in the policy statement for the 

14 expanded BRC policy, below regulatory concern, the 

15 prospective deregulation of radioactive waste, they 

16 actually printed a risk assessment for radiation. 

17 Now I'm not endorsing it, I don't happen 

18 to agree with that risk assessment, but you would have 

19 to make a very high, for the individual I think, 

20 death, you know, that's a pretty high consequence. 

21 And it would be 35 in 10,000, because it 

22 was 3.5 and 1,000, and this is at 100 millirems a year 

23 for a 70-year lifetime. So it's not a single event of 

24 100 millirems, it's the ongoing legal limit level. 

25 But 3.5 in 1,000 or 35 in 10,000, is right 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 82

1 up there in your top tier for a VHCE, very high 

2 consequence event, for an individual. 

3 So I'm just bringing that forward to the 

4 fact that you have a pretty low bar already. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mary. Let's go 

6 to the GDC slide and, as John pointed out in his 

7 presentation, the staff has ten categories, 78 

8 potential GDC. 

9 We heard that the NEI white paper or 

10 discussion from NEI, also addressed GDC and so let's, 

11 Rod, good one to open a discussion on this. 

12 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I'll open it and 

13 hopefully make it a short, provide something to help 

14 make it a short discussion. We are not, industry is 

15 not prepared today to comment on all 78 of these 

16 general design criteria. 

17 We only saw this a couple of weeks ago. I 

18 will say that the approach of identifying categories 

19 and within those categories, identifying specific 

20 criteria of sound. 

21 So I think NRC, I don't want to slow down 

22 the process here. I think NRC has an approach that it 

23 can use to inform its decisions to go onto the next 

24 steps and recommendations to the Commission. 

25 But certainly the topic of GDC should be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 83

1 the subject of very detailed interactions where all 

2 the right folks, stakeholders and industry, around the 

3 table. 

4 And when I say all the right folks, this 

5 is an area where the subject of technology and 

6 neutrality really comes to a head. 

7 You know, we've got AREVA at the table 

8 here today. I've got Westinghouse in the audience. 

9 GE wanted to be here but they couldn't make it. We 

10 need to make sure, from a technology and neutral 

11 standpoint, that all the various technologies, CV, 

12 GEC, is covering the type of facility they might 

13 intend to build. 

14 So I guess what I'd say, in brief, is as 

15 a placeholder to move forward, you know, good job NRC 

16 but we definitely want to, you know, we want to have a 

17 very detailed discussion with all the right players in 

18 terms of, between the 23 that were in NEI white paper 

19 and the 78 you've got. 

20 And are those all the right ones? That's 

21 a specific meeting. And I just simply want to say 

22 let's, you know, as you move forward, later in the 

23 year, let's have that meeting. 

24 MR. CAMERON: That's a process suggestion, 

25 I put it in the parking lot day. A discussion 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 84

1 specifically on the GDC, because it's going to be a 

2 pretty detailed, involved discussion that's going to 

3 be necessary. Alex. 

4 MR. MURRAY: Yes, thank you very, Rod, we 

5 greatly appreciate that. I just want to add two 

6 things. First off, in the staff review to date, the 

7 staff has not found any technology-specific GDCs or so 

8 forth. 

9 I should really rephrase it. GDCs that 

10 would be specific to a certain type of technology. 

11 We're not 100 percent certain that will completely be 

12 the case, but so far we do believe we can do GDCs that 

13 are technology neutral. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Alex, you believe that the 

15 GDCs that the NRC has proposed, would cover all of the 

16 potential technologies, I think that was Rod's 

17 concern? 

18 MR. MURRAY: That is correct. I also 

19 wanted to clarify, we are still looking at developing 

20 specific GDCs, however the table that's in the summary 

21 on, what page is it? Twenty-six, these are areas or 

22 issues which need to be addressed by GDCs. 

23 They're not necessarily specific GDCs, 

24 themselves, we think many will ultimately translate 

25 into specific, general design criteria. But there are 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 85

1 right now areas which seem to need a specific GDC. 

2 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I agree, Alex, and I 

3 think you're probably right, I just think that we need 

4 to test what you've said with a detailed discussion 

5 and look forward to having that. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Derek. 

7 MR.WIDMAYER: I think that's a sound 

8 approach, I think that's good. And as far as Number 

9 3, the question that you had and the notion that these 

10 are just areas that may acquire a GDC, they were 

11 asking whether they could rely on existing 

12 requirements. 

13 And, you know, of course, I think that's a 

14 yes. That it's just, that's a process that they can 

15 go through in these meetings and these discussions to 

16 say, okay, you know there's already existing criteria 

17 at 20.1304 or whatever. 

18 We'll just cite that, and we don't need a 

19 general design criteria that makes them do something 

20 specific to meet that. So, you know, I think that's a 

21 sound approach. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and as we've mentioned 

23 before, the GDC starts to take us down the road to 

24 address Mary's concern about prescriptive 

25 requirements, correct? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 86

1 MR.WIDMAYER: Yes, but I think, you know, 

2 there's more to it than just the general design 

3 criteria. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Sure, sure. 

5 MR.WIDMAYER: But that's step one. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Anybody else on general 

7 design criteria at this point? Susan, do you -- 

8 MS. CORBETT: I'm just curious, I mean I 

9 understand that there are many different kinds of 

10 reprocessing, different techniques, different 

11 processes. And probably some that we don't know about 

12 yet. 

13 And how can you like a one size fits all 

14 if we don't, I mean, shouldn't the design and all the 

15 rules have, really be specifically around the 

16 different kinds of processes, because they all have 

17 different outcomes and different potentials and 

18 different risk and different waste streams and all 

19 kinds of different things. 

20 I'm not sure of a one size, how can we do 

21 a one size fits all? 

22 MR. CAMERON: I think that that's a 

23 concern I had, in terms of whether this total 

24 framework is understood. Can someone explain, give us 

25 a brief view of how all of this works together. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 87

1 With the GDC, the tech specs or these 

2 IROFS, in other words, Rod was talking about GDC, 

3 making sure it covers all technologies. Well, Susan's 

4 concern is, is where do you get specific requirements 

5 for a particular technology? So, Rod, can you talk to 

6 that? 

7 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I think Susan is 

8 absolutely correct, a one size fits all approach you 

9 won't get to. I don't think that means you need to 

10 keep having a different regulation every time you have 

11 a different technology. 

12 I think, and that's a little bit about 

13 what Alex was talking about. The goal here is to 

14 define the GDC in a way that you can apply them to 

15 multiple technologies. 

16 And the way each technology would meet the 

17 GDC, would be very different. And that's where it 

18 goes across from what the NRC requires and to what the 

19 Applicant does to meet the NRC's requirement. 

20 For example, I mean I'm just, this is the 

21 first one that my eyes landed on, you know, I see 

22 Number 45, under radiation protection and shielding. 

23 Now, that's going to be a criteria for an 

24 aqueous process and for an electro-mechanical process, 

25 or whatever processes we don't know about. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 88

1 The design of the shielding, the areas 

2 where you're going to place the shielding. The 

3 analysis of what systems need to be shielded and why. 

4 That's all going to be very different and I think you 

5 can specify a regulation that requires that criteria 

6 be met. 

7 And then do it in a way that each 

8 Applicant can demonstrate how their technology meets 

9 the criteria. But again, that's why we need the 

10 detailed discussion. 

11 MR. CAMERON: So that's how the specific, 

12 the specific requirements for a particular technology 

13 come in, the GDC is set and then for the particular 

14 technology that License Applicant is going to have to 

15 show how that particular technology meets that general 

16 design criteria. 

17 MS. CORBETT: I'm just concerned that 

18 you're going to dictate the kind of process that's 

19 going to be used by the criteria. You might, there 

20 might be other processes that are better or more safe 

21 or whatever. 

22 But because of the criteria that you 

23 establish, you're making this more difficult to be 

24 used or something. I'm just worried about, you know. 

25 MR. CAMERON: That's -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 89

1 MR. MCCULLUM: But we are, too. 

2 MR. CAMERON: -- an interesting and 

3 philosophical question, too. 

4 MR. MCCULLUM: That's exactly our concern. 

5 And I want, and it almost comes down to a question of 

6 economics. And that's why I want all the technologies 

7 represented in this detailed discussion of general 

8 design criteria. 

9 Because if some of them see, hey, this 

10 advantages me or, you know, maybe there's a different 

11 criteria that is more reflected. But I really want 

12 to, I think you've expressed a valid concern and I 

13 would hope you'd participate in the more detailed 

14 interactions that would explore that. 

15 Because we do need to make sure that we 

16 fairly cover all the possible technologies. 

17 MR. CAMERON: I think Susan's point goes 

18 further than that. And the NRC might want to address 

19 this. I think Susan is saying how can you ensure that 

20 the safest technology is going to be used? And it 

21 maybe harder for some technologies to meet the general 

22 design criteria, but the NRC doesn't tell reactor, 

23 potential reactor Licensees that they have to use a 

24 certain type of reactor. 

25 They have to meet the requirements. But 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 90

1 is it clear what Susan's concern is? The NRC is not 

2 deciding what is the safest technology to use. And I 

3 don't know if anybody from the NRC, just wants to say 

4 anything else to that, because I think that's a pretty 

5 fundamental concern that people in the public might 

6 have. Yawar, do you want to take it? 

7 MR. FARAZ: I think that it will 

8 definitely be a challenge to establish the general 

9 design criteria for reprocessing facilities. 

10 If you look at the design criteria for 

11 reactors, they tend to be fairly specific in Part 50. 

12 And that's because the design is well known. 

13 We know there are PWRs and VWRs, it's 

14 fairly constant. In fuel cycle the designs vary. The 

15 facilities are very different. One, even the fuel 

16 fabrication facilities tend to be very different 

17 amongst themselves. 

18 But if you go the Part 70, the general 

19 design criteria are very general. There are 

20 essentially statements. You shall make sure that to 

21 prevent explosion, something is addressed at a very 

22 high level. 

23 So definitely it will be a challenge to, 

24 without knowing a specific design, to come out with 

25 general design criteria for reprocessing facilities. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 91

1 But for the ones that we know of, you 

2 know, it's primarily aqueous and bio-processing or 

3 electrochemical. 

4 So, with those in mind, we have a good 

5 understanding of what those technologies involve. And 

6 so we'll try to establish the GDCs based on those two 

7 technologies. 

8 And, with this in mind, that there might 

9 be future technologies that might come up later on and 

10 make sure that those general design criteria can be 

11 extended to those future technologies. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Anybody else on Susan's 

13 concern? 

14 MR. MURRAY: Yes, if I could, Chip, 

15 please? 

16 MR. CAMERON: Yes, go ahead, Alex. 

17 MR. MURRAY: This is Alex Murray again. 

18 I've been quiet for too long. I should have a little 

19 hour glass every five minutes. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Not that there aren't 

21 benefits. 

22 MR. MURRAY: I think it's important to 

23 everyone at the table and in the audience, to keep in 

24 mind that the two aspects to NRC regulations. Such as 

25 general design criteria. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 92

1 There would be a specific criteria that is 

2 referenced or mentioned in the regulation. Okay, it 

3 may be at a more higher level. Okay, the Applicant 

4 has to meet that and has to show how they meet that 

5 general design criteria. 

6 In guidance documents, and that criteria 

7 most likely or most ideally, would be phrased as 

8 technology, in a technology-neutral way. And I'll 

9 give an example in a second. 

10 In supporting guidance documents, perhaps 

11 a standard review plan. Perhaps a regulatory guide, 

12 we're not sure yet. We would expound upon that and 

13 give examples of what the staff of the NRC would 

14 expect to see and it might be down to a specific 

15 technology levels. 

16 Now, let me just give an example and maybe 

17 this will help clarify, examples are always good for 

18 clarification. We have a potential general assigned 

19 criteria or issue an area which we call 

20 confinement/containment design. 

21 It's number 13. The general design 

22 criteria might read in the regulation something to the 

23 effect that the Licensee shall prescribe the design 

24 and safety parameters for the confinement or 

25 containment system that is used at their facility to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 93

1 demonstrate that potentially hazardous radio nuclides 

2 or other hazardous materials do not effect workers or 

3 members of the public. 

4 Okay, for an approach that is, say using 

5 aqueous technology, okay, that design might consist of 

6 negative pressures, you know, what sort of pressure 

7 differentials the staff would expect to see. 

8 And these might be in the regulatory guide 

9 or guidance. Some draft numbers might be presented. 

10 It might be different pressure zones, as you go from 

11 no to less to potentially more contamination areas. 

12 We would expect to see a greater, how 

13 should I say, differential pressures, more filters, 

14 more layers of protection, to use that terminology. 

15 For an electrochemical technology in our 

16 guidance we might point out that this would point out 

17 what inert gases are used. How they are maintained 

18 and purified. What levels of oxygen ingress 

19 allowable. 

20 What levels of oxygen should be specified, 

21 etcetera, etcetera. Okay, just to give you a specific 

22 example. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Alex. Derek 

24 and then Jim. 

25 MR.WIDMAYER: Well, Alex did a good job 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 94

1 there as far as explaining that there is this 

2 hierarchy that NRC uses. I mean the tech 

3 specifications is where you really get to where the 

4 rubber meets the road. 

5 You know, for a particular plant, a 

6 nuclear power plant, a Westinghouse power plant, for 

7 example, the NRC has a NUREG document that 380 pages 

8 long. 

9 The give the standard specifications for a 

10 Westinghouse plant and then each individual 

11 Westinghouse plant that's actually operating, has 

12 their own technical specifications which show, you 

13 know, on a specific piece of machinery, what the 

14 numbers are supposed to say. 

15 And when it deviates from those numbers, 

16 what actions are supposed to be taken. So they will 

17 bill down from the general design criteria all the way 

18 to tech specifications for all those kind of hazards 

19 that he was talking about. 

20 You know, what the, how the machinery is 

21 supposed to operate. NRC actually doesn't do this, 

22 the Applicant does it and then NRC understands how the 

23 Applicant is going to do it. 

24 And reviews it and agrees to what the 

25 approach the Applicant is going to take. It is a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 95

1 challenge to know whether you've got all the right 

2 general design criteria. 

3 One of the things that I thought of, when 

4 we were talking about this, was this kind of relates a 

5 little bit to whether you allow one or two step 

6 licensing process. 

7 MR. CAMERON: We'll bring that up when we 

8 get, after the break, when we get to that. But, also 

9 thanks for the segue to tech specs, when we get there 

10 to, explaining the relationship between general design 

11 criteria and tech specs. 

12 Let's go to Jim and then see what Yawar 

13 has to say, and then maybe we're ready for a break. I 

14 think we are ready for a break. Go ahead, Jim. 

15 MR. BRESEE: My comments also are directed 

16 at the issue that Susan raised and that Rod discussed. 

17 The fact that we need some additional roundtable 

18 discussions with the appropriate people. 

19 Specifically, let me consider what may 

20 come out of some of the advanced R&D activities 

21 currently underway. I think the most likely areas of 

22 impact would be changes in head end and waste 

23 processing, associated with rather standard 

24 separations technologies. But, on the other hand, do 

25 not rule out the possibility, even in the near term, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 96

1 that volatility processes, room temperature ionic 

2 liquids. 

3 There are a host of other potential 

4 activities, which don't fit neatly within the 

5 categories of what might be called conventional 

6 separations. 

7 And there I would use PUREX or variations 

8 thereon, and perhaps electrochemical. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Jim. Let's go to 

10 Mark and then finished up with Yawar. Mark. 

11 MR. YEAGER: I kind of agree with Rod's 

12 initial comment that this issue probably requires its 

13 own meeting, because we are dealing with very 

14 different technologies, and the fact that this meeting 

15 that we're having now is with regard to commercial, 

16 you know, proposed commercial reprocessing that would 

17 happen outside of a DOE facility. 

18 So, of concern to us is an agreement 

19 state, the siting process naturally would be 

20 controversial for us because we would be players in a 

21 commercial scenario. 

22 So I think it's important for the 

23 opportunity for community and state regulator comment 

24 when the process, if a process or a proposal for a 

25 commercial facility in whatever state occurs, to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 97

1 ensure the transparency and to discuss this specific 

2 technology, rather it be aqueous or whatever, that's 

3 going to be applied. 

4 I was kind of reviewing Table 1 here, and 

5 just the specific numbers. And I could probably make 

6 an argument for every single one of them, that the 

7 state would have a concern with, with regard to their 

8 mission to protect public health. 

9 But the ones that immediately jumped out 

10 at me were, for example, Item 8, which proximity or 

11 co-location with other nuclear facilities. With us 

12 that would probably be nuclear laundry, you know, 

13 facilities that might be supporting activities at 

14 proposed facility that would be licensed by agreement 

15 state. 

16 One of the things that Mary pointed out at 

17 the beginning, is we do have historical, a historical 

18 track record, although it never was implemented. 

19 One of the things at West Valley and the 

20 AGNES facility in Barnwell County, is each one of them 

21 had a low level waste site co-located within them. 

22 Barnwell, a lot of people don't realize 

23 that was the reason why Barnwell was created, was to 

24 support activities potentially at AGNES. So, as a 

25 regulator, when you're applying ALARA, Tom, one of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 98

1 things you want to do is minimize exposure and that 

2 includes your workers. 

3 So, having low level waste sitting around 

4 your facility, is not ideal to fill that, you know, to 

5 make sure that philosophy is met. So you would want a 

6 convenient way to dispose of waste as quickly as 

7 possible. 

8 Especially if you have other waste that 

9 doesn't have an avenue for disposal, and it has to be 

10 stored. You're going to want to minimize your source 

11 term. 

12 So that would be a concern to us because I 

13 don't see how a proposed commercial facility could be 

14 sited without the company considering that potential 

15 to not only create the processing facility, but also 

16 the facilities that would support it. 

17 The other items are Item 10. I won't go 

18 into details on each one, but the ones that jumped out 

19 at me is a state regulator with 10, 13, 14, 48, F-1 

20 Monitoring Control, that goes back to the discussion 

21 yesterday. 

22 In this case, EPA needs to be your 

23 partner, your regulatory partner in this part. 

24 Because, again, there is a disconnect between the 

25 dose, the dose limits to the public between NRC and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 99

1 EPA. 

2 So, that's a concern, and continues to be 

3 a concern for us. Forty-nine, again waste management. 

4 I won't belabor that. Fifty-five equipment, or I'm 

5 sorry, shipping and receiving. 

6 That's the transportation element which 

7 would effect local governments, local communities, 

8 anything with, based on the decades of experience 

9 we've had at Barnwell, I can't tell you how many times 

10 we've had, you know, concerned citizen reports about 

11 shipments with placards on it. 

12 And they are perfectly fine there. 

13 They're within every, they're compliant, but it's a 

14 factor, that increased impact on the community, just 

15 from again a psychological aspect. 

16 There will be increased traffic, increased 

17 potential for incidents. And even though the 

18 transportation conveyances are very robust and there's 

19 practically no possibility that they could be 

20 breached, and that's a historical fact. 

21 Six years of type B casks, no incidence of 

22 a release. They're still going to create public 

23 concern and they're going to create the need for 

24 additional facility, you know, the facility operator 

25 is going to have to be more proactive to the emergency 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 100

1 response community. 

2 That's an additional expense that needs to 

3 be factored in, in the planning, if this is proposed. 

4 Sixty-nine, spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste 

5 storage. 

6 Spent nuclear fuel, NRC's issue, 

7 radioactive waste storage. Again, that can become an 

8 ALARA concern eventually to the workers. Because you 

9 can only store so much, and I think every commercial 

10 reactor has that concern. 

11 Which is why they are all so happy that 

12 WCS in Texas has opened its facility to be B and C 

13 waste. Seventy, waste forum. 

14 Again, I brought this topic up yesterday. 

15 Based on the technology that will be applied, there 

16 might be mixed waste issues, as an agreement state. 

17 We've regulated facilities that have done bent scale 

18 research with radioactive materials. 

19 And had basically orphan mixed waste, 

20 because there is no avenue to dispose of it. So we 

21 babysat orphan waste and it had to be licensed and 

22 just, we would visit it every time we had to do a 

23 license inspection. 

24 We'd go, okay, it's time to visit the 

25 mixed waste, just to make sure it was properly 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 101

1 secured. It's a waste forums that concern to us. 

2 Seventy-six, the decommissioning inventory 

3 limitations. How much are you going to be willing to 

4 store or do you want to do what they have to do at 

5 nuclear power plants now? 

6 Stack it. There's criticality concerns. 

7 Again, if there's no avenue for ultimate disposal. 

8 And, again, it is policy, it's something that NRC has 

9 to seriously discuss with the Blue Ribbon Commission. 

10 There has to be an avenue created. I 

11 think it's a good idea to have these regulations in 

12 place, so when we do get things sorted out, that there 

13 is a clear path forward and you don't have to, you 

14 know, immediately rush this process. 

15 But, again, there are a lot of things that 

16 aren't regulatory, they're policy, and those have to 

17 be addressed. And then finally, decommissioning. 

18 We, somehow, it was before I actually 

19 joined the Department. Somehow we got the license for 

20 the AGNES facility. And we went through 

21 decommissioning or de-licensing plan down there. 

22 And, again, there's a lot of historical 

23 information that would be of value. And I know NRC 

24 has gotten information from every avenue that they 

25 could to research this topic. But, again, there is a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 102

1 historical path, even though these facilities were 

2 never used. 

3 And there's a lot of lessons to be learned 

4 and archived data that exists on decommissioning and 

5 what happened and, you know, the good things and the 

6 bad things. 

7 So that could actually contribute to your 

8 ability to come up with a robust general design 

9 criteria. And that's pretty much all I had. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mark, for those 

11 specifics. We're going to hear from Yawar and then 

12 finish up with Susan, take a break to 20 after 11:00, 

13 come back and run to about 12:15. Hopefully that will 

14 give us a chance to cover tech specs and one-step. 

15 I don't know if we'll get to Operator 

16 licensing, but, at least that's my sort of plan. 

17 Yawar. 

18 MR. FARAZ: Yes, I just wanted to respond 

19 to one aspect that Mark brought up, before I get into 

20 the overall how safety is applied to reprocessing. 

21 And that was EPA and NRC requirements. 

22 NRC's 10 CFR Part 20, actually requires 

23 all Licensees to meet 40 CFR Part 190 limits. And we 

24 expect that requirement to also apply to reprocessing. 

25 Concerning safety, I think that was, Chip, that you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 103

1 had brought before. 

2 Clearly, the safety analysis forms a basis 

3 for safety of a facility. That's the baseline. The 

4 safety analysis then, what it does is it identified 

5 areas that need to be addressed by tech specs. 

6 In addition, tech specs would have other 

7 tech specs that I have discussed before, that may not 

8 have a direct nexus to some of the accidents, but have 

9 some relationship to overall safety, and that would 

10 also be included in tech specs. 

11 Then, in addition to the tech specs, you 

12 have these general design criteria that John 

13 Stamatakos had pointed out in the list of bullets. 

14 A really important bullet was these areas, 

15 these unknowns or things that may have been, not 

16 necessarily overlooked, but not quite addressed 

17 appropriately in the safety analysis report, in the 

18 safety analysis. 

19 So that general design criteria require a 

20 baseline or that, you know, buildings and structures 

21 be built and at a higher level of quality than what 

22 you have, what you typically see. 

23 So, this is how you essentially ensure 

24 overall safety of a facility. And I think it's a 

25 very, I could think of it as layers of protection. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 104

1 So you have the safety analysis and you 

2 have the tech specs that implements the safety 

3 analysis. And then in addition to that you have 

4 general design criteria. 

5 And, in addition to that, we have, you 

6 know, Licensed Operators and other safety 

7 requirements. There are several ways or several 

8 layers that we are applying and we expect to apply to 

9 reprocessing facilities. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks for that 

11 overview Yawar. Susan. 

12 MS. CORBETT: I just wanted to thank Mr. 

13 Yeager for presenting very well concerns that the 

14 public of South Carolina would have about such a 

15 facility being located here. 

16 And I'd just like to add, I'm sure it's 

17 buried in here, but I think we would also, in South 

18 Carolina, be very concerned about water usage. And 

19 I'm sure that's under, in here somewhere, but design 

20 criteria should take into effect, in a world of 

21 diminishing water resources, the fact that many places 

22 are very concerned. 

23 And there's been numerous fights, as we 

24 saw with our water bill this past year. There's a lot 

25 of concern about water usage in our state from 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 105

1 industry. 

2 The other thing that we would be concerned 

3 about is decommissioning. What would be left on the 

4 site? What will we get stuck with if it's brought 

5 here. 

6 I don't think that a reprocessing plant 

7 has ever been successfully decommissioned anywhere and 

8 cleaned up. I mean, all we have to look at is West 

9 Valley and, what's the other one, I can't remember, 

10 Morris. 

11 And that didn't really operate, did it. 

12 But you know, there's not a lot of experience in this 

13 and so we, as South Carolinians, would want to make 

14 sure that, you know, what are we going to get stuck 

15 with in a decommissioning process and is there the 

16 money to truly clean it up when it's all said and 

17 done. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. And the 

19 water usage issue is a very interesting one in terms 

20 of how that plays out in the regulatory framework. 

21 And maybe, quickly, when we come back, before we get 

22 into tech specs, and we've been talking a lot about 

23 tech specs or mentioning them. 

24 So maybe, I'm not sure how big a 

25 discussion that will be, but maybe the NRC could talk 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 106

1 about, well how does, how does the water usage issue 

2 in licensing of a reprocessing facility, how is that 

3 covered? 

4 We know in reactors there has to be a 

5 certain, there's some safety considerations there. We 

6 know in the environmental impact statement on a 

7 facility that water usage is looked at generally, but 

8 it may be useful for Susan and others to just have a 

9 little discussion of that, when we come back. 

10 But, why don't we come back, you know, I 

11 have about three minutes to 11:00. Can we come back 

12 at quarter after, and then we'll devote an hour to the 

13 rest of it and only take 15 minutes out of lunch. 

14 Thank you. 

15 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 

16 record at 10:57 a.m. and came back on at 11:20 a.m.) 

17 MR. CAMERON: I wanted to, just real 

18 briefly, to finish off the water quantity, the water 

19 availability issue. And I'm just going to say a 

20 couple of things as a facilitator to just set this up, 

21 and if what I say is incorrect, okay, I would hope 

22 that the staff would -- they'll be very quick to say, 

23 that's not true, Chip, so why am I worried about this? 

24 But with reactors, as I understand it, 

25 there is a tech spec, there's a trigger in the tech 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 107

1 spec that relates to water availability because it has 

2 a safety implication. 

3 I don't know whether there would be a 

4 similar trigger for reprocessing facility, but outside 

5 of that, water availability is discussed in the 

6 Environmental Impact Statement on the facility. 

7 Now, the NRC could, perhaps, and this is a 

8 legal issue, the NRC could set a mitigating license 

9 condition related to water availability. But the 

10 issue is there, if it's not related to an Atomic 

11 Energy Act responsibility, as opposed to a 

12 responsibility under the National Environmental Policy 

13 Act, the Commission, the staff is reluctant to do 

14 those mitigating licensing conditions. Okay? 

15 But I just wanted to see if we could give 

16 Susan some knowledge about what is a very big concern 

17 here, and here is not just Georgia, but South 

18 Carolina. 

19 Do you want to ask anything more? 

20 MS. CORBETT: Well, I just -- I feel 

21 stupid arguing for the industry here -- 

22 (Laughter.) 

23 -- but it seems like, if you -- 

24 MR. CAMERON: Well, wait a minute. 

25 Everybody should pay attention. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 108

1 MS. CORBETT: You want to back up a step. 

2 You don't want to wait. You don't want to wait until 

3 you've got this design approved that uses a lot of 

4 water and then try to find a location where there is. 

5 You might want to go back to the very beginning and 

6 make sure the design criteria is one that assumes has 

7 a world of diminishing water supplies. 

8 MR. CAMERON: And is that where the siting 

9 GDC category comes in, Derek? 

10 MR. WIDMAYER: I think we have two 

11 different things going on. One is, I think, that it 

12 would be appropriate in general design criteria or 

13 someplace that, you know, depending on the needs of 

14 the facility, you would want to site it someplace 

15 where there's adequate water supply, and of course -- 

16 okay, but alternatively, there's a whole nother 

17 process that this facility is going to go through. 

18 And I don't know what it's like. And it's 

19 usually state-specific, local-specific, which is 

20 you're going to -- this facility's going to have to 

21 get a water usage permit to use the water. 

22 And that's where I think your concern 

23 would be addressed as to, you know, how much this 

24 facility is going to use the water that needs to be 

25 used for other things, and whether it's appropriate 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 109

1 for it to be sited where it's being sited. 

2 So, that's something, actually, where NRC 

3 would not be involved much at all, is getting the 

4 water -- 

5 MR. CAMERON: Except for the Environmental 

6 Impact Study. 

7 MR. WIDMAYER: Right, EIS, yes. 

8 MR. CAMERON: But that might not result in 

9 a specific regulatory requirement. 

10 MR. WIDMAYER: Not from the NRC, but it 

11 would from whoever's in charge of water permitting in 

12 the local community. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Perhaps. 

14 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Alex, more on water, and 

16 then we'll go to tech specs? 

17 MR. MURRAY: Yes. I think it's a very 

18 good point. I think it is addressed -- I would like 

19 to say it is completely addressed, but I think that's 

20 something the staff has to check on, as Derek was just 

21 saying, that basically, the three, if you will, 

22 regulatory areas, which should address it, but I 

23 cannot guarantee they would, and we'd have to check. 

24 The first area has to do with the safety 

25 review, specifically, the General Design Criteria. We 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 110

1 do, the staff, in its draft position, we do think 

2 there should be a General Design Criteria related to 

3 the site and the site parameters and how they match 

4 the plant design. All right? 

5 In our discussions, we have not explicitly 

6 discussed water usage/limitations, though discussions 

7 about arid versus wet sites have come up in the 

8 context of water availability, okay? 

9 How it would come out in a General Design 

10 Criteria at this time, we do not know. Okay? We just 

11 have flagged the issues and had discussions on the 

12 issues. 

13 Second part in the NRC process, licensing 

14 process, we do require an environmental report from 

15 the applicant, and the NRC subsequently prepares an -- 

16 most likely, an Environmental Impact Statement for a 

17 facility of this type. And in that, water usage 

18 issues, the impact of a facility including water usage 

19 does have to be addressed. 

20 And the third is just what Derek was 

21 alluding to, there are local authorities. Sometimes 

22 in some areas, it's the local government, other areas, 

23 it's more at the state level, and they would have to 

24 provide permits to the facility. 

25 And as part of that permitting process, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 111

1 the appropriate water usage versus availability has to 

2 be resolved. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. 

4 And thanks for bringing that up, Susan. 

5 And we're going to go to tech specs. 

6 Yawar and others have already given -- and Derek have 

7 given us a great segue in terms of how tech specs fit 

8 into this whole licensing framework. 

9 And I should say this now, before I 

10 forget, and it's an administrative issue. Jim Bresee 

11 is taking the 6:00 plane tonight, and he has a taxi 

12 ordered, but if anybody is also taking that flight 

13 that's driving, if you could give Jim a ride. Or 

14 you're welcome to share his taxi. 

15 (Off-mic comments.) 

16 Okay, great, well you guys -- you don't 

17 need to raise your cards or anything. 

18 (Laughter.) 

19 You can just talk to each other offline, 

20 okay? And here's another one. 

21 MR. GREEVES: I'm catching an earlier cab. 

22 (Laughter.) 

23 So if anybody's headed for the airport 

24 mid-afternoon, please let me know. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 112

1 MR. GREEVES: Cabs are expensive around 

2 here. 

3 MR. CAMERON: I don't know, now, I'm 

4 confused. 

5 MR. GREEVES: This is a gap -- next time, 

6 make the hotel near the airport, please. 

7 MR. CAMERON: Well, we could have been in 

8 Columbia, okay? 

9 Any rate, tech specs, I always look at Rod 

10 to sort of give us a tee up on these things, but Rod 

11 is not here. 

12 What do we want to know, NRC, about tech 

13 specs? What does anybody want to say about tech 

14 specs? 

15 MR. WIDMAYER: I was kind of interested in 

16 Rod also, because, you know, I mean, I think that's 

17 the way to go. 

18 I think that's -- we talked about it 

19 already, and I think that's what we would be doing, 

20 and I think the approach the NRC's proposing is sound. 

21 So I'm kind of curious as to how the industry feels 

22 about it, and -- 

23 MR. CAMERON: Is there a controversy over 

24 the use of tech specs? And do we call them now, or -- 

25 these are not the IROFS, right? Okay. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 113

1 So what needs to be -- what needs to be 

2 throttled out in terms of the tech spec issue? Is it 

3 like the more specific discussion on a GDC meeting, 

4 because a lot of the details have to be hammered out? 

5 Yawar, what do we want to talk about here? 

6 MR. FARAZ: I think the tech specs, the 

7 area of tech specs is a fairly straightforward issue. 

8 They're required by the Atomic Energy Act for 

9 reprocessing -- for production facilities, which a 

10 reprocessing facility would be. So the question of 

11 whether to have them or not is not there. You know, 

12 they will be there. 

13 We identified a couple of questions on 

14 tech specs. First of all, we tried to explain our 

15 general philosophy on how the tech specs would be 

16 structured. If you want, I could maybe talk about an 

17 example of a tech spec. I don't know if that will 

18 help. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Well, why don't you do that, 

20 just so everybody knows how that works and can see how 

21 it relates to everything else. 

22 MR. FARAZ: Okay. Okay. When an 

23 applicant does a safety analysis, they would identify 

24 certain, you know, accident sequences which we're 

25 calling a subset of the high consequence accident 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 114

1 sequences, as very high consequence accident 

2 sequences. 

3 For these very high consequence accident 

4 sequences, we're proposing that the applicant have 

5 specific technical specifications. Now, what the 

6 technical specification has, they have several items, 

7 a safety limit that, if exceeded, you know, there's no 

8 guarantee that the accident won't occur. 

9 So you want to establish a safety limit. 

10 Let's say it's a temperature limit of 300 degrees. 

11 Beyond 300 degrees, there's no guarantee that the 

12 accident will not occur, so that's the upper limit. 

13 Then, they would have another operating 

14 limit, or they may have more than one operating limit. 

15 They may have a limiting control setting, where the 

16 item that is measuring the temperature, the 

17 temperature gauge, would sound an alarm that may be 

18 set at 50 degrees, so, that would alert the operator 

19 that this accident can occur, or you could exceed the 

20 safety limit at a later time. 

21 Now, the technical specification, what it 

22 would do is, it would say, okay, it would first of all 

23 specify these limits, and then it would also identify 

24 the actions that are needed to be taken to make sure 

25 that the safety limit is not exceeded. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 115

1 So, it will say, the operator has to turn 

2 on a safety system, or actuate a safety system within 

3 a certain amount of time. Maybe, you know, within one 

4 minute, the operator has to turn on a actuator safety 

5 system, or shut down the operation. And so it's a 

6 very systematic way of making sure that the safety 

7 limit doesn't get exceeded. 

8 In addition to those actions that are 

9 required, there are also surveillance requirements 

10 that would be needed that would be specified in the 

11 tech spec for the IROFS that are involved. 

12 How often is often enough? Maybe you need 

13 to ensure the availability and reliability of a 

14 certain IROFS. Maybe you need to surveil it once a 

15 month, and that would be based on the safety analysis, 

16 or maybe it's once in six months. 

17 But, you know, so that's the overall 

18 structure. In addition to these specific tech specs, 

19 we may also have additional tech specs that I talked 

20 about before, such as, you know, administrative 

21 limits, and some other things that may not have a 

22 direct nexus to the very high consequence accident 

23 sequence. 

24 But we think that those are important from 

25 a safety standpoint to ensure that the safety envelope 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 116

1 for the reprocessing facility is maintained. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And for Rod's 

3 benefit, we started out with, there's no controversy 

4 about whether there should be tech specs. Is there a 

5 discussion like the meeting -- specific discussion on 

6 the General Design Criteria needed to go into details 

7 of tech specs? 

8 And then Yawar gave us an example of how 

9 tech specs work. I don't know if you want to add -- 

10 do you want to add anything on the whole tech spec 

11 issue? 

12 MR. MCCULLUM: Well, yes. Basically, our 

13 position is is that the tech specs should be derived 

14 from the safety analysis. 

15 And I think going back to it, without 

16 repeating some of the previous discussion, that is why 

17 the safety analysis needs to be as straightforward as 

18 possible. It think you saw that as a consistent theme 

19 in our discussion. 

20 It's also important that the tech specs 

21 and the -- I think what we're going to talk about 

22 next, the operating licensing, that those be 

23 consistent, and I think because there is a level of 

24 complexity in the safety analysis methodology 

25 prescribed in your technical basis and there is some 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 117

1 inconsistency. 

2 I think you've got the operator licensing 

3 is based on very high consequence events. The tech 

4 specs are based on high consequence events. 

5 So, in our view, operator licensing and 

6 tech specs should be equivalent. It's when you have a 

7 tech spec operation that you need to license an 

8 operator. 

9 There's one statement I wanted to refer 

10 to, and let me get to it in the rationale for the tech 

11 specs, if I can find it here. Page 31, okay. And 

12 that's on the old one. 

13 27? Okay, yes. Sorry. No, that's not -- 

14 yes. Waste incidental to reprocessing on the old one. 

15 Now, I'm lost in the document. 

16 But anyway, there was a tech spec -- there 

17 was a statement in there that said something along the 

18 lines of, tech specs where operations are similar to 

19 those of reactors, and if that was the case, you would 

20 have little to no tech specs. 

21 So, again, coming up with a coherent 

22 safety analysis basis for both the tech specs and 

23 operator licensing, that's what we're interested in 

24 seeing coming out of this. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And actually, after 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 118

1 this, I wanted to make sure that before we went out to 

2 the public and broke for lunch that we had started our 

3 discussion of the one-step licensing, so we may go to 

4 that next. 

5 And maybe there's not much to be said more 

6 than the consistency issue that you raised on operator 

7 licensing, but we do have time to do all that. 

8 I just want to make sure that we get 

9 everything out now that we need to on the tech spec 

10 issue. 

11 And Susan, we'll go to you, and then 

12 Derek. 

13 Susan? 

14 MS. CORBETT: Well, on the end of page 31, 

15 you ask topics for public feedback, and the paragraph 

16 right before that, you say, "In addition, because 

17 reprocessing processes would involve large quantities 

18 of highly radioactive and other hazardous material, 

19 the NRC staff considers it reasonable to establish in 

20 the case of power reactors general tech specs that may 

21 not necessarily trip the very high consequence 

22 accident sequence criteria, but would still have a 

23 clear and important nexus to public health and safety, 

24 and examples of such tech specs may be a burn-up limit 

25 and applying the ALARA to environmental effluents." 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 119

1 Well, I know that years ago, because I've 

2 seen graphs about this, when Savannah River was really 

3 reprocessing, you could go and look at the charts of 

4 the tritium that was being released into the 

5 environment. 

6 And I mean, it was enormous amounts of 

7 tritium that were released into the environment of 

8 South Carolina from the reprocessing there. 

9 So I would want to make sure, the public 

10 would want to make sure that we know exactly how much 

11 tritium and other things like carbon-14 and xenon and 

12 -- what's the other one, krypton, and all of the -- we 

13 want to know. 

14 We will never go back to those days when 

15 that was being allowed to be released into our air. 

16 And I don't know what they're going to do with it, and 

17 if it's going to get tritiated and put into the 

18 Savannah River, or what they're going to do with it. 

19 So that would be very important to have tech specs 

20 establishing the limits on those releases. 

21 MR. CAMERON: And is that a tech spec 

22 issue? Is that something -- Yawar? 

23 MR. FARAZ: Yes, exactly. For reactors, 

24 what we have is we have tech spec requirements on 

25 effluents. And to ensure that they're -- or to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 120

1 demonstrate that they're complying with those tech 

2 specs, reactors are required to submit to the NRC 

3 their effluent reports on an annual basis. 

4 And in those reports, they do identify the 

5 -- all the radionucleides, and the quantities that are 

6 released, as well as the impacts, potential impacts to 

7 members of the public. 

8 We expect that same -- or a similar type 

9 of requirement to apply to reprocessing facilities. 

10 And as I said before, we also would expect 40 CFR 190 

11 to apply to reprocessing facilities, that that limit 

12 the amount of krypton, iodine, and other 

13 radionucleides. 

14 MR. CAMERON: And in terms of public 

15 concerns on the tech specs, are the tech specs 

16 generally, will they be in the proposed rule, or will 

17 they be in another document? Will they be license 

18 conditions? 

19 In other words, how will the public have 

20 an opportunity to comment on the tech specs before the 

21 rule is finalized? 

22 MR. FARAZ: The requirement for having 

23 tech specs would be in the rule. The actual tech 

24 specs would be in the application. 

25 MR. CAMERON: So in other words, all the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 121

1 public will see in a rule is there's a requirement for 

2 tech specs. 

3 And if the tech specs, the specific ones, 

4 are in the license application, then the only way that 

5 the public can get their oar in the water, so to 

6 speak, on those specific tech specs is to try to 

7 intervene in the licensing proceeding. Is that 

8 correct? 

9 I think people have a concern about how do 

10 they comment, how do they -- how do they express their 

11 concerns about those specific tech specs? 

12 MR. FARAZ: I think you are raising the 

13 issue about security versus, you know, what gets in 

14 the public arena, correct? I mean -- 

15 MR. CAMERON: No, I'm thinking, forget 

16 about any security considerations. Just take 

17 something as straightforward as the releases, using 

18 the example you just gave, would -- that's not going 

19 to be in a proposed rule, the specifics, and I think I 

20 can -- we can understand why. 

21 But how will the public be able to express 

22 their concerns, including the state government people? 

23 How will the public be able to express their concerns 

24 about specific tech specs, just a question for 

25 information? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 122

1 MR. FARAZ: Clearly, we will have a 

2 hearing process, and all parties to the hearing would 

3 have that opportunity. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So it would have to -

5 - it would come through the hearing process. 

6 MR. FARAZ: Correct. Yes. 

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks. Thanks, 

8 Jack. 

9 All right. And Alex? 

10 MR. MURRAY: Yes, I just wanted to expound 

11 upon that just a little bit. Yes, the requirements 

12 for technical specifications would be in the proposed 

13 rule. We would expect they'd be somewhat similar to 

14 the requirements for technical specifications which 

15 are in Part 50 for reprocessing facilities. 

16 Right now, we expect we may have to fill 

17 in some blanks in some areas or some clarifications, 

18 but the requirement currently exists in Part 50, and 

19 we expect to carry that over into the new regulation. 

20 As regards the specific details of some of 

21 the tech specs, staff is planning to revise and in 

22 some cases generate new guidance documents which would 

23 go into some discussions at length about technical 

24 specifications, again, analogous to some of the tech 

25 specs documents which exist for nuclear reactors, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 123

1 which Derek Widmayer was referring to about an hour 

2 ago. 

3 There might be a document analogous to, 

4 say, a standard tech spec for Westinghouse reactor, if 

5 staff were to anticipate putting out guidance, I might 

6 say standard technical specifications for an aqueous 

7 reprocessing facility, as an example, assuming that 

8 the proposed rulemaking goes forward. 

9 And the third point, which Yawar 

10 mentioned, and I don't think it was really heard or 

11 interpreted by the audience, is we expect there will 

12 be an annual reporting requirement on at least the 

13 environmental releases and how the environmental 

14 technical specifications are being met. All right? 

15 Again, very analogous to the reactor 

16 experience, and what the releases are, both in 

17 concentrations and total quantities. Those are 

18 usually included in those types of documents. All 

19 right? 

20 MR. CAMERON: And I think that's very 

21 helpful, and the guidance documents where we might 

22 have model tech specs, or -- I don't know if that's 

23 the right word to use, but typically, the NRC would 

24 issue those guidance documents for public comment, as 

25 I understand it, so, just so the public knows where 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 124

1 they're going to be able to have an opportunity on 

2 this. 

3 And Derek, and then we'll go to Yawar. 

4 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes, I was just going to 

5 point out, you know, this document that I referenced 

6 for a nuclear power plant, we're talking way down the 

7 road here as far as this reprocessing plant. You 

8 know, I don't even -- ten years, whatever. 

9 I mean, the conversation we were having 

10 before where there should be meetings on these general 

11 design criteria, I mean, that would be the next 

12 appropriate step, to make -- the public wants to be 

13 involved in that, to make sure that these high-level 

14 considerations remain in the rule as far as something 

15 that eventually would get addressed in technical 

16 specification, including the types of things that we 

17 were discussing before about the, you know, the 

18 ambient room temperature or something like that. 

19 You want to make sure your General Design 

20 Criteria are built in such a way that that's something 

21 that, you know, because it's a concern as far as the 

22 hazard in the facility, would get addressed eventually 

23 in technical specification. 

24 So, I mean, there's a lot of steps that we 

25 need to take before we get to tech specs. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 125

1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. 

2 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, the industry would 

3 welcome further discussions on tech specs as the 

4 rulemaking progresses along those lines. And the 

5 public should be involved, certainly. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Great. Thanks, Rod. 

7 And Yawar, more on this? 

8 And then I don't know if Susan wants to 

9 add anything, but -- 

10 MR. FARAZ: I want to respond to one of 

11 Rod's comments. It's about consistency, and I think 

12 the intent was that tech specs would be generated for 

13 very high consequence accident sequences. 

14 The -- rather than saying that, I think 

15 what we did was we presented the criteria, and if you 

16 look at the table on the criteria that we're proposing 

17 for very high consequence sequences, they should be -- 

18 it should be in line with those. 

19 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I'm just saying it is 

20 confusing, because on page 24 of the original, you 

21 talk about high consequences, and then on page 25, you 

22 have this statement: "Technical specifications are 

23 appropriate for areas and processes that reprocessing 

24 and reprocessing facilities with hazards or 

25 characteristics more similar to a reactor." 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 126

1 So, you know, just clarification and 

2 consistency, straightforward, coming from the safety 

3 analysis, is what we're asking for. 

4 MR. FARAZ: Understood. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's go to Tom. 

6 MR. CLEMENTS: Just to clarify, the tech 

7 specs would apply to -- it would be technology8 specific in this case. 

9 MR. FARAZ: Correct. 

10 MR. CLEMENTS: Just, if you'd react for 

11 the record, please. 

12 MR. FARAZ: The answer is yes, yes. It 

13 would be technology -- and just to, you know, 

14 elaborate on that, Alex had mentioned that we may have 

15 standard tech specs or something similar to what we 

16 have for Westinghouse and GE reactors. 

17 It might be a little challenging to do 

18 that, without -- so I think it would be, what I would 

19 expect is, the applicant would develop the technical 

20 specifications and then the NRC would, you know, 

21 review and approve them, if appropriate. 

22 MR. CLEMENTS: Let me just ask, what do 

23 you think the percentage of the design would have to 

24 be completed before you were presented with tech specs 

25 and react to them? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 127

1 MR. FARAZ: I think, you know, clearly to 

2 generate specific tech specs, an applicant would need 

3 a lot of design information. You know, they would 

4 need, you know, all of the different limits that go 

5 into technical specifications. 

6 They would need to establish surveillance 

7 requirements, so they clearly would need a significant 

8 amount of design information available to be able to 

9 develop those. 

10 What that level is is hard to say. But, 

11 you know, they would need sufficient design 

12 information to be able to establish those tech specs. 

13 I don't know if that helps. 

14 MR. CAMERON: And Rod may have some 

15 information for Tom on that. 

16 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, that was actually a 

17 great segue into the discussion on one-step versus 

18 two-step licensing. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Right. 

20 MR. MCCULLUM: Because for first of a kind 

21 applicants, the level of detail may not be there in an 

22 initial application. They may prefer a two-step 

23 process. 

24 I would point out that in a two-step 

25 process, that gives the public an additional 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 128

1 opportunity to see this at an earlier stage. 

2 So, going back to our proposal, we'd like 

3 to see the option of the applicant choosing either a 

4 one or a two-step process. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's go to the one6 step issue so that before we go on to -- for public 

7 comment, which we'll do before we break for lunch so 

8 that the public can hear that particular discussion, 

9 and as Rod points out, it does have -- it does have 

10 important public participation implications. 

11 So, we heard from John's presentation. He 

12 talked about the one-step licensing, similar to what's 

13 done for reactors in the NRC rules in part 52. 

14 Anybody want to start us off? 

15 I'm sorry, Rod, I always look to you. 

16 MR. MCCULLUM: Well, yes, again, we kind 

17 of stated our position yesterday, and I just stated it 

18 again. Reactor applicants currently have the option 

19 of pursuing a part 50 license or a part 52 license, 

20 which means they have the option of going for a one21 step approach or a two-step approach. 

22 There may be some innovative reactor 

23 licensees in the small reactor community who indeed 

24 will go for an old-fashioned two-step license. 

25 Certainly, the current applications for places like 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 129

1 Vogtle are the new one-step licensing process. 

2 And to the extent it needs additional 

3 discussion, I'd be happy to answer questions. But 

4 it's our view that recycling, reprocessing, you know, 

5 plutonium green washing facilities should all have the 

6 same option that reactor facilities have, so. 

7 MR. CAMERON: So, does everybody 

8 understand how the one-step -- and NEI is saying, 

9 there should be the option, because there may be 

10 people who want to come in under the two-step process, 

11 which I take it is one-step, is the construction 

12 authorization, or construction permit, and the second 

13 step is the operating license? 

14 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes. It lets you go after 

15 a construction permit before you have the design 

16 detail you would need for a one-step process. That's 

17 very helpful to the applicant. It's also very helpful 

18 to the public. 

19 And you make decisions in a phased manner 

20 which, given is the first time -- it would be a first21 of-a-kind facility. And again, that's the thinking in 

22 some of the small reactor community, having that 

23 additional step, having that opportunity to get the 

24 review at one level of detail and then get a 

25 subsequent review at another level of detail is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 130

1 valuable. 

2 Now, when you're dealing with an 

3 established technology, like an AP 1000 reactor, 

4 you're looking for a higher level of certainty from 

5 day one to reduce your business risk. And given that 

6 you have the confidence that you will have a high 

7 level of design detail going in, you want a one-step 

8 process for business reasons. 

9 MR. CAMERON: But NEI thinks that there 

10 may be some reprocessing facilities where it would be 

11 appropriate to use the one-step process. 

12 MR. MCCULLUM: Certainly if, you know, 

13 AREVA has its wishes of building regional facilities, 

14 I would guess by the time they built the second or 

15 third one, they would be preferring a one-step 

16 process, given that they'll already have that level of 

17 detail. 

18 But I would imagine for any of the first -

19 - for whoever is first, they will probably want a two20 step process. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Well, let's go to 

22 Tom, and let's make sure that everybody understands 

23 how this works. 

24 Tom? Tom Clements? 

25 MR. CLEMENTS: Yes, Tom Clements. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 131

1 Concerning the one-step versus two-step, I would be in 

2 support of the two-step. 

3 And as you referred to, Rod, the mPower 

4 Reactor, they're choosing to do the two-step process. 

5 In this letter to NRC Commissioner Klein, which has 

6 been referred to in the Gap Summary a number of times 

7 from 2007 from the Advisory Committee on Nuclear 

8 Waste, they even say, and just to read it, "the NRC 

9 should consider using the two-step licensing process 

10 for spent nuclear fuel recycling facilities until the 

11 NRC staff becomes familiar with their processes, 

12 equipment and materials in their recycling 

13 facilities." 

14 So, I would think, yes, off the bat, 

15 there's no question that it would have to be a two16 step process in my mind, because of the inexperience 

17 with any of the technologies that are going to be 

18 dealt with on an international level. 

19 MR. CAMERON: And Tom or anybody around 

20 the table, when the NRC is thinking about the rule 

21 language itself on this that would allow the option, 

22 how would they achieve language that would meet your 

23 concern that if it wasn't an established technology 

24 that it should be a two-step? 

25 How would that be done in the language? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 132

1 I'm not trying to just put it all on Tom. 

2 MR. CLEMENTS: I can't -- Tom Clements. I 

3 don't know if I can really speculate on that, but I 

4 think there would be some pretty big hurdles that 

5 might not be able to be defined initially. So I have 

6 some trouble conceptualizing how it could be placed in 

7 the rule-making if it was locked in stone when we're 

8 dealing with technologies that we really don't know, 

9 right now, what they are, nor how they would be 

10 designed and constructed, so the basis would have to 

11 be two-step. I don't know what that language would be 

12 if it would move to one-step. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and Susan, and then 

14 we'll come over, we'll go down this way, Rod, Yawar. 

15 MS. CORBETT: I think I'm just fixated on 

16 this water issue, but I could see a scenario where you 

17 start building a plant and it takes ten years or eight 

18 years to get it built, and in the time that you've 

19 built it, there's been some change in your available 

20 water resources, where you have to go back and re-look 

21 at that, so I think a two-step process in that 

22 scenario might be helpful. 

23 MR. CAMERON: So would you -- I'm just 

24 trying to test to see whether some people believe that 

25 we shouldn't have a one-step option, that we should 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 133

1 always be using two-step. So I'm trying to test that 

2 out, because there are some concerns that have been 

3 expressed. 

4 MR. MCCULLUM: Chip, could I answer your -

5 - 

6 MR. CAMERON: Yes, go ahead. 

7 MR. MCCULLUM: I think you asked a 

8 question previously as to how you would provide the 

9 option, is that correct? 

10 MR. CAMERON: Yes. Yes. 

11 MR. MCCULLUM: We think that could be done 

12 fairly straightforwardly. I mean, it's done, again, 

13 in reactor space by having both Part 50 and Part 52 on 

14 the books. 

15 You could have two separate subparts to 

16 this new rule, part 7x, and one could say, you, 

17 basically, at some point in the rule, have language 

18 that gives that choice, and go -- you know, if this, 

19 go to part x.y, if that, go to part x.z. I think that 

20 that -- 

21 MR. CAMERON: So, the applicant basically 

22 chooses which way they want to go -- 

23 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes. 

24 MR. CAMERON: -- and it may be that in the 

25 pre-application discussions with the NRC, the NRC 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 134

1 staff could indicate that maybe they're a little bit 

2 worried that it was going to be a one-step, but it 

3 should be a two-step, but basically leave the choice 

4 to the applicant. 

5 MR. MCCULLUM: I would leave the choice to 

6 the applicant. And I would say that most applicants 

7 would be considering the public interest or public 

8 participation interest as a key decision point. 

9 I mean, if I was an applicant trying to 

10 build a reprocessing facility in a given community, I 

11 would be interacting with my community in advance of 

12 that as to what they would prefer, and I would factor 

13 that very significantly into my decision as to how I 

14 would proceed. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's go to Yawar, 

16 then to Derek, and then to Jim. 

17 Yawar? 

18 MR. FARAZ: Although our current efforts 

19 are to develop a reg basis document and not to come up 

20 with rule language, but if we are asked to develop a 

21 proposed rule, I agree with Rod. 

22 You know, I foresee two subparts to part 

23 7x, one addressing the one-step licensing approach and 

24 what the contents of the application would need to be, 

25 and then one subpart addressing a two-step approach, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 135

1 where, you know, what the contents of a construction 

2 authorization permit would be addressed, and then the 

3 operating license application, what that would entail. 

4 In addition to that, you know, if we go 

5 forward with rulemaking, there will be a need to 

6 develop a standard review plan. And if you're going 

7 with a one step and a two step option, then we would 

8 need a standard review plan that addresses the one9 step approach. 

10 We would need a standard review plan that 

11 addresses the construction, authorization, 

12 application, and we would need another standard review 

13 plan that addresses the operating license. 

14 So, you know, I see -- I mean, it's not 

15 that it can't be done. But I just see when you have -

16 - when you're adding options, you're also adding a lot 

17 of effort that needs to go into this rulemaking as 

18 well as developing the guidance. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Yawar. 

20 Derek? 

21 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes, I think it would be a 

22 challenge, and he's expressed it fairly well as far as 

23 making sure you have the flexibility described 

24 correctly. 

25 I think that the initial position of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 136

1 committee that Tom was bringing up is that they would 

2 prefer to see the two-step licensing process done at 

3 least for the initial facility. 

4 And what I was going to add that as far as 

5 the one-step process is concerned, there's been a lot 

6 of difficulty with the ITAAC. It's been somewhat 

7 problematic for the committee. 

8 So by the time we get to the reprocessing 

9 facility in ITAAC, maybe we'll have a lot of lessons 

10 learned, and a lot of the problems will be ironed out, 

11 but I think that's also something that we want to 

12 think about as far as that one-step processes, which 

13 things would be appropriate for ITAC, so. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And Jim? 

15 MR. BRESEE: Just as a reminder, earlier 

16 in our discussions yesterday, there was a note that 

17 one of the unique features of the used or spent or 

18 whatever fuel target that we have in this country is 

19 an enormous quantity. The total quantities at the 

20 moment are close to 60,000 metric tons. 

21 The largest reprocessing or recycle 

22 facility in the world operating at full capacity could 

23 not process the backlog in less than 50 years. 

24 So, it's clear that if recycling or 

25 reprocessing ever becomes a method for waste 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 137

1 management in this country, there will be multiple 

2 facilities. 

3 And so the point about the first of a 

4 type, perhaps, requiring two-steps simply because of 

5 insufficient backlog by -- could very well result in 

6 future activities of a similar type being licensed by 

7 -- 

8 MR. CAMERON: That might be more 

9 appropriate, then, for one-step, because it would be a 

10 replication, perhaps, or -- 

11 MR. BRESEE: That is certainly one of the 

12 conceivable futures. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank-you. Yes, what 

14 I'd like to do is go out to the public, and then we'll 

15 come back. And you have to go sit out there. 

16 (Laughter.) 

17 No. I know we will. I know we will, come 

18 on. 

19 (Laughter.) 

20 All right. Let's go to the public. Let 

21 me go to Suzanne and her colleague first on this. 

22 Well, let me go to Suzanne and then to the woman 

23 sitting beside her. 

24 MS. RHODES: Okay. Thank you very much. 

25 I've learned a lot here the last couple of days. I'm 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 138

1 really glad I came. I'll contradict myself. 

2 I think this was an extraordinarily useful 

3 meeting. I hope it doesn't go past the draft stage, 

4 but I hope you do something good with the draft to 

5 keep it available and figure out a way to put comments 

6 on it, perhaps. 

7 The other misperception I had, I thought 

8 that because of the discussion of waste minimization 

9 that was supposedly associated with reprocessing that 

10 this would be a more or less government function out 

11 of the waste fund prior to repository, and then some 

12 sort of a mechanism to sell the product back to 

13 industry. 

14 And I understand that that is not at all 

15 the case, that I guess what you all are thinking now 

16 is that individual utilities would make individual 

17 contracts with reprocessing facilities, whatever, as a 

18 corporate decision, and there would be corporate money 

19 rather than taxpayer money financing all of this. 

20 And I don't know if this is still up in 

21 the air, or if it is definitely -- corporations would 

22 want to go forward. 

23 If that were the case, somewhere down the 

24 line, before this gets too far away, I think there 

25 ought to be a serious discussion with the industry. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 139

1 And maybe there already has, I know you all, NEI is 

2 extraordinarily good at that. 

3 But I don't want it to turn out like 

4 another MOX where it's a party where nobody wants to 

5 come. It's a lot of very complicated things that are 

6 going to get people inflamed and use a whole lot of 

7 staff resources, if nothing else. 

8 But anyway, I've really appreciated the 

9 kind of tenure you all have had with the industry and 

10 with each other, two different kind of tenure. But 

11 anyway, thank you very much. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you very 

13 much, Suzanne. 

14 And Brandon, you have Suzanne's 

15 information. 

16 And if you could just introduce yourself 

17 to us. 

18 MS. PARKER: Hi. Thank you all for 

19 allowing me to speak today. My name is Debbie Parker, 

20 and I am the legislative and program director at 

21 Conservation Voters of South Carolina, which serves as 

22 the political voice of the conservation community in 

23 South Carolina. 

24 We actually host something called the 

25 Common Agenda Process, which is a consensus-building 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 140

1 process that we host with approximately 40 different 

2 conservation organizations in South Carolina to 

3 establish a set list of environmental and legislative 

4 priorities each year. 

5 And I just wanted to submit some formal 

6 written statements actually that I have copies of for, 

7 I guess, the panel, to put on the record about the 

8 conservation community's position on nuclear energy. 

9 Although, as you all may know, the general 

10 conservation community in South Carolina does not have 

11 one set position currently as to the future of nuclear 

12 energy and the role it may play in the energy mix, but 

13 we all are very much unified on our position against 

14 further storage of more nuclear waste at the Savannah 

15 River site or anywhere else in South Carolina. 

16 So my comments actually refer more to 

17 that. And I notice, I think you all spoke a little 

18 bit more about that yesterday, but I just wanted to 

19 make sure that South Carolina was on record today 

20 about our feelings from the conservation community on 

21 nuclear storage. 

22 We deeply appreciate the important role 

23 that Savannah River site has played in our nation's 

24 defense. Our own organization has developed strong 

25 and positive relationships with our state's military 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 141

1 community in support of efforts to reduce our 

2 country's dependence on foreign oil and promote its 

3 national security. 

4 As you may know, the conservation 

5 community in South Carolina has played a constructive 

6 role in discussions about the future of nuclear energy 

7 in our state. We know that meeting our country's 

8 future energy needs will take a balanced approach, and 

9 that we need to look openly and objectively at all of 

10 our energy options. 

11 However, our community has also worked 

12 very hard to establish consensus on nuclear waste, as 

13 South Carolina has already carried more than its fair 

14 share of the national nuclear waste burden. 

15 In 2000, our community helped negotiate 

16 the Atlantic Compact, which closed the Barnwell 

17 Nuclear Waste Facility to all states but South 

18 Carolina, Connecticut, and New Jersey. 

19 Efforts to undo the Atlantic Compact in 

20 2007 led to a spirited and successful defense of the 

21 compact. In short, South Carolina has spoken firmly 

22 and finally on the issue of importing nuclear waste to 

23 our state. We therefore strongly oppose any effort to 

24 consider SRS as a possible repository of greater than 

25 class Z and GTCC-like waste. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 142

1 There's obvious geologic and environmental 

2 unsuitability of the site. SRS has sandy soils and a 

3 wet climate, making it highly unsuitable for any kind 

4 of nuclear waste disposal near the surface. Two 

5 obvious and possible storage options being considered 

6 for GTCC waste, surface vaults and trenches, are 

7 especially incompatible for SRS. 

8 Second, any proposal to bring GTCC waste 

9 to SRS actually violates the current and stated 

10 mission of the site, which is to reduce the 

11 concentration and longevity of high-level waste 

12 currently on site. 

13 The Department of Energy's own Office of 

14 Environmental Management, which is heading the SRS 

15 cleanup effort, has stated that footprint reduction is 

16 a major goal, and our nation's taxpayers have devoted 

17 nearly $1.6 billion in Recovery Act funds towards that 

18 goal. Opening SRS to GTCC waste runs exactly counter 

19 to this effort. 

20 And finally, bringing GTCC waste to SRS 

21 makes little sense considering how far behind the 

22 facility is in meeting its waste reduction mission. 

23 In its comments opposing GTCC at Savannah 

24 River Site, our South Carolina Department of Health 

25 and Environmental Control observed approximately 36 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 143

1 million gallons of high-level mixed waste are stored 

2 in aging tanks with leak sites, while there's 

3 currently no operating treatment facility with the 

4 majority of that volume. 

5 A substantial volume of trans-uranic waste 

6 remains in storage at SRS awaiting appropriate 

7 disposition. Radioactive contamination remains in 

8 many areas slated for future cleanup decisions. 

9 Disposal of GTCC and GTCC-like waste is inappropriate 

10 at SRS, given the current cleanup backlog. 

11 Thus, Conservation Voters of South 

12 Carolina and other conservation organizations would 

13 like to offer two immediate steps. 

14 As you know, during DOE scoping meetings 

15 in 2007, many Americans offered Hardened On Site 

16 Storage as the best storage alternative while a long17 term solution is formulated. 

18 With Hardened On Site Storage, GTCC waste 

19 and irradiated spent fuel remains at commercial 

20 nuclear power plants in long-term storage so that it 

21 can be monitored and protected. 

22 While HOSS is not a permanent solution, it 

23 provides a safe way of storing waste until a 

24 scientifically sound solution is found. 

25 Secondly, we recommend that DOE not 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 144

1 proceed with the final environmental impact statement 

2 for greater than Class C waste, but rather develop a 

3 new draft EIS that includes HOSS facilities as the 

4 best interim solution for GTCC waste, and then seeks a 

5 permanent geologic disposal site for GTCC waste 

6 disposal that reflects our best science, not politics. 

7 And we feel like as the deliberation 

8 continues to manage the high level nuclear waste 

9 accumulating at our power plants, we'd like for you to 

10 consider that South Carolina's conservation community 

11 has very grave concerns about any proposals that would 

12 bring more nuclear waste to our state. 

13 Conservation Voters of South Carolina, 

14 along with the Coastal Conservation League, South 

15 Carolina Wildlife Federation, and numerous other 

16 groups that we work with of the 40 organizations that 

17 are part of the Common Agenda would like to state for 

18 the record that we oppose importing waste under any 

19 conditions, including under the guise of interim spent 

20 fuel storage and/or reprocessing proposals. 

21 And thank you all again for holding these 

22 very important meetings over yesterday and today, and 

23 thank you for all your hard work as you try to figure 

24 out the best solution. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Thank you for those remarks, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 145

1 Debbie. 

2 And we're going to go to the good doctor 

3 here, and then we're going to go to the two Brets from 

4 the NRC, and then we'll come back to the table for 

5 Alex. And perhaps we'll be ready to break for lunch 

6 then. 

7 Yes? 

8 DR. HAYES: Thank you. Do I need to 

9 introduce myself again? 

10 MR. CAMERON: No. We know. Brandon 

11 knows. 

12 DR. HAYES: All right. This goes to item 

13 four on page -- I think it's page 9, that says, what 

14 does the NRC need to consider when updating the NUREG15 1140? 

16 In this meeting, there's been a 

17 significant focus on quantitative analysis or 

18 probabilistic risk assessment methodology. 

19 I'm reminded of a book I recently was 

20 reading by John D'Agdata, in which he quotes someone 

21 who I cannot remember, but I think it was a Fairleigh 

22 University professor, who said that relying on 

23 probabilistic thinking causes us to dismiss the 

24 possibility of an event. 

25 And, of course, probabilistic thinking is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 146

1 exactly what caused science and engineering to fail to 

2 prevent such recent disasters as TMI, Chernobyl, 

3 Fukushima Daiichi, Exxon Valdez, BP Deepwater Horizon, 

4 and numerous others. 

5 We've fallen deeply into this pit of 

6 probabilistic thinking. 

7 Considering these disasters leads us to 

8 the broader question of why the US has even moved to 

9 spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. Derek just said that 

10 reprocessing plants are 10 years down the road. And 

11 Jim is saying that the largest reprocessing facility 

12 possible would take 50 years to burn up all of our 

13 current storage of SNF. 

14 Someone yesterday mentioned the fact that 

15 fast reactors are 50 years down the road. And I 

16 wonder why the government isn't focusing instead on 

17 faster reactors rather than our current focus on 

18 reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, because we could go 

19 to transmutation through fast reactors, if I 

20 understand correctly the concept of fast reactors. 

21 And fast reactors would relieve us of the 

22 public hazard exposure problem, and probably even more 

23 importantly, the worry we have for nuclear 

24 proliferation. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 147

1 We're going to got Brett from OGC, and 

2 then we'll go to Bret from NRC. 

3 MR. KLUKAN: Hi, this is Brett Klukan from 

4 the Office of General Counsel. Like most attorneys, I 

5 am principally concerned with my own self-interest. 

6 (Laughter.) 

7 And as an attorney who, were this, I mean, 

8 moving forward, would probably be one of the ones 

9 involved in the licensing of a such a reprocessing 

10 facility, I'd like to ask a clarifying question to 

11 industry. 

12 When we talk about one-step licensing and 

13 part 52, that actually can be a couple of steps with 

14 regards to the early site permit and LWA process. And 

15 the first part of my question goes to that. Would it 

16 be industry's expectation to carry over those parts 

17 into part 70x? 

18 And then the second part is, if we are 

19 adopting -- if it is industry's intent to essentially 

20 carry over part 52 or the licensing structure in part 

21 52 into part 70x, would it be industry's expectation 

22 that the hearing structure, meaning, there's a hearing 

23 potentially at the ESP stage, a hearing at the COL 

24 stage, whatnot would be the same? 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Good questions. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 148

1 Rod, why don't you give us an idea on 

2 that, and I know that the second Bret has something 

3 for you too, but why don't you do that? 

4 MR. MCCULLUM: Well, while the possibility 

5 of an ESP for a recycle facility is actually very 

6 intriguing to me, I work with ESP folks also at NEI, 

7 have not heard any interest expressed from industry on 

8 that. 

9 It does, on one hand, give you an option 

10 to make the one-step processing process somewhat two11 step, which I think is what you're getting at. There 

12 is that option. So you'd really, you'd have a nesting 

13 of options. 

14 However, the reason Part 52 was designed 

15 that way was because it envisioned the design -- it 

16 envisioned a standardization of reactor designs. 

17 It envisioned two separate tracks, the 

18 track of picking a site, and the track of designing a 

19 reactor, and then the reactor vendor would sell to 

20 multiple sites. 

21 So the reason an ESP makes sense is 

22 because you address only the siting issues, and then 

23 you marry that up with another process that addresses 

24 the reactor design, and then you go for a COL. 

25 In this case, and I think a lot of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 149

1 discussion we've had that has been educational to me 

2 has born that out, that it's hard to -- the design 

3 issues and the siting issues are intrinsically 

4 related. 

5 And I'm thinking the public would want to, 

6 in both steps, be looking at the design of the 

7 facility and how it protects their -- in areas like 

8 effluents, particularly. 

9 So it's an intriguing possibility, but 

10 again, that's one of the reasons why we'd like the 

11 option, because we don't see the same utility for 

12 those parts of the 52 process in part 7x. 

13 MR. CAMERON: And any ideas on how the 

14 hearing process might work? I don't know if you want 

15 to tackle that one. That was the second part of the 

16 question. 

17 MR. MCCULLUM: Well, I think it worked 

18 very well. 

19 (Laughter.) 

20 I mean, you know, it is one of the things 

21 that I think makes NRC an outstanding regular is that 

22 their processes allow the public to effectively have 

23 their day in court. 

24 You know, if you don't like something that 

25 NRC is seeking to license, then, you have that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 150

1 opportunity to intervene. 

2 And, you know, if your contention meets 

3 the standards for being accepted and all that, your 

4 legitimate concerns will be heard by an adjudicatory 

5 panel that essentially, that's like going to trial. 

6 That's an adversarial proceeding. 

7 So, you know, providing opportunities to 

8 do that in a two-step process, you know, that the 

9 public would benefit from that. 

10 And again, I would think that a potential 

11 applicant, I mean, if I'm a potential applicant and I 

12 want to build a reprocessing facility in a community, 

13 I'm going to be very concerned about building support 

14 and trust with that community. 

15 So I'm going to want to seek a process 

16 that the community has confidence in, and -- 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Rod. 

18 And let's go to Bret Leslie, easier to 

19 pronounce for me. And then we'll come back up to the 

20 table to Alex, anybody else. And then we'll take a 

21 break for lunch. 

22 Bret? 

23 DR. LESLIE: I actually had four things, 

24 but because we all want to go to lunch, I'm only going 

25 to talk about one right now, get back to the other 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 151

1 ones later. 

2 But it was something that you said 

3 earlier, Rod, and it kind of plays into the overall 

4 methodology. 

5 I think when the staff was -- and I'm 

6 primarily talking about the people who were up at the 

7 table, but when we were approaching this, we were 

8 taking into mind the idea of technology-neutral, 

9 providing flexibility. 

10 And so I think when we were looking at, 

11 what are the possibilities in terms of how large a 

12 facility or the type of -- the various parts of a 

13 reprocessing complex, we weren't necessarily looking 

14 at limiting in terms of how large that source term 

15 might be. 

16 But you said something that was very 

17 intriguing, which was this. You don't envision having 

18 source terms that would be beyond the Protective 

19 Action Guideline. In other words, you wouldn't get to 

20 the triggers that Dennis was talking about. 

21 Now, that -- NRC could go that approach 

22 and say, yeah, for any reprocessing facility, for any 

23 part of that facility or any technology, you can't 

24 have a larger amount than this, and then those 

25 criteria that Dennis talked about would never come 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 152

1 about. 

2 I'm not sure that's what you meant, but 

3 that's how I'm interpreting it. And so I think if you 

4 can explain how that plays into kind of -- how does it 

5 play out, either in terms of IROFS, or is that really 

6 what you meant? 

7 MR. MCCULLUM: Not exactly, and I'm glad 

8 for the opportunity to clarify. You know, I'm not 

9 saying that we would limit by inventory the facility 

10 so that absent any safety controls, you would never go 

11 beyond the protective action guidelines. 

12 What I'm saying is that we would be 

13 looking in our design philosophy to make sure we put 

14 in place IROFS that would prevent you from going 

15 beyond that. 

16 You know, when we're looking at impact of 

17 the public health and safety, we're going to look at 

18 putting in place seawalls and ventilation systems that 

19 prevent you from getting to that -- to those more 

20 protective thresholds, you know. 

21 And what I was really doing was 

22 criticizing the utility of having yet another level of 

23 accident above a high consequence accident, there's 

24 very high consequence, and he was talking about some 

25 extremely high thresholds. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 153

1 And I'm thinking, I'm not going to wait 

2 until I have the possibility of an accident at that 

3 level before I start designing against it. What I was 

4 talking about was a matter of design philosophy. 

5 If my design philosophy is going to be 

6 protective at a more stringent threshold, it's going 

7 to aim for meeting a more stringent threshold to the 

8 point where I didn't see the additional utility of, 

9 you know, of that. Then I'll look at Sven. Does that 

10 make sense? 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I think -- yeah. 

12 MR. MCCULLUM: So, yeah, no, I was not 

13 saying that we would limit -- we would never have the 

14 inventory where if there were no controls in place, we 

15 would never have to worry about those things. I was 

16 talking about where we focus the design of the safety 

17 -- in the IROFS. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. 

19 And Alex? Alex Murray. 

20 MR. MURRAY: Finally. I don't know if I 

21 can handle this. Okay. 

22 MR. CAMERON: And thank you, Alex. 

23 MR. MURRAY: Thank you, Chip. Its own 

24 oxygen for a while, there, you 

25 know?(phonetic)***12:23:31 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 154

1 I just wanted to give a couple of 

2 informative comments, if I could, please. The first 

3 one, since we're out of time on it, I encourage 

4 members on the panel, members in the audience, to 

5 submit information, written information, on the level 

6 of detail that they might envision for either a one7 step or a two-step licensing process. 

8 In the past, some of the Part 70 reviews 

9 and some of the Part 50 and 52 reviews at the level of 

10 detail that -- how shall we say -- well, let's just 

11 raise it this way. 

12 There has been a difference in perception 

13 about the level of detail needed to meet the 

14 regulation, between industry, staff, and the public. 

15 Okay, after, and it comes out with five or six 

16 opinions, not just three. 

17 So I encourage everyone, please, if you 

18 have thoughts, intelligent and constructive thoughts 

19 on the matter, please submit them as written comments. 

20 Second, there was a very good comment from 

21 a member of the public about risk, and if you just do 

22 risk-informed, risk analyses, you can have -- still 

23 have bad events occurring. 

24 And I want to emphasize the NRC's proposed 

25 approach is to take a balanced view, a balanced, if 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 155

1 you will, methodology, through this regulation. 

2 Yes, it will be risk informed but it will 

3 also be performance based. There will still be 

4 general design criteria which must be met, okay, 

5 absolutes. Not relatives, not risk-based. Okay? 

6 There are requirements that will be 

7 associated with reprocessing types of facilities in 

8 this proposed rulemaking, assuming it goes forward. 

9 And I encourage, if you have further 

10 thoughts on that, please, again, submit to us some 

11 written thoughts, some written comments on that. 

12 And the last item, and again, this gets 

13 back to, you know, please think on this, and if you 

14 have thoughts and constructive comments, please submit 

15 them as well, and this relates to this -- what we call 

16 this methodology where we're introducing the concept 

17 of very high consequence events. 

18 Please understand, a very high consequence 

19 event, we are basing the identification of these 

20 events upon unmitigated, unprevented consequences, 

21 okay, in a manner similar to how we approach safety 

22 analyses at the NRC and in the nuclear industry. 

23 This does not mean that the event occurs. 

24 Okay? We would not allow these events to occur, 

25 okay? They have to be -- this is purely for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 156

1 identification of these events before controls are 

2 applied to either prevent and/or mitigate their 

3 occurrence or their severity. Okay? 

4 So it's very important to keep that in 

5 mind. 

6 And I do ask, again, for comments on that 

7 methodology, and also, how would we identify these 

8 events? We have been struggling with, do we take an 

9 approach that is strictly dose-based? The NSCR and 

10 myself had mentioned some potential limits earlier in 

11 the discussion. 

12 Should they be somehow material based, 

13 okay, which is based on what NEI did with a proposal 

14 where it would just be fission products. Should they 

15 be receptor-based? Should they be based on members of 

16 the public, or site workers, specific workers, generic 

17 workers, the environment, potential PAGs from the EPA, 

18 and so forth? And economic consequences. 

19 Okay, so please, if you have thoughts, 

20 please submit them on to the NRC so that we can 

21 evaluate these and have meaningful input. 

22 And I'll just make one last comment. At 

23 the present time, we do not have any specific 

24 reprocessing plant designs or safety analyses that we 

25 can look at. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 157

1 The staff has, however, done some internal 

2 preliminary estimates, and we do think that there are 

3 a number of accident sequences that will bump into 

4 this category that we are calling very high 

5 consequence events, which will require additional 

6 focus and safety controls and more rigor in the 

7 analyses. 

8 So, we welcome anything from industry or 

9 members of the public as to their thoughts on that 

10 matter. If they have any calculations or analyses 

11 they would wish to share with us, we would greatly 

12 appreciate it. 

13 Thank you very much. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Alex. 

15 And this was a difficult area, and I think 

16 you had a great discussion on it. 

17 What I'm going to suggest is that we come 

18 back at quarter to two. That's an hour and 15 

19 minutes. 

20 I think we're going to have plenty of time 

21 for Marshall Kohen and his colleague, Steve Ward, on 

22 the security and material control and accounting. I'd 

23 like to start in with that. 

24 I think we're pretty much finished with 

25 this subject, but we'll have time after Marshall and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 158

1 Steve to revisit any of this. 

2 Our other agenda items, we want to go 

3 around the table before we leave to just get any last 

4 impressions from all of you. And Jack Davis is our 

5 senior official, NRC official, is going to close the 

6 meeting for us. 

7 And then for those of you who can stay 

8 around, we're just going to have, you know, an 

9 informal open house. 

10 And as you all know, the NRC is not able 

11 to provide any refreshments of any type, but someone 

12 may buy beer, I don't know, down there. 

13 (Laughter.) 

14 But at any rate, let's come back at 

15 quarter to two. 

16 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the meeting was 

17 recessed, to reconvene at 1:45 p.m.) 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay, everyone. Good 

19 afternoon. Welcome back from lunch, and we're going 

20 to get started with our final discussion topic, which 

21 is material control and accounting and security, and 

22 it's a pleasure that we have Marshall Kohen here, 

23 who's going to do the presentation, and his colleague, 

24 Steve Ward. They're from NRC's Office of Nuclear 

25 Security and Incident response. Oh, you're not from 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 159

1 there? 

2 MR. WARD: No, I'm from NMSS. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Another NMSS guy. But 

4 Marshall is going to do the presentation, and then 

5 we'll just open it up for discussion. 

6 MR. KOHEN: Well, thank you. Good 

7 afternoon. As Chip said, my name is Marshall Kohen. 

8 I'm a security specialist in the NRC Office of Nuclear 

9 Security and Incident Response. I'm going to talk to 

10 you a little bit today about four gaps that have to do 

11 with the Safeguards and security aspects of the 

12 potential reprocessing rulemaking. 

13 This should follow the same format that 

14 other presentations did. So you'll see a consistent 

15 format. First, talk a little bit about the gap 

16 summaries and remind you what we're talking about in 

17 terms of these four gaps. Gap 4 had to do with the 

18 exclusion of reprocessing facilities from the Category 

19 1 material control and accounting requirements in the 

20 regulations. 

21 Currently, there is an exemption in 10 

22 C.F.R. 74.51 that excludes reprocessing facilities 

23 from the Category 1 MC&A requirements, and as we all 

24 know, I think, a reprocessing facility is likely to be 

25 a Category 1 site, or require a Category 1 level of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 160

1 MC&A and physical protection. 

2 Gap 8 discussed the risk-informing that 

3 would need to be done on the Safeguards and security 

4 requirements in NRC regulations. Currently, the 

5 quantity-based categorization scheme in the existing 

6 regulations, both in Part 73 and in 74, may not be 

7 appropriate to address the different attributes and 

8 risk levels of nuclear materials that are handled at a 

9 reprocessing facility. 

10 On Gap 17, this discussed what's called 

11 Diversion Path Analysis. This type of analysis would 

12 provide an effective detection and response program to 

13 mitigate Safeguards vulnerabilities and security 

14 system weaknesses. Safeguards requirements in the 

15 event of a DPA and inclusion of a DPA would then be 

16 more risk-informed. 

17 Finally, Gap 18, there could be challenges 

18 due to the nature of operations of a reprocessing 

19 facility. With respect to a couple of items, pre20 defined limits on inventory different determinations 

21 and inventory frequencies. 

22 Now onto the proposed positions or 

23 thoughts, at least, on how to address these gaps. 

24 With respect to Gap 4, the Commission directed staff 

25 to remove the exemption of the reprocessing facility 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 161

1 from Category 1 MC&A requirements, as part of the 

2 ongoing Part 74 rulemaking, and that was through the 

3 SRM that you see on the screen. 

4 The draft Part 74 rule is expected to be 

5 released for public comment this December, and a 

6 preliminary copy of this rule text is on 

7 Regulations.gov. So you're welcome to take a look at 

8 it at your leisure. 

9 With respect to Gap 8, the Commission 

10 approved the staff's development of a revised 

11 categorization scheme, and it did so in SRM SECY 09-

12 0123. One of the caveats in the SRM was that the Part 

13 73 rulemaking shouldn't focus on the categorization of 

14 material that's associated with reprocessing. 

15 What it said was as a separate effort, and 

16 on a lower priority, there should be analysis done of 

17 the material categorization approach for materials at 

18 a potential reprocessing facility. Staff's currently 

19 developing a technical regulatory basis to support the 

20 rulemaking in that respect. 

21 Similar to Gap 4, on Gap 17, the 

22 Commission directed the staff to consider 

23 incorporating Diversion Path Analysis into the 

24 reprocessing regulatory framework, through the same 

25 SRM. The staff planned to add a requirement to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 162

1 conduct Diversion Path Analysis to the MC&A 

2 regulations for reprocessing. 

3 Finally, in Gap 18, the staff is currently 

4 considering changes to the inventory frequency, limits 

5 on inventory difference, limits on error measurements 

6 and other material accounting aspects regarding 

7 materials at a reprocessing facility. 

8 With respect to what we have received to 

9 date from stakeholders as input on these four gaps, on 

10 Gaps 4, 17 and 18, which are the material control and 

11 accounting gaps, there's been, we assess that there 

12 has been general agreement with the staff approaches 

13 to do a couple of things: to make the reprocessing 

14 facilities subject to Category 1 regulations; to 

15 require a Diversion Path Analysis; and to adjust the 

16 material accounting limits as appropriate. 

17 Regarding Gap 18, we also assess that 

18 there's been agreement with the staff approach to 

19 revise the material categorization approach. In fact, 

20 we received a letter from NEI in August of 2009, 

21 advocating the inclusion of a material attractiveness 

22 approach into this scheme. 

23 We do note that there have been some 

24 stakeholders who have stressed the importance of this 

25 process in the treatment of mixed oxide fuel. With 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 163

1 respect to integration of the gaps, on Gap 8, the 

2 revision of the material categorization approach for 

3 physical protection purposes will certainly drive a 

4 decision on how that approach is used in the MC&A 

5 world as well, since they're complimentary 

6 disciplines. 

7 For Gaps 4, 17 and 18, the removal of the 

8 exemption for reprocessing facilities under the 

9 current Category 1 rules will place reprocessing 

10 facilities under Subpart E of Part 74. If the 

11 Commission permits NRC to proceed or the staff to 

12 proceed with rulemaking for reprocessing, the staff 

13 will then add a new subpart to Part 74, that will be 

14 similar to Subpart E, but will incorporate the changes 

15 necessary to regulate MC&A at a reprocessing facility, 

16 including resolutions to Gap 17 and 18. 

17 Finally, any changes that would result 

18 from Gap 8, as I said before, this is the other side 

19 of the coin, would then be included in the MC&A 

20 rulemaking, and help to close Gaps 4, 17 and 18. So 

21 finally, we brought up a few questions that we thought 

22 people might want to ask. Obviously, there will be, 

23 we believe there will be more than this, but just for 

24 food for thought. 

25 If there are any problems that are created 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 164

1 by development of the regulatory basis for risk2 informing Parts 73 and 74 separately from the 

3 regulatory basis for potential rulemaking, and how 

4 that would affect the licensing aspects. 

5 What should a Diversion Path Analysis 

6 include? Which documents should NRC staff consider in 

7 developing the rule language and guidance for 

8 conducting Diversion Path Analysis, and finally, what 

9 specific challenges does the potential licensee 

10 community foresee in meeting the material accounting 

11 requirements for Category 1 facilities, including a 

12 reprocessing facility? 

13 So that concludes my remarks, and I think 

14 -- do you want me to go back? 

15 MR. CAMERON: I think maybe this is the 

16 best way to organize the discussion, rather than just 

17 going gap by gap on this. I just had one process 

18 question for you, before we begin, Marshall, for 

19 people who might be interested in commenting on the 

20 proposed rule that's going to be out in December, 

21 although what's said here by the panelists or the 

22 audience is going to be very useful for you in moving 

23 forward with this. 

24 They won't be considered as formal 

25 comments on the proposed rule, so that I guess that's 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 165

1 a question. So that if people want to formally 

2 comment, they should keep track of when the proposed 

3 rule appears for comment. Is that correct? 

4 MR. KOHEN: Yes, that's right, and with 

5 respect to the Part 74 rulemaking, I'll let my 

6 colleague, Mr. Ward, handle those particular comments. 

7 MR. WARD: Actually, right now, as was 

8 mentioned in the slides, the draft rule text, and 

9 that's only the rule text; it doesn't include the reg 

10 analysis or all the other documents that you're used 

11 to seeing with the rule officially going out for 

12 public comment. They call this a preliminary public 

13 comment period. 

14 It is currently on Regulations.gov, and 

15 that comment period actually runs through June 30th. 

16 So if anybody has -- if anybody wants to submit 

17 comments on that draft text as it stands, we would 

18 welcome those. Obviously the end of the month is 

19 coming up very soon. But those comments would be 

20 welcome, and of course, there will be a Federal 

21 Register notice in December, when we expect the 

22 official draft rule package to come out. 

23 MR. CAMERON: So that there is a 

24 preliminary comment period. I'm glad you pointed that 

25 out, for everybody to know. Is there any magic to the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 166

1 sequence that we take these questions, and Kevin, did 

2 you have a question? 

3 (Off mic comment.) 

4 MR. STRICKLAND: I just needed you to 

5 repeat the document that's up for comment. 

6 MR. WARD: What's on Regulations.gov is 

7 what's called the preliminary draft rule text. So 

8 it's the actual text of Part 74 and a few other 

9 subparts or a few other parts that needing conforming 

10 changes, but nothing else. There's no statements of 

11 consideration or anything. It's just the text. 

12 MR. STRICKLAND: Okay, Part 74. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Great. 

14 MR. STRICKLAND: As long as they have this 

15 mic turned on, could you define material 

16 attractiveness? I've never heard that term. I'm just 

17 interesting. I usually ask about acronyms. 

18 MR. KOHEN: Sure. I can give you a 

19 general description of what we're talking about. Part 

20 of the current material categorization scheme is that 

21 it's a two-factor approach, for type and quantity. So 

22 it's the type of material and the quantity that you 

23 have at a facility. 

24 What we're looking at in general terms is 

25 looking at different aspects of the material than that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 167

1 forms, for example. So what we mean by attractiveness 

2 is attractiveness of the material in a certain form 

3 and in a certain quantity to the adversary, in taking 

4 that material and doing something with it, 

5 particularly creating an improvised nuclear device. 

6 That's what we mean by attractiveness. 

7 MR. CAMERON: So it's a broader look than 

8 the traditional two-part look -- 

9 MR. KOHEN: That's correct. 

10 MR. CAMERON: --the type of material, 

11 okay. 

12 MR. KOHEN: Correct. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Any other questions before 

14 we get into discussion? This is Tom Clements. 

15 MR. CLEMENTS: Yes, Tom Clements. Just a 

16 follow-up on that attractiveness. Could you give an 

17 example of what you mean, say, plutonium oxide versus 

18 fresh plutonium MOx, and what you think the 

19 attractiveness might be, and if you could address, in 

20 the case of the MOx, that if the material, if the fuel 

21 was processed in some way, you could get the plutonium 

22 back out, but you might not be able to build a, you 

23 know, improvised device immediately if you got your 

24 hands on it. It would require further steps. 

25 MR. KOHEN: Okay. Let me answer the first 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 168

1 part of the question first, and I'll use a different 

2 example, because this is an example that we've used in 

3 the past, particularly when talking with senior 

4 managers. 

5 The example that I like to use is 2 kg or 

6 5 kgs of high enriched uranium in metal form is very 

7 attractive, especially compared to that same quantity 

8 of material dispersed throughout a rail car of dirt, 

9 okay. 

10 So if you think about what an adversary 

11 could do with that quantity in a metal form, for 

12 example, versus some of the stuff that we ship out to 

13 Idaho for burial, which is in a different form, and 

14 dispersed throughout a rail car of dirt. It's more 

15 difficult for an adversary to capture a certain 

16 quantity of that material to be able to use it. 

17 So that's what we mean by attractiveness. 

18 That's sort of a relative comparison of 

19 attractiveness. 

20 MR. CLEMENTS: Well, let me ask you 

21 another, about another -- it's not a hypothetical. 

22 Plutonium stored, contaminated plutonium, weapons 

23 grade plutonium, stored, that can't be used because of 

24 contaminants for a MOx plant, say it's in an urban 

25 site. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 169

1 If that material is going to be disposed 

2 of in -- as true waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot 

3 Plant, and it were to be mixed into a disposal 

4 container to be taken to WIPP, but it still hasn't 

5 been denatured. 

6 It's weapons grade plutonium, but it's in 

7 a drum with some kind of mixture to disperse it, what 

8 is the level of attractiveness under this approach, of 

9 that material that's weapons grade material, which 

10 would be disposed of without a radiation barrier in 

11 WIPP? 

12 MR. KOHEN: Right. Thanks for the 

13 question. That's a very, actually very specific 

14 question, and it has to do with a level of detail that 

15 I'm not comfortable talking about at this point. One 

16 of the things that's going on is we have a couple of 

17 studies that are underway, and hopefully almost 

18 completed, that we believe will inform not only the 

19 rulemaking, but the development of guidance and 

20 development of our technical basis. 

21 And so those details are a little bit 

22 preliminary for me to discuss, and so I think I would 

23 like to leave it at that. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

25 MR. YEAGER: I'm not familiar with that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 170

1 particular item, Tom. You know, the WIPP shipments 

2 are coordinated through DOE, and through grants, there 

3 are -- they are very secure. They're very -- you 

4 know, currently, if I understand what you're saying, 

5 these are shipments going to WIPP, right, with 

6 plutonium? 

7 MR. CLEMENTS: I'm not just talking about 

8 WIPP waste. I'm talking about larger contaminated 

9 weapons grade plutonium that can't go to the MOx 

10 plant, but it wasn't really true waste. 

11 MR. YEAGER: I thought yes, when you were 

12 saying. Okay. I thought you were maybe speaking 

13 about the WIPP shipments. 

14 MR. CLEMENTS: Not the traditional true 

15 waste. 

16 MR. YEAGER: Okay, because those are 

17 escorted by law enforcement, pretty much along the 

18 entire corridor. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Mark. Jim. 

20 MR. BRESEE: Yes. I suspect that at least 

21 part of the input to the NRC's issues with regard to 

22 attractiveness would come from some of the Safeguards 

23 studies that are really NNSA-sponsored activities, and 

24 most of the publications on the subject have come out 

25 of Los Alamos. Is that -- am I correct in that? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 171

1 MR. KOHEN: Well certainly there's been 

2 historical work done in this regard, and we do have a 

3 current study that Los Alamos is doing for us, that's 

4 going to be one of the major inputs to the rulemaking. 

5 MR. BRESEE: There was, in answer to Tom's 

6 question, there was -- there have been some open 

7 publications on the subject, and I would refer you to 

8 a paper at a global conference last year, that 

9 discussed in some detail how one would determine the 

10 so-called attractiveness of mixtures of materials. 

11 Generally speaking, that's what you're 

12 talking about, is some dilution of materials that have 

13 weapons significance. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Jim. This 

15 first bullet up there is what I would call a process 

16 question, is that -- does anybody see any problems if 

17 the NRC proceeds with 73 and 74 separately from the 

18 reprocessing rulemaking? Rod. 

19 MR. McCULLUM: The only way I would see 

20 problems really come in terms of schedule, I think it 

21 makes sense to do that. I think risk-informing Part 

22 73 and 74, getting the right definition of 

23 subcategories and the appropriate grading of 

24 requirements across the categories and subcategories 

25 is probably the key to making all of this work for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 172

1 reprocessing facilities. 

2 And maybe this is more of a question. A 

3 couple of areas where I see the schedule, one, I mean 

4 you've got one rulemaking that's in process now to 

5 remove the exemption, and then this will be a 

6 subsequent rulemaking. 

7 If you had, if you complete the first but 

8 don't complete the second, then that does create a 

9 problem, in that now you have declared it a Category 1 

10 facility, but you haven't risk-informed the Category 1 

11 requirements. 

12 The other thing would be if the Part 73 

13 and Part 74 rulemaking lags this rulemaking. Now we 

14 heard yesterday, we're still hoping for 2015, but 

15 there are apparently some budget issues. That might 

16 slip. I don't want it to slip. We'll probably 

17 comment on that. 

18 But I think if NRC staff can assure us 

19 that the schedule for the Part 73 and 74 rulemaking 

20 will stay in sync with this rulemaking. By in sync, I 

21 mean sufficiently ahead of it, it sounds like the 

22 reasonable approach, I mean the right way to go. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Whoops. Sven. 

24 MR. BADER: I'll caveat this, that I'm 

25 not expert in this field. But I guess from an AREVA 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 173

1 position, we're kind of wondering, can you tell me 

2 what the fundamental differences are between Part 73 

3 and 74 and the IAEA regulations that the rest of the 

4 international community follows? 

5 MR. WARD: First off, Part 73 is the NRC's 

6 regulations for physical protection, at both nuclear 

7 power plants, fuel cycle facilities. Part 74 is 

8 specific to material control and accounting. 

9 Obviously, there's some synergy that exists. Many 

10 material control features of the plant are physical 

11 security features as well, and so they do work hand in 

12 hand. 

13 Now the next part of your question was 

14 like the IAEA requirements, and there are two aspects 

15 to that, and one is, you know, the IAEA does have 

16 requirements for Safeguards that are implemented in 

17 non-nuclear weapons states, and because the United 

18 States is a weapons state, plants here are not 

19 automatically required to meet those IAEA 

20 requirements. 

21 However, the United States has voluntarily 

22 and through various treaties over the last 50 or so 

23 years, committed ourselves as a government and by 

24 default, some of our licensees, both NRC and DOE, to 

25 adhere to some of the standards set forth by the IAEA. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 174

1 So the most likely effect for, and this is 

2 just predicted; nobody knows how this would shake out. 

3 The most likely effect would be there are regulations 

4 in Part 75 that licensees have to adhere to, 

5 concerning reporting to the IAEA, and through the U.S. 

6 government. 

7 The reprocessing facility would be 

8 considered by an inter-agency group of the U.S. 

9 government for potential inclusion on what is called 

10 the eligible facilities list. If a reprocessing 

11 facility is put on that list, then the IAEA, at their 

12 discretion, may choose to implement Safeguards at that 

13 facility. But that's a long process and there's a lot 

14 of steps that would have to be taken to get to that 

15 point. 

16 MR. CAMERON: And before we go to Susan, I 

17 think Marshall has something to add on that. 

18 MR. KOHEN: Yes. I just wanted to follow 

19 on. Steve sort of gave you the MC&A side of that 

20 question that Sven asked, and let me talk a little bit 

21 about the security aspect. Unlike the MC&A, what were 

22 called requirements, there are really no security 

23 requirements at the IAEA level and sort of on an 

24 international level. 

25 The IAEA puts out a guidance document. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 175

1 It's titled Info Circ 225, it's now in Revision 5. 

2 That is, again, a guidance document. There are a 

3 number of countries throughout the world that utilize 

4 that document, and in fact many of them take the text 

5 verbatim and put it into their national legislation. 

6 The United States doesn't do that, but we 

7 do attempt to, at our best, DOE particularly and NRC, 

8 make sure that our regulations for physical protection 

9 are as consistent with the guidance, the 

10 recommendations in the Info Circ 225 as possible and 

11 as appropriate within our legislative structure. 

12 So for physical protection, there really 

13 are no international requirements for security, simply 

14 guidance. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Sven. 

16 MR. BADER: I just want to follow up. So 

17 does that mean if somebody chose to design their 

18 facility here in the United States to IAEA 

19 regulations, instead of NRC regulations, we'd meet the 

20 NRC regulations? Or are the NRC regulations more 

21 restrictive than the IAEA regulations? 

22 MR. WARD: Well first off, from MC&A's 

23 standpoint, NRC regulations are more restrictive. 

24 The IAEA Safeguards, which are requirements in other 

25 countries except here, are requirements. Just like 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 176

1 for physical security, however, when it comes to MC&A, 

2 the IAEA only has a guidance document. Similar to 

3 what Marshall said, some countries have adapted the 

4 IAEA guidance directly into their national 

5 legislation. 

6 But in the United States, our MC&A 

7 requirements are much stricter than if you were to 

8 just copy the IAEA, MC&A or IAEA Safeguards 

9 requirements. 

10 MR. CAMERON: And one more follow-up. 

11 MR. BADER: So we're a weapons state that 

12 applies IAEA, more restrictive requirements than non13 weapons states across the globe. Is that the way I 

14 understand that? 

15 MR. WARD: Yes. There's a fundamental 

16 difference between MC&A and IAEA Safeguards. IAEA 

17 Safeguards are directed to prevent the proliferation 

18 of nuclear weapons. So one, the IAEA is concerned 

19 about a much greater adversary, the state, the country 

20 potentially being, trying to divert this material, not 

21 just someone at the facility. 

22 The IAEA is also largely concerned about 

23 identifying diversion within a certain period of time 

24 after it has occurred. MC&A, in conjunction with 

25 physical security measures, are much more geared 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 177

1 towards preventing that theft or diversion from 

2 occurring in the first place. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Susan. 

4 MS. CORBETT: I hope I'm not being 

5 redundant here, because I have to admit that sometimes 

6 I feel like y'all are speaking a different language 

7 than me, because I'm not a technical expert. But I 

8 think this is the correct place to ask a question 

9 about insider threats. 

10 Jim and I were kind of talking about this, 

11 because one of the concerns of the public is that 

12 weapons grade material be stolen and used to create 

13 bomb material or whatever. 

14 There's a really excellent movie that came 

15 out two years ago called "Countdown to Zero." It's 

16 more about nuclear weapons. But in the context of 

17 that movie, they documented a number of cases, mostly 

18 in Russia, but where materials have been stolen a gram 

19 at a time from probably uranium enrichment, but other 

20 reprocessing places as well. 

21 So it's a concern of the public that, 

22 especially in the world that we live in today, that we 

23 make sure that weapons grade material isn't stolen and 

24 used for horrible purposes. So I think one of the 

25 things, as a member of the public that I would like to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 178

1 see in this, is that this analysis should include an 

2 identification of the materials that could be stolen. 

3 I mean I think the public would like to 

4 know what is being produced here that could be, that 

5 is weapons-usable. It may not be weapons grade, but 

6 it certainly could be weapons-usable. I'd like to 

7 know what that is, to identify those, how it could be 

8 stolen, you know. There's conjecture about how it 

9 could be stolen, what kind of access is there to these 

10 materials, who gets to access them. 

11 Is it done; is it just a single person? 

12 Is there always a team of people when they come and 

13 access this material? Are there background checks and 

14 you know, when you first talk about building this 

15 first facility, it's very possible that it could be 

16 within the confines of a DOE site. 

17 But if we're going to build 20 of these, 

18 then it's very likely they won't. So you're talking 

19 about just having one and, you know, the DOE's 

20 Savannah River site is very secure. You can't just 

21 sneak in there. But if these are located around the 

22 country in regional places, it could be a lot less 

23 secure. 

24 So the standards that apply to a site 

25 located at a DOE plant might be different than what 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 179

1 needs to be looked at in an independent-standing site. 

2 So how are you going to address these, the insider 

3 threat of diverted material? I think the public would 

4 like to see that, an analysis of that. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Marshall, Steve, can you 

6 talk about the NRC approach to questions like Susan's, 

7 and I would assume that the type of information that 

8 you develop on that is going to fall into the category 

9 of -- that won't be able to be shared with the public? 

10 I'm asking a question on that. 

11 But I think first of all, you know, what 

12 do you do? What's the approach to developing that 

13 type of information, and do indeed we develop the 

14 information that addresses Susan's questions? 

15 MR. WARD: Well first off, just our 

16 existing MC&A and physical security regulations for 

17 all facilities do address measures to preventing the 

18 insider threat at all types of facilities. That's 

19 something we look at often, and you know, we have and 

20 are currently in our proposed Part 74 rule that we're 

21 working on. 

22 Features such as requiring two person rule 

23 or other overchecks, to ensure that one person cannot 

24 act alone and divert or misuse material without either 

25 having another person present or some other means of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 180

1 checking and verifying that no inappropriate actions 

2 were taken. 

3 So that's a big part of our existing 

4 regulations, and the regulations are stricter for 

5 Category 1 fuel cycle facilities in that regard. 

6 The next part of your question, as Chip 

7 alluded to, a lot of the security and MC&A information 

8 for facilities is classified, to a certain extent, and 

9 we do our best to provide information, particularly 

10 in the form of guidance documents wherever possible, 

11 that can be publicly released. 

12 If we go forward with this rule for a 

13 Diversion Path Analysis, a big component of that will 

14 be developing a guidance document for the licensee 

15 community, to know what exactly we intend for them to 

16 do. 

17 I can't tell you right now for sure that 

18 that guidance document will be totally publicly 

19 available. But we will certainly try our best to at 

20 least have the guidance document, of what we're asking 

21 the licensees for, to be publicly available. However, 

22 the actual analysis from the licensees is most likely 

23 going to have to be protected as some form of 

24 sensitive information. I'll let Marshall continue 

25 that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 181

1 MR. KOHEN: Okay. I guess I would echo 

2 some of the thoughts on the security side. There's a 

3 similar situation. One of the things that I want to 

4 make sure everybody understands, and remind everybody, 

5 is obviously NRC has an obligation to conduct a public 

6 process through our rulemaking, and we certainly 

7 intend, as part of the Part 73 rulemaking, to do that 

8 as much as we possibly can. 

9 As Steve said, there will be aspects of 

10 the analysis that we do, that we will use to come up 

11 with what will eventually be in the regulations, which 

12 will be publicly available obviously, that we will not 

13 be able to disclose. One thing I want to point out is 

14 the major aspect of the Part 73 rulemaking -- well, 

15 there are two aspects actually. 

16 One is to infuse, incorporate the orders 

17 that we've had to put in place on a case-by-case basis 

18 over the last ten years, to make them part of the 

19 regulations per se. So we want to get away from 

20 regulation by exemption. So we're going to take those 

21 orders where possible, and put them into regulation. 

22 They will be part of those orders that are 

23 sensitive information of all different types, and 

24 they'll have to stay sensitive. That's just the 

25 nature of the information. I would also remind people 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 182

1 that we have a graded approach already to security and 

2 to MC&A. That is the categorization approach. 

3 So you have Categories 1, 2 and 3, and 

4 they are set up based on the attractiveness or the 

5 desires of the adversary to acquire that type and 

6 quantity of material to use in an improvised nuclear 

7 device. What we're attempting to do, by revising the 

8 categorization approach, is add some more 

9 stratification, and make a little bit more appropriate 

10 the physical protection to different types and forms 

11 of that material. 

12 So I would say again, we are certainly 

13 part of the public approach, and during the Part 73 

14 rulemaking, we will make as much of the analysis and 

15 the design of the structure of the categorization 

16 approach, and the physical protection measures that we 

17 assign to those categories and attractiveness levels, 

18 as public as possible, and to the extent that we can 

19 do that, we certainly will. 

20 As you probably know, another aspect of 

21 both MC&A and security is at least at the nuclear 

22 power plants and at the Category 1 facilities, is a 

23 design basis threat. 

24 Obviously, the details of those documents 

25 are sensitive, and we can't discuss the details of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 183

1 those. But those are the documents that we use, at 

2 least for the Category 1 facilities and for the 

3 nuclear power plants, to help us design the security 

4 systems and the features that go into those systems. 

5 So there is a rationale. There is an 

6 analysis that goes behind the design of those security 

7 systems, and it has to do with the category of 

8 material that is in those facilities. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Thanks Marshall. Susan, and 

10 then Tom. Susan? 

11 MS. CORBETT: I just want some 

12 clarification. So what exactly will be classified? 

13 You can't tell me what's classified, because it won't 

14 be classified. But materials, certain materials will 

15 be classified? Actions and procedures or processes 

16 are classified? Is that what you're relating to? 

17 MR. KOHEN: I can't give you specific 

18 types of information that I know will be classified. 

19 I mean there are things that are already protected at 

20 classification levels and sensitivity levels that will 

21 continue to be that way. 

22 As I say, we have a study going on, and 

23 one of the things that that study is considering is a 

24 lot of different types and forms of as many types and 

25 forms and quantities of special nuclear material that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 184

1 licensees of the NRC currently hold and are 

2 anticipated to hold. 

3 So we're looking at the entire spectrum of 

4 materials, to give ourselves the best look at what is 

5 a relative set of attractivenesses among those forms 

6 and types. Whether those materials, whether we would 

7 be able to disclose what those materials and forms and 

8 types would be, I can't say at this point. 

9 MS. CORBETT: So basically you wouldn't be 

10 able to tell us what's dangerous or how you're 

11 protecting us from them? 

12 MR. KOHEN: Well, maybe not to a very, 

13 very specific level of detail. But quite honestly, 

14 it's already in the categorization approach, and when 

15 we develop a new table, what we envision is that types 

16 and forms will be in that table, and that will be in 

17 the regulation. 

18 MR. WARD: Let me just add to that. NRC, 

19 the U.S. government, in fact, as a whole, requires 

20 certain kinds of information to be classified, and we 

21 don't -- when we generate a document, we look. Does 

22 it contain information that is sensitive? 

23 We don't just automatically assume that a 

24 certain type of document is going to be classified a 

25 certain way. We look at what it actually contains to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 185

1 determine the appropriate level of classification. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Tom. 

3 MR. CLEMENTS: Well, thank you Chip. I'd 

4 like to engage with a little bit of a back and forth, 

5 along the same lines, if we could. I have three 

6 points I'd like to discuss with you, and this first 

7 one definitely might not have to do with risk8 informing Parts 73 and 74, but it's just a quick point 

9 in the area. 

10 As you know, Information Circular 549 

11 requires of IAEAs is voluntary reporting for plutonium 

12 and I guess highly enriched uranium. Do you foresee 

13 that the utilities or whoever builds the plant, 

14 operates the plant, would essentially be expected to 

15 do this voluntary reporting, or would you anticipate 

16 that there would be a requirement on a U.S. government 

17 level, that the reporting be mandatory for the amounts 

18 of material, of plutonium, separated and in process 

19 and in spent fuel in storage at the facility? 

20 MR. WARD: Off the top of my head, I'm not 

21 100 percent sure what Info Circ 549 is. 

22 MR. CLEMENTS: It's just a voluntary 

23 reporting for most countries that have a commercial 

24 weapons grade plutonium stockpile. Some countries do 

25 not participate like Sweden and maybe the Netherlands. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 186

1 MR. WARD: Well we already, in Part 74 

2 even, licensees are required to submit reports on 

3 enriched uranium and plutonium to the Nuclear 

4 Materials Management and Safeguards System, the NMSS 

5 database, and the NMSS database subsequently generates 

6 reports on behalf of the U.S. government concerning 

7 these materials and quantities and imports and exports 

8 and all sorts of other stuff, that are subsequently 

9 submitted to the IAEA. 

10 Additionally, Part 75 requires licensees 

11 to comply with terms of the Comprehensive Safeguards 

12 Agreement and additional protocol reporting 

13 requirements. So I'll have to look. It's quite 

14 possible that data that NMSS already sends to the IAEA 

15 might very well cover this Info Circ 549. 

16 MR. CLEMENTS: But that's voluntary, and I 

17 think there perhaps should be something in the 

18 regulations to require reporting. 

19 MR. WARD: Well, reporting to NMSS is 

20 already required in Part 7413, 7413 and 7415. 

21 MR. CLEMENTS: Okay. Two more points. As 

22 you know, I believe it was December last year, Francis 

23 Slakey from the American Physical Society, filed a 

24 petition with the NRC, that nuclear proliferation 

25 assessments be a part of all licensing processes, and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 187

1 he was mostly directing this to the situation with the 

2 development of the laser enrichment facility by GE3 Hitachi, I think, in Wilmington. 

4 But it raises a question on reprocessing 

5 technologies that might be deployed in the United 

6 States. I don't know. I haven't seen any movement on 

7 a response to that petition, but where would you see 

8 that in Parts 73 or 74 or elsewhere, if there were 

9 some requirement. 

10 I think it should be done, because it's 

11 rather stunning that there's been no nuclear 

12 proliferation assessment required, in the case of this 

13 new laser enrichment technology. But where would you 

14 see it emerging, if there were to be some requirement 

15 to do such a proliferation assessment? 

16 MR. WARD: The issue of whether or not the 

17 NRC would start conducting or requiring proliferation 

18 assessments, that's a policy issue that the Commission 

19 itself is going to have to weigh in on, and I can't 

20 really speculate on how their -- what their views are 

21 going to be. 

22 Obviously, if they were to direct the 

23 staff to require it, that we do it or require the 

24 licensee do it, however that might be, then we would 

25 have to put that in the regulations somewhere, to make 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 188

1 that required. But it really depends on how the 

2 Commission makes their decision. 

3 MR. CLEMENTS: I understand, and one more 

4 point on the attractiveness issue. I just want to 

5 point out a report done by Brookhaven from July of 

6 2009. I just happen to have a cover here, 

7 "Proliferation Risk Reduction Study of Alternative 

8 Spent Fuel Processing." I can give this to you if you 

9 don't have it. 

10 They looked at COEX, UREX and 

11 pyroprocessing, to determine the relevant 

12 proliferation risks of each of those. I think the 

13 Rokkasho plant, if it ever were to operate after 2-1/2 

14 years of trying to start up, that's a question, 

15 separates a mixed plutonium uranium stream. 

16 I don't think there's any difference 

17 between the pure plutonium stream and a stream that 

18 has uranium in it. This report from Brookhaven says 

19 that this evaluation found only a modest improvement 

20 in reducing proliferation risks over existing PUREX 

21 technologies, and these modest improvements apply 

22 primarily for non-state actors. 

23 So I'm curious to know, if you are, in 

24 dealing with this attractiveness issue, looking at 

25 treating separated materials, uranium and plutonium 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 189

1 from a COEX facility, as different from pure plutonium 

2 from a PUREX-type technology. Thank you. 

3 MR. WARD: Well first off, again right 

4 now, we don't look at things from a proliferation 

5 perspective, unless the Commission, in response to 

6 that petition you were talking about a moment ago, 

7 directs us to. However, that said, we do look very 

8 thoroughly at, you know, the types and forms of 

9 materials, part of this attractiveness study. 

10 So that that would certainly be something 

11 that we'd look at, you know, how different mixtures 

12 may be more or less attractive to an adversary. 

13 MR. KOHEN: Yes, that's right, and that's 

14 what I was going to say. Let me add one thing to 

15 that, which is you mentioned different forms of 

16 plutonium coming from different technologies. One of 

17 the things that we're trying to do in Part 73, which 

18 is right now focused more on facilities than it is on 

19 material, is refocus the discussion onto the actual 

20 material itself, and the attractiveness of that 

21 material to the adversary. 

22 So I guess I would say that plutonium, in 

23 its different forms, is what we're looking at. It 

24 really doesn't make a whole lot of difference where it 

25 is, what type of technology it comes from, or what 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 190

1 facility it's at. And so I would -- sort of that 

2 would be my addition, is that we're really focusing on 

3 the types, forms and quantities of material, not 

4 necessarily where they're located or where they're 

5 stored. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Let's go to Jim and then 

7 we'll go to Susan. 

8 MR. BRESEE: I would just suggest, as part 

9 of the some of the activities associated with this 

10 rulemaking you're currently discussing, that some of 

11 the more advanced materials control and accountability 

12 work of the Department of Energy might be of some 

13 interest to you. 

14 It is aimed very clearly, and I'm talking 

15 about the Office of Nuclear Energy, it's aimed very 

16 clearly at improved Safeguards for future reprocessing 

17 or recycling, reprocessing and recycle facilities in 

18 the U.S. It is targeted toward that type of 

19 installation, and it does not take the position that 

20 somehow, this attractiveness issue eliminates the 

21 concern or reduces the concern about the need for 

22 Safeguards. 

23 I want to emphasize that there's been too 

24 much -- I think there's been a lot of wasted effort in 

25 trying to compare and contrast UREX and COEX and PUREX 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 191

1 and various other processes, including the 

2 electrochemical, and from the standpoint of does it 

3 reduce significantly issues associated with Safeguards 

4 and diversion. 

5 I think there has to be a different 

6 approach. There are activities that we hope will 

7 improve that area, and they're openly published. But 

8 I would just urge that there be good, close 

9 communications in that area. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Jim, and let's go to 

11 Susan, and then I have a question for you all. 

12 MS. CORBETT: I don't know exactly how to 

13 explain this, but I've read that reprocessing 

14 worldwide has created a large inventory stockpiled, 

15 because you can't -- they've never been able to feed 

16 all of the reprocessed materials back into the MOx 

17 program. 

18 So you've got these stockpiles, I think it 

19 was the IAEA website that I tallied up the amounts all 

20 over the world. It's like 250 metric tons of weapons21 usable material. So my question is, is there going to 

22 be some consideration in this about if we start 

23 getting behind in the MOx processes of fabrication, 

24 and we start getting these larger and larger amounts 

25 of this weapons-usable material, are we going to stop 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 192

1 until we use that, or are we just going to keep -- 

2 Are we going to get into a situation where 

3 we've got these larger and larger quantities, which 

4 logic would dictate the more you have of something, 

5 the more attractive it becomes, and perhaps it is to 

6 get ahold of. So is there some going to be an 

7 equation about not allowing this stuff to pile up? 

8 MR. WARD: Most NRC licensees, as part of 

9 their license, will have what are called possession 

10 limits, a maximum amount of different forms of both 

11 special nuclear material and other nuclear materials 

12 that they are allowed to possess. I imagine that, you 

13 know, the license for a reprocessing facility would 

14 likewise include possession limits. 

15 That would address that concern. I mean 

16 existing licensees have those today, and if they can't 

17 ship off material in time, then they have to tell 

18 people not to send them more material until they can 

19 get that backlog worked through. I anticipate that we 

20 would require the same of the reprocessing facility. 

21 (Off mic comment.) 

22 MR. WARD: Possession limits. 

23 (Off mic comment.) 

24 MR. WIDMAYER: Possession limits is part 

25 of Part 20. It's kind of fundamental to getting a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 193

1 license from the NRC. Every licensee has a possession 

2 limit. That's fundamental in Part 20, as opposed to -

3 - 

4 MS. CORBETT: But will the public know 

5 what those possession limits are, or is that 

6 classified? 

7 MR. WARD: Most, the vast majority of any 

8 facility's license is public, and off the top of my 

9 head, I do not know if the possession limits are 

10 public. Any of the other NRC staff here might know 

11 that off the top of their head. But the vast majority 

12 of the license is public, but the few exceptions, 

13 usually in the MC&A and security realm, those pipes 

14 are classified. 

15 MR. WIDMAYER: I think the possession 

16 limit, for example, plutonium, would be something that 

17 would be easy for you to find out. That's public 

18 information. What form it's in, maybe that's 

19 something that you wouldn't be able to know what that 

20 is. 

21 MS. CORBETT: I mean because we're talking 

22 about something totally new here for us really. This 

23 is not like stuff we've done before. So we are 

24 looking at a new animal here in reprocessing, so -- 

25 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 194

1 MS. CORBETT: Okay. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Rod. 

3 MR. McCULLUM: Yes. If I could speak to 

4 that specific question from an industry standpoint, I 

5 mean we always consider NRC requirements, you know, 

6 the minimum of what we do, and we always seek to 

7 exceed NRC requirements, and security is no different 

8 than safety. 

9 In fact, you know, while it's true, your 

10 possession licenses would restrict the amount of 

11 plutonium in various forms you could have, there's an 

12 industry aspect to this. I hesitate to use the word 

13 marketing, but that's kind of the way it's playing out 

14 right now, where the various technologies that are 

15 vying for support to develop reprocessing facilities, 

16 are looking to market their -- the fact that they will 

17 not separate out pure plutonium. 

18 You know, there's variance on the PUREX 

19 process that does separate out plutonium, you know, 

20 the NUEXs, the COEXs, and it's very likely that the 

21 industry will seek, on its own accords, to develop a 

22 process which, you know, keeps the plutonium with the 

23 neptunium or the uranium or whatever, so that we don't 

24 accumulate pure plutonium reserves at all in these 

25 facilities. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 195

1 That's just, in terms of making the 

2 technology variable to multiple communities such as 

3 yours that are concerned, that's something that 

4 industry's going to do for reasons other than 

5 regulation. 

6 So I would hope that the first applicant, 

7 whenever that occurs, would be able to say we're not 

8 relying on a possession license to limit our 

9 plutonium, but in fact we don't separate out pure 

10 plutonium. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I just want to make 

12 sure that there wasn't some important implications for 

13 the rulemaking, from what Jim Bresee just talked 

14 about, and I don't really understand what he was 

15 saying. But he was saying that an awful lot of -- not 

16 because it was Jim, but because it was me, okay. 

17 There was an awful lot of time wasted on 

18 trying to remember what you said, and you had some 

19 recommendations for Marshall and Steve. Do you know 

20 what he was talking about, and is that something that 

21 you guys are engaged in? 

22 MR. WARD: We work very closely with DOE 

23 and the labs. I believe we have a very good working 

24 relationship, and I think Jim's point was well-taken, 

25 which is DOE has done a lot of research into material 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 196

1 attractiveness, that we can take advantage of, rather 

2 than reinventing the wheel. I know from an MC&A 

3 standpoint, we certainly do that. We talk to our 

4 counterparts in DOE and try to use them as resources 

5 as often as we can. 

6 MR. KOHEN: Yes, and I would say from the 

7 security aspect, we work, again, very closely, not 

8 only with the DOE and NNSA security organizations, but 

9 the weapons community as well. 

10 I think, without prejudicing anything, I 

11 think what you'll eventually see when we revise our 

12 categorization table, is that it is going to look 

13 somewhat, somewhat like DOE's categorization table 

14 that it has been using for 20 or 25 years, that it is 

15 in the process of potentially revising itself. But 

16 there are small tweaks that they're doing to it. 

17 So we're not doing anything that's 

18 radically different from what DOE has done over 25 

19 years, and in fact, we have a requirement from the 

20 Commission to keep in constant contact with the 

21 Department of Energy in doing these things, and we've 

22 been doing it all along. So that's not a worry from 

23 our side. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Just to 

25 close the loop on Tom's mention of the petition, is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 197

1 there anything that could be said about the status of 

2 that? Is that still under review, I guess? 

3 MR. WARD: I unfortunately don't know 

4 anything about the status of it. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. We talked about the 

6 first bullet, and Susan sort of started us on the path 

7 of the Diversion Path issues. Is there more to be 

8 said by anybody on the second and third bullets, with 

9 a Diversion Path Analysis, what should it include, and 

10 which documents should NRC consider? Maybe that's a 

11 point well-taken from that recent discussion about 

12 what Jim was suggesting. Anything that anybody wants 

13 to add or question on -- Mark. 

14 MR. YEAGER: With regard to the third 

15 bullet, which documents should NRC staff consider to 

16 develop the rule language and guidance? As you 

17 already probably know, agreement states a few years 

18 back had to implement increased controls. 

19 So we kind of went from a regulatory 

20 agency that deals with health and safety, to one that 

21 had to deal with security, and that involved not 

22 weapons grade material but basically material that 

23 could be diverted to dirty bombs and dispersal 

24 devices. 

25 So we're kind of familiar with the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 198

1 Diversion Path Analysis, because part of our 

2 evaluation of these facilities, and the quantities, 

3 were defined by similar to what you brought up 

4 Marshall, how much of this material, special nuclear 

5 material in the proper forum is attractive. 

6 That's the same thing with us. How much 

7 do we need to be worried about, and there's certain 

8 licensees that have that. The primary example we have 

9 is cesium chloride, which is a very desirable isotope 

10 and the form is volatile. So it's something that's 

11 desirable. 

12 So what we had to do with our licensees 

13 was go through probably a very similar process, in 

14 that we had to evaluate the licensee's security, and 

15 then based on guidance from NRC, require them to put 

16 levels of security in place, to prevent the diversion, 

17 and also interdiction and try to foil the adversary, 

18 the potential adversary. 

19 And what we do is also proprietary. You 

20 know, if you FOIA'd that, we would not be allowed to 

21 go into great detail with that with you, because we 

22 don't want to compromise what our licensees are doing 

23 to protect it. 

24 But my recommendation to you, with regard 

25 to the question of what documents, since again, this 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 199

1 is a proposal for a commercial facility, not a 

2 facility on DOE property that has inherent security 

3 already in place, a commercial facility, I would, you 

4 know, ask that you -- because they exist, the 

5 processes that you implemented for us regarding 

6 increased controls and the requirement to, for a 

7 potential applicant to interact with local law 

8 enforcement. 

9 So if diversion is successful, what plan 

10 is in place to successfully interdict that successful 

11 removal from your jurisdiction. Again, it's kind of 

12 like a release, but in a different way to our side of 

13 the fence. We're concerned about interaction between 

14 NRC and the applicant with local and state law 

15 enforcement, to ensure that we have a plan in place to 

16 successfully foil the potential adversary. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Good comment. Thank you. 

18 Thank you, Mark. Anybody else on the second or third 

19 bullet? Oh, I'm sorry. Susan. 

20 MS. CORBETT: I was going to add to that, 

21 you might want to have some kind of special training 

22 for local police around facilities like that, 

23 interaction with special training with that too. 

24 MR. YEAGER: Essentially they do that 

25 MS. CORBETT: They do that already? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 200

1 (Off mic comment.) 

2 MS. CORBETT: Have the Barnwell police 

3 been trained? 

4 MR. YEAGER: Yes, they are. 

5 MS. CORBETT: Okay, good. That's good. 

6 MR. YEAGER: There is a relationship, but 

7 yes. There is -- if local law enforcement does become 

8 part of that increased control plan, we are in touch 

9 with them ourselves to provide technical reachback, 

10 and the licensee is also there, because they have 

11 expertise for technical reachback. 

12 We currently already have working 

13 relationships through Homeland Security and DNDO with 

14 the state transport police. We're technical reachback 

15 for them and SLED. So there's already programs in 

16 place that we're involved with, that we periodically 

17 go out and work with law enforcement, so they can 

18 recognize things. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay. How about the fourth 

20 bullet? Specific challenges, potential licensee 

21 community, in terms of MC&A for Cat 1, of which 

22 reprocessing will be one. Rod. 

23 MR. McCULLUM: I just want to reiterate, I 

24 actually addressed our concern on the fourth bullet 

25 when I talked about the first bullet, that the only 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 201

1 challenge would be is if you don't complete the risk2 informing Part 73 and 74 and subcategorization in a 

3 timely manner, in front of the reprocessing rule, and 

4 you've recategorized as Category 1. 

5 You create a sticking point from somebody 

6 trying to develop a reprocessing facility ahead of 

7 that. But as long as all of this is sequenced in a 

8 logical manner, we don't see any. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Susan. 

10 MS. CORBETT: I think as a potential 

11 member of the community, if something does go missing, 

12 I would like to know. So is that in the plan? 

13 MR. CAMERON: How does that work? 

14 MR. KOHEN: I guess, let me ask a question 

15 back to you. What do you mean by "missing"? 

16 (Laughter.) 

17 MS. CORBETT: If it gets diverted, or 

18 material unaccounted for, yes. 

19 MR. KOHEN: Two different things. 

20 MS. CORBETT: Okay. I'm sorry. I'm 

21 sitting here, okay. 

22 MR. KOHEN: That's why I asked the 

23 question. I'm not sure it changes the answer. There 

24 are -- I'm not sure I can answer you specifically, in 

25 terms of, you know, how quickly the public would find 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 202

1 out. 

2 Obviously, there are a series of measures 

3 that would have to be taken by the licensee, by other 

4 organizations to recapture the material, figure out 

5 and do nuclear forensics, for example, and where other 

6 federal level organizations are involved, even if they 

7 weren't, and they would be, there would be a time 

8 period that there would be an investigation. 

9 There would be recapture, there would be 

10 investigation, and those things, just like in any 

11 other type of investigation, and that would not be 

12 something that would be released. 

13 But I would say we don't have any 

14 evidence, and we have no instances of diversion in 

15 this country. So right. So we haven't -- 

16 MS. CORBETT: We have to plan for the 

17 unprobable. 

18 MR. KOHEN: Absolutely we have plans. 

19 That's not to say that we don't have plans. 

20 Certainly, we haven't had to exercise them, luckily 

21 enough. 

22 MS. CORBETT: That doesn't mean we 

23 shouldn't have a plan. 

24 MR. KOHEN: Oh absolutely, and there are. 

25 There are contingency plans for every scenario that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 203

1 we have analyzed, in determining our physical 

2 protection structure. So there certainly are 

3 contingencies. 

4 MS. CORBETT: Well, that was just my 

5 question. As a member of the community, would I be 

6 alerted? Is there somebody lose in the community 

7 with, you know, a shoe box full of some diverted 

8 weapons material? 

9 I mean as a member of the community, I 

10 think it might -- I might want to know that and will 

11 that be part of the plan? You don't have to tell me 

12 now. I just think it should be considered. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Tell her where the shoe box 

14 is. 

15 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

16 MR. CLEMENTS: There was no -- there was 

17 no diversion of uranium to Israel. Is that NRC's 

18 position? 

19 MR. WIDMAYER: We would tell you that it's 

20 been diverted in a shoe box, but we can't describe the 

21 shoe box to you, and we can't tell you where it is and 

22 -- 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Is there anything 

24 else in this MC&A security arena, in terms of 

25 reprocessing facilities, that anybody wants to discuss 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 204

1 at this point? We have the experts here. Anything at 

2 all, and anything that Marshall or Steve want to say, 

3 in summary on this topic? Derek. 

4 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes, and I don't know how 

5 this fits into the big picture. It was just something 

6 that jumped out at me that's not here. Maybe the 

7 staff didn't find any gaps, and that's one reason why 

8 it's not here or anyway, it's the cybersecurity biz. 

9 You know, we're talking about threats to 

10 the facility, and this is one of the ones that is 

11 somewhat of a new thing. But we're dealing a lot with 

12 it at the committee level with nuclear power plants, 

13 and that's, you know, wreaking havoc on a facility by 

14 hacking into their control systems, as opposed to 

15 actually doing it with some sort of physical threat. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Go to Marshall on that 

17 MR. KOHEN: Right. That's a good 

18 question. As you know, as many of you probably know, 

19 there is a rule now in place since 73.55, 73.56 for 

20 cybersecurity for nuclear power plants. We are 

21 currently in the process of discussing, within the 

22 NRC, how to approach cybersecurity when it comes to 

23 fuel cycle facilities. 

24 I won't say it was easy to put the rule in 

25 place for nuclear power plants, but one aspect is that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 205

1 power plants are somewhat similar in their structure, 

2 in their systems and components, and we don't find 

3 that in the fuel cycle. There's a wide variety of 

4 facilities, a wide variety of materials, a wide 

5 variety of systems and components, both for safety and 

6 security. 

7 And so it's going to take a little bit of 

8 thought to figure out how to develop regulations and 

9 then guidance in the area of cybersecurity. Rest 

10 assured, we understand the threat and we understand 

11 that it is ever-changing, and please understand that 

12 we are actively engaged in the analysis of how to 

13 develop regulations and guidance on cyber for fuel 

14 cycle facilities, of which a reprocessing facility 

15 would be one. 

16 MR. McCULLUM: So to clarify, any such 

17 rulemaking in cybersecurity affecting a reprocessing 

18 facility would not occur in this rulemaking; it would 

19 occur over in 73-74 space? 

20 MR. KOHEN: I can't say for sure, but I 

21 would gather that that's correct. 

22 MR. CAMERON: That's the same model that's 

23 followed for reactors. 

24 MR. McCULLUM: That sounds like the right 

25 place for it. That's why I wanted to make sure. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 206

1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Derek, anything else 

2 on cyber? 

3 And Susan? 

4 (Off mic comment.) 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Yes, Bret. Bret 

6 Leslie. 

7 DR. LESLIE: Bret Leslie, NRC staff. It's 

8 kind of a clarification question, and either Marshall 

9 or Rod will be able to address this. Rod, you talked 

10 a couple of times about scheduling things. 

11 My recollection is for the risk-informing 

12 or the categorization, the Commission in their SRM 

13 said that categorization for reprocessing should not 

14 be on the same time line as the rest of the rule. Am 

15 I misinterpreting, and how does that reflect the time 

16 line that Rod seems to be thinking he needs, or wants 

17 to be developed? 

18 MR. KOHEN: That is, you've characterized 

19 it properly. You've characterized the language in the 

20 SRM properly. The Commission did say that we were not 

21 to consider categorization of material for the 

22 purposes of reprocessing on the same schedule as the 

23 Part 73 rulemaking. 

24 Later on in the SRM, there was a 

25 discussion of, to the effect of until and unless there 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 207

1 is a serious proposal for a specific reprocessing 

2 technology. So that seemed to us to be one of the 

3 delimiters, as to when we would do that. Having said 

4 that, the materials and the types and forms that would 

5 be found at a reprocessing facility are likely to be 

6 found at other facilities. 

7 As I said, one of our focuses in the Part 

8 73 rulemaking is to be more on material types, and 

9 less on types of facilities. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Does that take care of it? 

11 Let's continue out here. We're going to go to Ed, and 

12 if you could just introduce yourself. 

13 MR. LAHODA: Ed Lahoda from Westinghouse 

14 Electric. I guess the main concern I would have is 

15 not the PU or the U and stuff like that. It's the 

16 waste and the liquids and everything that are in the 

17 plant, being taken from the plant. 

18 Now what are your plans to control that, 

19 because as Mr. Yeager pointed out, it's the dirty 

20 bombs and stuff like that could be, doesn't take any 

21 big technology to do anything with, and it can be just 

22 as destructive and economically hurtful? 

23 MR. CAMERON: Yes. How about those types 

24 of materials that we don't normally, that are not up 

25 on the big horizon? Steve. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 208

1 MR. WARD: Well first off, under our 

2 current regulations, at least for MC&A, there is no 

3 real distinguishing feature of waste. If it's at the 

4 site and it contains special nuclear material, it is 

5 subject to the site's MC&A program. There are cases, 

6 there are cases where sites have asked for exemptions 

7 due to certain controls and features of the waste. 

8 But there's nothing in regulation right 

9 now that separates it. However, the waste, the forms 

10 of waste would really fall into the discussion of 

11 material attractiveness, and so I'll let Marshall. 

12 MR. KOHEN: Okay. So I guess another 

13 thing to point out is that the material categorization 

14 scheme currently, and is intended to continue to be, 

15 focused on special nuclear material, and that's 

16 defined in the regulations. So if it falls into that 

17 category of material, then it would be covered by the 

18 material categorization scheme. 

19 I guess one other thing I would say, and 

20 maybe it's sort of an ancillary point, one of the 

21 things that has come down in the last several years is 

22 the Department of Homeland Security put out a draft 

23 final rules on security of chemicals, and that is 

24 something that we are actively working on, how to 

25 address. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 209

1 There was an exception in the rule for NRC 

2 facilities, but we recognize that there are some 

3 chemicals that are inherent at our licensees that are 

4 dangerous, and that we need to protect in some way. 

5 We're currently working with the 

6 Department of Homeland Security and eventually we'll 

7 be putting up a Commission paper, talking to the -- 

8 giving the Commission some information that we, some 

9 analysis that we've done on what we think should be 

10 done with those chemicals. 

11 So we are considering other things, other 

12 than special nuclear material. But within the Part 73 

13 rulemaking, that would be -- it would be relatively 

14 minimal. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Good to know about 

16 the Homeland Security chemical thing. Jim? 

17 MR. BRESEE: Yes. Just this particular 

18 comment. It probably has wider application, but it's 

19 specifically applicable to the issue of diversion 

20 detection. In my judgment, the most likely commercial 

21 facility involving reprocessing in the future, if 

22 there ever is one in this country, will be intimately 

23 and directly connected with fuel fabrication. 

24 So that the combined facility is really 

25 what would be subject to this type of diversion 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 210

1 control. Certainly, the present situation in France, 

2 where plutonium, separated plutonium, is produced at 

3 the north end of the country, and used at the south 

4 end for that purpose, would be the opposite extreme. 

5 I'm talking about increasingly integrated 

6 systems of the future. If that concept is at least in 

7 the back of the minds of those who are developing the 

8 types of regulatory controls, I think it would be of 

9 some value, because it definitely addresses that one 

10 most obvious problem associated with current practice. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Jim. Alex, you 

12 had something you wanted to add. 

13 MR. SCHMUCKMEYER: Thank you very much. 

14 My name is Fred Schmuckmeyer. I'm with the public. 

15 I was listening to the conversation about ten minutes 

16 ago. There was a reference to the Brookhaven report 

17 and there was a little bit of discussion about how 

18 potential companies that are interested in 

19 reprocessing, were coming up with different blends 

20 that they thought would be more, how do I say it, less 

21 attractive, more proliferation-resistant. 

22 I was just going to ask the panel, I guess 

23 it's more industry and NRC, but maybe Tom has some 

24 thoughts on this as well, is there any point of -- are 

25 there any considerations to find a point where, as you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 211

1 go from 100 percent plutonium to 100 percent uranium, 

2 where there's a point where there's enough of a change 

3 in either the isotopic mixture, or in say physical 

4 form, co-precipitated versus powders, or fuel rods 

5 versus synthoid (ph) pallets, whatever, integrated 

6 versus unintegrated facilities, what have you, where 

7 some sort of threshold is crossed, where the material 

8 is now less attractive from a proliferation 

9 perspective. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, sir. Anybody 

11 want to take that? Sven? 

12 MR. BADER: Alex, you're probably aware 

13 of the Bathke report, that Dr. Charles Bathke at Los 

14 Alamos put together, with what Jim referred to 

15 earlier. Yes, AREVA has looked at that report and the 

16 amount of uranium that you have to add to the 

17 plutonium, I think it was 80 percent had to be 

18 uranium. That was not doable in a PUREX-like process 

19 that we had envisioned. 

20 So you know, we definitely considered it, 

21 and I mean, you know, the COEX process is a process 

22 that's AREVA's pursuing to commercialize. We believe 

23 that there's really no proliferation-resistant 

24 technology available right now. 

25 MR. CAMERON: And Jim is shaking his head 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 212

1 affirmatively on that. What I was going to suggest, 

2 we're going to continue to go out to anybody in the 

3 audience who wants to talk. 

4 But since we did get sort of a late start, 

5 I'm not sure it makes sense to break and then come 

6 back, as opposed to continuing with the program, which 

7 has last comments around the table when we're done 

8 with the audience. Then Jack is going to have 

9 something to say to close the meeting out for us. 

10 Does anybody have a problem with just pushing through? 

11 MR. McCULLUM: Yes. There's a number of 

12 people who have to leave at four to catch flights, 

13 including myself. So if we could just press onward, 

14 and get through that. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay, all right. Audience, 

16 let's go, and I think Brandon, you know. Okay. 

17 DR. HAYES: Thank you. Could you please 

18 clarify for me why, since the government has decided 

19 to go down the path of spent nuclear fuel 

20 reprocessing, that the decision has been made to 

21 commercialize the process, since we have so many 

22 different facilities, federal facilities and 

23 personnel, and equipment with extensive backgrounds in 

24 nuclear engineering, nuclear chemistry, nuclear 

25 physics? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 213

1 An example would be the H Canyon at SRS, 

2 and understanding there would have to be modifications 

3 and upgrading to enter into this kind of processing. 

4 But I mean the facility is there, and it does have 

5 potential. 

6 Secondly, since there's about 60,000 

7 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in our inventory 

8 now, and that's growing by some couple of thousand 

9 tons a year, what do you estimate will be the time 

10 requirement for utilizing all of that inventory, and 

11 will there be additional waste that needs reprocessing 

12 in this overall process picture, as the spent nuclear 

13 fuel is reprocessed in these commercial facilities? 

14 MR. CAMERON: I don't know who wants to -- 

15 Rod wants to address that, and Dr. Hayes made a 

16 statement at the beginning about -- of her comment 

17 about the government's decision to go down the road on 

18 reprocessing. I don't know if that is -- someone 

19 might want to address that, and -- go ahead, Rod. 

20 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, and the gentleman from 

21 DOE can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll start out by 

22 saying I don't think any such decision has been made. 

23 This is being driven by an interest in commercial 

24 reprocessing on the part of the industry I represent, 

25 and it's more on the federal level and the policy 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 214

1 level, the Blue Ribbon Commission is also looking at 

2 it, and the Blue Ribbon Commission agrees that before 

3 anybody, be it industry or government, can make 

4 decisions about whether or not to move forward with 

5 reprocessing, they need to know what the rules are. 

6 I think that's going to come out as a 

7 pretty solid Blue Ribbon Commission recommendation. I 

8 think that satisfies -- continuing on that path 

9 satisfies industry's need to know what the rules are, 

10 so we can decide whether or not the entities and 

11 industry that are interested in reprocessing can make 

12 a business case for doing so. 

13 All of this does not exclude the 

14 possibility that existing government facilities might 

15 have a role to play in this. They might very well. 

16 It's just you'd have to see what entity came forward, 

17 who they partnered with, where their funding came from 

18 and, you know, all that. So but that's all stuff that 

19 can't come together until we know what the rules are. 

20 So yes, there's no decision to go down a 

21 path of any sort, and certainly no decision to go down 

22 a path that would exclude the use of the resources at 

23 a place like Savannah River. 

24 MR. CAMERON: And anything on some of the 

25 specific questions that Dr. Hayes had? Anybody have 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 215

1 anything to offer on that? Sven. 

2 MR. BADER: I'll try to add a little bit. 

3 I'm not going to make a commercial pitch here, but 

4 you know, one of the reasons the commercial industry 

5 such as AREVA is interested in doing this is, you 

6 know, there's this perception that DOE is involved 

7 with the plutonium bomb cycle. 

8 The commercial industry is not involved in 

9 that cycle. So if we separate the two and regulate 

10 one by a public institution such as the NRC, there's 

11 definitely more opportunity for public input. 

12 In addition, AREVA believes we have a 

13 better product to offer to what existing facilities 

14 are out there, you know, that we -- when I say better, 

15 we have the experience in La Hague doing some 

16 commercial basis, and we believe that that experience 

17 has helped us provide Rokkasho with a path forward, 

18 and potential other clients. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Do you want to -- go ahead. 

20 DR. HAYES: I think that one of the issues 

21 that might come up in the commercialization of the 

22 process versus federal control is that under the 

23 federal control, there has been certain commitments 

24 made for transparency. If you move this process into 

25 the commercialization arena, then proprietary issues 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 216

1 may come up, and the same kind of transparency for the 

2 public would become muddied. 

3 I think that's a big public concern. 

4 Could you address that, and also could somebody 

5 address this thing of, this question of how long it 

6 would take to process all this inventory we have? 

7 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I forgot to -- I'm 

8 sorry I didn't. I'll address the last question first. 

9 I had forgot to do that when I was addressing your 

10 other questions. I mean there is not an intent at 

11 this point to reprocess all of the used nuclear fuel 

12 that exists out there. Nobody's proposing that. 

13 There's 65,000 metric tons. Some of that will go to 

14 direct disposal. 

15 Certainly anybody who designs a 

16 reprocessing facility is going to design it and have 

17 targeted an optimal age range for the fuel. Since 

18 whatever age range they pick, whether they want to go 

19 after old fuel for certain reasons or new fuel for 

20 certain different reasons, you know, it won't make 

21 much sense for them to go out and reprocess all kinds 

22 of fuel. 

23 So there will be used nuclear fuel that 

24 will go directly to a repository, no matter how 

25 successful the commercial ventures for reprocessing 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 217

1 are. What was the other question again? 

2 MR. WIDMAYER: How long will it take? 

3 MR. McCULLUM: Well, it will take -- that 

4 answer is infinite, because we will not endeavor to 

5 reprocess all of it. 

6 MR. CAMERON: The other issue was what are 

7 the implications of, that come from proprietary 

8 information? 

9 MR. McCULLUM: Oh yes. No, the answer to 

10 that is exactly the process we're going through right 

11 now. While various competing technologies may have 

12 proprietary things, when it goes down, you know, to 

13 applying for a license, in the very public NRC 

14 process, they will have to demonstrate, in a very 

15 public way, exactly what they do to protect public 

16 health and safety. 

17 We will not be able, and I don't think 

18 we've ever been able to in any NRC licensing process, 

19 hide behind the proprietary moniker, to not reveal 

20 what we do to make our facilities safe. So I think 

21 the answer to assuring that there's the same 

22 transparency in a commercial project as there would be 

23 in a government project, and I kind of laugh, because 

24 I'm not equating DOE with transparency for some 

25 reason, but -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 218

1 (Laughter.) 

2 MR. McCULLUM: To make sure you have the 

3 optimal amount of transparency, the answer is 

4 participate and do exactly what you're doing today. 

5 Participate in the NRC process. Make sure the rule 

6 addresses all the things that you need to know, to 

7 assure that the safety of your community is protected, 

8 and that's how it will be done. 

9 MR. CAMERON: And we're going to go to 

10 Brett Klukan. Did I get that? 

11 MR. KLUKAN: You did get it right. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Oh my God. 

13 MR. KLUKAN: This goes to the proprietary 

14 comment. We often deal with requests for -- when I 

15 say proprietary, I mean commercial secrets or trade 

16 information. We get requests from the public, who 

17 desire to participate in the adjudicatory process for 

18 this. 

19 I've never heard of an instance in which 

20 we denied the public a request, assuming those members 

21 of the public are willing to sign a non-disclosure 

22 agreement. I mean that's a separate issue from 

23 security or information withheld because of security 

24 concerns. 

25 But the NRC has a pretty transparent 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 219

1 process, and by transparent I mean well-documented 

2 process for how the public would gain access to 

3 proprietary information in the context of an 

4 adjudicatory proceeding, and also through the FOIA 

5 process as well. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Brett, and 

7 Suzanne, do you have anything? Okay. Yes. 

8 MR. MURRAY: Hi. It's Alex Murray again. 

9 I picked up the past couple of days, there have been 

10 some questions about quantities and time that it might 

11 take if you were to reprocess a fuel and so forth. I 

12 wanted just to give a very quick perspective, first, 

13 on how much spent fuel there is. 

14 There are approximately 65,000 tons. That 

15 sounds like a lot of spent fuel. However, if there 

16 was a swimming pool the size of a football field, I 

17 know it's not football season yet, but it's a good 

18 metaphor, okay, that swimming pool could accommodate 

19 all of that spent fuel in that football field size in 

20 wet storage. 

21 If it were done as dry cast storage, which 

22 is what the power plants are transitioning to, it 

23 would take somewhere between the equivalent of 25 and 

24 30 football fields to accommodate those 65,000 tons or 

25 so, round numbers. So in terms of quantities and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 220

1 size, it's not that much. 

2 Now the other part, which I want to make 

3 clear, is get some perspectives on processing rates 

4 and times, if reprocessing were to occur. Right now, 

5 there are four, and I'll use the term, modern 

6 reprocessing plants in the world, okay. The two at La 

7 Hague, one in England and one in Japan. 

8 They're basically built in an 800 to 1,000 

9 ton module, okay. That's just how it worked out. I 

10 don't think it was by any sort of pre-planning or pre11 thought. It just occurred that way. Given that the 

12 U.S. utilities generate between 2,200 and 2,500 tons 

13 of spent fuel a year, you would need three of those 

14 plants just to break even with the current generation 

15 of spent fuel, if you were to reprocess all of it. 

16 If you have a backlog of 65,000 tons, you 

17 would need 25 years, something like that, 30 years to 

18 work through that backlog, with three additional 

19 plants of that size, just to put it in perspective. 

20 That's why industry and the Department of Energy might 

21 decide hey, you don't do all of it or you do part of 

22 it or something. But it's up to them. We're just the 

23 regulated. Thank you. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Okay, thanks 

25 Alex for that information. I think we're ready to go 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 221

1 to see if there's final comments around the table on 

2 the entire meeting, on any part of the meeting, and 

3 then we're going to hear from Jack Davis. Mark, you 

4 mind if we start with you down here? Okay. 

5 MR. YEAGER: I really don't have any 

6 specific comments. I just would like to thank Chip 

7 for inviting South Carolina to participate. I've 

8 certainly learned a lot, and I'll take a lot back to 

9 work and share with our management, and also be giving 

10 the report to the board at CRCPB. So it was a very 

11 enlightening experience, and I appreciate it. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Great, and Kevin, we're just 

13 going around to see if -- give people a chance to make 

14 any comments they have about the process or put 

15 anything on the table on any particular issue, 

16 whatever. So go ahead. 

17 MR. STRICKLAND: Well, that was a 

18 certainly enlightening experiment, to hear everybody's 

19 perspective on this, and I don't really have anything 

20 additional to add on it. But I'd like to thank 

21 everybody for their comments and their time. 

22 MR. CAMERON: And Rod? 

23 MR. McCULLUM: Yes. I just want to start 

24 by thanking, you know, the NRC and Chip for putting 

25 this on. This is the right way to do rulemaking. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 222

1 This has been extremely helpful for us. The document 

2 provided and the discussion we've had have been an 

3 excellent window into where NRC is in its thought 

4 processes, and it provided an excellent opportunity 

5 for us to provide comments. 

6 This is the third in a series of 

7 workshops. We look forward to moving to the next 

8 step. We think that NRC has a good path forward. 

9 We're pleased that you've embraced the Part 7X 

10 philosophy, and recognize that this regulation falls 

11 into between reactors and fuel cycle facilities. 

12 We're pleased that NRC has embraced the risk-informed 

13 performance based technology neutral approach. 

14 The plan to address gaps appears to be the 

15 right, you're looking at the right gaps, and you are 

16 addressing them. There are obviously some things we 

17 disagree on. We've had a chance to state those. We 

18 will be following up this meeting with a written 

19 comment letter by July 7th. 

20 The most significant of those is the 

21 safety analysis methodology questions. Of course, We 

22 have our letter out there with our white paper on ISA, 

23 which we believe is the preferred method. The reason 

24 that's the most important is because that really 

25 drives a lot of the other things. You know, this 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 223

1 regulation, to be risk-informed and performance-based, 

2 it needs to be driven by the safety analysis. So we 

3 have to get that piece right. 

4 I think you heard both from the industry 

5 and other stakeholders that a one-step-only approach 

6 is not preferred. Very important that this be a 

7 holistic rule, that you not have interfaces between 

8 regulations inside the facility, and the facility be 

9 broadly defined. 

10 I think as Jim just mentioned, you know, 

11 you put the fuel fabrication with the separation. You 

12 would not want to have Part 72 facilities inside Part 

13 7X facilities. So making sure you have a holistic 

14 regulation. There are also things that I think we 

15 agree in principle on, but more work is needed to be 

16 done, which can be done further down in the rulemaking 

17 process, details on GDC and the specific Price 

18 Anderson framework are just a couple of examples. 

19 The final thing I'll say is because this 

20 is a critical path to decision-making, the Blue Ribbon 

21 Commission agrees with this, that whatever decisions 

22 and whenever the United States makes those decisions 

23 about reprocessing, recycling plutonium recovery, 

24 whatever you want to call it, those decisions cannot 

25 be made without the rule being in place. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 224

1 So until NRC completes this rulemaking, 

2 the country is forever in a stalemate on the issue of 

3 should we do this or shouldn't we, and for that 

4 reason, we would hope that NRC would hold to its 2015 

5 schedule. We're concerned to hear that funding may 

6 cause that slip now to 2017. So we're encouraging the 

7 effort to continue on the path it's on, and we'd like 

8 for it to continue on the pace that it's on as well. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Rod. I'm going 

10 to keep going with the external participants, and 

11 we'll go to see if any of the NRC staff, before we 

12 hear from Jack, have anything final to add on this, 

13 and that the staff did a great job, throughout the two 

14 days, on their presentations. 

15 Let's go to Sven and I'm counting Derek in 

16 as external, external to the staff. Sven? 

17 MR. BADER: I appreciate that. I think, 

18 you know, what Rod stated for industry applies to me 

19 as well. You have the schedules are one thing. I 

20 think that it's the most significant impact to us, to 

21 make an economic assessment of moving forward on this, 

22 you know, as well as keeping a holistic approach, 

23 being able to license the facility for the multiple 

24 different facilities that we might have there, such as 

25 spent fuel pool or dry storage area, a set-down area, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 225

1 a high level waste storage and so forth. 

2 I think if you look at it in an integrated 

3 process, I think what we're trying to achieve in the 

4 United States is moving back to an integrated process, 

5 looking at the whole cycle, the whole fuel cycle. We 

6 believe, AREVA believes that this is one of the main 

7 features of that integrated cycle. 

8 I would like to caveat a little bit of 

9 this one-step, two-step. Yes, AREVA's definitely 

10 interested in a one-step approach. I'm not sure that 

11 the first facility would fall under that category. 

12 But definitely if it were future facilities, that 

13 would be something that we're going to take advantage 

14 of. 

15 We'd like to then believe that we do have 

16 -- well, we don't believe. We actually do have 

17 operating facilities around the world. We're involved 

18 in, you know, we run a facility La Hague, through 

19 design. We're trying to help Sellafield. We have 

20 helped Rokkasho, and yes, certainly Rokkasho's had 

21 some problem, but I think they're going to push 

22 through as well. If you hadn't heard, it was a 

23 vitrification (ph) problem. 

24 Once they've pushed through that, 

25 hopefully their fuel fabrication facility will get 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 226

1 built. Of course, everything at Fukushima has turned 

2 that all, a little bit in doubt. Otherwise, you know, 

3 again, I appreciate the invitation and I hope next 

4 time maybe we'll get a little more leeway, a little 

5 more advance warning. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

7 MR. BADER: Thanks. 

8 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Derek. 

9 MR. WIDMAYER: Thanks. I guess sort of 

10 repeating fundamentals of my initial caveats. I don't 

11 represent the Committee and I was asked to come, 

12 representing the staff. In that regard, I did ask for 

13 some help in preparation for the meeting, and myself 

14 and the other staff person who reviewed the materials, 

15 we thought that the gap analysis was well done, and 

16 that it asked the right questions. 

17 We think that the staff did a good job in 

18 putting that together, and that that was a good first, 

19 fundamental step in, you know, doing this proposed 

20 rulemaking, getting to the part where you do actual 

21 rulemaking. Then the second thing was that from the 

22 Committee's standpoint, to echo two things that were 

23 brought up at a meeting. 

24 One was that I think it definitely would 

25 be in support of a two-step process for licensing, at 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 227

1 least for the initial facility, whatever it is, that 

2 we're talking about. Then was the safety analysis 

3 question. The Committee has been on record for a 

4 while, and remains on record, that it would like to 

5 see some sort of PRA-type analysis that helps you 

6 prioritize your inspection process in particular. 

7 So I think, as I reported before, the 

8 hybrid approach that's being discussed, and the gap 

9 analysis, I think, is workable, you know. They have 

10 to see how it plays out. 

11 In that regard, I would suggest that 

12 coming to the Committee, the earlier, the better, as 

13 far as whatever approach you were going to take in 

14 explaining along the way to the Committee members, 

15 particularly in trying to get agreement of those 

16 particular members who are very focused on PRA. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, 

18 Derek, and Jim. 

19 MR. BRESEE: Thanks for the opportunity to 

20 participate. I was privileged to be involved in the 

21 first of these three meetings, and I must say, I was 

22 very impressed with the progress that has been made, 

23 and I look forward to any additional help that the 

24 fuel cycle research program can provide in future 

25 activities involved with this rulemaking process. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 228

1 Thanks also to a very well-organized 

2 meeting and all the work that went into the two days 

3 that we've had here. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, and Tom, let's go 

5 to you. 

6 MR. CLEMENTS: This is Tom Clements with 

7 Friends of the Earth. I hesitated to participate in 

8 this panel, first not knowing if I had anything to 

9 contribute, and for some other reasons. But I'm glad 

10 I did. I personally learned some things, and 

11 appreciated the interaction with everyone here, and 

12 thanks to you, Chip, and the staff. 

13 I do think that this exercise is an 

14 academic exercise, rather than one that's going to 

15 lead to reprocessing plants being constructed. So I 

16 see no need to put this development of the regulations 

17 on a fast track, and don't see the need for making 

18 sure that there's a larger budget to do this. 

19 As we look around the world, with the 

20 reprocessing plants that Alex mentioned and some 

21 others, I think it's quite instructive to look at the 

22 British situation, where the Thorp plant and the 

23 Sellafield MOx plant have been really utter disasters. 

24 They've not performed anywhere near planning for them. 

25 No plutonium has been reused. No uranium has been 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 229

1 reused that's been separated. 

2 The Russian facility, RT1, no plutonium 

3 has been reused. After all these years and maybe 35 

4 metrics tons were accumulated, no reprocessed uranium 

5 has been reused. Rokkasho is in some trouble, and we 

6 have the West Valley experience here in the United 

7 States and Savannah River site. 

8 There really, the MOx program is showing 

9 that there's great hesitancy in the United States to 

10 use MOx in light water reactors. Other reactors don't 

11 exist. The reprocessing technologies are up in the 

12 air. So I think a slow pace towards developing 

13 regulations is certainly called for, and I would 

14 certainly support that. 

15 I've been watching this from afar, but 

16 it's good to be a little bit more up close, and I'll 

17 continue to monitor it here from South Carolina, 

18 because we are concerned that we may be a focus of 

19 location of a reprocessing plant. So from a public 

20 interest perspective and public perspective, I will be 

21 discussing this with more people around here as things 

22 proceed. But I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

23 today. Thank you. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Tom, and Susan? 

25 MS. CORBETT: Thank you, and I really 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 230

1 appreciate being invited to participate in this. As a 

2 lay person, I have learned a tremendous amount, and I 

3 appreciate your tolerance of my sometimes maybe stupid 

4 questions. But I think it's always good to have a lay 

5 person from the community at the table, to ask 

6 questions that the public may want to know. 

7 Like Tom and Mary, I had some reservations 

8 about this, because I feel like I'm kind of 

9 constructing the tent for the camel to stick his nose 

10 in. But I guess if there's going to be a tent, I 

11 would want to be a part of putting it up, so I can 

12 keep an eye on that camel. 

13 Because we are very suspicious of moving 

14 towards a plutonium economy. We have Sierra Club, 

15 we're talking about Sierra Club. We have never felt 

16 that we want to make plutonium the energy coin of the 

17 realm, and we're very concerned about that. We're 

18 very concerned about the costs of reprocessing. 

19 Worldwide, it's just an enormous cost, and 

20 we don't know in this economy how that would get 

21 funded. We're concerned about creating more waste, 

22 even though as it's supposed to be reducing it. 

23 Actually, we know for our experiences at Savannah 

24 River site, that there's a tremendous legacy of waste 

25 that require an enormous amount of effort to clean up 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 231

1 and deal with. 

2 We're concerned about proliferation risks, 

3 and I'm afraid in my lifetime or in my children's 

4 lifetime or my grandchildren, we're going to see the 

5 repercussions of stockpiled weapons, usable materials 

6 somewhere in the world. Hopefully not here, but who 

7 knows? 

8 We think the better solution is to go to 

9 hardened on site storage and get busy finding a 

10 geologic repository based on good science and not on 

11 politics. It's obviously going to have to more than 

12 one. We think if we're going to go forward with 

13 nuclear power, that's the only way. The once through 

14 is the only way to do that. 

15 But thank you all. I've really enjoyed 

16 meeting all of you, and I appreciate the opportunity 

17 to be here. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Susan, and does 

19 anybody on the NRC staff want to offer something. 

20 Let's find that out, and then we'll see if there's any 

21 last public statements, and then we're going to have 

22 Jack come up. Bret Leslie. 

23 DR. LESLIE: Bret Leslie, NRC staff. I 

24 said right before lunch that there were a couple of 

25 things that I had wanted to ask, when we were talking 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 232

1 about safety and that discussion. Basically, it 

2 concerns Gap 5. We're touching around the edges of 

3 it, and if you read the summary, it doesn't -- I don't 

4 think we touched on it well enough. 

5 Reactor side, all licensees have a 

6 regulatory limit, dose limit. Reactor side has a 

7 safety goal policy. NMSS and Waste Arena has 

8 quantitative health guidelines that are captured in 

9 the risk-informed decision-making document for 

10 materials and waste, and I don't think it's tied 

11 directly on our website for reprocessing, but we'll 

12 get it up there. 

13 But that discussion in there, in terms of 

14 criteria, it's about the lower side. So I think part 

15 of the discussion that we didn't -- talking about 

16 ALARA and driving down, that was about accident 

17 sequences. When do you -- what's the bottom? 

18 So I guess for a little, I would suggest 

19 people go back and read that after you go look at the 

20 risk-informed decision-making document, because we've 

21 been told to consider these as we go forward, and that 

22 maybe didn't come out well enough in our slides. But 

23 I did want to let everyone know about that. Thanks. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Bret, for that 

25 reminder on that. Let's go to Yawar. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 233

1 MR. FARAZ: Yes. I found this meeting to 

2 be very, very helpful, to myself, I think. We got 

3 some very good input from the stakeholders. At least 

4 compared to the last two workshops, I think this was a 

5 lot more productive. I'm happy to hear that NEI will 

6 be submitting its written comments on our summary 

7 document that we've put out, and what we've discussed 

8 in this meeting. 

9 I would strongly encourage the other 

10 stakeholders to also submit their input, and base 

11 their input, you know, primarily on the summary 

12 document that we've put out. You know, go through it 

13 and see if there's anything in there that you would 

14 like to add, or some things in there that don't make 

15 sense to you. 

16 I would really very strongly recommend 

17 that you do that. We've used this meeting to try and 

18 get as much as we can, and I don't think we were 

19 diligent enough to cover all areas. We may not have 

20 been. So I would very, strongly encourage you to go 

21 back and look at the summary document and go through 

22 it very carefully, and then provide any other feedback 

23 that you think is needed. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks Yawar, and I 

25 would just thank all of the members of the public who 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 234

1 came and listened, and also offered comments during 

2 the meeting. So thank you very much. Jack, I think 

3 we'll turn it over to you, and the table, podium. All 

4 right. 

5 MR. DAVIS: Well, I wanted to thank all of 

6 the panel participants, as well as the members of the 

7 audience, for their active participation in the 

8 discussions over the last two days. I think it's been 

9 extremely useful to me and certainly to the NRC staff, 

10 as you heard a few of them have already commented to 

11 you. 

12 Taking over leadership of this activity 

13 about a year ago, I thought by now I pretty well 

14 understood the issues at hand. But it's always 

15 interesting to me that every time I come to another 

16 public meeting, I either look at something with a 

17 different nuance, or I look at it from a different 

18 perspective. 

19 I can't tell you how important those 

20 different perspectives are to producing a very robust 

21 rule that's protective of public health and safety and 

22 the environment. You've heard us say that we've held 

23 three public meetings over the last year in this 

24 particular area, one in D.C., one out west, and one 

25 here. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 235

1 I know a few times it was mentioned that 

2 well, we picked this area, because we think that 

3 there's going to be a reprocessing facility here. 

4 That's not the case. We picked this area because we 

5 knew that this was a very knowledgeable nuclear 

6 community, that could give us very valuable input to 

7 reprocessing. 

8 They understand these types of issues. 

9 They understand waste management, and we could get a 

10 much better diverse view on how to do this rule, if 

11 and when the Commission decides to do so. That said, 

12 I do owe the Commission a recommendation for 

13 rulemaking this September. 

14 If they choose to go ahead and go forward 

15 with a recommendation that says yes, we would pursue a 

16 rulemaking, they'll be additional ample opportunities 

17 for the public and for other panel members as yourself 

18 to participate in help shaping that rule, so that it 

19 is protective of the public. 

20 I, at least, let me say it that way, I 

21 heard very strong interest in holding additional 

22 specific meetings on general design criteria and 

23 technical specifications. I heard about NRC working 

24 with EPA and working with DOE in a very open manner to 

25 resolve some of these complex technical issues, and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 236

1 we'll take that back. 

2 Finally, I think I'd be remiss if I didn't 

3 say that I also heard the significant emotional 

4 response to this particular topic. That wasn't lost 

5 on me. I think it helps to personalize the whole 

6 subject area, that this is an important safety thing 

7 that we're doing. It's not just us as a regulator, 

8 right? 

9 It's the licensee. It's the industry, the 

10 regulator, the state regulators, the other public 

11 interest groups. I mean after all, at the end of the 

12 day, who's the public that we're protecting? Us, 

13 right. Our mothers, our fathers, our sisters, our 

14 brothers, our friends. 

15 We shouldn't lose sight of that. We need 

16 to do this as best as we possibly can. As you said, 

17 if we're going to do it, then we ought to do it in a 

18 very safe manner. I'd like to also extend my thanks 

19 to Chip as the facilitator. 

20 (Applause.) 

21 MR. DAVIS: I think -- absolutely. I 

22 think everyone recognizes that facilitation, there's 

23 an art to it, and every time I've been in a meeting 

24 where Chip has facilitated, it's like a masterpiece, 

25 and I'm being honest. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 237

1 MR. CAMERON: That beer is going to taste 

2 good tonight. 

3 (Laughter.) 

4 MR. DAVIS: I'll buy the first couple of 

5 rounds. Then also my thanks to Miriam as well. As 

6 you're probably all aware, a huge amount of planning 

7 goes into putting together one of these remote 

8 meetings. 

9 Miriam has done that, you know, hands-off, 

10 if you will. I mean she's worked behind the scenes 

11 very extensively to bring the right people to the 

12 table, get the meeting location and so on. It's a 

13 lot of effort, and I really thank you for your 

14 professionalism. 

15 (Applause.) 

16 MR. DAVIS: Last, I would just say that 

17 we're going to hold an open house shortly after this 

18 meeting, and I'll be available to talk with anyone, as 

19 well as other members of the NRC staff and the Center 

20 staff. Thank you. 

21 (Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the meeting was 

22 adjourned.) 

23 

24 

25