Official Transcript of Proceedings 

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Title: Potential Rulemaking for Spent Nuclear 

 Fuel Reprocessing Facilities 

Docket Number: (n/a) 

Location: Augusta, Georgia 

Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 

Work Order No.: NRC-947 Pages 1-240 

 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 NUCLEAR 

5 FUEL REPROCESSING FACILITIES 

6 + + + + + 

7 TUESDAY 

8 JUNE 21, 2011 

9 + + + + + 

10 AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 

11 + + + + + 

12 

13 The Meeting was held at the Hilton Garden 

14 Inn Augusta, 1065 Stevens Creek Road, Augusta, 

15 Georgia, at 9:00 a.m., Chip Cameron, Facilitator, 

16 presiding. 

17 PARTICIPANTS: 

18 SVEN BADER, AREVA 

19 JIM BRESEE, US Department of Energy 

20 TOM CLEMENTS, Friends of the Earth 

21 SUSAN CORBETT, South Carolina Sierra Club 

22 YAWAR FARAZ, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

23 JOHN GREEVES, JTG Consulting 

24 BRITT HILL, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

25 BRET LESLIE, 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 ROD McCULLUM, Nuclear Energy Institute 

2 ALEX MURRAY, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

3 MARY OLSEN, Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

4 WENDY REED, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

5 KEVIN STRICKLAND, South Carolina Department of Health 

6 and Environmental Control 

7 DEREK WIDMAYER, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety 

8 MARK YEAGER, South Carolina Department of Health and 

9 Environmental Control 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

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 

 3

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

2 Welcome and Opening Remarks 4 

3 Ground Rules, Table Participant Introductions, 

4 Agenda Overview 5 

5 Background and NRC Perspective 25 

6 Regulatory Framework (Gap 1) and 

7 Definitions (Gap 6) Presentation 35 

8 Participant Discussion 

9 Opportunity for Public Comment 71 

10 Waste Management & Environmental Considerations 

11 Presentation (Gaps 2, 3, 15, 16, 19) 114 

12 - Independent Storage of High Level Waste 

13 - Waste Incidental to Reprocessing 

14 - Waste Confidence for Reprocessing Facilities 

15 - Low-Level Waste Classification 

16 - Effluent Controls and Monitoring 

17 Participant Discussion 

18 Opportunity for Public Comment 

19 Financial Considerations Presentation (Gaps 12, 

20 13, 14) 224 

21 Participant Discussion/Opportunity for Public 

22 Comment 237 

23 Wrap Up and Close 239 

24 Adjourn 

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 9:13 A.M. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good morning, 

4 everyone. My name is Chip Cameron. And it's my 

5 pleasure to serve as the facilitator for the meeting 

6 over the next two days. I'm going to be back in a 

7 little while to talk about meeting process issues. 

8 But we wanted to hear first from Jack Davis, who is 

9 the Deputy Director of the Technical Directorate, 

10 Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety. And 

11 he's just going to give us a short welcome. And then 

12 after I talk a little bit about process issues, that 

13 is going to come back to give you an overview of the 

14 whole process. But thank you for all being here and 

15 welcome and Jack, I'll just turn it over to you now. 

16 MR. DAVIS: Well, good morning, ladies and 

17 gentlemen. And welcome to the Nuclear Regulatory 

18 Commission's Public Meeting on Reprocessing Regulatory 

19 Framework Development. 

20 Many of the folks in the room obviously 

21 are familiar with NRC and its activities, but for 

22 those of you that are new to this, I thought I would 

23 just give you some perspective on who we are and where 

24 all this fits in in the national context. 

25 The NRC, obviously, is an independent 
 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 agency. We're charged with the protection of public 

2 health and safety in the commercial uses of 

3 radioactive material which differs somewhat from what 

4 DOE does. As part of our mission, we set regulations 

5 that the licensees must follow to ensure public health 

6 and safety and for the last several years we've been 

7 working on the development of a potential rule for 

8 reprocessing. 

9 We conduct all of our activities in an 

10 open and transparent manner and as a matter of fact 

11 that's why we're here today to seek stakeholder input 

12 on our activities and to make sure that we're 

13 listening to the broadest community of folks that we 

14 can. 

15 However, I think it's important to realize 

16 that NRC does not set policy for reprocessing. We 

17 don't endorse it necessarily. We don't not endorse 

18 it. We just follow the national mandate and we also 

19 support and facilitate the needs of the industry. So 

20 again, that's why it's very important for us to 

21 understand from the public's perspective how they feel 

22 about the various activities that are going on in this 

23 area. So thank you. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Jack. And let me 

25 just take a few minutes on some process issues. I'd 
 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 like to talk about the format that we're going to be 

2 using for our discussion over the next two days, some 

3 simple ground rules to help us to have a productive 

4 meeting, then do some introductions around the table, 

5 and then I just want to do an agenda check with you to 

6 make sure that everyone knows what we're going to be 

7 doing. 

8 For all of you in the audience, there's a 

9 booklet out on the table if you don't have it. 

10 There's an agenda and there's a list of participants. 

11 In terms of the format, we're in a so-called round 

12 table setting. And the objective for the round table 

13 format is to encourage all of you to talk to one 

14 another about the issues. This is going to give the 

15 NRC and you, we hope, better information than you 

16 would get in a typical town hall meeting or in the 

17 written comment process. 

18 We have representatives from all of the 

19 affected or concerned interest on this issue around 

20 the table. The NRC staff is also at the table and 

21 they're here to serve as a resource for you and to 

22 occasionally ask you to questions about your 

23 perspectives that's going to help them to formulate 

24 the technical basis for moving forward with this 

25 reprocessing rulemaking. There's going to 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 

 7

1 different NRC staff at the table, depending on the 

2 issue. And we'll introduce them to you when they come 

3 up to the table. 

4 So the NRC not only wants to hear each of 

5 your perspectives, but wants to get an idea about what 

6 you think about the other participants' perspectives 

7 around the table. 

8 The focus of the discussion today is going 

9 to be right here, and tomorrow, right here at the 

10 table, but periodically we're going to go out to those 

11 of you in the audience to hear what your views might 

12 be on the issues. The NRC is also taking written 

13 comments on these issues and the comment period closes 

14 on July 7th of this year. 

15 Now ground rules, pretty simple. If you 

16 want to talk, then I'm just going to ask you to just 

17 turn your -- these things are name tents. Turn your 

18 name tent up and that way I'll know who wants to talk 

19 and you won't have to worry about continually raising 

20 your hand or jumping into the discussion. So that's 

21 one ground rule. 

22 I would ask that only one person speak at 

23 a time. Most important reason for that is so we can 

24 give our full attention to whomever has the floor at 

25 the moment, but also so that we can get what I call 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 

 8

1 clear transcript. We are taking a transcript of the 

2 meeting. It's going to be the NRC's record of the 

3 meeting. It's going to be the public's record of the 

4 meeting and we have Brandon Paterson in the back of 

5 the room. He's our court reporter, stenographer. So 

6 one person at a time will help Brandon to keep track 

7 of who is speaking. 

8 And when I come out to those of you in the 

9 audience, if you could just introduce yourself to us. 

10 I think Brandon is going to be able to keep track of 

11 the people at the table in terms of who is speaking so 

12 that you won't have to put your name tent or you won't 

13 have to introduce yourself all the time. And I would 

14 just encourage you to all participate fully, try to be 

15 constructive, relax, and Mary has already testing the 

16 name tent up. Yes. 

17 Do you have a question? 

18 MS. OLSEN: I do. I am hesitating, but I 

19 need to do this and it's really before you get into 

20 your content. A lot of staff time could be wasted, a 

21 lot of our staff time has been wasted over the 

22 question of foreign participation and I understand 

23 that AREVA probably knows a whole lot about these 

24 issues, but what is the nature of its stake and why is 

25 it at this table? 
 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 MR. CAMERON: Okay, we're going to get to 

2 that when we go to discussion, Mary, but thank you for 

3 putting that on the table and I'll go back to you when 

4 we get to the appropriate point and that will come 

5 soon so that we can discuss that, okay? 

6 What I wanted to tell everybody is that 

7 there may be issues that don't squarely fit into the 

8 agenda items that we're going to be addressing and for 

9 those issues I'm going to put that in the so-called 

10 parking lot and we'll come back and address that at 

11 the appropriate time. So I'm just going to make a 

12 note on the foreign ownership issue right there. 

13 I do want to try and help you all form 

14 discussion threads so that we can have as coherent 

15 discussion as possible as opposed to jumping around 

16 from topic to topic. So I may not take the name tents 

17 in order as they're put up so that we can keep going 

18 on discussion threads. 

19 As I mentioned, we do have the parking lot 

20 and I want to go around the table now before I do an 

21 agenda check so that we all know one another. You've 

22 already met Mary Olsen. Okay? So I'm going to start 

23 with Mary. 

24 And if you could just introduce yourself 

25 and affiliations and one or two sentences of what 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 

 10

1 would like to see come out of this workshop or 

2 concerns. This would be one time to do it. And I'm 

3 going to keep track as sort of a beginning agenda 

4 check. 

5 Mary? 

6 MS. OLSEN: Mary Olsen, the Southeast 

7 Director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 

8 members in all 50 states, founded in 1978 by 

9 grassroots activists, here to affirm that there is not 

10 a single national mandate when it comes to plutonium. 

11 In our view, it is not an element. It is an 

12 addiction and this meeting has to include the idea 

13 that we are not necessarily here in consensus. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and Susan, can we test 

15 the microphones, table mics here. You have to press 

16 it to be on. You don't have to continue to hold it. 

17 And if you don't want any side bar conversations 

18 picked up after you're done, you can turn it off. 

19 MS. CORBETT: You want me to be the guinea 

20 pig? Is that good? 

21 My name is Susan Corbett. I am the State 

22 Chair of the South Carolina Sierra Club here in South 

23 Carolina. We have about 5400 members and beyond that 

24 we are part of the Common Agenda which is a 

25 cooperative collective of all the conservation groups 
 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 in the State of State Carolina with about 50,000 

2 members, including thousands of members here in the 

3 Aiken, North Augusta area. 

4 And we are very concerned about the issue 

5 of nuclear waste and we are uniform in our opposition 

6 to reprocessing. So we're here to provide some input 

7 and represent the stakeholders. I am a volunteer. 

8 I'm probably the only person up here that's not being 

9 paid to be here, but I'm glad to be here because we 

10 want to be part of this discussion. Thank you. 

11 MR. CLEMENTS: I'm Tom Clements. I'm with 

12 the environmental organization Friends of the Earth, 

13 based in Columbia, South Carolina. Friends of the 

14 Earth is based in Washington. I've been monitoring 

15 Savannah River site activities for over 30 years now 

16 from a public interest perspective, so I am concerned 

17 about implications for reprocessing of spent nuclear 

18 fuel at the site or other DOE sites. Thank you. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Tom. Jim? 

20 MR. BRESEE: My name is Jim Bresee. I'm 

21 with U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear 

22 Energy. Our office is responsible for research and 

23 development on advanced separations and waste forms 

24 technology. Thank you. 

25 MR. GREEVES: Is this 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 

 12

1 MR. CAMERON: A green light will tell you 

2 if it's on. 

3 MR. GREEVES: Can you hear me? How about 

4 now? Okay. John Greeves, JTG Consulting. And just 

5 my career has taken me lots of places. I spent 31 

6 years working for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

7 retired as Director of Waste Management, so I'm quite 

8 familiar with the issues on the table here today, and 

9 writing, implementing, and enforcing regulations. So 

10 I've got that as a background. 

11 And I've probably visited most of the fuel 

12 facilities in this country and many others, so I'm 

13 quite familiar with the issues, the hazards, and look 

14 forward to the discussion. I was one of the authors 

15 of the NEI White Paper, so I'm quite familiar with the 

16 content of that and look forward to some engagement 

17 today on the issues. And thank you for putting out 

18 the summary of your gaps. I found that quite useful 

19 and I think it's a good part of what will help us 

20 engage in discussions. So thank you for your efforts. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, John. 

22 MR. MURRAY: Yes. Good morning. My name 

23 is Alex Murray. I'm with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

24 Commission out of Rockville, Maryland. I have worked 

25 in both government regulatory agencies and also in 
 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 private industry. And I've been in and out of 

2 reprocessing, spent nuclear fuel, high-level waste 

3 issues for decades, which is amazing since I'm only 

4 28. Thank you very much. 

5 MR. CAMERON: And NRC staff is not always 

6 honest with you. 

7 MR. MURRAY: Twenty-nine. 

8 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Alex. 

9 MR. BADER: I'm Sven Bader. I'm from 

10 AREVA Federal Services. AREVA is here to continue to 

11 be engaged with this process of coming up with a new 

12 regulatory basis for recycling activities in the 

13 United States. Obviously AREVA has some experience 

14 working in France with reprocessing/recycling and 

15 we've also had some activities in Japan and in the 

16 United States. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Sven. Wendy? 

18 DR. REED: Good morning. My name is Wendy 

19 Reed and I'm working with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

20 Commission. For the past couple of years I've been 

21 part of the staff team that has been developing the 

22 draft regulatory basis document and I'm looking for 

23 hearing stakeholder reaction to our proposed positions 

24 in closing the various gaps on that basis. Thank you. 

25 MR. MCCULLUM: I'm Rod McCullum 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 

 14

1 Nuclear Energy Institute and I just want to thank the 

2 NRC for holding this workshop. I think this is the 

3 third one we've done. We found the others very useful 

4 and I know the materials that are in the booklet give 

5 us a pretty good window into what NRC is thinking at 

6 this point and look forward to discussing it. 

7 While I agree with Mary Olsen that there 

8 is not a consensus on whether or not or how we should 

9 reprocess yet, it's our position that a critical first 

10 step as to making decisions as to whether or not or 

11 how we will reprocess is having the regulatory 

12 framework in place so that we in the industry and our 

13 friends in the Government can make decisions and 

14 having that framework informed by stakeholder input is 

15 critical because we need to know that that is a 

16 regulatory framework we can, in fact, go forward with 

17 credibly. 

18 So I appreciate all the stakeholders here 

19 and appreciate NRC for holding this meeting and look 

20 forward to our discussion. 

21 MR. STRICKLAND: My name is Kevin 

22 Strickland. I'm with the South Carolina Department of 

23 Health and Environmental Control. I'm here to monitor 

24 the proceedings today and to observe it and to engage 

25 whatever facilities that I may deem necessary. 
 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 MR. YEAGER: My name is Mark Yeager. I'm 

2 with -- I work with Kevin at the Department of Health 

3 and Environmental Control, Division of Waste 

4 Management. We administer the Agreement State Program 

5 and our interest is the ancillary licensing that may 

6 occur as a result of proposed commercial facilities. 

7 I'm also here to represent Conference of Radiation 

8 Control Program Directors and I'll be sharing the 

9 results of this meeting with the board of that 

10 organization. They are a group of stake radiation 

11 regulatory programs and I know that they have interest 

12 in the proposed rulemaking. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Mark. Thank 

14 you all. 

15 Let's take care -- before I do an agenda 

16 overview now that you all know each other. Let's see 

17 if we can put the foreign ownership issue to rest. 

18 As I mentioned at the beginning, we wanted 

19 to make sure that all interests that may be affected 

20 or concerned about reprocessing rulemaking are at the 

21 table and that's why we have all of you here, 

22 including AREVA. 

23 I just want to go to one of the 

24 representatives from our Office of the General Counsel 

25 to just state what the rule is on foreign ownership 
 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 and then come back to the issue, people around the 

2 table. I think Rod wants to say something about that. 

3 But it's an important issue raised by Mary, so let's 

4 take care of it right at the beginning and then see if 

5 we can proceed from there. 

6 This is Bret Klukan, Office of the General 

7 Counsel, NRC. 

8 MR. KLUKAN: Hi. It's Klukan, no offense. 

9 My name is kind of confusing like that. 

10 A reprocessing facility would be 

11 considered a Production Facility under Section 103 of 

12 the Atomic Energy Act. And as such, foreign ownership 

13 would be prohibited, just as it is for reactors in the 

14 United States. And so that prohibition would carry 

15 over to this type of facility. I think that generally 

16 answers the question. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And let's go to Rod, 

18 because that's part of the backdrop I think for Mary's 

19 concern. But let's go to her concern. 

20 Rod? 

21 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I'm very glad one of 

22 the first things I was going to do was ask the NRC 

23 point out that rule and certainly AREVA's interest 

24 here is as they are part of the U.S. nuclear industry, 

25 just as Toyota is part of the U.S. car industry these 
 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 days, we live in a very global marketplace. 

2 I'm representing the entire nuclear 

3 industry today, all of our member companies, the 

4 operators of the 104 nuclear plants. There is a lot 

5 of interest amongst a number of companies in the 

6 global nuclear industry including U.S. companies. 

7 There's two significant nuclear utilities, the 

8 Tennessee Valley Authority and Duke that were very 

9 interested in making sure we were represented in this 

10 forum. 

11 There's a representative from Westinghouse 

12 as a company that may be interested in recycling 

13 technologies and I know GE was very interested in -- 

14 they're not here today, but in participating, another 

15 American company. 

16 So the question of whether or not it's a 

17 foreign interest, I can state unequivocally there is 

18 significant U.S. interest in answering this question 

19 of what would the rules for recycling be so that U.S. 

20 companies could make decisions as to whether or not 

21 they should buy AREVA's technology and use AREVA's 

22 technology in accordance with NRC's rules. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay, let's go to John and 

24 then to Mary and see if we can wrap this up. 

25 John Greeves? 
 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 MR. GREEVES: I didn't totally understand 

2 what Mary's question was, so hopefully she can expand. 

3 It was stated very quickly and I am interested in 

4 what her question was. I think you answered a 

5 question. Was that her question or did she have 

6 another one? 

7 MR. CAMERON: I think the concern and I'm 

8 going to let Mary -- 

9 MR. GREEVES: She can speak for herself, 

10 of course. 

11 MR. CAMERON: I think the concern was is 

12 why is a foreign company at the table, basically. Is 

13 that what your concern was? And do you still have the 

14 concern? 

15 MS. OLSEN: What I asked was what is their 

16 stake? And I'm not asserting that they want to be the 

17 licensee, but there's a hell of a lot of press rumor, 

18 buzz out there, there's posture. And where I'm coming 

19 from is that we have put a lot of Nuclear Information 

20 Resource Service staff time into fighting Calvert 

21 Cliffs which is devolved (9:34:43) down to the 

22 question of foreign ownership and you know, we've got 

23 laws. And you all know the laws. We just heard from 

24 Office of the General Counsel what the law is. 

25 So I'm not asserting what their stake 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 

 19

1 but I'm asking, you know, if they're a stakeholder at 

2 this table, what's their stake? 

3 MR. CAMERON: I think that Rod probably 

4 answered that. 

5 Sven, do you just want to say something on 

6 that and then I'm going to suggest that we move on. 

7 MR. BADER: I don't know. I'm not 

8 involved with the Calvert Cliffs activity, so I'll 

9 just put that to rest because I can't give you any 

10 experience based on there, but from a perspective of 

11 us sitting at this table, what we believe is we bring 

12 here is some experience. I think a lot of the 

13 regulations that we're looking at, we're trying to say 

14 okay, here's some of the implications. We've been 

15 forthright. We've not been trying to hide things. We 

16 do produce waste, so we pointed out high-level waste 

17 is something that we need to look at and I think it's 

18 one of the topics we're going to address today. 

19 What AREVA can do is we can say this is 

20 what we bring in our experience for the high-level 

21 waste. There's a lot of other examples out there. 

22 AREVA thinks we have a good, commercial, viable 

23 process. 

24 The other examples are probably not good 

25 and I'm sure they're going to be brought up, 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 

 20

1 about West Valley. We can talk about Hanford, but 

2 from an AREVA perspective, we believe we bring some 

3 information that's valuable to this conference here or 

4 this meeting. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Again, I think AREVA has 

6 been at the table for the other two workshops and I 

7 think you'll find the information that they have is 

8 going to be useful for you. 

9 Tom? 

10 MR. CLEMENTS: Chip, thank you. I know 

11 you want to move on, but I had a question along these 

12 lines and because it relates to the Federal Register

13 announcement on which this meeting was based. I know 

14 everybody in the room is familiar with the request to 

15 develop the reprocessing regulations, but as related 

16 to the question of AREVA or other companies and the 

17 Federal Register notice. 

18 I'd like it clarified if we could and let 

19 me read from the Federal Register notice. "In mid20 2008, two nuclear industry companies informed the NRC 

21 of their intent to seek a license for a reprocessing 

22 facility in the U.S. An additional company expressed 

23 its support for updating the regulatory framework for 

24 reprocessing, but stopped short of stating its intent 

25 to seek a license." 
 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 I wonder if we could clarify for the 

2 record which two companies were the ones. I'm aware 

3 of one of them, but I'm not aware of the other and -- 

4 because it was mentioned in the Federal Register

5 announcement, I'd like to know more why we're here 

6 because of the companies' request, if we could. 

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay, fair enough, Tom. 

8 Rod? 

9 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, the two companies that 

10 initially expressed an interest were AREVA and Energy 

11 Solutions. There have been two more recent letters 

12 submitted to the NRC, one by AREVA and one by General 

13 Electric. And so the interest continues out there and 

14 as I said before, there really is an open question in 

15 the industry as to whether or not we would proceed 

16 with recycling, but there's a very strong agreement 

17 that we need a good, credible regulatory framework 

18 before we can make those decisions to go forward. 

19 MR. CAMERON: And Susan? 

20 MS. CORBETT: I think one of the things 

21 we're going to be talking these next two days is the 

22 terminology. And I would like to suggest that we 

23 don't cal lit recycling at this point and that we 

24 continue to call it reprocessing which is what it is, 

25 until we've reached that part. 
 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 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good. And we will get 

2 to that during Wendy's presentation. One last 

3 sentence. Is it going to be sort of e.e. cummings4 esqe? 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 MS. OLSEN: Part 50.38, I think it is, 

7 says you can't even apply if you're a foreign8 controlled interest. It says you can't get a license, 

9 but it also says you can't even apply. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay, well, we know what the 

11 situation is with the foreign ownership regulations at 

12 this point and this was a good opening discussion on 

13 participation. So let's move on with just a real 

14 short agenda check with you. And then we're going to 

15 get Dr. Wendy Reed from the NRC staff. And one of the 

16 things that she's going to talk about is this 

17 distinction between reprocessing and recycling as 

18 Susan mentioned. 

19 And of course before we get to Wendy, 

20 we're going to hear from Jack Davis on an overview and 

21 there may be some other larger questions that you want 

22 to ask at that point. 

23 We are focusing on the regulatory 

24 framework for the regulation and licensing, licensing 

25 and regulation of a reprocessing facility and we've 
 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 already heard from people about what they think about 

2 whether reprocessing should be a viable option. So 

3 that's on the table. And I'm just going to ask 

4 everybody to sort of suspend their disbelief in a 

5 sense and talk about what should be in the NRC 

6 regulatory framework on this issue. 

7 Second point on agenda is that we're going 

8 to have NRC staff teeing up each agenda item with a 

9 presentation and they'll tell you what the issues, 

10 what the NRC has heard from stakeholders on the issue, 

11 and what the NRC's initial thinking is on the issues. 

12 And when they do those tee-ups, I'm just going to ask 

13 you to hold your questions until they're done with 

14 their complete presentation so you can get the entire 

15 picture. 

16 The last over-arching issue that I want to 

17 mention is that we know that in this area of the 

18 country, the Southeast, that there are other issues of 

19 concern, for example, the licensing of the MOX 

20 facility down the road. This is a meeting on the 

21 reprocessing framework, so we're not going to be 

22 discussing MOX, except to the extent there's an 

23 implication from the MOX facility that may be 

24 applicable to the development of the regulatory 

25 framework 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 

 24

1 But if there are questions about MOX, we 

2 have asked two members of the NRC staff to be here to 

3 talk with you offline any questions or concerns about 

4 that and we have David Tiktinsky who is here from our 

5 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. We 

6 have Brett and I won't try again because I'll probably 

7 blow it. And just give it to us again. 

8 MR. KLUKAN: It's Klukan. K-L-U-K-A-N. 

9 MR. CAMERON: And we also have Sherry 

10 Wilson here from the South Carolina Department of 

11 Health and Environmental Control and she is the 

12 federal facilities liaison. So if you do have issues 

13 on MOX, please talk with them. 

14 Let's hear from Rod and I think that -- 

15 you have the agenda in front of you and I'm going to 

16 introduce people from the NRC staff as they come up. 

17 And so that we can get to Jack Davis, I think let's go 

18 to Rod and then we'll have Jack come on. 

19 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, and this might be an 

20 issue for Jack to discuss. One thing I didn't see 

21 specifically on the agenda, but I think it would be 

22 very interesting to all the participants here, 

23 particularly since we're looking at schedules upon 

24 which we have to comment on things is what NRC's 

25 potential budget scenarios are for this effort. 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 

 25

1 you'll be working on in Fiscal Year -- the rest of 

2 Fiscal Year 2011 with your funding which ends in 

3 October for those who aren't familiar with the federal 

4 budget year and what your budgeted to do in 2012 and 

5 beyond. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

7 MR. MCCULLUM: So we can kind of -- I 

8 think that goes to Mary's question of the resources we 

9 all devote to these things to see what your resources 

10 are going to provide. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Good. I think that's a 

12 legitimate question that falls into Jack's overview 

13 presentation. 

14 So Jack, why don't we have you come up 

15 and talk to us. Again, Jack Davis, Deputy Director, 

16 Technical Support Directorate, Division of High-Level 

17 Waste Repository Safety in our Office of Nuclear 

18 Material Safety and Safeguards which we'll be 

19 referring to as NMSS. We'll use the acronym for that. 

20 Jack Davis. 

21 MR. DAVIS: Thanks, Chip. I will 

22 actually, Rod, get to you. The answer may not be as 

23 fruitful as you like, but I can tell you what I can 

24 tell you on that. 

25 But I thought also we would talk a little 
 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 bit about who's doing the regulations, who is actually 

2 going to write them and so on, because things have 

3 changed recently and all folks may not be familiar 

4 with that. 

5 If you've been following this, you know 

6 that reprocessing was underneath the Division of Fuel 

7 Cycle Safety and Safeguards in our Office of Nuclear 

8 Material Safety and Safeguards. That was transitioned 

9 over to my division in high-level waste. And there 

10 was some reasons for that to better align and 

11 integrate with the back end of the fuel cycle and how 

12 we are managing those things to allow fuel cycle to 

13 focus on their licensing and oversight activities of 

14 existing facilities. 

15 So there was a numbers of reasons to do 

16 that and that's why you see underneath us and it seems 

17 strange perhaps to be underneath the high-level waste. 

18 But there's some things under way right now that 

19 we're looking at name changes and things like that 

20 that would help to better understand why it's there. 

21 In addition to that, we work very closely 

22 with our Office of Federal and State Materials and 

23 Environmental Office which actually does the actual 

24 turning of the crank, if you will, for rulemaking as 

25 well as supporting us in the technical support 
 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 aspects. And then there's a number of additional 

2 offices that have been involved, rightfully so, and 

3 critically so: Office of Nuclear Security and 

4 Incident Response which helps us do safeguards and 

5 security, the Office of Nuclear Research which does a 

6 lot of our developmental activity and one that you 

7 don't actually see on here is our Center for Nuclear 

8 Waste Regulatory Analysis. It's a conflict-free, 

9 federally funded, research and development center down 

10 in San Antonio. They support us very heavily, not 

11 only in this area, but in a number of different areas. 

12 And we have several of their staff here today, one of 

13 which has organized the entire meeting which is Miriam 

14 sitting in the back there. 

15 So with regard to the process, over the 

16 last several years this activity has been going on. 

17 It first started with GNEP and now I don't think we 

18 even talk about GNEP any more, but yet this activity 

19 of doing reprocessing is still on the NRC's radar 

20 screen. As such, the staff has identified about 19 

21 gaps in the current regulations that would either have 

22 to be adjusted or revised or a new regulation put in 

23 place so that we can proceed forward with 

24 reprocessing. 

25 These issues range from everything 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 

 28

1 safety issues to waste management issues, safeguards 

2 and security, as I mentioned, environmental issues and 

3 so on. And over the next two days, our intent for 

4 this public meeting is to actually get into some 

5 detail on what those issues are, what our particular 

6 path forward that we're proposing and then to hear 

7 from the other stakeholders here today to find out 

8 what they feel about our positions that we want to 

9 take on them. 

10 As far as how does this work and what's 

11 the time frame and so on, we've talked about we would 

12 have to provide a recommendation to the Commission 

13 this year. The Commission then gets to decide whether 

14 we actually even proceed with rulemaking or if we do 

15 proceed with rulemaking, what time frame we would be 

16 on. There's a number of things that they consider. 

17 Obviously, there's limited resources in 

18 the Agency and they have to focus on the highest 

19 priority safety activities, as well as there's 

20 parallel rulemakings that are going on that also tie 

21 into the rulemaking for reprocessing which then 

22 obviously impacts the schedule, if it gets delayed or 

23 whatever schedule that they happen to be on. As well 

24 as we all are familiar with the Blue Ribbon Commission 

25 is deliberating on the national policy for the nation 
 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 with regard to the back end of the fuel cycle which 

2 would have implications to reprocessing. 

3 If the Commission does direct us to 

4 proceed with rulemaking, it takes considerable effort. 

5 It takes several years to do. There's a number of 

6 things that would have to be done, finalizing the 

7 gaps, developing a rulemaking plan, developing an 

8 Environmental Impact Statement, regulatory guidance, 

9 SRPs, the whole nine yards. 

10 The slide here doesn't show any particular 

11 dates. There's a reason for that because as I was 

12 saying all these things are contingent upon budgets 

13 and a bunch of other things, but we have stated 

14 publicly that we are on about a 2015 to 2017 time 

15 frame, if and it's a big if, if we continue to get 

16 consistent funding and if the Commission decides to 

17 move forward with rulemaking. 

18 Again, we don't know what their position 

19 is going to be yet. We haven't provided them our 

20 recommendation. That doesn't come until September of 

21 this year and then they will take so much time to look 

22 at that particular situation and then get back to us 

23 through a staff requirements memorandum which would 

24 either direct us to proceed or direct us not to 

25 proceed and in what time frame. 
 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 I think the important point here that I 

2 wanted to raise with all of these things and you can 

3 see the number of major deliverables that would have 

4 to be done to actually make a final rule, ample 

5 opportunity for public comment. We need public 

6 comment, stakeholders as well, and we actively go out 

7 and seek that because to do accomplished rulemaking 

8 like this, clearly we need to hear from all sides and 

9 what are the significant issues at hand. 

10 So where are we now? As I mentioned, we 

11 are going to provide a regulatory basis document and a 

12 recommendation to the Commission the end of September. 

13 This would include staff proposed closures to the 

14 gaps. Shortly thereafter, we would have an 

15 Environmental Technical Report available. This would 

16 feed an EIs if we were to proceed with rulemaking. 

17 And all of these documents have benefitted 

18 from stakeholder interactions. We've had two previous 

19 meetings this past year. We've had other comments 

20 from folks coming in through our web and other means 

21 and we've factored those particular things in. 

22 Here, you can see just a few of the 

23 examples of other written comments that we've received 

24 from our Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and 

25 Materials, NUREG 1909. We, of course, have heard 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 

 31

1 about the NEI White Paper which is the 7x which you've 

2 heard John Greeves talk about earlier. 

3 We've received correspondence from the 

4 Union of Concerned Scientists, two letters of intent, 

5 again, more recent letters of intent from both AREVA 

6 and GE that they plan to proceed with reprocessing. 

7 We interact very extensively with the Department of 

8 Energy. We attend a lot of their seminars and so on 

9 in reprocessing as they look at the future development 

10 activities in various new technologies and so on. 

11 And then, of course, we even consider the 

12 recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission. They 

13 haven't specifically said -- made comments concerning 

14 reprocessing, but certainly it has an impact when 

15 they're looking at what the country is going to do 

16 with the wasted fuel. 

17 For this meeting, you've already heard 

18 that Chip has mentioned the booklets. I hope you find 

19 them useful. That summarizes basically where we're at 

20 from a staff position, not necessarily a Commission 

21 position and how we propose to resolve those gaps. 

22 You'll hear, as they talk over the next 

23 two days, they'll actually have specific questions 

24 that they're looking for comment on from the 

25 stakeholders here and then if you would rather submit 
 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 your comments through the web, you can do that as 

2 well. Our deadline is July 7th and that's necessary 

3 for us to be able to capture these comments and 

4 incorporate them as necessary to meet our deliverable 

5 in September. 

6 And then of course, there's a feedback 

7 from for this meeting. And I will be available over 

8 the next two days if anyone wants to chat with me and 

9 understand at a higher level what we're doing and why 

10 we're doing it. 

11 I don't know if that answers your 

12 question, Rod, but -- 

13 MR. MCCULLUM: Do you have sufficient 

14 funding right now, obligated for 2012 to continue the 

15 effort at the same pace you're continuing now? 

16 MR. DAVIS: We have funding in '12. It's 

17 not what I would need, necessarily, and that's why I 

18 said that the 2015 to 2017 time frame. 

19 Originally, as you remember, we were on a 

20 2015 time frame. That had been our public position. 

21 Given the resource constraints, I personally just 

22 don't see how I can do it within that time frame and I 

23 think it will slip somewhat, so without talking 

24 specific numbers, it's -- 

25 MR. MCCULLUM: But the effort will be able 
 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 to continue throughout 2012? 

2 MR. DAVIS: There will be some effort in 

3 reprocessing in 2012, yes. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Jack. Are there 

5 other high-level questions for Jack? 

6 Go ahead, Mary. We've got to get you on 

7 the transcript here. 

8 MS. OLSEN: Was it just a typo that you 

9 said EIS instead of PEIS? Programmatic? 

10 (Off-mic comments.) 

11 MR. CAMERON: Here, Jack. Let me get you 

12 a microphone. Yes, you might as well go back to the 

13 podium. 

14 MS. OLSEN: What I'm trying to clarify is 

15 Programmatic EIS versus EIS. Were you just doing 

16 shorthand or did you forget? 

17 MR. DAVIS: I'm not understanding what 

18 you're saying. 

19 MS. OLSEN: There's a requirement that a 

20 Programmatic EIS be done for this particular activity. 

21 MR. DAVIS: Right. Again, I was talking 

22 from a technical perspective, right. When I mentioned 

23 the Environmental Technical Report which feeds into an 

24 EIS. We were doing preliminary work that would 

25 support that effort. 
 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 We don't have any design information, 

2 right? Even though we have Letters of Intent. 

3 MS. OLSEN: On the rulemaking? 

4 MR. DAVIS: Huh? 

5 MS. OLSEN: On the rulemaking itself. 

6 Programmatic EIS? You don't know this history? I'll 

7 provide it to you. 

8 MR. CAMERON: Let me just jump in here 

9 before Jack finishes. We do have a waste management 

10 environmental presentation coming up and I'm going to 

11 put this EIS issue in the parking lot for discussion 

12 then. And as Mary said, she's talking about the EIS 

13 which would start out with a draft EIS for the 

14 rulemaking. 

15 Jack, do you have anything else you want 

16 to add? 

17 MR. DAVIS: The only thing I was 

18 clarifying was that how the process feeds from an 

19 Environmental Technical Report into an EIS, that's all 

20 I was trying to -- and I guess I'm missing what you 

21 thought I said in that. 

22 MS. OLSEN: I'm referring to a court 

23 decision, historically, that would mandate the Agency 

24 to do a Programmatic EIS on this rulemaking. And so 

25 when you put EIS there, I didn't know if you were 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 

 35

1 having a typo moment or if you have forgotten this 

2 history. So we'll provide it to you. We'll be glad 

3 to do that. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay, we'll talk about the 

5 EIS and I like that. I've never heard the typo 

6 moment, you know, and it can refer to many of the 

7 moments that I have, typo moments. 

8 Other questions for Jack? Thank you very 

9 much. 

10 And we're going to jump right into our 

11 first agenda item and this is on the licensing 

12 framework and we have Dr. Wendy Reed again from NMSS 

13 who's going to do the presentation, but we also have 

14 the young Alex Murray here at the table also from NMSS 

15 that's going to give her support in the discussion. 

16 So this is Wendy Reed. And while you're 

17 fixing that up, let me just make one small addition. 

18 When I was introducing people who were involved -- 

19 you're okay, I hope. When I was introducing people 

20 who were here on the MOX issue from NRC staff and from 

21 State of South Carolina, I should have also mentioned 

22 that Mary Olsen and her organization, Nuclear 

23 Information and Resource Service, is a party to the 

24 MOX licensing proceeding. Thank you. 

25 Wendy? 
 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 DR. REED: Thank you. Thank you, Chip. 

2 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today, I'm here 

3 to present to you NRC's staff preliminary position on 

4 how we think that a regulatory framework for licensing 

5 commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing facility should 

6 be developed and also to discuss with you some 

7 definitions that could be included in a new rule 

8 regarding those facilities. 

9 I'm going to begin by giving you a brief 

10 overview of the gaps that were identified by staff and 

11 staff's proposed method of resolving these gaps. I'm 

12 going to provide you a brief summary of the 

13 stakeholder input that we've received regarding these 

14 issues at public meetings such as this one and via 

15 written communication. And then I'll go on and 

16 briefly discuss the specific feedback that we're 

17 looking today to receive from stakeholders regarding 

18 some of the issues with Gap 1 and Gap 6. 

19 The specific regulatory areas identified 

20 as gaps in the Code of Federal Regulations were 

21 identified as issues that would need to be resolved in 

22 order to license a reprocessing facility effectively 

23 and efficiently, and Gaps 1 and 6, regulatory 

24 framework options and definitions for reprocessing 

25 related to terms respectfully at two of those gaps. 
 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 And they were given the rating of a high priority gap 

2 that needed to be resolved. And a full description of 

3 these gaps are found in the Commission paper that is 

4 referenced here. 

5 With regards to Gap 1, a fuel reprocessing 

6 facility would currently fall into the definition of a 

7 Production Facility as defined in the Atomic Energy 

8 Act of 1954, as amended. And consequently a 

9 reprocessing plant would be licensed currently under 

10 CFR Part 50. 

11 Part 50 has evolved over time to be mostly 

12 applicable to nuclear power plants and consequently it 

13 would require -- a reprocessing facility would require 

14 many exemptions from current requirements that are not 

15 applicable and it could potentially result in a long 

16 and protracted licensing process which is at odds with 

17 NRC's goal of having an efficient and effective 

18 regulatory process. 

19 Part 70, 10 CFR Part 70 which is currently 

20 used to license existing fuel cycle facilities was 

21 also considered by staff to be not adequate for 

22 licensing reprocessing facility, because the staff 

23 believes that it doesn't adequately address the 

24 potentially hazardous materials, the varied and larger 

25 source term, the higher dose impacts from these 
 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 radioactive materials and the higher acute dose 

2 effects. 

3 With regard to definitions, staff found 

4 that even though there are many references to the term 

5 reprocessing in the regulation, there is no formal 

6 definition provided from the term reprocessing. And 

7 also there needs the consideration of the term 

8 recycling also. Clear definitions are very important 

9 so that they can help establish the meaning of terms 

10 used in the rule. 

11 With regards to closing the gap, staff is 

12 proposing that the most appropriate course of action 

13 would be to develop a new part in the Code of Federal 

14 Regulations. Right now we just refer to it as 10 CFR 

15 Part 7x. And what staff's method of doing this is to 

16 look at the entire suite of regulations in the Code of 

17 Federal Regulations and to identify and incorporate 

18 the applicable ones into the new Part 7x and obviously 

19 tailor any regulations, if necessary, for the 

20 attributes of reprocessing and recycling, so 

21 reprocessing. We're just sticking to the term 

22 reprocessing. 

23 So with regards to Gap 6 with the 

24 definitions is staff wants to incorporate existing 

25 definitions where applicable into a proposed new rule. 
 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 And we also recognize that it would be very important 

2 to develop new definitions and to clarify existing 

3 definitions where needed, for example, the terms 

4 reprocessing and recycling. And that is one of the 

5 stakeholder feedback items we would like to receive 

6 today is what we should consider in these specific 

7 definitions. 

8 We've also talked about other reprocessing 

9 related to definition such as vitrification, maybe a 

10 clarification of high-level waste and also waste 

11 incidental to reprocessing which is a term that is 

12 used more in terms of Department of Energy waste and 

13 that's going to be discussed in more detail by my 

14 colleague, Dr. Brittain Hill, in the next segment of 

15 this meeting. 

16 With regards to previous stakeholder input 

17 for Gap 1, at previous public meetings, stakeholders 

18 showed general support for the new part in the Code of 

19 Federal Regulations and in the NEI White Paper, they 

20 have prescribed a similar approach to the NRC's 

21 proposed approach, is that they would use a Part 7x. 

22 However, it differs slightly in that in their view 

23 that it should be based more on the existing Part 70 

24 whereas NRC staff proposed looking at the entire Code 

25 of Federal Regulations for development of a rule. 
 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 There's been a lot of discussion amongst 

2 all the stakeholders at previous public meetings about 

3 the -- how the framework should be developed. And 

4 there's been no strong opinion that NRC's alternative 

5 approaches of modifying Part 50 or modifying Part 70 

6 should be used. 

7 So in regarding to definitions, at 

8 previous public meetings, industry has shown support 

9 for a definition of waste incidental to recycling and 

10 actually using a wholesale replacement of the term 

11 reprocessing in the Code of Federal Regulations and 

12 related definitions in place of reprocessing and they 

13 also provided a revised definition of high-level 

14 waste. 

15 With regards to other stakeholder input, 

16 there hasn't been very much discussion in previous 

17 public meetings on definitions that should be included 

18 so we're very much looking forward today to hearing 

19 people's views on the definitions that should be 

20 included in a potential new rule. 

21 Now while we were developing Gap 1, there 

22 was sort of some regulatory areas that were identified 

23 that were not previously identified in the gap 

24 analysis. And various topics were identified and 

25 these are found in great detail in the draft 
 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 regulatory basis. But here are the topics that we're 

2 looking for feedback today are: emergency planning, 

3 fire protection, and seismic regulations and 

4 requirements. 

5 In addition, staff would like some 

6 feedback on Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50 which is an 

7 appendix developed to codify the Commission's views on 

8 policy rather on waste management at reprocessing 

9 facilities. And with regards to the definition, Gap 

10 6, what we'd like some feedback on is what should be 

11 included in definitions of reprocessing and recycling 

12 and other differences, are they interchangeable? If 

13 there are differences, how should those differences be 

14 expressed in a new regulation for reprocessing 

15 facilities? 

16 I did an additional slide and that just 

17 goes to some of the other considerations that we've 

18 identified in Gap 1. Thank you. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Wendy and there 

20 is a number of issues here, two major ones in terms of 

21 does the NRC develop a new part for this rulemaking, 

22 the distinction between second issue distinction 

23 between reprocessing and recycling, the definition 

24 there. 

25 Why don't we start by talking about 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 

 42

1 development of the new part versus use of existing or 

2 changing existing regulations. 

3 Rod, do you want to start off on that? 

4 MR. MCCULLUM: Sure. I think we're very 

5 pleased to see that NRC is proposing a new part. We 

6 think that's appropriate. A reprocessing facility is 

7 clearly different from the types of facilities 

8 governed under Part 50 and Part 70. It's not a 

9 reactor. You don't have a sustained nuclear fission 

10 reaction. By the time fuel reaches a reprocessing 

11 facility it's already cool enough that it doesn't 

12 require the active cooling that a reactor does 

13 immediately after shutdown. You don't have the energy 

14 sources that can result in the releases. 

15 That being said, it's not a fuel 

16 reprocessing facility. There are fission products. 

17 There are actinides that are not present in Part 70 

18 facilities, so while you don't have the energy to 

19 create the kind of release that you could get from a 

20 reactor, you do have an inventory that must be 

21 effectively managed. You do have a criticality 

22 concern to make sure you don't get an unintentional 

23 fission reaction. So it is something that needs a 

24 regulatory approach somewhere in between the way Part 

25 70 facilities are currently regulated and Part 50 
 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 facilities are regulated. 

2 I think what we're reading in this 

3 document indicates that that is the direction NRC is 

4 going in and we encourage you to continue going in 

5 that direction. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Rod. Does 

7 anybody around the table have any strong feelings the 

8 opposite way in terms of this process issue of the 

9 development of the new part for these reprocessing 

10 regulations? 

11 Mary? 

12 MS. OLSEN: It's extremely difficult to 

13 like any regulation that has to do with licensing 

14 nuclear facilities, but we defended Part 50. We 

15 defended it every single step of the way. And it took 

16 Congress to override the will of the people and so 

17 this whole thing about Part 52 and one-step licensing, 

18 well, oh boy, we're just going to go off and start all 

19 over. Well, there's some elements of Part 50 that we 

20 will continue to defend. And one of them has to do 

21 with the fact that the local impacted community has 

22 rights that should be considered not only in terms of 

23 construction, but also in terms of operation, so 

24 there's elements of Part 50 that we'll continue to 

25 defend. 
 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 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and that's a good 

2 point and we're going to throughout the next two days, 

3 when we get to some of the specific topical issues, 

4 talk about those pieces of Part 50 that should be 

5 incorporated into this new regulation. So as I 

6 understand it, it's going to be a new part, but you're 

7 going to be considering, and Wendy, correct me on 

8 this, you're going to be considering and we're going 

9 to be talking about what aspects of Part 50 should be 

10 incorporated in the new part? 

11 DR. REED: That is correct. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Rod? 

13 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I just also want to 

14 agree there are aspects of Part 50 that should be 

15 retained and specifically on the issue that Mary 

16 mentioned, that the one step versus two step 

17 licensing. It is industry's proposal that an 

18 applicant have the option to go either way. Once 

19 technology is more established like a reactor, Part 52 

20 may make more sense. 

21 There may be applicants for the initial 

22 recycling facilities that would want to pursue a two23 step process and would want to test that stakeholder 

24 piece in that forum earlier on. So we agree that -- 

25 and we would like to see the option to go either way 
 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 provided. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and I need to make a 

3 slight apology here is that the one part, two part 

4 issue is going to be addressed, I think, in not 

5 Britt's perhaps, but John's presentation tomorrow. 

6 And maybe it should have been here, but if we can just 

7 hold that discussion, or if we finish early with this, 

8 we may be able to go there. 

9 MR. MCCULLUM: No, holding is fine, but 

10 since it was brought up, I wanted to go on record 

11 agreeing. 

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

13 both. How about the distinction between recycling and 

14 reprocessing and Susan mentioned something previously 

15 about well, let's call it reprocessing until we have 

16 -- know it's something else, basically. 

17 Let me go to Tom Clements first on that 

18 issue and then Mary and Susan and whomever. 

19 Tom? 

20 MR. CLEMENTS: Thank you. First, let me 

21 raise another term and then I'll talk about recycling. 

22 In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the term spent 

23 nuclear fuel is defined and in DOE regulations the 

24 term spent nuclear fuel is consistently used. There 

25 has been a move lately, and I've asked 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 

 46

1 clarification from DOE where it's cited in the 

2 regulations and have not received a response after 

3 months of trying, where the term "used nuclear fuel" 

4 is used. 

5 So I would first recommend that the NRC 

6 stick with the legally-defined terms under law which 

7 is spent nuclear fuel, unless there is some kind of 

8 congressional action or otherwise to change the law to 

9 redefine used nuclear fuel. It doesn't exist. So I'm 

10 quite familiar here around the Savannah River site the 

11 term used nuclear fuel is being used, but as far as I 

12 can determine, there is no regulatory basis for that. 

13 Second, I'm aware of the definition that 

14 the NRC -- the NEI put forward in its White Paper 

15 about recycling. I'm sorry, I'm fumbling for that 

16 here. And I think that the definition put forward was 

17 inadequate. As we all know, there are a host of waste 

18 streams that come from reprocessing including so19 called low-level waste, a large volume of greater than 

20 Class C waste, high-level nuclear waste, fission gas. 

21 To my knowledge and the reprocessed uranium which may 

22 be another definition you may want to look at, RepU. 

23 All these materials are not recycled. And 

24 I would ask the question if NEI or AREVA or someone 

25 else would present, what percentage of materials 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 

 47

1 I'm talking about all of the radioactive materials 

2 that come from reprocessing at the UP2 facility which 

3 was dedicated to reprocessing of foreign spent fuel 

4 before every country pulled out except -- now it's 

5 only France is left reprocessing at La Hague, because 

6 every other country has stopped sending spent fuel. 

7 What are the waste streams and how much of 

8 that material is reprocessed, recycled, or reused? 

9 How much of the uranium, including reprocessed uranium 

10 is taken to Russia for further processing or the 

11 majority of it actually for dumping, how much of the 

12 material from THORP has been recycled, including 

13 plutonium and reprocessed uranium? And I think we all 

14 know the answer to that is zero, zero grams of both of 

15 those materials. 

16 From the Mayak facility, the RT1 facility, 

17 how much of the material -- what are the waste streams 

18 including plutonium and reprocessed uranium, how much 

19 of that material has been recycled? And as far as I 

20 know, the answer is zero. 

21 And I would add, just for your background, 

22 I have been outside the reprocessing plants at La 

23 Hague for -- not Rokkasho, but Tokaimura. I have 

24 visited the RT2 plant, the crumbling ruin at 

25 Krasnoyarsk. And I've been inside the West Valley 
 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 reprocessing plant. So I've been following the issues 

2 quite closely. 

3 So I think the term recycling is quite 

4 misleading, particularly when AREVA has only reused 

5 some of the plutonium and a small fraction of the 

6 reprocessed uranium. So I urge extreme caution in the 

7 definition of recycling which I do not believe exists 

8 and I believe that the NEI definition put forward was 

9 incomplete and inaccurate. Thank you. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Tom. You 

11 raised a number of issues and the people around the 

12 table may not be able to answer all of the specific 

13 examples, but maybe they can address some of them at 

14 this point. In terms of the issues that the NEI 

15 definition is inadequate and perhaps misleading, but 

16 before we go to that issue, Jim, do you have anything 

17 to say on the used nuclear fuel versus spent nuclear 

18 fuel that Tom raised? 

19 MR. BRESEE: Yes. I do apologize on 

20 behalf of those who have been asked for information 

21 and have not responded. I don't know the origin of 

22 the problem. But used versus spent is simply a 

23 convenience within our own organization. We assume at 

24 some point in the future the United States will make a 

25 decision on how to proceed with the handling 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 

 49

1 fuel which has been used in a nuclear reactor. If the 

2 decision is made to reprocess or recycle or there are 

3 so many other terms that might be used, for example, 

4 I'll be at a meeting with a number of other countries 

5 in Vienna next week to discuss partitioning which is 

6 another term applied to the issue of processing fuel. 

7 Back to the issue of used versus spent. 

8 If the decision is made to recycle or reprocess, that 

9 would be for the purpose of using some portion of the 

10 fuel as new fuel. If the decision is that it will not 

11 be recycled or reprocessed or partitioned, then it 

12 would be disposed of in -- probably in a deep, 

13 geologic repository. 

14 What we've done internally for the purpose 

15 of keeping our terminology straight is saying that 

16 used fuel has some potential value in the future and 

17 spent fuel does not. It's a convenience for 

18 discussion purposes only. It has nothing to do with 

19 regulatory definitions, with congressional bills of 

20 the future, modifications to nuclear regulatory 

21 activities. 

22 So I apologize that we haven't responded 

23 and if Tom, if you will provide me a copy of the 

24 particular letter in which you've requested the 

25 definition, I will see to it that it comes back to 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 

 50

1 in print. 

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

3 Jim. 

4 MR. CLEMENTS: Tom Clements. Could I ask 

5 if the NRC would mention what definition they use, if 

6 it's a matter of convenience or it's defined under 

7 law? 

8 MR. CAMERON: Okay, we'll see if the NRC 

9 has anything to add on that in a minute. Let's go to 

10 the caution that Tom gave to the NRC staff about using 

11 the NEI definition. Let's continue talking about that 

12 and hear from Rod and Sven. And then we'll go to Mary 

13 Olsen and then perhaps we'll be able to -- do you want 

14 to talk about this used spent right now? 

15 A very simple answer. And please 

16 introduce yourself. 

17 DR. HILL: I'm Brittain Hill. I'm with 

18 the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

19 at the NRC and there's a very simple answer to Tom's 

20 question. We're continuing to use the definition of 

21 spent nuclear fuel as established by the Atomic Energy 

22 Act which is through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

23 1982. That's the only term that we're using 

24 consistent with existing statutory language. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and as Jim pointed 
 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 out, the use in DOE is purely for a matter of DOE 

2 convenience and doesn't have any connection to any 

3 regulatory framework. So I think that's particularly 

4 clear and thank you Britt and let's go to Rod and then 

5 Sven. 

6 Rod? 

7 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, there's a lot of 

8 questions there and I definitely want to defer to Sven 

9 on some of the details. I mean first of all take some 

10 ownership of the used spent thing. That term did 

11 originate in industry. We appreciate the Department 

12 of Energy and others using that term. 

13 We did a lot of communications, research, 

14 focus groups, determining that used fuel was a more 

15 understandable explanation of what it is, particularly 

16 as Jim, I think, very eloquently put it. We all felt 

17 spent at the end of a day and when we feel spent, we 

18 don't feel like doing anything else. And used nuclear 

19 fuel, there's more energy left in the fuel than has 

20 been derived from it in its initial use in a reactor, 

21 significantly more, depending on the what process. 

22 As far as the definition of recycling 

23 versus reprocessing goes, our intent there and we 

24 recognize the legal definition of spent fuel is what 

25 it is and Britt's very correct. When I speak publicly 
 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 I always say used fuel and my communications people 

2 demand that I do, but then when I write a comment 

3 letter to NRC, I have to write spent fuel because I'm 

4 responding to the legal regulatory term. 

5 But recycling versus reprocessing is a 

6 little bit more complicated. Again, we think 

7 recycling does convey what we're doing in a similar 

8 manner that used fuel does. I'll get to that in a 

9 second. But really our intent with that definition 

10 and if that intent can be captured while still 

11 conforming to the legal terms that are out there and I 

12 will point out that the legal definitions of 

13 reprocessing occurred decades ago. And the 

14 technologies we may be regulating will occur decades 

15 in the future. 

16 To say that what we understood as 

17 reprocessing in the '70s and '80s is what we will be 

18 regulating in the future, we need to be comprehensive 

19 enough in our definition so that we can cover the 

20 range of technologies that are currently being 

21 considered. I'll point to this -- in terms of is it 

22 really recycling? Is that a misrepresentative? This 

23 is a clear, Diet Pepsi container that I finished now. 

24 It may have been a red dashboard in a car in its 

25 previous life. It might be part of a blue tennis shoe 
 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 in its future life. And in both cases, it would have 

2 a slightly different chemical make up than it does 

3 now. 

4 In recycling, there are always waste 

5 streams. Not every chemical that goes into one 

6 plastic product is in the next plastic product that it 

7 gets recycled into. And I'm not an expert in how 

8 recycling centers handle their waste streams in terms 

9 of bottled recycling, plastic recycling, newspaper 

10 recycling. Obviously, you don't get the newsprint on 

11 the next newspaper you read, but there is no such 

12 thing as a process that perfectly vaporizes everything 

13 that's hazardous in something you recycle. 

14 So I think it's analogous. Again, we have 

15 to respect legal definitions. We have to make sure 

16 that what definitions we use go forward encompass a 

17 technology-neutral framework. 

18 I know, and again, this is why our foreign 

19 owner is here at the table. They have a lot of 

20 experience in France reducing the waste streams. 

21 They've learned a lot in the years they've done that. 

22 I don't know if it's quite the same as the Pepsi 

23 bottle example yet, but I would like Sven to speak to 

24 the fact that we do have a good handle on the waste 

25 streams and can, in fact, as these technologies 
 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 continue to advance and we want a definition that 

2 allows them to advance, get more and more energy out 

3 of it and less and less waste streams. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Before Sven goes and this is 

5 also something for him to think about, you talked 

6 about the future in technology development and why the 

7 NEI definition is the way it is. 

8 And you've heard Tom's concerns. Is there 

9 anything that could be -- is there any way to address 

10 Tom's concerns in the definition for the NRC to also 

11 consider? That's a question. You may not have an 

12 answer now and I just want to comment that you 

13 referred to being spent at the end of the day. Well, 

14 I hope that after the end of the day today that you 

15 don't feel that you were used. 

16 (Laughter.) 

17 You know -- 

18 MR. MCCULLUM: Well, I do, I'll be ready 

19 to be used again tomorrow. 

20 (Laughter.) 

21 MR. CAMERON: There are a number of ways 

22 here, guys. 

23 (Laughter.) 

24 MR. MCCULLUM: But I think the answer -- 

25 and I will believe the answer to your question is 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 

 55

1 I think whether we ultimately end up calling it 

2 recycling or calling in reprocessing, we can agree on 

3 a definition that is forward-looking, encompasses the 

4 range of technologies, not just what we know the 

5 French do that is called reprocessing, but what 

6 General Electric, Westinghouse might do that they 

7 would prefer to refer to it as recycling. Just don't 

8 get ourselves too tied to the specific meaning of a 

9 legal definition that was invented 20 years and 

10 several technology iterations ago. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Rod. And 

12 we're going to go to Sven and I think Alex and John 

13 have something on this issue. But after Sven, I just 

14 want to jump over to Mary to make sure that she 

15 doesn't have to wait too long to make her point. 

16 But Sven, go ahead. 

17 MR. BADER: I'm not sure if this is the 

18 appropriate time, Chip, to go into the waste. I know 

19 this is the specific section related to waste. But I 

20 can definitely try to address some of Tom's comments. 

21 In general, we do have presentations out 

22 in the public domain that discuss the waste streams 

23 from a recycling facility. I know you've commented on 

24 them in the past. So they're out there. The bottom 

25 line is 96 percent of the fuel assembly is recyclable, 
 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 because 95 percent of it is uranium, 1 percent is 

2 plutonium, the other 4 percent is fission products. 

3 Fission products go into a vitrified waste stream. 

4 The plutonium gets recycled into a MOX fuel assembly 

5 or into a fast reactor fuel assembly. So we're 

6 talking transitions here. 

7 And also the 96 percent uranium is right 

8 now is considered a resource. We do re-enrich some of 

9 that. I think right now, I don't remember the exact 

10 numbers and I'll get those for you, if you'd like to 

11 see them. We have a brand-new facility that just came 

12 on line, George Besse II in France where that material 

13 will be recycled through and creating uranium UO2 fuel 

14 assemblies. 

15 There is quite an extensive amount of that 

16 material stored right now. France considers that a 

17 resource. It is not considered a waste. And that's 

18 something I think we're all interested in in how we're 

19 going to define these things. Do we consider 

20 something a waste form now versus something that might 

21 be a resource in the future? 

22 I think it's something that's difficult to 

23 establish in the United States and with respect to the 

24 low-level waste streams there's another fundamental 

25 difference in France. In France, we minimize 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 

 57

1 volume of low-level waste produced. When we come to 

2 the States and say here's what our volume is, everyone 

3 starts saying it's a lot of greater than Class C. A 

4 lot of it is the reason we have minimized the total 

5 volume. 

6 If we were to take a different approach 

7 and try to maximize the Class A waste, the volume goes 

8 up, clearly. So it's really a different effort, you 

9 know, how things are done in Europe, which are 

10 consistent with the IEA regulations versus what we 

11 have right now in the United States and a framework 

12 such as 10 CFR 61. So it's difficult for us to come 

13 over here and tell you here's the equivalent waste 

14 stream that we have in La Hague that's going to get 

15 licensed here in the United States. It's because the 

16 licensing regulations are completely different. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Sven, thank you for the 

18 reminder is that when we get to Britt's waste 

19 presentation that maybe we'll talk more about 

20 specifics on this in regard to some of the questions 

21 that Tom has. 

22 I'm running us until about a quarter to 

23 take a break. We're a little bit behind, but we have 

24 lots of flexibility. We have an hour and a half for 

25 lunch, so we may cut that back. We'll see where 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 

 58

1 are at 12. But let's hear from Mary and then we'll 

2 jump over to Alex and John and then come back to 

3 Susan. 

4 Mary. 

5 MS. OLSEN: You know, Chip, I have to say 

6 these stakeholder moments are great because I'm 

7 agreeing with Sven. I think that the industry should 

8 go with total honesty and scrap reprocessing, scrap 

9 recycling and call it plutonium recovery. Get it out 

10 on the table. We are talking about a plutonium 

11 economy. Get it honest. Get it on the table. Get 

12 what we are talking about. 

13 Now this is supposedly also a value-based 

14 discussion because we're talking about mandates and 

15 you know, tricky things like inadvertent criticality 

16 and you know, West Valley is a huge mess. It's going 

17 to be $10 billion to clean up that baby and it's only 

18 been admitted that there was one underground spill and 

19 one blowout of a stack, $10 billion. Huge mess at 

20 West Valley. Now half of it is from the so-called 

21 low-level waste that got its foot in the door because 

22 of the reprocessing, but it's still $5 billion for two 

23 incidents. I mean it's an enormous responsibility. 

24 So in our value, we talk about isolation 

25 of radioactivity from the environment for its 
 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 hazardous life. We talk about zero release. We talk 

2 about protecting people's bodies. And you know, 

3 that's where we really need to go with this 

4 discussion. So if we're talking about plutonium 

5 recovery, I have to say that I was going to do this 

6 first today, but I got all off on that foreign 

7 ownership issue which is very important to us. We do 

8 believe in laws and we do believe that if you look at 

9 our current laws, this whole discussion is kind of 

10 like cognitively weird that we're even in this room 

11 having this discussion because all of the waste that's 

12 generated in the United States is subject to the 

13 standard contract. 

14 The standard contract is for disposal, 

15 right? Well, okay, if you don't dispose of it, are we 

16 actually talking about nuclear utilities? Sending 

17 their own fuel for resource recovery? Because if they 

18 want DOE to take it under the standard contract, it's 

19 no longer civilian waste is it? It's DOE waste. And 

20 I've had little toe-to-toes with NNSA about plutonium. 

21 I'm an intervenor in the MNFF and they will tell me 

22 straight up that all the plutonium is plutonium is 

23 plutonium and all they're committed to is in the MNFF, 

24 you know, dual-track MOX Surplus Plutonium Disposition 

25 program is a certain number of tons. They won't tell 
 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 me that any given shipment is for MOX fuel or any 

2 given shipment is for future new pits or any shipment 

3 might be for that canceled program called 

4 Immobilization. 

5 No, it's all just plutonium to them. So 

6 if this is all going into the DOE pile, I don't know 

7 what NRC is doing licensing this thing. 

8 Now tell me that the industry is going to 

9 start sending their fuel for resource recovery, I'm 

10 going to just end up with one more reiteration of 

11 Tom's point, one percent. Are you going to call that 

12 recycling? One percent. Now he says 96 percent is 

13 because he includes the uranium being reused. That 

14 was tried in the United States. And just like West 

15 Valley is a huge mess. Look at the stories on 

16 Paducah. Look at Joby Warrick's series in the 1990s 

17 in The Washington Post. Look at the number of people 

18 who got access cancers over and above what they would 

19 have had if they had only been processing enrichment 

20 of uranium. 

21 Instead, they had fission products going 

22 through there. They had plutonium going through 

23 there. That's what we have in the weapons now, in the 

24 DU weapons all over the battlefields. They're 

25 wondering where the fission product is coming 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 

 61

1 Well, it's because they sent some of that uranium back 

2 through and that DU is laced with fission products and 

3 plutonium. 

4 So let's get really brass tacks in this 

5 room and call is resource recovery, call it plutonium 

6 separation, call it plutonium economy which is where 

7 we're going with this if we go there. And really look 

8 long and hard at the security issues. I'm not going 

9 to go there because I don't want to sign all those 

10 contracts with you all. 

11 Sign them with each other and really look 

12 at this, because this is not recycling. This is a 

13 plutonium economy. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Mary. I'm 

15 going to give Sven a quick opportunity clarify the 

16 agreement with Mary. Go ahead. 

17 MR. BADER: Just real quick about 

18 plutonium recycling. If you burn a core greater than 

19 30 percent MOX, you're actually reducing the total 

20 plutonium in the inventory. So this is actually a 

21 means of removing Pu from the cycle. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And -- 

23 MR. CLEMENTS: Could I ask Sven a quick 

24 question, follow up? 

25 MR. CAMERON: 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 

 62

1 MR. CLEMENTS: What percent of the 

2 irradiated MOX fuel is reprocessed? 

3 MR. BADER: You're talking about MOX 

4 itself, okay? It has been done. I don't know what 

5 fraction has been done. I know it's a small fraction, 

6 obviously. The one thing about the United States is 

7 there's tons of spent fuel that's available so we 

8 wouldn't really have to go towards spent MOX recycle. 

9 But La Hague has done recycling of spent 

10 MOX fuel. It's on the order of 100 metric tons, maybe 

11 200 metric tons. I can get you the numbers 

12 specifically. So it is a process that we can perform. 

13 But then again, that's really more for uranium 

14 recovery process. 

15 MR. CLEMENTS: But just to be clear, the 

16 recycling or reprocessing as far as the spent MOX 

17 goes, the so-called recycling of the plutonium, it 

18 stops after one cycle. 

19 MR. BADER: I'm not quite sure I follow 

20 that question. It stops after one cycle. 

21 MR. CLEMENTS: The spent MOX is stored. 

22 There was a demonstration that the MOX could be 

23 reprocessed. There were problems with that. It's 

24 simply stored, so any definition considering recycling 

25 as a definition, you have to look how far that goes. 
 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 The spent MOX, as of now, it has -- it's been 

2 demonstrated, but not a matter of commercial basis, 

3 that it's reprocessed and separated materials are 

4 stored or reused. 

5 MR. BADER: It can be reprocessed. It's 

6 not because there's so much available spent fuel that 

7 we don't need to process MOX fuel. However, once the 

8 next generation reactors move along and there's an 

9 opportunity to produce the fast reactor fuel from that 

10 recycled MOX. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And this may be grist 

12 for the mill for a hallway conversation, too, to 

13 develop further information on this. 

14 What I'm going to suggest is we go to Alex 

15 and John and Susan. And then we'll go back over to 

16 Rod and then let's take a break, unless someone says 

17 something really provocative and gets us going again. 

18 (Laughter.) 

19 I'm sorry I have to go to Alex on that 

20 note. 

21 MR. MURRAY: Gee, Chip, come on. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead, Alex. I'm sorry. 

23 MR. MURRAY: I'm just a young dude. One 

24 of the reasons that we're having this meeting is to 

25 try and solicit some feedback here and we seem to 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 

 64

1 talking a little bit across each other, recycle, you 

2 don't want recycling; one percent, no, it's more than 

3 that. 

4 Can I just ask the assembled minds here, 

5 Mary, Susan, Tom, Sven, Rod, anyone else who wants to 

6 chip in, how would you define those terms? Would you 

7 define recycling as recycling just a little bit, just 

8 the plutonium? Is that plutonium recycled, is it 50 

9 percent? Is it all reprocessed uranium? Is there 

10 some sort of purity or cleanliness level associated 

11 with it, you know, i.e., no fission products or 

12 something like that which was what happened with 

13 Paducah. 

14 Please, can we rather than just talking 

15 across each other, give some thought as to what these 

16 definitions might entail. The staff at the NRC, 

17 safety is our job. And we want to make sure that the 

18 appropriate definitions are in this proposed new rule 

19 and we have some feedback from the minds at this table 

20 as to what those definitions might include, might 

21 incorporate. 

22 So I throw it open, what would the people 

23 here consider to be recycling? Is it anything from 

24 spent nuclear fuel? Is it again, the -- I'll say 

25 useful components, whatever those might be? What 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 

 65

1 useful components? What definitions should we put in 

2 this proposed new rule. 

3 So please, chip in, everybody. 

4 MR. CAMERON: And let's -- we may hear 

5 something from John or Susan or Rod on that particular 

6 issue, but maybe that's the issue we should start with 

7 when we come back from the break. And have a good 

8 discussion on that. 

9 Let's hear from John and Susan and Rod, 

10 then we'll take a break. 

11 Thank you, Alex. 

12 MR. GREEVES: I guess I would like to 

13 raise this to a little bit higher plane. We started 

14 talking about definitions and having written and 

15 worked on a number of regulations, it's just a part of 

16 the regulation. And the NEI White Paper actually 

17 provided a draft definition for fuel recycling 

18 facility. I almost wish we would put it up on the 

19 screen. Somehow it's been identified as inaccurate, 

20 incomplete, and misleading. 

21 I'm reading it here now and I'm having 

22 trouble understanding how somebody could conclude that 

23 it's inaccurate and misleading. Incomplete, anyhow -- 

24 the regulator is going to have to put a set of 

25 definitions in the rule and it's not going to capture 
 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 all of the things you've just been talking about. 

2 Those, to me, are in a technical basis document. And 

3 so some point, either the NRC or other stakeholders, 

4 if you don't like the definition that the NEI White 

5 Paper presents, give us something lese to talk about. 

6 I think it's unfair to call it inaccurate and 

7 misleading. If you have something better, please 

8 bring it forward. 

9 And a lot of the content we've just gone 

10 through, to me, is content for a technical basis 

11 document, so that once the rule is implemented, you 

12 can look back and see what the people meant when they 

13 put this rule in place. But the definition is not 

14 going to contain all the things we've just talked 

15 about. Look at any other rulemaking. I'm familiar 

16 with -- it doesn't get to that level of detail. What 

17 it needs to do is introduce the concept that if you're 

18 going to recycle, you need a regulation to allow that 

19 to proceed and part of that recycle is a processing 

20 activity. So simple statement, higher plane. I think 

21 we need a definition of recycle and I enjoy hearing 

22 what other people think that should be. If not, what 

23 is in the NEI White Paper. Thank you for your 

24 attention. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay, John, and we'll 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 

 67

1 coming back to you with that threshold question that 

2 Alex raised to try to get to that definition, but 

3 you're also putting another thing on the table for us, 

4 which is a sort of a regulatory structure issue about 

5 what's appropriate for the rule, versus what's 

6 appropriate for what you called a technical basis 

7 document which may be an NRC guidance document. Okay? 

8 But thank you for doing that and let's go to Susan 

9 and Rod. 

10 Susan? 

11 MS. CORBETT: I would just like to say as 

12 a representative of the conservation community, we 

13 think that calling reprocessing/recycling is 

14 greenwashing it at its worst. I can see why they want 

15 to do this because in South Carolina, we have such a 

16 problem with what went on at Savannah River site and I 

17 know considering the mess that they've made around the 

18 world at reprocessing sites, I can see why they don't 

19 want to use the word reprocessing any more because it 

20 has a negative connotation in a lot of places, 

21 especially in this country and in places in other 

22 countries as well. 

23 So they need to rename it in order to sell 

24 it in the future. And that's what they're trying to 

25 do. They're trying to equate this as some sort 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 

 68

1 fuzzy green warm clean thing activity and we know 

2 that's not what it is. It's a marketing tool that 

3 they are trying to employ, they're using to sell this. 

4 We got a good example of that this past year. I 

5 think it was Senate bill 232, what was it, Tom? They 

6 tried to sell this in the South Carolina Senate and of 

7 course, you get these legislators who don't really do 

8 their homework. So they attach this oh, recycling 

9 spent -- yeah, it's recycling. It's got to be green. 

10 It conservation community is going to love it. We're 

11 going to vote for it. 

12 No. That's what they're trying to do, use 

13 it as a marketing selling tool and we oppose it. We 

14 don't want it to be called recycling. We want it to 

15 be called what it is, reprocessing. We've always 

16 known or if we want to call it plutonium recovery, 

17 that's fine. But we oppose the use of the term 

18 recycling. 

19 MR. CAMERON: So Susan, you're bringing up 

20 this perception issue. Are you suggesting that no 

21 matter what would be in the definition, what would be 

22 in the definition may be acceptable, but the term 

23 that's used, in other words, what's being defined, 

24 that might be offensive to people? If you understand 

25 what -- where I'm going. You're talking about 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 

 69

1 perception, call it greenwashing, okay. All right. 

2 Rod, let's finish up with you and take on 

3 whatever you want to take on at this point. 

4 MR. MCCULLUM: I'll try to stay on a high 

5 plane and say absolutely nothing provocative. 

6 (Laughter.) 

7 I think this entire discussion is 

8 emblematic of why we need a technology-neutral 

9 definition. I hope -- I think this has been good 

10 input. In the interest of full disclosure and total 

11 honesty, yes, in recycling, you do recover plutonium. 

12 But the reason you recover is because you intend to 

13 destroy it. When you turn MOX fuel or whatever fuel 

14 you burn in your next reactor, you split the plutonium 

15 in half and as Sven mentioned, you end up with less 

16 plutonium at the end of the day. 

17 While we don't want to be accused of 

18 greenwashing this and misrepresenting it, so if 

19 recycling and reprocessing is an outdated term, maybe 

20 there's a need to come up with a new word. You know, 

21 we do need to recognize that there is a substantial 

22 environmental benefit to do this. You are taking 

23 plutonium out of the environment when you do this. 

24 You're also potentially with some technologies, taking 

25 other things. 
 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 Americium is one of the things that is the 

2 most challenging radionuclides in disposal. If you 

3 reprocess the fuel at a certain time after it's been 

4 initially burned in a reactor, you can actually 

5 shorten or cut back on the amount of americium that 

6 builds up under time in the used or spent fuel. 

7 Some advanced processes may, in fact, burn 

8 actinides such as americium and neptunium and with all 

9 the fission products, you're taking these fission 

10 products, some of which are gases that are entrained 

11 inside the cladding of the fuel and you're putting 

12 them in solid forms so that they are less able to be 

13 released into the environment. So we don't want a 

14 definition that people thing we're just greenwashing 

15 and maybe because we recycle these bottles it has an 

16 image that you just -- you can apply to nuclear. 

17 We do need a definition that recognizes 

18 that this is something different than what the 

19 definition of reprocessing recognized years ago and 

20 that does allow for the fact that the reason -- half 

21 the reason we would be doing this is because there is 

22 an environmental benefit. I'll concede the other half 

23 is you generate more electricity which when it's 101 

24 degrees today, I think we all appreciate. 

25 So that's 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 

 71

1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Rod. Let's 

2 take a break. And I just -- before we break for 

3 lunch, we're going to go out to all of you in the 

4 audience. But let's take a break right now and come 

5 back and address the broad issue that Alex raised and 

6 keep in mind that an appropriate definition for a 

7 rulemaking and maybe there needs to be a new term. 

8 We've heard some suggestions on new terms, but let's 

9 take a break until how about five after? 

10 There's complimentary coffee by the front 

11 desk. There's water right over here. And if you want 

12 a snack of any type, there is a pantry, market pantry 

13 where you can buy snacks. But complimentary coffee. 

14 I don't know how long it will last, so we'll stampede 

15 out of the room. But thank you very much for this 

16 morning's discussion. 

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled public 

18 meeting went off the record at 10:48 a.m., and resumed 

19 at 11:12 a.m.) 

20 MR. CAMERON: Let's spend some more time 

21 on the definition and -- I want to give -- we're going 

22 to go to Alex. I want to give Rod a chance to clarify 

23 something, but sort of an interesting issue that I was 

24 talking to Susan Corbett about, and the term 

25 "greenwashing" -- this is just sort of a question 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 

 72

1 thought. 

2 If you took the NEI definition that's in 

3 there now, instead of it being the definition for 

4 recycle, you used the term reprocessing, or some other 

5 term, as you suggested, does that solve any problems? 

6 I'm just putting that out for you. And 

7 Alex is sort of our muse, so to speak, here. Well, 

8 Wendy's really a better muse than Alex. 

9 But we're going to go to Alex, and then -- 

10 let's spend time on that definition, but I don't want 

11 us to miss -- what I have up here is other topical 

12 areas, on Wendy's slide. 

13 There's a bunch of regulations, regulatory 

14 areas, such as emergency planning, fire protection, 

15 seismic whatever. And it's, should these be 

16 incorporated into the new part? 

17 That's perhaps an easy answer. It's, 

18 well, yes. But I guess the harder question is, what 

19 aspects of those should be incorporated into the new 

20 part on reprocessing. 

21 So we want to get some definition, or some 

22 discussion for the NRC staff on that. We'll run till 

23 12:15. We'll spend some time with those of you in the 

24 audience before we break. So let's go to Alex. And 

25 we're on the definition now. And Alex, we're 
 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 following up on what you said before. 

2 MR. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you very much, 

3 Chip. Yes. I just want to just take a few more 

4 minutes and ask some of the panel members at the table 

5 a little more related to the definitions. 

6 Specifically, should a term like recycling 

7 be used? Should a term like reprocessing be used? 

8 Are they or are they not interchangeable? And what 

9 types of activities, operations, materials, what have 

10 you, would be encompassed by those terms, whether it 

11 be reprocessing, recycling, or some combination 

12 thereof? 

13 Would it include things like waste 

14 vitrification, or high-level waste vitrification? 

15 Would it include things like, I don't know, fuel 

16 fabrication? Would it include spent fuel storage? 

17 So I open that up. Should it also be 

18 phrased technology-neutral? I think it's in some of 

19 the high-level waste regulations, or the guidance 

20 documents, where reprocessing is used in terms of 

21 chemical separations, or first-cycle separations. 

22 I think in one place it even has first23 cycle solvent extraction separations of spent nuclear 

24 fuel. Should it be tied to a technology? 

25 So let me throw that out to the panel 
 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 members, and see what feedback the NRC staff can 

2 obtain, please. Thank you. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Alex. And I 

4 think you all realize what Alex and Wendy are trying 

5 to get on this issue is some help with how that 

6 definition will be written. 

7 Let's go to Mary and then Susan. Mary? 

8 MS. OLSEN: Well, again, these stakeholder 

9 moments. I'm going to speak against my colleague to 

10 my left, because I actually -- if you haven't gotten 

11 it, it's that song: "We will, we will fight you." 

12 So call it recycling, please. Because 

13 it's going to make a whole bunch of the old-guard 

14 activists flaming mad. 

15 So my focus group says "Yeah, it's good. 

16 Call it recycling, because I can get people really 

17 cooked up on that one." 

18 Now, I just want to, for the sake of 

19 record, say that while you may, in fact -- you know, 

20 I'm advocating for resource recovery, plutonium 

21 separation, plutonium recovery as the honest terms. 

22 But I don't agree that it is recycle of 

23 plutonium, because you're going to assert at the same 

24 table, in the same morning, that you're going to 

25 destroy this resource, that that's the purpose 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 

 75

1 recovering it, is to destroy it. 

2 But I contend that that's a false 

3 statement, because it's materials accounting that 

4 doesn't include the DU that's in the same picture of 

5 the same fuel rod of the same fission moment, and the 

6 new plutonium that is engendered in that fission. 

7 So when you do your full materials 

8 accounting, you do not reduce plutonium in this 

9 picture. So get it straight. Are you resource 

10 recovery for resource destruction, and then "Oh, boy, 

11 now we have this new plutonium. What are we going to 

12 do about that?" 

13 So this is a very complicated story. I 

14 think you're trying to simplify it down, and if you 

15 simplify it down to calling it recycling, you'll make 

16 me very happy. 

17 MR. CAMERON: And Susan? 

18 MS. CORBETT: We started out by asking 

19 whether the term reprocessing would solve any 

20 problems. I think you should have said "Would it 

21 solve or create any problems?" 

22 Because I think that if you stick with 

23 reprocessing, you're creating a problem for the 

24 industry, who doesn't want to use that term, for the 

25 reasons that I discussed earlier. 
 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 And they need this new term, recycling, to 

2 sell these new technologies. Because it goes in line 

3 with the green economy, and the warm fuzzy feelings 

4 that come with the idea of true recycling. 

5 So I think you're creating a problem for 

6 the industry when you make them stick to the 

7 terminology of reprocessing. 

8 MR. CAMERON: And by what you said before, 

9 the use of the term reprocessing would be bad, so to 

10 speak, because of the fact that it really has a bad 

11 reputation. 

12 MS. CORBETT: It has an association, in 

13 our state, with what's going on with the tanks, and 

14 the waste that's been created, and having a hard time 

15 cleaning it up. And that's true in other places as 

16 well. 

17 So they're trying to distance themselves 

18 from this word, because of the negative connotations 

19 that it's had, here and other places. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Susan. 

21 Tom, and then we'll go to John? 

22 MR. CLEMENTS: Thank you, Chip. It seems 

23 to me that, in response to Alex's question, that 

24 reprocessing, as far as the overall process with 

25 various waste streams, with the reprocessed uranium 
 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 stream, with the plutonium stream, is what needs to be 

2 defined. 

3 Now, there may be some subset of that 

4 where some of the materials are reused, but what we've 

5 heard from the industry in part -- and this creates 

6 another dilemma for the NRC -- is that there's 

7 speculative presentation that some of these materials 

8 might be able to be reused. 

9 And I think that makes it much more 

10 difficult to you if we're talking about some future 

11 possible reuse of more of the reprocessed uranium, or 

12 a second cycle of reprocessing MOX, or whatever it 

13 might be. 

14 But I think the easiest thing, on the 

15 first cut, is to define reprocessing as what we know 

16 it is, with separating some of the materials via 

17 whatever process, with all the waste streams. 

18 Now, I would agree that, flawed as it is, 

19 that reprocessing in France, some of the plutonium is 

20 used the first time for mox. Now, that creates 

21 another dilemma for you, because the so-called 

22 recycling ends, as it stands now, and then it becomes 

23 speculative. 

24 I think you need to not get into 

25 speculative issues. The industry has not 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 

 78

1 presented percentages of materials recycled. What 

2 happens to the waste, is it recycled? 

3 So I recognize your dilemma in this, but I 

4 think the easiest thing is to call the process what it 

5 is, reprocessing. Thank you. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Tom. John, and then 

7 we'll go over to Rod? 

8 MR. GREEVES: Okay. I think, Alex, you 

9 asked a couple of right questions. And should recycle 

10 be used in the definition? My answer is yes. 

11 And for clarity, I'll point to you, Alex, 

12 because you're sitting right next to me, the 

13 definition that was in the white paper. It's very 

14 short, simple. What it really defines is fuel 

15 recycling facilities, so recycle is in the word. 

16 And your second question was, what 

17 activities would that include? And right in the 

18 definition, which is here for you and others to read -

19 - I'm sorry, I can't put it up on the screen -- it 

20 gives an applicant -- it defines what the applicant 

21 can, in fact, do. 

22 And the complex for a recycling facility 

23 requires you to receive materials -- it would give you 

24 the opportunity to receive and store materials. So 

25 the word storage is in 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 

 79

1 It would give you -- you need to process 

2 materials. So the word process is in this definition. 

3 It would include, in most contexts, fuel fabrication. 

4 Take it, put it in a different form: fuel 

5 fabrication. 

6 So fuel fabrication is in this definition. 

7 In some contexts, you have a waste stream, and it 

8 would be vitrified. So this definition would 

9 anticipate vitrification and other associated 

10 activities. 

11 So the NEI group tried to craft that 

12 definition as is normally done for a regulation, which 

13 during my career, I have worked on many of them. 

14 So I think Alex asked the right question. 

15 My answer is "Yes, the word recycle should be 

16 included. It should include all the things that are 

17 already in there, and you can add others." 

18 And I have no objection to the word 

19 reprocessing also being contained in here, but -- so 

20 I'm giving my answer to your question, Alex. And I 

21 think it's not inaccurate or misleading. And if it 

22 has any chance of being either of those, we'd 

23 certainly like to improve on that. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Let me ask all of you, in 

25 light of what John just said, that the NRC slides pose 
 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 this in terms of a definition of reprocessing versus 

2 recycling. 

3 As John is pointing out, the definition 

4 that is in the NEI white paper is the definition of a 

5 facility. And as John just described, the types of 

6 things that might go on at that facility. 

7 Is there any help looking at it from the 

8 definition of a facility, which would include where 

9 you might reprocess, where you might recycle, blah 

10 blah blah. 

11 I mean, I would have to turn to Wendy, 

12 first, and ask why isn't this framed, why isn't this 

13 issue framed in the definition of a facility? Or am I 

14 missing the point? 

15 Wendy, do you want to talk to that? To 

16 what Greeves just said? 

17 DR. REED: Yes, I was actually going to 

18 follow up with asking John how he envisioned all of 

19 the operations being licensed. Because you mentioned 

20 fuel fabrication, and would you consider that to fall 

21 under Part 7(x)? Or would you consider it -- 

22 MR. GREEVES: Absolutely. It's -- Sven, 

23 help me out here. But the agency is about efficiency 

24 and effectiveness, and the enemy of efficiency and 

25 effectiveness would be to have a facility that had 
 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 four or five different licenses associated with it. 

2 So the goal, in the NEI white paper, was 

3 to recommend a Part 7(x), which apparently has been 

4 accepted. And that that 7(x) encompass all the 

5 activities necessary to do -- and I hate to use the 

6 word, but recycle. 

7 And it includes the things that I just 

8 mentioned in the definition. To do that, you've got 

9 to account for vitrification. You've got to account 

10 for receipt of the material. You've got to account 

11 for storage of it before it goes somewhere else. All 

12 of those things under one regulation. 

13 MR. CAMERON: And as -- we're going to get 

14 to a little bit more when we hear about Brit's 

15 presentation. This issue that Wendy is raising and 

16 John is referring to is what I call the scope issue. 

17 In other words, should there be separate licenses 

18 under Part 72, et cetera, et cetera? Should all these 

19 different types of facilities be all licensed under 

20 7(x)? 

21 So that's another angle on this, but are 

22 we really barking up the wrong tree here, and focusing 

23 on whether the term recycle should be used or 

24 reprocessing? Or should they both be used, because 

25 they're both going to happen at this 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 

 82

1 John? 

2 MR. GREEVES: I don't see how you can 

3 avoid the word recycle somewhere. And what it's about 

4 is public health and safety. And the single license 

5 for this facility should be looking at the 

6 consequences on and off site. 

7 And we're going to get to licensing safety 

8 issues later. And I look forward to that discussion, 

9 also. So that's why I strongly believe it should be 

10 one license, and integrate the risks across these 

11 facilities. 

12 Trying to separate it out would, I think, 

13 be a mistake. Hopefully, I'm answering your question, 

14 Wendy. 

15 DR. REED: Yes, thank you. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And let's go to the -

17 - did that take care of it? 

18 DR. REED: Yes, it did. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Wendy. 

20 Thanks, John. Let's go to Rod, and I just would like 

21 to ask all of you around the table, including South 

22 Carolina DHEC, Department of Health and Environmental 

23 Control, and Tom, Susan, all of you, does this 

24 discussion that we've been having about the definition 

25 of a facility and what should be included under 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 

 83

1 definition, does that help us get away from the 

2 greenwashing, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? 

3 Okay, Rod? 

4 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes. And really, John, I 

5 think covered much of what I would have said. But I 

6 have been asked by folks in the audience to clarify. 

7 And I think what we've been talking about for a lot of 

8 this time is word association. 

9 You know, we associate recycling -- and I 

10 started it with my bottle thing, maybe. I'm sorry. 

11 But we associate certain things with recycling. And 

12 if our focus groups tell us that we're going to get 

13 accused of greenwashing if we do that, we probably 

14 won't use it in our communications materials. 

15 We associate certain things with 

16 reprocessing, and we tend to associate very specific 

17 technologies with reprocessing. And the idea of using 

18 recycle, if it's the right term -- and maybe the 

19 answer here is a third term. 

20 But very clearly, what John said is, we 

21 need a definition -- and more importantly, we need a 

22 regulation. You know, the definition is the easy 

23 part, and then writing the regulation that covers all 

24 the activities that will be done on this facility from 

25 the time the used fuel is received at the gate 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 

 84

1 time both fresh fuel leaves the site, and also the 

2 waste products to go to disposal leave the site. 

3 We are having a lot of experience, at our 

4 current plants right now, with regulating storage 

5 under Part 72 and regulating the operations that load 

6 the storage cast under Part 50. And we are finding 

7 difficulties, and incredible inefficiencies, where you 

8 get to the interfaces in the regulations. 

9 So the most important thing here is, we 

10 define this in a way that is both comprehensive and 

11 forward-looking, in that it's not just aqueous 

12 technology we're talking about. 

13 So my clarification is, I don't care what 

14 word you use, and I don't care what that word gets 

15 associated with, as long as it is defined in a way 

16 that allows every aspect of the facility to be covered 

17 by the regulation. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Susan, what do you 

19 think about this new look at this definition issue? 

20 In other words, a third term that covers all the 

21 activities at the site. 

22 MS. CORBETT: Before we go there, I want 

23 to ask a question of AREVA. I mean, I'm assuming they 

24 do all of these things at La Hague, right? Or no? 

25 What do the call it in France, I guess, is what I want 
 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 to ask you? 

2 MR. BADER: Actually, the word is 

3 recycling, but it's French. 

4 (Laughter.) 

5 MR. CAMERON: Thanks for that, Sven. 

6 MR. BADER: So we use the French word for 

7 recycling. 

8 MS. CORBETT: What's the French word? 

9 Maybe we should use that. 

10 MR. BADER: The French word is recycling, 

11 and if you interpret it, it's probably reprocessing in 

12 English. But to clarify your position, you bring up a 

13 good point, that in France we have two separate 

14 facilities: the recycling/reprocessing activities are 

15 in La Hague, and then the fuel fabrication facilities 

16 are down in Avignon, in the south of France. 

17 So any facility that Areva or some other 

18 company would propose in the United States would 

19 probably not separate those facilities. You don't 

20 want to go through the transportation hassles of 

21 transporting mixed oxide or plutonium. 

22 MR. MCCULLUM: Sven, are they under the 

23 same regulation, both of those facilities? 

24 MR. BADER: In France, all facilities, 

25 nuclear-related, are under one regulation, one 
 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 umbrella regulation. And then they have accords, 

2 basically, with each of the operating facilities. So 

3 there's -- it's a model of efficiency, if you ask me. 

4 But it's significantly different than here in the 

5 United States. 

6 And the accord is basically to -- you 

7 license each facility individually, and you're only 

8 given a timeframe in which, in case you have to go 

9 through renewal, they go through a constant process of 

10 not accepting the standard, that they expect constant 

11 improvements at your facility. 

12 So the waste is one aspect of that. And 

13 for La Hague, the waste streams have constantly come 

14 down, because the regulations -- not because of the 

15 regulations. We've made the process more efficient. 

16 But in the process, the regulations have also come 

17 down. 

18 So the regulator there is chasing the 

19 design of the facility, the improvement of the 

20 facilities. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

22 MS. CORBETT: Your question was -- I think 

23 maybe a new name is in order here. Because I think 

24 the industry doesn't like reprocessing, and the 

25 conservation community doesn't like recycling. So 
 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 maybe we have to come up with something totally new. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Maybe we had a little 

3 breakthrough here. Tom, what do you think? 

4 MR. CLEMENTS: Well, I don't necessarily 

5 want to beat the reprocessing horse, although I think 

6 that's the term we already have. But I -- just for 

7 the record, I do recognize, as far as the NRC 

8 regulations go, some weaknesses in both Part 50 and 

9 Part 74 reprocessing facilities. 

10 I don't think that we're going to be 

11 moving towards a reprocessing facility, and I think 

12 the Blue Ribbon Commission is going to basically 

13 affirm that, perhaps some R&D. 

14 So I have some mixed feelings with this 

15 point. I don't see any problems with coming up with 

16 new regs, though I do have some concern that NEI is 

17 more in the driver's seat here, and I wish the Nuclear 

18 Regulatory Commission would be more assertive that 

19 they're in control, and they're not just following 

20 along with the NEI white papers. 

21 But I do recognize that there may need to 

22 be regs if this is going to proceed towards 

23 reprocessing, which I don't think is the case right 

24 now. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 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 

 88

1 Let's move to what I call the other topical areas, and 

2 the slide I have isn't numbered, but it's a list of 

3 things, like are there emergency planning aspects that 

4 are unique to reprocessing and recycling? What 

5 standards and current requirements should be 

6 incorporated into fire protection regulations? Should 

7 -- and then there's something on the seismic 

8 standards, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F, which I'm 

9 sure someone will explain what that is to us. 

10 But these are issues. And Wendy, could 

11 you just characterize? I'm doing a very bad job of 

12 this. Can you just characterize what you would like 

13 to know from people in terms of these other areas? 

14 DR. REED: Yes. I mean, these areas, I 

15 would say, were identified because we do recognize 

16 there are some sort of unique aspects of reprocessing 

17 facilities, and not necessarily totally akin to 

18 reactors and to current fuel cycle facilities. 

19 And so these, we have focused more 

20 attention on these sort of areas, and then some of the 

21 other regulations that we're considering adapting for 

22 a new part in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And just thinking 

24 about what Tom said, is that sometimes you're going to 

25 see the NRC refer to the NRC white paper, which is 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 

 89

1 -- I'm sure the NRC would say it's not necessarily 

2 giving more deference to what the industry is saying. 

3 But it is an organizational tool, at any rate, to 

4 start looking at some of these questions. 

5 What did the NEI white paper say about 

6 these issues? But let's think about that. Since we 

7 have Mary and Tom, let's hear from them. Mary, what 

8 about these other issues? Mary Olsen. 

9 MS. OLSEN: I want to speak to the 

10 question of fire. This really helps build the 

11 credibility of the agency tremendously if you get your 

12 feet wet and go look at some actual data of lessons -- 

13 get some lessons learned. 

14 So I'm going to recommend a few things to 

15 look at in terms of the fire situation. There were a 

16 lot of fires at West Valley. It's why they decided 

17 they needed to go offline, was because of the amount 

18 of problems they were having with fires, and the 

19 problems they were having with worker exposure, partly 

20 due to the fires. 

21 Rocky Flats. Different kind of plutonium 

22 facility. Again, lots of fires. Strong record of 

23 what happened there, and the types of releases that 

24 happened because of fires. 

25 Fukushima. They're looking 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 

 90

1 apparently June 14th, there was another fuel pool 

2 fire. And then I would say that I don't know very 

3 much about it, but I think we should all be looking 

4 back to the first really big accident, which was 

5 Kishtim. 

6 And that was associated with the waste 

7 generated from plutonium recovery, and I've heard 

8 there was an earthquake involved. I don't know. I'm 

9 giving you hearsay. But you are in the position to do 

10 some fact finding. 

11 And there's a whole lot of collaborative 

12 relationship that wasn't there in the 1950s, people 

13 who were discovering about Kishtim because there were 

14 journal articles about high exposures of radiation and 

15 they couldn't imagine how it happened. And that's how 

16 it came out. 

17 Now there's a lot of interchange possible. 

18 So I would really love to see you guys actually go 

19 look where the problems have been, and learn from 

20 them. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Great. 

22 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I think we have done 

23 that, and we do continue to do that. Certainly, that 

24 is the very foundation upon which our industry 

25 maintains safety, is that everything that happens, 
 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 anywhere in the world, in a nuclear facility, gets 

2 analyzed and addressed at every facility in this 

3 country. And hopefully other countries will be the 

4 same way. 

5 On the issue of fire, I do have to respond 

6 to one thing Mary said. There have not been any fuel 

7 pool fires at Fukushima. We have data on the Unit IV 

8 pool. We have video of the Unit IV fuel. We do know 

9 that perhaps some debris fell into the Unit III pool 

10 as a result of the very severe explosion, but we have 

11 not had a fuel pool fire there. Certainly not a 

12 confirmed one, in any case. 

13 On fire protection -- I apologize, the 

14 reason I was looking at my Blackberry -- and I'll 

15 reserve this for something we'll probably put in a 

16 written comment, but we do want to ask the NRC why 

17 you're choosing NFPA 801 as your fire protection 

18 standard, instead of 905, which I think we would 

19 prefer. 

20 And I'm not the expert in this area, but I 

21 think that also gets to making sure that we've learned 

22 all the right lessons and looked at everything, that 

23 we are using the latest fire protection knowledge out 

24 there. 

25 I had something I was going to say 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 

 92

1 emergency preparedness, but maybe we'll get to that 

2 discussion next. I'll table that for now. 

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

4 Rod. Wendy, did you have a clarification, before we 

5 go to other people? 

6 DR. REED: No. I just wanted to say thank 

7 you to Mary for providing that information. I mean, 

8 we have been looking at historical reprocessing 

9 operations. 

10 Some of the ones that you mentioned. 

11 Another one, in the early '90s, was Tomsk. And so 

12 yes, we are definitely taking into consideration 

13 previous experiences, both in the United States and 

14 other countries. 

15 And the NRC has also begun a task force 

16 that will look at Fukushima. And I imagine any 

17 recommendations that came from that would impact the -

18 - 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So it's not just 

20 you're going to adopt existing fire protection 

21 regulations wholesale. You're actually going to look 

22 to what's the best that should be done, in terms of 

23 fire protection. What's necessary. 

24 DR. REED: Yes. 

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 

 93

1 DR. REED: Unfortunately, in response to 

2 Rod's point about the different national fire 

3 protection standards, I'm not a fire protection 

4 expert. Our fire protection expert who worked on this 

5 section of this document isn't here. 

6 But his recommendation was that we use 801 

7 because it is for fuel cycle facilities. However, we 

8 will take into consideration -- 

9 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So you've thought 

10 about that distinction? 

11 DR. REED: Yes. 

12 MR. CAMERON: All right. Let's go to Tom, 

13 and then to Sven. 

14 MR. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Chip, should I 

15 -- there were some questions to the public concerning 

16 this Gap 1, and I can give some brief answers to a 

17 number of these, if I could. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Sure. Go ahead. 

19 MR. CLEMENTS: There were six questions -- 

20 it's on page nine of this spiral -- and I just jotted 

21 down some things on my computer. There was also a 

22 question prior to the line, where it says "Questions 

23 to the public concerning seismic design." 

24 And my opinion is that the seismic design 

25 standards should be the same for the 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 

 94

1 plant as for a reactor, given -- and associated 

2 buildings, particularly because of the spent fuel 

3 storage risk. 

4 Just running down the questions, number 

5 one was related to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix X. 

6 Appendix F, sorry. I think there's a problem in this, 

7 that it mentions "high-level radioactive waste shall 

8 be transferred to a federal repository no later than 

9 10 years following separation. Fuel reprocessing 

10 plant's inventory of high-level liquid radioactive 

11 waste will be limited to that produced in five years." 

12 I can foresee, particularly as we see at 

13 Savannah River Site, that those timelines are not -- 

14 could be unrealistic, particularly if there's problems 

15 on the high-level waste storage end of things. So I 

16 would question that. 

17 As far as decommissioning and financial 

18 requirements, just a brief comment here. Because this 

19 would be a public facility, I don't think the nuclear 

20 waste fund should be taken into account on the 

21 decommissioning part of this, and it would have to be 

22 resources from the company. 

23 Number four, what does NRC need to 

24 consider when updating NUREG-1140? Please correct me 

25 if I'm mistaken, but just in looking through it, when 
 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 discussing dry cask storage, it said the fuel burn up 

2 for this analysis is soon to be 33,000 megawatt days, 

3 and I don't think that that's -- per metric ton of 

4 uranium -- I don't think that that's accurate, because 

5 of a higher burn up of fuel. 

6 It may have been mentioned somewhere else 

7 in the document. And also I think, under this, you 

8 need to look at spend MOX fuel, if that were to go to 

9 such a facility, and the additional heat burden that 

10 it might place on a spent fuel pool. 

11 The last two points. Number five, 

12 emergency planning zone, I think it would be -- 

13 because of the quantity of spent fuel in the spent 

14 fuel pool, it should be pretty much the same as 

15 reactors, which I question if that's adequate, but I 

16 don't think it can be less. 

17 If such a facility were to be located on a 

18 DOE site, we've seen here at Savannah River where Shaw 

19 AREVA tried to get the emergency planning zone at the 

20 site boundary of the entire Savannah River site, 

21 rather than the immediate area around the facility. 

22 If were a DOE site were located, it could 

23 not be the site boundary, particularly of a large DOE 

24 site, like Savanna River site. The site boundaries 

25 would have to be right around the facility itself. 
 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 And that raises a question, but what about 

2 impact to DOE site workers that would be on the site, 

3 versus the public, who may be beyond the further site 

4 boundary? 

5 In emergency planning aspects you need for 

6 reprocessing, I didn't really see adequate discussion, 

7 at least in NUREG-1140, about transportation of high8 level waste into the site. I think that needs to be 

9 considered. 

10 And just one more point. As far as the 

11 spent fuel pool goes, it's my understanding that the 

12 Rokkasho site, for example, the pool is already full. 

13 It has about 3,000 metric tons of spent fuel in it. 

14 So the radioactive inventory is quite high, so that 

15 the seismic question comes into play here, if the pool 

16 were to be drained. 

17 I understand in the earthquake, the water 

18 sloshed out of Rokkasho, by the way. If there is, as 

19 Rod raised, an issue of recriticality -- but he may be 

20 right that there may be some less risk because the 

21 fuel is old. 

22 But I think that needs to be demonstrated, 

23 what the risks are of boiling the water, and how much 

24 cooling is needed, plus the recriticality issue in 

25 case of earthquake. And we here are in an earthquake-
 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 sensitive area. 

2 Thank you. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Tom. Thank you very 

4 much. Sven? 

5 MR. BADER: Yes. I just wanted to add 

6 that the fire issue -- I've had a lot of events here, 

7 past history, but we actually have operating 

8 facilities as well that I think are good role models 

9 for how safety analysis should be done for fire, and 

10 that would be La Hague and the more recent Rokkasho 

11 facility. 

12 So in consideration of all these other 

13 events, these old facilities, yes, there's clearly 

14 lessons learned for the industry, and those have been 

15 applied in the existing facilities. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Sven. And 

17 Rod? 

18 MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I just want to say 

19 both with respect to emergency preparedness and 

20 seismic, it involves a lot of these issues that -- and 

21 this gets into being technology-neutral. We think the 

22 regulation should be hazards-based. 

23 The type of emergency planning zone, and 

24 the type of emergency planning that you need, should 

25 be driven by the type of event you can have at 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 facility, what the safety analysis would tell you. Do 

2 you have a potential event? Do you have the 

3 inventory, do you have the energy where you could trip 

4 the Environmental Protection Agency's protective 

5 action guidelines? 

6 That's what would trigger certain levels 

7 of emergency planning. Do you have the possibility of 

8 a general emergency? Same thing in seismic. I mean, 

9 if you have the potential of an event with off-site 

10 consequences that would trip those guidelines, you 

11 would certainly want to design against the worst-case 

12 earthquake, the same way you do at a nuclear plant. 

13 I mean, the plants in California obviously 

14 have very severe earthquakes that they're designed 

15 against, and if you had an event with an off-site 

16 consequence, you'd want to be at the same level. But 

17 again, it has to be -- and I'm not suggesting we're 

18 going to build the reprocessing facility in 

19 California, but it has to be hazards-based in both 

20 cases. 

21 And I think if you can succeed in doing 

22 that, I'll refer last to the criticality. If you -- 

23 rather than try to regulate a specific process and how 

24 you would prevent that process from creating a 

25 criticality by mixing too much plutonium in the wrong 
 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 geometry, or whatever, you certainly want to regulate 

2 what is needed to prevent criticality in terms of the 

3 levels and controls, and that you need to be able to 

4 do that in the face of a design-basis earthquake, 

5 whatever is the appropriate earthquake hazard 

6 specified for that site. 

7 Certainly the regulation should require 

8 that the applicant demonstrate that they would not 

9 have a criticality should that earthquake occur. 

10 MR. CAMERON: And I think that's a good 

11 preview of the discussion we're going to have tomorrow 

12 morning on safety in licensing and general design 

13 criteria, and things like that. So that's something 

14 to keep in mind. 

15 What I'd like to do is go on to the 

16 audience now, and see if people have any comments out 

17 here. We had a pretty wide-ranging discussion on a 

18 number of issues, and if anybody has anything that 

19 they want to ask, or anybody wants to add anything, 

20 including the lady with the Eeyore shirt on. 

21 Let's go to Bobbie, and then we'll go to 

22 this lady. Do you want to go? And please introduce 

23 yourself to us. 

24 DR. HAYES: Good morning. I'm Doctor Rose 

25 Hayes. I'm on the Department of Energy Site-Specific 
 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 Advisory Board for the Savannah River site, and I 

2 chair the Nuclear Materials Committee for that Board. 

3 And I just have a few comments to make. 

4 First of all, I think the discussion on 

5 the need for a good, credible framework for regulating 

6 and licensing reprocessing facilities in the U.S. is 

7 premature. 

8 I think such operations and facilities 

9 should be U.S. Government-developed and managed. They 

10 should also occur within existing and available or 

11 modified U.S. Government Nuclear Labs or Sites. I 

12 think such operations should be under government 

13 security forces. I think such operations or 

14 facilities should be sited based on public opinion and 

15 buy-ins. 

16 And I would remind you all that Thomas 

17 Jefferson said "Public opinion is the lord of the 

18 universe." And a lot of operations have fallen 

19 because they ignored the important factor of public 

20 opinion. 

21 I think such operations and facilities 

22 should be developed and operated within a 

23 comprehensive U.S. nuclear waste management policy, 

24 which actually already exists. 

25 Remember that we do have a 1982 Nuclear 
 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 Waste Policy Act. And following the findings of the 

2 Blue Ribbon Commission, then we probably need to 

3 rework that act. 

4 But we already have an act that would -- 

5 within which this kind of consideration -- 

6 reprocessing facilities, recycling facilities, 

7 whatever you want to call them -- should be based. 

8 Finally, for those of you who attended the 

9 Nuclear Waste Management Symposium in Phoenix this 

10 past March, you're aware that very few countries in 

11 the world are considering reprocessing or recycling as 

12 a solution for their nuclear waste management 

13 problems. 

14 Those countries that are considering that, 

15 the interests there are based more on financial 

16 considerations than public acceptance, public opinion, 

17 public welfare. Thank you. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Dr. 

19 Hayes. Bobbie, could you please introduce yourself to 

20 us? 

21 MS. PAUL: Hi. My name is Bobbie Paul, 

22 and I'm the executive director of Georgia WAND, which 

23 stands for Women's Action for New Directions. We were 

24 founded about almost 30 years ago as Women's Action 

25 for Nuclear Disarmament. 
 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 We have been fervent watchdogs of Savannah 

2 River site for about 20 to 25 years, so we have a lot 

3 of concerns in the area. And I've made a lot of 

4 notes. And thank you for the opportunity. Some might 

5 be points that you could discuss, or not. 

6 One of my questions is, why isn't Georgia 

7 more represented here? I know we have South Carolina 

8 DHEC, but I don't know whether Georgia EPD, Alan 

9 Barnes, was asked to attend. 

10 But as we know, radiation doesn't 

11 acknowledge state boundaries, and we would hope, as a 

12 representative of a lot of members in Georgia, that 

13 Georgia would be consulted in this. As well as, I 

14 would say, the public at large. It was through a lot 

15 of inter-emails that I finally discovered this meeting 

16 was occurring. 

17 And I don't know how much public 

18 participation was sought, but I think very often 

19 having more transparency and openness and 

20 participation would be really good on the front end, 

21 even in the discussion, and even though there may be 

22 even trade secrets involved. 

23 I have a question -- oh. First of all, 

24 Dr. Hayes, I'm glad you brought up reprocessing, 

25 because at the Blue Ribbon Commission, of which 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 

 103

1 took part when they were here in Augusta, I believe 

2 the outgoing president made a statement that they were 

3 supportive, the CAB, the SRS CAB, of reprocessing. 

4 I don't know whether that is still the 

5 case of the CAB. 

6 (Off-mic comments.) 

7 MS. PAUL: Okay. Well, it was announced 

8 at the CAB, and -- 

9 (Off-mic comments.) 

10 MR. CAMERON: We should really get that on 

11 the record. 

12 MS. PAUL: Get that on the record? 

13 MR. CAMERON: On the microphone. If you 

14 could just repeat that, please? 

15 DR. HAYES: Yes. The Citizens' Advisory 

16 Board for the Savannah River site has not taken any 

17 position on reprocessing. We have, in our 

18 recommendation to the Department of Energy, 

19 Recommendation Number 265, suggested that one possible 

20 future potential for the use of H Canyon Facility 

21 might be R&D of reprocessing technology, but not 

22 reprocessing. 

23 The R&D. And that is because there are 

24 materials that could be fed to the site, or to H 

25 Canyon, and utilized in such R&D. 
 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 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Bobbie? 

2 MS. PAUL: I'm glad that GNEP has gone the 

3 way that it has gone, but I do remember testifying 

4 about GNEP way back when, and about reprocessing. 

5 In regards to your discussion about 

6 recycling and reprocessing, I can't remember the name 

7 of the gentleman from DOE who used to come on the 

8 screen in the beginning of all these discussions and 

9 said -- he wore a bow tie, but I cannot recall his 

10 name -- who said to all, as that dog and pony show 

11 went around the country, that "Just think of 

12 reprocessing as simple recycling, just as you would 

13 recycle your newspapers." 

14 So that had been put out there for years 

15 from DOE, and specifically with those terms. And I 

16 believe the word "benign" was used. One thing that 

17 just flummoxes me in all of this is why AREVA would 

18 want to do this, when we have such an enormous waste 

19 problem in this country. 

20 And knowing how lucrative this whole 

21 nuclear so-called renaissance and everything is coming 

22 up, and thinking about the MOX and the billions being 

23 spent on that job site at Savannah River Site, I keep 

24 wondering about the volumes of waste that are going to 

25 be made, and wondering, why would someone want to 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 

 105

1 into this business just to be taking more and more 

2 waste? 

3 And then I got to thinking, well, all of 

4 the sites now, the 64, or five, or six, or seven sites 

5 where the 104 reactors sit, are being paid by the 

6 Department of Energy to hold that waste. And I'm 

7 wondering, is there a financial gain to be -- how much 

8 is the Department of Energy actually paying these 

9 sites, and is this a financial consideration in AREVA 

10 being interested in moving forward with such a plan? 

11 And I have more, but I'll save that till 

12 later. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Bobbie. And 

14 I'm going to see who else in the audience wants to say 

15 anything, and then we'll go back up to the panel to 

16 see if they want to add anything to the comments that 

17 were raised. 

18 Yes? And please introduce yourself to us. 

19 MS. TATUM: Hi. My name Gloria Tatum, and 

20 I'm not an industry person. I'm not even on an 

21 environmental group. I don't know what you people 

22 know. I'm not an expert. 

23 I'm just an individual, but I don't want 

24 nuclear anything. I don't want mining, I don't want 

25 transportation, I don't want recycling, I don't want 
 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 reprocessing, I don't want energy, I don't want 

2 weapons. 

3 I don't want nuclear anything, and the 

4 reason I don't want it is because it's dirty, 

5 expensive, dangerous. It causes -- there's cancer 

6 clusters around these things. There's accidents. 

7 There's spills. There's boo-boos. 

8 And it goes on, and on, and on. 

9 Thousands, and thousands, and thousands that the 

10 public really doesn't know about. 

11 When I was eight years old, back in 1950, 

12 I got to be at the forefront of the development of the 

13 nuclear industry, with Lockheed having a nuclear plant 

14 across the creek from me. 

15 I watched my community die of cancer. I 

16 looked at deformed animals. So I guess that's my 

17 expertise as a small child, watching everybody around 

18 me die and be deformed. 

19 And you can deny responsibility, but it's 

20 still there. Because not even here, in this area, the 

21 soil, the water -- it's not being tested. I don't 

22 know if the turnip greens and the collard greens, if 

23 you're getting radiation from them when you eat them, 

24 when they're grown in this area. 

25 You know, I don't know. It's not even 
 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 tested. The soil, the people -- they are beginning to 

2 prove that there is cancer clusters around these 

3 plants. But nobody really wants to do any research 

4 into that, because they don't want to know what they 

5 may find. 

6 This is -- my opinion of nuclear is that, 

7 from my own experience with my family and community, 

8 is that it's a death industry. It's supported by a 

9 death cult that worships at the altar of profit, and 

10 that's what this is about. 

11 We could have solar. We could have wind. 

12 We could have other energy sources that have been 

13 developed, but not allowed to come to market, because 

14 maybe they're not as profitable for some people. 

15 I oppose this. I may be the minority in 

16 this room. I may be the minority in this country and 

17 the world, but I won't be in the future, when the 

18 truth about this dirty, nasty, dangerous, cancer19 causing death industry gets out to the public. 

20 Thank you. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Gloria, 

22 for those comments. 

23 (Off-mic comments.) 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Bobbie? 

25 MS. PAUL: In regards to one thing 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 

 108

1 Ms. Tatum said, I would just like you to know that 

2 there is currently no radiological testing in the 

3 state of Georgia. 

4 This program of DOE emissions specifically 

5 was cut in 2003/2004. And though I believe DOE 

6 continues to fund South Carolina to the tune of about 

7 a million and a half a year to monitoring our leafy 

8 greens, deer, cattle, water -- specifically rain, the 

9 river itself -- and a lot of our area in about a five10 county area directly across from Savannah River site 

11 has been without those monitoring funds. 

12 We're currently in discussion with DOE for 

13 the last two years to try and restore them, but we're 

14 nowhere near signing a contract as of yet. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Bobbie. 

16 Before we break for lunch, do we have anybody at the 

17 table who wants to say anything in regard to -- we 

18 have one NRC staffer who wants to add something. 

19 Introduce yourself, Bret. 

20 MR. LESLIE: I'm Bret Leslie from the NRC 

21 staff. But it's kind of a teeing up for tomorrow. It 

22 was a useful clarification in terms of the framework 

23 for all the facilities that would be licensed, but 

24 that has a real impact in terms of what is the 

25 appropriate technique for evaluating safety at such 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 

 109

1 diverse facility. 

2 And so it's just something to keep in mind 

3 when John Stamatakos goes tomorrow, because that's 

4 something that we're struggling with. So that's all. 

5 MR. CAMERON: And Bret's going to be with 

6 us later on today, talking about financial. But so 

7 that we don't lose that point, make that again when -- 

8 if it doesn't come up when John is doing his 

9 presentation. 

10 Mary? 

11 MS. OLSEN: I want to appreciate and 

12 acknowledge Gloria's courage to come into this room, 

13 her courage to say what she said, and to acknowledge 

14 that I work with impacted communities that are 

15 astoundingly sick. 

16 The latency periods are up, and house 

17 after house after house has sick people in it. And I 

18 want to thank her for coming and speaking about this, 

19 because we as specialists insulate ourselves, 

20 including those of us who have NGO, Non-Governmental 

21 Organization type jobs, we insulate ourselves, because 

22 it's very difficult to see the fact that radiation 

23 causes cancer, and cancer causes death. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Mary. And 

25 I'm just reminded of the fact that, as we listen 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 

 110

1 people from the public and I listen to all of you 

2 around the table, that there's a lot of things that we 

3 can all learn from each other. 

4 And not just in these formal discussions, 

5 but in the informal breaks that we're taking over the 

6 next few days. And including -- I think we have an 

7 informal open house scheduled tomorrow afternoon, 

8 after we break up. 

9 With that, amazingly enough, we're only 

10 five minutes behind schedule. So let's take a lunch 

11 break. Oh. Roger Hannah, NRC Region II, Regional 

12 Public Affairs Officer. Roger, would you wave your 

13 hand? 

14 If anybody has questions about what's 

15 going on in Region II, nuclear-wise, Roger is there. 

16 He's the so-called font of knowledge. So I just 

17 wanted to let you know he's back there. 

18 Let's be back at 12:30. What, 25 minutes 

19 isn't enough? No, I'm sorry. Let's be back at 1:30. 

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled public 

21 meeting went off the record at 12:05 p.m, and resumed 

22 at 1:33 p.m.) 

23 MR. CAMERON: We have Derek Widmayer with 

24 us, who had some flight problems, and Derek is with 

25 the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety. Do you want 
 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 to testify your microphone? Let's see if you can work 

2 it. 

3 MR. WIDMAYER: There's a green light. Is 

4 that working? 

5 MR. CAMERON: It is. And if you want to 

6 say anything, what you do is you do that. 

7 MR. WIDMAYER: Oh, yes. Okay. 

8 MR. CAMERON: The rest of us introduced 

9 ourselves. 

10 MR. WIDMAYER: Okay. I'm Derek Widmayer. 

11 I'm a Senior Staff Scientist with the Advisory 

12 Committee on Reactor Safeguards. And I apologize for 

13 being late, but I guess I chose the wrong airline or 

14 something. Anyway, I'll try to contribute twice as 

15 much this afternoon to make up. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Derek. I 

17 didn't want to make too big a point of this, but on 

18 the issue of representation around the table and the 

19 State of Georgia being here, we work through a number 

20 of state groups, Conference of Radiation Protection 

21 Control Directors, and some other groups to see who we 

22 could get at the meeting. And I'm assuming that the 

23 State of Georgia was told about it. We got South 

24 Carolina. I know that -- but I should have called 

25 them directly, especially if I would have known 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 

 112

1 Bobby was going to be here. 

2 But any rate, that's that issue. And we 

3 have Dr. Brittain Hill, Britt, who's going to do waste 

4 and environmental. And Wendy Hill is with us -- Wendy 

5 Reed, sorry. And we do have a parking lot issue 

6 from this morning on the Environmental Impact 

7 Statement Mary Olsen raised for this rulemaking, so 

8 we'll get into that at some point. 

9 And we talked a little bit about scope 

10 this morning, what I call scope. In other words, 

11 there might be a number of different licenses for the 

12 facilities that may be located on one of these sites. 

13 And do you have separate licensing requirements, or do 

14 you fold them in? Britt is also going to talk to that 

15 issue, and I'll just turn it over to him. Britt. 

16 DR. HILL: Well, my talk is being 

17 redefined as we speak. Thanks, Chip. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

19 DR. HILL: I'm glad that everybody has had 

20 a bit of lunch, and after having a nice bit of lunch 

21 here in the beautiful south, what could be more 

22 fascinating than talking about garbage? 

23 So, the topic of waste really doesn't have 

24 all the allure of technical specifications, or 

25 emergency planning, but it does represent a very 
 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 important consideration for any facility that proposes 

2 to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. 

3 Now, we know that for any potential 

4 reprocessing facility, there's a number of important 

5 considerations for high-level waste, or other kinds of 

6 waste coming out of that facility. 

7 We're going to have to have the storage of 

8 spent nuclear fuel, the management of high-level 

9 waste, which includes the storage of high-level waste, 

10 but also its solidification. We'll need to be 

11 clarifying what kind of waste would be considered 

12 high-level waste, or those that could be considered 

13 low-level waste. And, also, we have to have 

14 appropriate controls for the monitoring of effluents. 

15 Now, within these considerations, NRC has 

16 to develop a regulatory framework to license spent 

17 fuel reprocessing at a facility that is both safe and 

18 secure, while keeping these considerations in mind. 

19 For the past several years, Staff have 

20 been working on our higher priority technical issues 

21 that support rulemaking for reprocessing, and we've 

22 come up with some ideas on how we can address these 

23 technical considerations involving our waste and 

24 effluent streams. 

25 So, as you know, we've put these technical 
 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 considerations into a number of gaps, and this 

2 afternoon we'll be talking about five of these gaps 

3 that are all related to waste. Gap 2, our independent 

4 storage of high-level waste; Gap 3, what has been 

5 called waste incidental to reprocessing; Gap 15 on 

6 waste confidence; 16, waste classification; and 

7 finally Gap 19 on effluent control and monitoring. 

8 So, rather than worry about more 

9 introduction, let's just jump right into the gaps; 

10 first one being our gap on waste storage. 

11 The simple issue is that our current 

12 regulations allow for the storage of spent nuclear 

13 fuel at reactors, or at independent spent fuel storage 

14 installations, but there's really no mention of 

15 reprocessing facilities in our current regulations. 

16 Also, there really are no regulatory provisions for 

17 the storage of high-level waste at any commercial 

18 facility in the United States. 

19 In our current framework, high-level waste 

20 would need to be stored at a monitored retrievable 

21 storage installation that is operated by the 

22 Department of Energy. Now, somebody can correct me, 

23 but I haven't heard anything from the Department of 

24 Energy that they plan to develop a monitored 

25 retrievable storage installation, so really there's no 
 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 path in our current regulations to allow for the 

2 storage of high-level waste that would be produced by 

3 a potential reprocessing facility. 

4 What Staff is proposing to solve this 

5 storage gap is that we would expand our existing Part 

6 72 regulations to include the storage of both spent 

7 fuel and high-level waste at a commercial reprocessing 

8 facility. This approach would mirror the general 

9 licensing authority approach that currently exists at 

10 Part 50 for the storage of spent nuclear fuel at a 

11 licensed power reactor. 

12 A new regulation that we are being 

13 proposed, as Wendy talked about this morning for 

14 reprocessing, which we're commonly referring to as our 

15 Part 7x, would contain general design criteria for 

16 storage of spent nuclear fuel, just like you see in a 

17 Part 50 Appendix for general design criteria for a 

18 nuclear power plant. 

19 We would also bring forward the applicable 

20 parts of Appendix F in Part 50 that are related to the 

21 storage and treatment of waste at a reprocessing 

22 facility. Those would be brought in to our Appendix -

23 - excuse me, that would be brought in to our Part 7X. 

24 And I believe the terms that we would not be carrying 

25 forward, at least in our proposal at this stage, would 
 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 be the policy considerations in Appendix F that 

2 currently exist about high-level waste would have to 

3 go to a national disposal site within 10 years. We 

4 believe that's a policy issue, and not a technical 

5 issue, and the NRC is not in a position to establish 

6 national policy on when waste should be disposed of. 

7 We believe that this approach, the 

8 modifications to Part 72, would allow for a general 

9 licensed authority to store both high-level waste and 

10 spent fuel to a entity that is licensed to operate a 

11 potential reprocessing facility. 

12 These modifications, which again mimic the 

13 ones we have for Part 50, would also allow for a 

14 certification of casks to store high-level waste 

15 similar to the current process that allows for storage 

16 of spent nuclear fuel in these storage casks. 

17 Now, as part of the general license 

18 considerations for spent nuclear fuel storage at a 

19 reprocessing facility, we believe that reasonable 

20 limits would need to be established on the amount of 

21 spent nuclear fuel that could be stored on site in 

22 order to accommodate the reprocessing operations. 

23 These limits, we believe, are needed in order to 

24 distinguish the storage needs for spent fuel 

25 operations from those for the intent to have long-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 

 117

1 storage of spent nuclear fuel on site. 

2 If the desire of an applicant is to 

3 establish a large field of spent fuel storage casks in 

4 order to accommodate long-term storage, then the 

5 avenue already exists in our regulations under Part 72 

6 to apply for a license for a specific independent 

7 spent fuel storage installation that could be co8 located next to the potential reprocessing facility. 

9 So, again, we believe the general 

10 licensing authority that we would establish under Part 

11 7x would accommodate some spent fuel storage to allow 

12 for operational efficiency of the reprocessing 

13 facility, but would not result in a de facto 

14 independent spent fuel storage installation on the 

15 site. 

16 Now, some of the alternatives we heard 

17 primarily focused on taking our existing Part 72 

18 requirements and folding them into our new Part 7x. 

19 While that theoretically is possible, we looked at 

20 Part 72 rulemaking would still be needed in order to 

21 accommodate cask certification. And this would be a 

22 significant departure if we did that approach from the 

23 currently established practice of general license 

24 authority that we're using for power reactors. 

25 That's why at this stage, Staff is 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 

 118

1 comfortable with using the same sort of approach we 

2 use at reactors for spent fuel storage than we would 

3 be using by bringing a whole new series of regulatory 

4 requirements into a new regulatory framework. 

5 Some of the concerns that we're trying to 

6 address with this action is insuring that waste is 

7 removed from the site. There are no provisions, and 

8 Staff is not contemplating any provision to allow for 

9 any disposal of radioactive waste at a potential 

10 reprocessing facility. 

11 Our intent is that all significant amounts 

12 of radionuclides would be removed from this facility 

13 prior to, or as part of the decommissioning. And, of 

14 course, we want to make sure that whatever is done has 

15 safe storage for both spent fuel and high-level waste 

16 on site. 

17 We received stakeholder input, of course, 

18 on this issue. A lot of the input focuses on a need 

19 for the government to develop an effective plan for 

20 nuclear waste storage and disposal in the United 

21 States. Obviously, that's a little bit beyond the 

22 scope of our ability to rulemake, but we are aware 

23 that, of course, the National Strategy for high-level 

24 waste and spent fuel disposal is being rewritten as we 

25 speak. 
 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 There's also concerns that have been 

2 raised about reprocessing would be adding additional 

3 waste to the current waste inventory. And absent a 

4 national strategy for disposal, this would not be the 

5 right thing to do at this time. 

6 So, I'd like to tackle a little more 

7 difficult issue, if you want to view it that way, and 

8 what to do about the incidental waste issue. It's a 

9 very simple question for us. What sort of waste 

10 resulting from reprocessing would be considered high11 level waste versus those that would be low-level 

12 waste? 

13 Just recall our definition from the 

14 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of what is high-level waste, 

15 is those materials that are highly radioactive 

16 resulting from reprocessing that includes liquid waste 

17 produced directly in reprocessing, and any solid 

18 material derived from such liquid waste that contains 

19 fission products in sufficient concentrations. 

20 Now, those words originate in the Nuclear 

21 Waste Policy Act of 1982, which was put together to 

22 talk about a framework for disposal. It's important 

23 to remember the intent of these words, is to talk 

24 about what materials require geologic disposal, 

25 permanent isolation from the environment. It's those 
 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 materials that are highly radioactive and contain 

2 fission products in sufficient concentrations. 

3 NRC Staff believes that reprocessing 

4 wastes that are not highly radioactive, in other words 

5 not requiring geologic disposal, those lower activity 

6 wastes can be safely disposed of in a near-surface 

7 disposal facility if the requirements for disposal 

8 specified in 10 CFR Part 61 are met. 

9 We need to develop a practicable approach 

10 in order to distinguish those highly radioactive 

11 materials resulting from reprocessing that require 

12 deep geologic disposal from those lower activity 

13 materials that could be safely disposed of in a near14 surface facility that meets the radioactive disposal 

15 requirements in 10 CFR Part 61. 

16 Now, there are several options that Staff 

17 is exploring in order to meet that practical 

18 application. The first is, we could go back to 

19 Congress and ask them what did you all mean by highly 

20 radioactive, and sufficient concentrations? We could 

21 add those questions to our NRC's proposed legislative 

22 agenda. 

23 We are concerned, though, that getting 

24 that answer from Congress may take a while, may take 

25 some iterations, and wouldn't really address within 
 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 the framework -- time frames that we're developing the 

2 new regulation under. We may not get the timely 

3 answer, and the right answer in order to support the 

4 ongoing rulemaking. But it is an option. We will be 

5 asking the Commission to weigh in on this, because it 

6 really is a policy option rather than a technical 

7 option. 

8 Staff's preferred approach would be to 

9 clarify through the rulemaking process the terms 

10 "highly radioactive," and "sufficient concentrations." 

11 We believe that we can develop some functional 

12 framework to allow a potential licensee to distinguish 

13 between those highly radioactive materials that need 

14 deep geologic isolation from those materials that 

15 could be safely disposed of in a low-level waste 

16 facility. 

17 And, of course, the third option is the 

18 no-action option. We could just allow the existing 

19 statutory language to stand, and have this be a issue 

20 that could be addressed as part of the hearing 

21 process. 

22 We received input from a number of 

23 stakeholders on this issue that primarily focused on a 

24 desire for us to include the definition of Waste 

25 Incidental to Reprocessing, or WIR, as part of our 
 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 regulatory definitions. These stakeholders believe 

2 that including that definition would clarify what 

3 would not be high-level waste. 

4 The language that's been discussed would 

5 be from the WIR definition that exists in the National 

6 Defense Authorization Act of 2005, that was all 

7 established for how we deal with places like residual 

8 tank waste at Savannah River site, Hanford, et cetera, 

9 where a legacy of large volumes of liquid high-level 

10 waste and the resulting solid products has to be dealt 

11 with. 

12 Staff was concerned that adopting a WIR13 type definition would send the wrong message, and give 

14 the wrong intent, because there is no intent at a new 

15 recycling or reprocessing facility to dispose of any 

16 waste, or allow any residual waste of significance to 

17 be remaining on that site after decommissioning. And 

18 the intent of WIR is to talk about what materials 

19 could be safely disposed of on site after they had 

20 been cleaned to the extent practical. We just don't 

21 believe those conditions exist, and promulgating a 

22 definition to WIR would not be the right framework in 

23 the current regulatory environment. 

24 A third gap results, and is about waste 

25 confidence. And for folks that haven't been familiar 
 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 with that issue, NRC recently did a redetermination of 

2 the technical information that was available to say 

3 whether they had confidence that spent nuclear fuel 

4 from any reactor could be safely stored until such 

5 time that the country developed a permanent disposal 

6 option. 

7 Now, NRC determined that there was enough 

8 information that spent nuclear fuel from any reactor 

9 can be stored safety and securely for at least 60 

10 years beyond the licensed life of operation of any 

11 reactor, and there wouldn't be any significant, or no 

12 environmental impacts. 

13 The question for this gap is, can NRC 

14 Staff make a generic finding that there would be no 

15 significant impacts of long-term storage from high16 level waste from reprocessing? Can we, essentially, 

17 expand our waste confidence determination for spent 

18 fuel to include high-level waste? Or, alternatively, 

19 would an applicant need to address these potential 

20 impacts as part of their environmental report, and 

21 this would be a licensing issue. 

22 After looking at the available 

23 information, NRC Staff believes that an applicant 

24 would need to evaluate the potential environmental 

25 impacts from high-level waste storage. We just don't 
 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 believe that there is sufficient information at this 

2 time for NRC Staff to make a generic determination 

3 that we have enough technical information to say that 

4 high-level waste could be stored for at least 60 years 

5 beyond the licensed life of any potential reprocessing 

6 facility with no significant environmental impacts. 

7 Some of our concerns are that we just 

8 don't have a long history of doing this storage in the 

9 United States. Under this proposal, the available 

10 technical information would have to be analyzed by an 

11 applicant. The Staff is recommending that the time 

12 frame of that analysis should include at least 60 

13 years beyond the licensed life of the facility. And 

14 then NRC Staff, as part of its licensing review, would 

15 evaluate that information, and give the results of 

16 that evaluation in the NRC's Environmental Impact 

17 Statement, or Environmental Assessment. 

18 Our concerns with expanding the Waste 

19 Confidence Rule really focus on when the original 

20 Waste Confidence Rule was promulgated back in 1984 for 

21 nuclear power plants. We have had decades of 

22 experience in licensing and going through hearings on 

23 nuclear power plant operation. And the record at that 

24 time showed that there really were no significant 

25 environmental impacts associated with the storage 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 

 125

1 spent fuel until such time that it could be disposed 

2 of. That led the Commission to establish the 1984 

3 Waste Confidence Rule in order to increase the 

4 efficiency of the hearing process, rather than 

5 requiring people over, and over, and over again to 

6 analyze that there were no significant impacts. 

7 However, we don't believe there's 

8 sufficient information on high-level waste storage. 

9 We don't have decades worth of licensing experience, 

10 for example, on high-level waste storage. We don't 

11 have any experience on that in this country. We don't 

12 know what the issues would be in licensing, because we 

13 don't have a licensing hearing record to speak of. 

14 We also are concerned that we currently 

15 don't have any casks that are certified for the 

16 storage of high-level waste, and the technical issues 

17 that would be associated with potential long-term 

18 monitoring of those casks also haven't been aired out 

19 in hearing process. 

20 So, we don't believe this is a significant 

21 concern for a licensee to address these potential 

22 impacts. We just don't believe that at this time, the 

23 NRC Staff can make a generic finding that there are no 

24 issues that would need to be raised associated with 

25 long-term storage of high-level waste 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 

 126

1 reprocessing. 

2 We received some input, of course, on this 

3 issue. Many stakeholders believe that the license 

4 application for reprocessing should address the 

5 environmental impacts of solidified high-level waste. 

6 There is also concerns that any addition of 

7 reprocessing waste to the existing waste disposal 

8 issue would put an additional burden on the 

9 Commission's confidence for disposal of high-level 

10 waste in the United States. 

11 I'm afraid that last issue is kind of 

12 beyond the scope of what we can address today, but we 

13 are sensitive to the needs of giving a clear and 

14 transparent record for the decision on whether high15 level waste storage can be accommodated safely and 

16 securely as part of the reprocessing facility. 

17 On the waste classification issue, the 

18 essential issue here is that some radionuclides in 

19 reprocessing waste may not be in our classification 

20 tables in 10 CFR 61.55. For example, krypton-85 isn't 

21 in the current tables. There are some noble metals 

22 and some isotopes from the lanthanide series that we 

23 would expect from reprocessing. They just aren't in 

24 the existing waste classification tables, and weren't 

25 considered as part of developing those tables back in, 
 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 I think it was the 1970s. 

2 By default, those wastes could be 

3 considered Class A waste with the caveat that that's 

4 not always the case. The Commission still has the 

5 authority to require the specific disposal issues 

6 associated with any waste stream if they believe that 

7 there is a safety issue that would have to be 

8 addressed. So, even though by the ruling in the 

9 regulation these non-classified radionuclides might be 

10 considered Class A, it doesn't mean that they would 

11 have to be considered Class A, in the same way that 

12 the depleted uranium issue was addressed as a unique 

13 waste stream. 

14 Now, when this gap was originally 

15 proposed, we weren't at the NRC doing anything under 

16 Part 61 as part of rulemaking. But right now, there 

17 are several efforts that are ongoing on the NRC not 

18 related to reprocessing, but as part of an overall 

19 framework for low-level waste classification and 

20 disposal. These ongoing actions have sort of subsumed 

21 our waste classification gap. And this issue is being 

22 addressed by ongoing rulemaking at the NRC. 

23 Staff has been directed by the Commission 

24 to consider a comprehensive revision to 10 CFR Part 

25 61, and that just occurred last year in the SECY 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 

 128

1 I've got listed here. That is a Position Paper that 

2 the NRC Staff is working on. They're going to 

3 exploring options for that next year, and there will 

4 be some opportunities for input to that process. 

5 They'll be announced by our FSME Group later this 

6 year, or early next year. 

7 Also, the Staff currently is in rulemaking 

8 over unique waste streams. And that's discussed in our 

9 SECY Paper from 2008, Number 147 there. And that's in 

10 response to the depleted uranium issue. Here's 

11 depleted uranium, it wasn't in the waste 

12 classification tables, would that be considered Class 

13 A waste? The Commission said no, you need to site14 specific performance assessments, make sure it can be 

15 disposed of safely and securely. 

16 That rulemaking is being expanded or 

17 considered to be expanded in order to accommodate 

18 different unique waste streams. The isotopes that 

19 we're talking about could be considered unique waste 

20 streams, as well, in which case Staff's proposal is 

21 for this rulemaking, Staff's proposal would be to 

22 require a site-specific performance assessment to see 

23 whether these unique waste streams could be disposed 

24 of safely and securely in a low-level waste disposal 

25 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 

 129

1 As part of that rulemaking that's 

2 currently ongoing, there are several alternatives 

3 being considered by Staff. The one I just talked 

4 about would be risk-informing the Part 61 waste 

5 classification framework, giving a comprehensive 

6 revision, or site-specific criteria. Again, all this 

7 is under the specific rulemaking that's ongoing right 

8 now for unique waste streams. So, the bottom line is 

9 our waste classification gap is being addressed by the 

10 ongoing rulemaking as part of the Part 61 framework. 

11 Stakeholder input on waste classification, 

12 we had the overall view that treatment of large 

13 quantities of radionuclides would be needed. They have 

14 the same concerns that we do about are we getting the 

15 right safety issues addressed for any of these 

16 disposals. 

17 There's also a view that some of the low18 level waste rules need to be rewritten before a 

19 reprocessing plant can be considered. Staff believes 

20 that the current regulatory framework is sufficient to 

21 provide for safe and secure disposal, and that our 

22 Part 7x can accommodate whatever the changes are that 

23 result in Part 61. And, again, this input of a 

24 hazardous-based approach for classifying waste seems 

25 to be the direction that NRC Staff is going. 
 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 Our final issue, and I thank you all for 

2 bearing through an iteration of many waste issues 

3 here, or final issue is on effluents; that, basically, 

4 any reprocessing facility is going to need regulations 

5 for effluent monitoring and control. We're concerned 

6 that there is a greater source term and greater 

7 potential for emissions from reprocessing than there 

8 are in many other types of nuclear facilities. 

9 The radionuclides from reprocessing would 

10 be in potentially mobile form, such as liquids and 

11 gases. And there's also these isotopes of concern, 

12 primarily gaseous radionuclides, and krypton-85, 

13 tritium, iodine-129, carbon-14. 

14 The question is, how do we go about 

15 regulating effluent monitoring and control? Staff is 

16 proposing that we would use the same basic approach as 

17 in Part 50, as the basis for developing regulatory 

18 requirements for effluent monitoring and control. 

19 We're considering developing criteria very similar to 

20 those in Part 50, Appendix I, which would provide 

21 numerical guidelines and meeting our as low as 

22 reasonably achievable requirements. We recognize that 

23 we would need to develop some risk-informed 

24 performance-based approach to determining what those 

25 release limits 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 

 131

1 We received input on the NEI White Paper. 

2 It was, basically, very similar to the approach that 

3 Staff is proposing to drive our regulations from 

4 existing Part 50 requirements. Our old Advisory 

5 Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials had done a 

6 very extensive review of reprocessing issue back, I 

7 believe it was 2008, and their report to the 

8 Commission recommended that NRC should hold 

9 interagency discussions on it with EPA on whether our 

10 existing release limits for krypton and iodine needed 

11 to be reexamined to reflect current technology. And, 

12 also, whether we needed to establish release limits 

13 for tritium and carbon-14. That option is still on 

14 the table for NRC Staff. 

15 One approach to help with the effluent 

16 monitoring and control would be to use aged nuclear 

17 fuel, spent fuel that was more than 5-years old, for 

18 example, to help reduce the release of krypton-85 and 

19 tritium. Although we recognize that that approach 

20 found functionally help limit effluents, NRC Staff at 

21 this time is not considering any sort of a regulatory 

22 requirement to use specific aged fuel. 

23 The releases, the dose, and release 

24 criteria that currently exist would just need to be 

25 met. And we're not going to specify the mechanism 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 

 132

1 meeting that. 

2 Stakeholders certainly believe that any 

3 requirements should be up-to-date with our latest 

4 radiation protection science. And applicants would 

5 not want fuel aging or siting attributes specified by 

6 specific regulatory requirements. And, again, Staff 

7 is not looking to establish those aging or siting 

8 requirements. 

9 There's certainly a desire to impose 

10 reasonable limits on radionuclides due to collective 

11 impacts, which is within our existing regulatory 

12 framework. We recognize that siting issues are 

13 important, and some of this may be very difficult to 

14 make a generic statement about siting, and what sort 

15 of effluents would have to be considered. We 

16 recognize that we're just developing a regulatory 

17 framework, and some of the specific issues would have 

18 to be part of the licensing process. We won't be able 

19 to resolve all concerns about siting within this 

20 regulatory action. 

21 Also, there's a desire that individual 

22 releases should be considered, as well as the 

23 collective dose issues. 

24 So, I hope I've given you a fortunately 

25 brief overview of where we are on the waste 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 

 133

1 environmental issues associated with waste. Our 

2 objective is to establish safe onsite storage for both 

3 spent fuel and high-level waste, give the applicant 

4 the framework to plan for appropriate disposal 

5 pathways. We need to establish confidence for longer6 term waste storage, and insure that the appropriate 

7 treatment of low-level waste, high-level waste, and 

8 effluents is occurring in the right regulatory 

9 framework. 

10 So, the questions that are up in the 

11 handout are the last slides in the presentation. And 

12 with that, I'd like to thank you for listening, and 

13 open the floor to the discussions. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Britt. 

15 That was an ambitious undertaking on all those gaps. 

16 And I don't know how we want to do the discussion, 

17 but before I go to Rod, you've got Jim Bresee's 

18 attention with the MRS statement. And, Jim, do you 

19 want to just deal with that? 

20 MR. BRESEE: Yes. Britt raised a question 

21 of whether the MRS exists as an ongoing activity of 

22 nuclear energy, Department of Energy. It does not. 

23 Let me quickly provide a little background for others 

24 who may not be familiar with it. 

25 The MRS, Monitored Retrievable Storage, 
 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 was explicitly identified as one of the tasks under 

2 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. And by 1986, 

3 that process had been carried out to a considerable 

4 extent, including the identification of a site, and a 

5 design sufficient to describe its characteristics 

6 actually submitted to Congress, so that the process 

7 had gone fairly quickly over a relatively short time. 

8 It represented at that time the only hope, 

9 the only reasonable hope that the Office of Nuclear 

10 Energy had to meet the 1998 requirements of the law, 

11 which was that the Department of Energy begin to 

12 accept used fuel. And in 1987, when the Nuclear Waste 

13 Policy Act was amended, that process ended, again by 

14 legislation. The legislation at that time and the 

15 amendment of the 1982 Act ended the Monitored 

16 Retrievable Storage Program. 

17 Since that time, there has been no 

18 specific activities related to creating a new 

19 equivalent to Monitored Retrievable Storage. There's 

20 a lot of interest. You probably all have seen a lot 

21 of recent legislative activities in that regard. It 

22 certainly was an area that was thoroughly explored by 

23 the Blue Ribbon Commission, so you can expect the 

24 final report of that Commission to contain a lot of 

25 very specific recommendations in that 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 

 135

1 Incidentally, following the 1987 

2 amendment, there was an office created specifically to 

3 seek volunteers throughout the country to be willing 

4 to establish locally a -- something equivalent to 

5 Monitored Retrievable Storage, Interim Storage. 

6 The difficulty with all interim storage 

7 activities, and that is as much true today as it was 

8 in 1982, is that there is a lack of trust, 

9 understandable lack of trust of any site for interim 

10 storage that it will be interim. And the recent 

11 experience with the Yucca Mountain project, which had 

12 gone pretty far down its pathway toward actual license 

13 application, in fact submitted a license, that history 

14 does not add confidence to the process of interim 

15 storage being truly interim, and not de facto 

16 permanent. 

17 So, I'm a little -- personally, a little 

18 pessimistic about the potential for that path, but at 

19 least at the moment there is no specific Department of 

20 Energy project to create such a facility. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Jim. And we can 

22 start wherever you want to start on these issues. I 

23 just don't want to mix them up. 

24 MR. McCULLUM: Right. I have a process 

25 proposal in that regard. 
 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 MR. CAMERON: Good. 

2 MR. McCULLUM: I think Britt gave an 

3 excellent presentation, and it really helped 

4 crystalize some of those things in my mind even over 

5 reading the materials. 

6 I think maybe, as we touch on each issue, 

7 and I -- we can go in whatever order you want, but the 

8 order they were presented, put the proposal slide up, 

9 and we can react to NRC's proposal. And if it looks 

10 like the proposal isn't being favored, maybe we go 

11 back to the alternative slide that was -- the option 

12 slide that was before that. Then you'll know when to 

13 close off discussion on that issue, then move to the 

14 next proposal slide. And kind of use Britt's 

15 presentation to get us through this. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I think that makes 

17 sense. Let me check in with Tom and Susan, who may 

18 have had a reaction to what Jim was talking about. 

19 MR. CLEMENTS: Well, I just had a couple 

20 of questions of Britt, actually. But because there 

21 were some questions presented to us in the Gap 

22 Summary, I don't know if you have a way to put those 

23 up, but it might work just as well, as Rod suggested. 

24 But I'd like to be able to ask my questions of Britt, 

25 if I could. 
 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 MR. CAMERON: Okay. The questions roughly 

2 follow the gaps, but I think that it might be useful 

3 to put, for example, the Gap 2 proposal up, and let's 

4 talk about that. 

5 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, you've only got three 

6 questions there to cover five or six gaps. I think 

7 you need to go gap-by-gap on those. 

8 MR. CAMERON: Yes, I think you're right. 

9 So, Miriam, if you could put Gap 2 up. And, Tom, are 

10 we -- do you want to pose your questions before we get 

11 into the discussion? 

12 MR. CLEMENTS: Yes, just to be very clear, 

13 if I could -- 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

15 MR. CLEMENTS: -- at least ask one of 

16 them. 

17 Dr. Hill, you mentioned depleted uranium. 

18 And I assume you were referring to the reprocessed 

19 uranium stream coming out of a reprocessing plant, 

20 which I think is different from depleted uranium 

21 coming from an enrichment plant, as far as how it 

22 should be handled and disposed of. But that's maybe 

23 another issue. 

24 DR. HILL: No, my mention of depleted 

25 uranium was in the context of unique waste streams, 
 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 and what the Commission had done for directing Staff 

2 to develop rulemaking for unique waste streams; came 

3 out of the depleted uranium disposal issue. 

4 MR. CLEMENTS: Right, right. 

5 DR. HILL: I was not trying to make a 

6 generic statement about depleted uranium from 

7 reprocessing. It was solely that that issue of DU 

8 disposal was what prompted the Commission to direct 

9 Staff for the ongoing rulemaking in Part 61 for unique 

10 waste streams. 

11 MR. CLEMENTS: Okay. Yes, I understand 

12 that. Thank you. Is the reprocessed uranium that 

13 would come out of, which I call reprocessed uranium, 

14 that would come out of the reprocessing plant, could 

15 you see that that is a unique waste stream? 

16 DR. HILL: I couldn't make that as a 

17 generic determination, because I don't know what the 

18 other radionuclides would be in that reprocessed 

19 material. If it was purely depleted uranium and no 

20 other radionuclide, then I believe it would be the 

21 same issue that we have before us with existing 

22 depleted uranium, because that isotope of uranium is 

23 not in the waste classification tables. And it would 

24 then be considered, potentially, a Class A waste. 

25 But looking at the quantity that would 
 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 have to be disposed of, and how it, potentially, would 

2 be disposed of could direct the Commission, if it 

3 happened today, to have the same position it had on 

4 the existing DU issue, of a site-specific performance 

5 assessment would have to be done if the proposal was 

6 to dispose of that depleted uranium in a shallow land 

7 burial site. 

8 So, I'm afraid I just don't know how pure, 

9 if you will, that depleted uranium from reprocessing 

10 might be, and whether there are other considerations 

11 that would have to be met. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. We will go back as we 

13 go through the gaps, we will go to that particular 

14 gap. 

15 Before we start with Gap 2, and I'm going 

16 to go to Rod to do that, let me just see if Susan and 

17 Mark have some issues that we should think about 

18 before that. Susan Corbett. 

19 MS. CORBETT: I just want to make a 

20 general statement about the citizens of South Carolina 

21 are very skeptical about any waste ever leaving here 

22 that's brought here. Our past Governor, Dick Riley, 

23 had a statement. He said, "The first law of nuclear 

24 waste is it tends to stay where it was first put." 

25 And I'm not sure that any waste that was ever 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 

 140

1 in the reprocessing here has ever left our state. In 

2 fact, we got stuck with a bunch of stuff that we 

3 weren't supposed to get stuck with, so we are 

4 justifiably skeptical about any kind of new missions 

5 that would create nuclear waste here. 

6 When you mentioned Monitored Retrievable 

7 Storage, I was reminded of when the Barnwell Compact 

8 debacle was taking place, and we were supposed to be 

9 part of this compact where North Carolina would take 

10 their turn, and they were going to build a Monitored 

11 Retrievable Storage facility for the low-level waste. 

12 And we tried to convince South Carolina to do that, 

13 instead of the kitty litter, dig an unlined trench, 

14 dump in there and cover it up method. We thought that 

15 would be preferable. And, indeed, vinyl has leaked 

16 and has migrated offsite much earlier than was ever 

17 expected. 

18 So, we are very suspicious here of any 

19 statements that nothing will be left here, and it will 

20 all be gone, because we haven't seen that happen in 

21 our state over the last half century. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, 

23 Susan. And, Mark? 

24 MR. YEAGER: Actually, Susan provided me a 

25 good segue. As a regulator, and a regulator at 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 

 141

1 Barnwell facility, Mr. Hill's initial statement that 

2 NRC is technical, they aren't going to deal with the 

3 policy issue. And just like Susan says, there's a lot 

4 of legacy waste that's been a concern to all South 

5 Carolinians for a very long time. 

6 And I just want to point out and go on the 

7 record as saying that until the policy issue regarding 

8 high-level waste is addressed, and that you have a 

9 vision of where it's going to wind up, I don't know if 

10 it's wise to proceed with the rulemaking dealing with 

11 high-level waste storage. Because just like Susan 

12 points out, what tends to be generated somewhere tends 

13 to stay there. That's the historical fact. But there 

14 has been improvement in waste leaving our state, the 

15 transuranic waste going to Carlsbad, as an example. 

16 So, it's not like things don't work, but things need 

17 to be improved. 

18 One of the burdens that would be put on a 

19 state at the state level and the local government 

20 level would be, basically, a financial burden, and a 

21 psychological burden on the residents around that 

22 facility that have to deal with potential emergency 

23 responses to facilities that store anything long term. 

24 So, I don't think you can just -- I'm not 

25 saying you're being flippant, but there's definitely 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 

 142

1 link between policy and rulemaking on this issue. And 

2 I don't think you can do one without another one in 

3 hand. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks. Mark, do you 

5 have a -- or, Britt, do you have a quick thought on 

6 that? 

7 DR. HILL: Yes, just a quick 

8 clarification. Do you believe that requiring the 

9 Environmental Assessment as part of the licensing 

10 process could address many of those concerns? 

11 MR. YEAGER: I think it could, but one of 

12 the concerns I have is that the Environmental 

13 Assessment is done exclusively by the license 

14 applicant. I think each part of it should be done 

15 jointly. Each part of it should be submitted in 

16 pieces. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Now, just to clarify that, 

18 though, the license applicant's document is typically 

19 called the Environmental Report, the ER. Is that 

20 correct? And the EA is something that the NRC would 

21 do initially on the basis of the license applicant's 

22 ER. 

23 MR. YEAGER: I was using lower case A, not 

24 capital A for that. 

25 MR. CAMERON: All right, thank you. Thank 
 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 you, Mark. Derek, before we go to Gap 2, do you want 

2 to say something? 

3 MR. WIDMAYER: I just wanted to react to 

4 what Mark said. I understand where you're coming 

5 from, and I recognize that we have a lot of policy 

6 issues that need to be taken care of. 

7 My reaction to what the Staff put together 

8 from a technical basis is, I think they can make these 

9 decisions on a technical basis. I think they can do 

10 this regardless of the fact that there may be -- 

11 there's waste where there's no path. I recognize 

12 that. But I think they could, given this framework, 

13 make these decisions on a technical basis. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And finally, Mary, 

15 sort of an overall comment. This is Mary Olsen. 

16 MS. OLSEN: I just want to revisit briefly 

17 the parking lot item, and I apologize that I don't 

18 have the materials with me. But NRC Staff came up to 

19 me in the break and said well, there's generic EISs. 

20 And those go with generic rulemakings, like the 

21 ISFSIs, and the generic licensing. And I think a 

22 programmatic EIS is different, because it actually 

23 would encompass the kind of question that Mr. Yeager 

24 just brought up. 

25 I mean, programmatic means cradle-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 

 144

1 grave. And it would not only include the huge super 

2 theme park of rulemaking that's being proposed by NEI 

3 as a single rule, it would include the licensing of 

4 the reactors, and what happens to the fuel that comes 

5 out of those reactors. It would include everything, 

6 cradle-to -- uranium coming out of the ground to 

7 whatever the hell anyone is going to do with the 

8 irradiated MOX fuel. 

9 I'm sorry, you're right. I'm being bad. 

10 But I just wanted to throw in here the fact that I 

11 think that the reason this is so important is that 

12 we're talking about not wanting to slice off impacts. 

13 Right? We're really here talking about this whole 

14 picture together. And we have work that solidly shows 

15 that the impact of a major accident like Chernobyl, or 

16 like Fukushima with plutonium fuel in the core, is a 

17 disproportionate impact compared to uranium fuel in 

18 the core. 

19 It is proportion to the amount of 

20 plutonium that's in the core, but this is the kind of 

21 issue that would get addressed in a programmatic EIS 

22 that was part of this whole matter of regulating the 

23 process at all. 

24 So, I just want to point out that I really 

25 don't know enough about France. I think we know 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 

 145

1 a democracy, we know it's socialist, but do they have 

2 the same provisions in their constitution? We say we 

3 provide equal protection under the law, so if you know 

4 you're going to increase the risk to communities 

5 disproportionately, how are you going to address that? 

6 How are you going to say, at least in your paperwork, 

7 that you've doubled the safety if you're doubling the 

8 risk? 

9 MR. CAMERON: I think that we could 

10 legitimately put the French constitution in the 

11 parking lot. 

12 MS. OLSEN: I think so, too, but I don't 

13 think we should put our constitution in the parking 

14 lot. 

15 MR. CAMERON: All right. 

16 MS. OLSEN: And I'm just saying that I 

17 think that these are -- the whole ball of wax, you 

18 know, you say you're getting at the whole ball of wax, 

19 but really your programmatic EIS would get at the 

20 whole ball of wax. 

21 MR. CAMERON: And did you use the term 

22 "rulemaking theme park?" 

23 MS. OLSEN: I did. 

24 MR. CAMERON: That's good, Mary. 

25 (Laughing). Whether you call the EIS programmatic or 
 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 generic, the threshold issue is whether there will be 

2 an Environmental Impact Statement done on a 

3 rulemaking. And I think that by its very nature, any 

4 EIS on a rulemaking that covers all these subjects is 

5 going to accomplish what I think you want to see 

6 accomplished. 

7 MS. OLSEN: Reactor licensing, too? 

8 MR. CAMERON: But we can do that. We can 

9 talk more about that when we get -- so, should we go 

10 to Gap 2? Do you want to lead off? 

11 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I'd like to go on one 

12 of the specific rides in the rulemaking theme park, if 

13 I could. 

14 MR. CAMERON: You want to go on one of the 

15 rides? Okay. 

16 (Laughter.) 

17 MR. CAMERON: And what do you call it? 

18 MR. McCULLUM: Gap 2. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Gap 2. Okay. 

20 MR. McCULLUM: It's a lot of fun, kids 

21 love it. 

22 (Laughter.) 

23 MR. McCULLUM: I just want to go on 

24 record, and we will endeavor, industry to provide you 

25 some written comments more specifically, but we oppose 
 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 the proposal to do a rulemaking in Part 72. This goes 

2 back to what John Greeves had said earlier, we want a 

3 holistic comprehensive regulation for the recycling, 

4 reprocessing, plutonium green washing, whatever 

5 facility it is. 

6 And, in fact, a couple of reasons for 

7 that, as we are discovering between Part 50 and Part 

8 72, and I know NRC Staff that works in those areas is 

9 trying to work out some of the interface issues. 

10 There's a thing called "stack-up" that occurs in the 

11 loading inside the Part 50 with a Part 72 cask. 

12 If you try to put -- if you try to do a 

13 rulemaking in Part 72, you're going to create 

14 interface issues. Also, the nature of reprocessing, 

15 you have materials in process streams, and then they 

16 pause for a while, and then they go through more -- 

17 so, the question of when is it in process, does it 

18 jump back and forth between Part 72 space and Part 7x 

19 space? It's just much cleaner to have a holistic 

20 regulation where everybody can understand what's 

21 needed to assure safety. 

22 Also, Part 72 will probably be undergoing 

23 changes from other directions. It has to look at 

24 extended storage now. Staff has a separate initiative 

25 on that. And it also has -- there's a staff initiative 
 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 on near-term improvements to the Part 72 framework. 

2 So, that would probably be more changes than it could 

3 bear. We, again, would vote for the holistic approach. 

4 And one last, before I get off the ride 

5 and the thing goes up here, there is a question here 

6 on should NRC limit the amount of spent nuclear fuel 

7 that can be stored in the facility? That's a policy 

8 question, and also a business question. I know AREVA 

9 has proposed a pilot facility, others might propose 

10 bigger facilities, but whatever facility anybody 

11 proposes, or the government might mandate as a matter 

12 of policy, they need to show that they can meet the 

13 regulations. 

14 If you put a regulation in that 

15 holistically describes what it takes to assure safety, 

16 I want to propose an 800 metric ton a year facility 

17 that stores up to 2,000 tons, or I want to propose a 

18 900 metric ton facility that stores up to 20,000 tons, 

19 it's up to me to show that with that amount I meet the 

20 regulation. And one of my options is, is that if it 

21 looks like I can't meet the regulation, is I go for a 

22 smaller license. So, I don't think that's something 

23 that should be prescribed by regulation. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Rod. Let 

25 me just ask Britt and Wendy, on this Gap 2, Rod was 
 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 talking about some of the moving parts here. The 

2 substantive issue in Gap 2 is what to do about the 

3 storage -- I mean, forget how the process works, it's 

4 what to do about -- how do you deal with the storage 

5 of the high-level waste, not to spent fuel, but to 

6 high-level waste? Could you just elaborate on that 

7 for our participants? 

8 DR. HILL: Well, there is a spent fuel 

9 storage issue, as well, and what sort of material 

10 would be coming into this new installation. And then 

11 what material the high-level waste storage on the back 

12 end, that's a little more vexing problem in the sense 

13 the high-level waste storage is a little more vexing, 

14 because we just don't have any regulatory framework 

15 right now for dealing with that. 

16 It's all -- the intent of the Nuclear 

17 Waste Policy Act was the Department of Energy would 

18 operate a storage installation for high-level waste, 

19 mainly because well, it was only envisioned at that 

20 time that the Department of Energy would do 

21 reprocessing. But we are now sitting here almost 30 

22 years later, and we're looking at the commercial 

23 storage, and the commercial production of high-level 

24 waste as being expressed as an intent to the 

25 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 

 150

1 So, we're looking at this within our 

2 existing regulatory framework. If we are going to 

3 promulgate changes to Part 72 because there are 

4 certain storage requirements that are needed for 

5 longer term safety, or longer term inspection process, 

6 using the 72 regulatory framework allows us to 

7 propagate those changes for existing license holders 

8 under Part 50, as well as another potential license 

9 holder, anybody that has that general license, or a 

10 specific license for the storage of spent nuclear 

11 fuel. Rather than if you say, just to speculate, in 

12 the future you wanted to change Part 72 for longer 

13 term storage requirements then you would need to go 

14 back, and if you had incorporated those requirements 

15 under 7x, you'd also have to do a rulemaking under 

16 Part 7x to accommodate that, as well. 

17 So, you end up with the same requirements 

18 in different regulations, rather than granting 

19 authority from a single regulation out to specific 

20 licensees, which is our current approach for general 

21 license for nuclear power plants. 

22 MR. CAMERON: And let me just go to Rod 

23 quick. Did you want to say something in regard to 

24 what Britt was saying? 

25 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I think 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 

 151

1 MR. CAMERON: Because I want to make sure 

2 that everybody understands what the issue is. 

3 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I think you talk about 

4 the issue of spent fuel, and you still have Part 72. 

5 And, certainly, a commercial entity that wanted to 

6 reprocess would have the option of building a Part 72 

7 facility over on Acre One, and then on Acres Six 

8 through Eight, building a reprocessing facility. It 

9 could receive spent fuel at its Part 72 facility. Once 

10 the spent fuel went inside the reprocessing facility, 

11 it would go under Part 7x, and it would stay there. 

12 They could not then send the high-level waste back to 

13 the ISFSI, but the way La Hague is configured, they 

14 have a building that stores high-level waste. It's 

15 licensed. Well, they have a much simpler regulatory 

16 framework, the analogy breaks down. 

17 As far as having to do multiple 

18 rulemakings to do the same thing, I think that's less 

19 problematic for addressing the spent fuel. Once it's 

20 inside the Part 7x facility, you can take the 

21 regulations from Part 72 and just cut and paste some 

22 of the same sections in there; and yes, you have a 

23 change control issue that every time you have to make 

24 sure that they conform, but I think that change 

25 control issue is less significant than the issue 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 

 152

1 would occur for the folks who have to operate the 

2 facility, folks who have to actually be safe, when 

3 they have to be making decisions as to am I in Part 7x 

4 territory, am I in Part 72 territory, am I in process 

5 now, or because I set this container -- it's between 

6 two parts of the process now, am I in storage space 

7 again? How long I store it. 

8 From the standpoint of the facility 

9 operator, the holistic regulation is the only way to 

10 go. And Part 72 should stay in force, and we should 

11 have the option to build a Part 72 facility next door, 

12 if that's the way they want to operate. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So, one part of this 

14 is what's the most efficient way to build the 

15 regulatory framework. 

16 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, it's efficiency, and 

17 the best way to assure safety. Because questions 

18 about where you are in the regulatory framework make 

19 it harder to assure safety, not easier. And when you 

20 build those questions in by having two regulations 

21 inside the same facility, that's not good regulation. 

22 MR. CAMERON: And is there also an issue 

23 besides how you build the regulatory framework, in 

24 terms of the high-level waste, not the spent fuel, but 

25 however you build that regulatory framework, you need 
 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 to address the question of what criteria you're going 

2 to use to regulate that high-level waste. 

3 Go ahead, Derek. 

4 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes, I -- as far as the 

5 waste management gaps that Britt was going to bring 

6 up, this one seemed to me to have the most challenges. 

7 The two questions, one and two, that he asked at the 

8 end from a technical standpoint, Staff considers 

9 storage of high-level waste not significantly 

10 different from the storage of spent nuclear fuel. And 

11 their bases for that is from 1986, and I don't know -- 

12 I felt like it was problematic that that same 

13 conclusion would be drawn today, and that you'd have 

14 an easy time justifying that that conclusion was one 

15 that you could technically justify. 

16 And then the second one, I also have an 

17 issue, or I think it's a challenge to consider that 

18 you could store high-level waste under a general 

19 license based on, basically, the conclusion that 

20 you've drawn in number one. So, I felt like this one 

21 was an area where you have a lot of challenges, as far 

22 as the gaps. 

23 I understand where your thinking is coming 

24 from, but I'm not sure that you'd be successful in 

25 going down this path. 
 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 MR. CAMERON: And, Mary? Thanks, Derek. 

2 MS. OLSEN: One quick little correction 

3 of something I said earlier, just for the transcript. 

4 I called MOX fuel twice as hazardous, and I think 

5 it's actually -- I mean, I called it twice as 

6 dangerous. I think actually the word would be 

7 "hazard," because what I'm talking about is latent 

8 cancer fatalities. That is the issue, is that more 

9 cancer is engendered if you have a major reactor 

10 accident with MOX fuel. So, I just want to be clear 

11 that that's what I was talking about. 

12 But I'm having my eyes crossed right now, 

13 and I know it's because maybe I really like rules. 

14 And I like knowing what they are, I like knowing how 

15 they work. And somehow in this whole little bit of 

16 history, I've gotten really envious of those 

17 contracts, and I want a contract, because those waste 

18 contracts are driving this whole picture. So, I'm 

19 like really trying to struggle over here, and maybe 

20 someone at the table could walk me through how those 

21 contracts work in this picture. 

22 I mean, if DOE picks up the waste, then 

23 the contract is executed, and they're just going off 

24 the map, and they are not disposing until afterwards. 

25 And then like then there's all this waste 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 

 155

1 sitting there that you're talking about storing, and 

2 it's got to have a path forward. And it's going to 

3 have a place it's going to go. And I assume that some 

4 of it is going to be into a new repository program, 

5 because everybody is talking about that at BRC. 

6 But like what -- I thought those contracts 

7 were to insure that the plutonium generated would not 

8 end up on the open market. That's why I defend those 

9 contracts, and I do. I have friends who wanted to 

10 stop having contracts, that the new reactors shouldn't 

11 have them any more, that it's wrong that the taxpayers 

12 should take responsibility for the waste that's 

13 generated. And I actually defend those contracts, but 

14 today I can't even follow where they are. What the 

15 hell happens with those contracts? Somebody explain 

16 it. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Well, there's two issues 

18 here, and one is about what's going on with the 

19 contracts, generally. And maybe someone can give us a 

20 real quick summary on that. But there's the other 

21 issue, what are the implications for the contracts, if 

22 any, from a reprocessing facility that has spent 

23 nuclear fuel and resulting high-level waste from 

24 reprocessing? Are there any -- 

25 MS. OLSEN: Let me just help. Like 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 

 156

1 has the contract? Like if you've generated high-level 

2 waste that's supposed to be disposed, is there a 

3 contract? And, if so, who has it? And what happened to 

4 the old contract? I'm lost. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Britt, do you want to -- can 

6 you talk to this? 

7 DR. HILL: Yes, Mary, you're raising some 

8 really challenging questions about -- they would 

9 involve legal interpretations that I'm just not 

10 qualified to give. 

11 I can say, though, that I'm familiar with 

12 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that has provisions in it 

13 that any producer of high-level waste, and it doesn't 

14 mean just the Department, but it says any producer of 

15 high-level waste will enter into a contract with the 

16 Secretary of Energy to contract for the disposal of 

17 that high-level waste with a fee to be established 

18 based on, I forget the exact details, but there is a 

19 basis in the NWPA for how you would establish the 

20 disposal fee for the production of any high-level 

21 waste, which would be resulting from reprocessing. 

22 So, I can't answer all of your questions, 

23 but the sense of the disposal fee you would have to 

24 have a standard contract in place if you're going to 

25 produce high-level waste. That contract would be 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 

 157

1 the Department of Energy, and the fee to be 

2 established as part of the contractual process. 

3 MS. OLSEN: Just one quick follow -- 

4 MR. CAMERON: Let's -- 

5 MS. OLSEN: Okay. 

6 MR. CAMERON: For a minute, let's go to 

7 Greeves, John Greeves, and see if we can put some more 

8 light on this, and then go back for questions. 

9 MR. GREEVES: I respectfully submit we're 

10 off the page. The contracts can go in the parking 

11 lot. It's going to get in the way of us talking about 

12 this gap. And the gap is about independent storage. 

13 The questions were, should we do a general license? 

14 And there's been some voice that no, we think the best 

15 thing to do is comprehensively have the ability to 

16 address storage within 7x. 

17 The only really new piece is the glass, 

18 the storage of spent fuel glass, so somehow we do need 

19 to cover that. But it isn't really entirely new, 

20 because the Commission has already been looking at 

21 that issue. So, I think we're asking for 7x to address 

22 that totally, and it'll take time. 

23 MR. CAMERON: And I don't -- it may be 

24 that the contract issue is something that we should 

25 talk about offline, but I just want to make sure, 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 try to give Mary some information. I just want to 

2 make sure that, what the implications are, if any, 

3 from the contracts for the regulation of reprocessing 

4 facilities. And Rod -- 

5 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I can't answer that. 

6 I'm not a lawyer, but I've stayed in many Holiday Inn 

7 Expresses in my life. And, also, this comes from the 

8 lawyers at NEI. All of the contracts, as they've 

9 drilled it into me many times, all of the contracts 

10 are still in force. The courts have ruled that DOE is 

11 in partial breach of those contracts, meaning DOE is 

12 liable for damages. 

13 Those damages are being handled in two 

14 ways. The courts are litigating, and utilities are 

15 being paid for their damages. And, of course, the 

16 longer DOE waits to pick up the fuel, the more they 

17 get damaged. There are several utilities that have 

18 settlements whereby they send DOE a bill every year, 

19 and that gets in an arbitrated situation for their 

20 damages. 

21 In no case is the contract -- well, if the 

22 contract is fulfilled, you mentioned the taxpayers on 

23 the hook. The taxpayers are only on the hook when the 

24 contract is not fulfilled. If DOE fulfills the 

25 contract, that's all paid for by the Nuclear 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 

 159

1 Fund that was paid for by the consumers of nuclear 

2 electricity through their bills. If you live near a 

3 nuclear plant, or in the nuclear service territory, 

4 you have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. 

5 The taxpayers only end up on the hook when 

6 DOE is assigned damages. The damages come out of 

7 something called the Judgment Fund, which is paid by 

8 the taxpayers. 

9 In no case is any of this a Part 7x issue, 

10 however, because those contracts will continue to 

11 remain in force. And the contract holder may transfer 

12 the waste to DOE, and DOE may become the customer of 

13 the reprocessing facility. The contract holder may 

14 commercially reprocess, and still be responsible for 

15 the waste until DOE starts making good on the 

16 contracts. Either way, that contract relationship 

17 stays in place. Even if you overturn the Nuclear 

18 Waste Policy Act, you can't by law overturn the 

19 contracts. And there's an industry lawyer in the room 

20 to keep me honest here. 

21 MS. OLSEN: Therein lies my contract envy. 

22 MR. McCULLUM: Well, yes. Exactly. So, 

23 this is clearly not a Part 7x issue. It really 

24 depends on the business model for the reprocessing 

25 facility, and how -- who the customer is, and how 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 

 160

1 customer addresses his or her, its contractual 

2 situation with DOE. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And with your 

4 forbearance, Mary and possibly with Don Silverman's 

5 assistance, perhaps you could talk about this a little 

6 bit offline about some of the contract issues. 

7 MS. OLSEN: I was just going to offer that 

8 my business cards are here, and if anybody has 

9 anything to contribute on this subject, we will leave 

10 it now, but, obviously, I'm very interested. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Contract envy and rulemaking 

12 theme park. You put these on there? Okay. 

13 Britt, Wendy, what else do you need to 

14 know on Gap 2 before we go on to another gap? Have 

15 you heard enough? Does anybody have anything more to 

16 say on this? Let's go to Tom. 

17 MR. CLEMENTS: I'm just kind of confused, 

18 given that the Blue Ribbon Commission is going to be 

19 making some recommendations, and we've already seen 

20 two of the three subcommittees, and the draft 

21 recommendations. And some of those draft 

22 recommendations are for one or more consolidated 

23 interim storage sites. 

24 Just revealing my ignorance, I'm not sure 

25 if they were only talking about spent nuclear fuel, or 
 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 if they speculated on high-level waste, vitrified 

2 high-level waste coming from a reprocessing plant. 

3 So, do you think there's going to be impact for a 

4 consolidated interim storage site on the high-level 

5 waste, vitrified high-level waste end of things. I 

6 mean, if the material were stored longer on the front 

7 end, I guess there could be some impact there, too. 

8 But I would suspect that there's going to be impact on 

9 NRC rulemaking and DOE policy from what the BRC 

10 recommends. 

11 And we have this discussion, it's really 

12 becoming clear if we're following what is Appendix F 

13 of Part 50, that the material will be removed from the 

14 site after 10 years, and I know there's been a 

15 newspaper article that AREVA wants to get to 

16 discussions about a reprocessing plant in 2015, have 

17 it operating in 10 years; that there's going to be an 

18 impasse on operating that facility if there's no 

19 geologic disposal. They're not going to be able to 

20 store longer than 10 years if that Appendix stays in 

21 place. 

22 But just in general, do you get a feel of 

23 what BRC is going to require you to do, or what are 

24 you preparing to do from their recommendations? 

25 DR. HILL: Well, just 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 

 162

1 everybody clear, the Blue Ribbon Commission on 

2 America's Nuclear Future is a Federal Advisory 

3 Commission to the Department of Energy. We would have 

4 to wait and see if there was any change to the 

5 national legal framework before we would take any 

6 direct action, absent the Presidential Directive or 

7 something else to that effect. 

8 The best that I can understand the initial 

9 recommendations from the subcommittees which have been 

10 published, would be first, that the BRC is 

11 recommending that a new entity be created to solve the 

12 whole back end of the fuel cycle problem. So, the 

13 nature of that entity could be private, semi-private, 

14 semi-public, or even governmental. 

15 I guess we don't know what they're going 

16 to propose in terms of the final, should this be a 

17 public entity, or a semi-public entity. But right 

18 now, if they go forward with a centralized interim 

19 storage recommendation, our regulatory framework is 

20 already in place for a private or darned near any 

21 entity to ask for licensing authority for interim 

22 storage, private or public. We have the existing 

23 regulatory framework, so I don't see any specific need 

24 for spent fuel. 

25 You asked, though, about high-level 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 

 163

1 I don't recall if the BRC really specifically talked 

2 about high-level waste storage, given that they have a 

3 fairly neutral stance on reprocessing. I don't think 

4 that's prominent in their thinking. But they're 

5 driving concern that they expressed was to at least 

6 begin to address the spent fuel that's at commissioned 

7 reactor sites, is their highest priority. And that was 

8 what they cited as their driver for moving to 

9 centralized interim storage. 

10 So, the simplest answer I can give at the 

11 end of all that is that we don't see an immediate need 

12 to respond, because that key BRC recommendation for 

13 centralized storage already can be accommodated within 

14 the existing regulatory framework. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Britt. 

16 Let's have one more comment from Sven, and then let's 

17 go to Gap 3. 

18 MR. BADER: Unfortunately, mine is going 

19 to be more of a question than a comment. And the 

20 process you were saying, there's not a whole lot of 

21 U.S. experience regarding high-level waste storage. 

22 And, clearly, I think DOE would probably say that's 

23 not true. La Hague is another example of where we have 

24 waste storage. 

25 But when I was thinking about DOE, I was 
 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 thinking, if you want to modify Part 72 to include 

2 high-level waste, would you be clear that that would 

3 be from a recycling facility, or could that also be 

4 DOE waste? 

5 DR. HILL: Well, I think, certainly, our 

6 intent would be for commercial reprocessing. We do not 

7 regulate the storage of Department of Energy defense 

8 activity waste. The disposal aspect is a unique 

9 requirement from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, but we 

10 would not be talking about storage of Department of 

11 Energy high-level waste. That's not within the scope 

12 of our activities. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Gap 3, 

14 perhaps a little bit -- all of this takes place in a 

15 larger context, but maybe this is a little bit more 

16 straightforward. This is Incidental Waste. 

17 Go ahead, John. 

18 MR. GREEVES: Again, the questions that, 

19 if I have them right, suggested approaches. Actually, 

20 you have three. One is seek relief from Congress. 

21 Number two is promulgate a regulation clarifying the 

22 meaning of highly radioactive and sufficient 

23 concentrations. And three is, no action. 

24 And I'm speaking for myself, but I think 

25 two of them don't work. No action is not acceptable. 
 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 We've got an issue with this definition. And two, 

2 seeking relief from Congress, my experience is that's 

3 not going to be a path either. 

4 MR. McCULLUM: I think that's a concept 

5 every single stakeholder can agree on here, is that 

6 Congress is not qualified to make that decision. 

7 That's why we have an NRC. 

8 MR. GREEVES: So, my overall point is, I 

9 think your approach number two, promulgate a 

10 regulation that defines what is highly radioactive and 

11 insufficient concentrations. Easy to say, hard to 

12 implement, but I'm a little bit struck by what Britt 

13 went through with the complexity of trying to do that 

14 for a -- I'm going to call it a 7x vehicle. I don't 

15 want to offend anybody by calling it a recycle 

16 facility. The 7x facility, I understand the concept 

17 where you might want to just go as far as a facility 

18 that only handles the material, doesn't dispose it. 

19 But, ultimately, you, the Commission, you're going to 

20 have to answer both pieces of this, the disposal piece 

21 and the handling piece. 

22 And the NEI White Paper put forward some 

23 recommendations, and in due course I'd like to hear 

24 what your reaction to those were, that tried to 

25 address both the definition at the facility, 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 

 166

1 enough context to help you frame how it affects that 

2 facility once it gets to the disposal facility. But 

3 full circle, your approach number two, I highly 

4 endorse that one. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, John. Let's 

6 go to Derek, and then Tom, and Mary. Derek, on this 

7 issue, Gap 3. 

8 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes. I concur with John as 

9 far as Options 1 and 3. And I prefer that NRC do 

10 something to solidify a definition. I was thinking 

11 along the lines of the fact that this gap relates to 

12 some of your other gaps, where you're trying to figure 

13 out what to do with depleted uranium, or NRC is trying 

14 to figure out what to do with it. NRC is trying to 

15 figure out what to do with blended low-level waste. 

16 NRC is trying to figure out what to do with other 

17 apparently unanalyzed low-level waste streams. And 

18 now we have the in-between low-level waste and high19 level waste streams, so it screams to me that we need 

20 a sort of a holistic look at this whole radioactive 

21 waste problem. 

22 I don't know whether the Blue Ribbon 

23 Commission is going to provide us that opportunity or 

24 not. Given that you're kind of between a rock and a 

25 hard place, I think you should go ahead and make 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 

 167

1 definition, but then you're still going to end up with 

2 a little bit of this, and a little bit of that that 

3 has no place to go. But, anyway, that's my feeling 

4 about that one. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Before we go to Tom and 

6 Mary, do you want to respond to -- 

7 DR. HILL: Just very briefly, I think the 

8 governing problem we have, or the concern is, we have 

9 this statutory definition for high-level waste that is 

10 specific to reprocessing, as opposed to the larger 

11 issues in Part 61 from all different sorts of waste 

12 streams, and the concentration issues, and the 

13 identification of radionuclides issues. 

14 So, I certainly agree that we're not going 

15 to solve the entire spectrum of that problem in Gap 3, 

16 but we are very focused on resolving a functional 

17 implementation of our statutory definition in a way 

18 that is consistent with the statutory definition of 

19 low-level waste, which is well, low-level waste is a 

20 material that isn't anything else like high-level 

21 waste. So, that would be the distinction, I just want 

22 to make sure everybody is aware of. 

23 We have got a source-based definition in 

24 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and with that source25 based determination we need to have a responsible 
 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 basis to say what are the materials that need to be 

2 disposed of geologically versus another disposal 

3 pathway. 

4 MR. WIDMAYER: And that's why I mentioned 

5 the Blue Ribbon Commission. I don't know if they'll 

6 afford you the opportunity to have legislative changes 

7 that -- we'll see where that goes. 

8 DR. HILL: Well, certainly, the Blue 

9 Ribbon Commission's recommendations would need 

10 legislative implementation. 

11 MR. WIDMAYER: Right. 

12 DR. HILL: And that always presents an 

13 opportunity for change. But the time scale for that 

14 change, and the priority for that change is something 

15 we just don't have an insight on. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Let's go 

17 to Tom, and then Mary, and we'll come back to Rod and 

18 John, perhaps. Tom? 

19 MR. CLEMENTS: Well, on the waste 

20 incidental to reprocessing issue, as people can well 

21 imagine, we're quite sensitive to that here in South 

22 Carolina, because the State of South Carolina -- well, 

23 we're in Georgia now, but in the region, South 

24 Carolina and Idaho, as you know, where the tank 

25 waste was defined as certain parts of it to be 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 

 169

1 incidental to reprocessing. And what we're going to 

2 end up with at Savannah River site, and my numbers are 

3 not quite right, but more or less 50 large, very large 

4 tanks with a grouted waste incidental to reprocessing 

5 left on site, millions of gallons with several million 

6 curies of radiation. If anybody wants to see it, I 

7 have a picture of some of these tanks here, the salt 

8 waste. 

9 So, we would be quite concerned, and I was 

10 -- it was encouraging to hear Dr. Hill saying that no 

11 waste incidental to reprocessing would be left on 

12 site. And this gets back to a point I raised earlier, 

13 what is the site? 

14 Is the industry pushing the reprocessing 

15 plant going to claim the DOE site is the site that's 

16 being looked at? And this gets back to the EIS issue. 

17 There's going to be -- if Savannah River site, say, 

18 were to -- if someone is proposing to locate a 

19 reprocessing plant at Savannah River site, there, in 

20 my opinion, would need to be a sitewide Environmental 

21 Impact Statement not only relating to the waste and 

22 the operation of that plant, but how it interacts with 

23 waste streams and management of other parts of the 

24 site. 

25 It's going to get complicated. That would 
 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 be a DOE-NRC document. And, at this point, I think we 

2 would insist that such a document be prepared. That's 

3 another complication. But I think that high-level 

4 waste is already defined. 

5 I would be more comfortable here in South 

6 Carolina if the WIR law did not exist, and all of the 

7 wastes were being vitrified, but I do see that there's 

8 some limitations on processing all the material that's 

9 here, and how you handle the tanks, which are going to 

10 be grouted and closed in place. But it's a nightmare 

11 here, and I totally support what you have said, that 

12 the WIR waste would not remain at the site. 

13 But the question is, would AREVA or 

14 another company try to claim that the largest DOE site 

15 was not the site. And I think we're going to have 

16 some argument over that, but it's something the NRC 

17 should clarify in its regulations, if you are looking 

18 at a DOE site kind of as a sub-site, or if you totally 

19 don't care if it goes 100 yards away, and it's on a 

20 DOE site. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Is there a little bit of a 

22 confusion about the reference to DOE site here? 

23 MR. WIDMAYER: Only in the context of what 

24 Tom was just saying, in the sense that it sounded like 

25 he's -- I'm not keeping up with the news, I guess, 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 

 171

1 he seems to think that the reprocessing facility 

2 that's being discussed here is going to be sited at a 

3 DOE facility? 

4 MR. CLEMENTS: Well, just me -- it's quite 

5 possible, because under the GNEP proposal, a 

6 reprocessing facility was proposed by one entity at 

7 the old Barnwell plant, which is right adjacent to the 

8 Savannah River site. And for the Savannah River site, 

9 itself. And from what I see here, there is effort to 

10 put some pieces together, including with the MOX 

11 plant, consolidated interim storage, and locate a 

12 reprocessing facility after R&D is done at the 

13 Savannah River site itself, with a goal to use 

14 infrastructure, personnel. 

15 As I mentioned earlier, Shaw AREVA 

16 proposed that the boundary for the MOX plant and their 

17 radiation, the dose was the Savannah River site 

18 boundary, not whatever, 50 yards away from the plant 

19 itself. And they lost on that, and I think we may see 

20 the same thing if the industry were to propose a 

21 reprocessing plant at Savannah River site, or another 

22 DOE site. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So, let's let the 

24 record reflect that what Tom is talking about is if 

25 this reprocess -- if a reprocessing facility was 
 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 located on a DOE site, there's also the other point 

2 that he's making referring to something that Britt 

3 said about none of this waste incidental to whatever 

4 you call it is going to remain at the reprocessing 

5 site. 

6 And a further generic issue, getting back 

7 to the EIS, again, is that -- and apropos of what Mary 

8 was talking about, the scoping process for that EIS, 

9 the preparation of the draft EIS, is going to be very 

10 important, because people are going to have a lot of 

11 different ideas about what should be within the scope, 

12 what alternatives, what impact should be looked at. 

13 So, that was a good comment, Tom. 

14 Now we're going to go to Mary, and then 

15 we're going to jump over to Rod, who's been waiting a 

16 while. And then we'll see who else wants to talk on 

17 this. Mary, still on Gap 3. 

18 MS. OLSEN: Yes, I have just a couple of 

19 WIR comments. One is that we were very actively 

20 involved opposing the legislation that Tom mentioned. 

21 And I believe we have a number of technical resources 

22 in terms of calculations that were done at that time 

23 that I'll provide to Staff as a resource for you to 

24 see what our independent expert said about the wastes 

25 that were classified WIR in the DOE world. 
 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 But I want to bring up a different aspect 

2 of WIR, Waste Incidental to Reprocessing. And this 

3 has to do with a 1969 event that resulted in an 

4 underground plume of radioactivity at West Valley. 

5 The plume is moving towards Cattaraugus Creek, which 

6 flows through the Seneca Nations Reservation, and then 

7 into Lake Erie. 

8 They are taking remedial action. The 

9 estimate is $1.2 billion, and they put in a wall of 

10 zeolite. Now, I've heard of people afraid of 

11 radiation taking zeolite internally, but this is the 

12 more sort of institutional zeolite, internal, sticking 

13 it in the ground to hopefully absorb mainly the 

14 strontium-90, I believe is the major focal point. 

15 Anyway, they're not planning on taking 

16 that zeolite out. They are planning on this being 

17 their reaction to this problem, but it's actually 

18 going to be waste incidental to reprocessing at that 

19 site, because they're just trying to immobilize it 

20 where it is, but not remove it. 

21 So, I just want to bring up this little 

22 bit of reprocessing history, and mention that there's 

23 more than one way to deal with a problem, and not all 

24 of it has to do with removing the problem. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mary. Rod, 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 

 174

1 then John, and then maybe we'll try to do the next gap 

2 relatively non-controversial waste confidence. 

3 MR. McCULLUM: I was actually going to try 

4 to summarize. I think what NRC is proposing here is 

5 consistent with Option 2, that they seek to do what 

6 is, indeed, within NRC's purview, which is to define 

7 highly radioactive and sufficient concentrations in 

8 terms of what can be disposed of in accordance with 10 

9 CFR Part 61. 

10 I think Britt said I believe we have a 

11 source-based, I call it origin-based. Source even 

12 gives it more credibility. It shouldn't be where the 

13 waste came from, it should be what is its hazard, what 

14 does it contain that should drive how it's dealt with. 

15 And I think when Congress writes a law and 

16 says things like highly radioactive and sufficient 

17 concentrations, there's an expectation that the 

18 competent regulatory agency will define what those 

19 things mean. And I think NRC's proposal does that. 

20 Given that it does that, given that I 

21 think NRC can look at what could be disposed of as 

22 low-level waste, there's a specific question for 

23 public comment here that probably no longer apply. I 

24 don't believe applies any more, which is what waste 

25 disposal option should NRC consider for the management 
 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 of waste generated. That's a policy question. 

2 NRC does not need to consider waste 

3 disposal. If NRC, as they proposed, considers the 

4 hazard, if it's this hazard, it can be disposed of in 

5 Part 61, if it's not this hazard, it requires geologic 

6 disposal. Then there's another part of NRC that's 

7 going to make a new regulation for geologic disposal, 

8 because there's no more Yucca Mountain. And again, the 

9 nation will make a policy decision as to where we're 

10 going on disposal. 

11 So, I think the path that's been outlined 

12 here is a pretty good one, and I think it can be made 

13 independently of what disposal policy choices need to 

14 be made. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's go to John, and 

16 Mark, and Susan, and then we'll close this gap off. 

17 MR. GREEVES: This is -- I'll do it 

18 quickly. I think it's a little repetitive, but Britt, 

19 you talked about the source-based. Well, yes, it 

20 started out as a source-based definition. It moved in 

21 the direction of a hazard-based definition under the 

22 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, because that's where 

23 you will find the language "sufficient concentrations 

24 and other highly radioactive materials." So, you 

25 have, I think, the authority to build on 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 

 176

1 departure from solely a source-based definition to a 

2 hazard-based approach. And, at this point, I think 

3 the recommendation that the White Paper put forward is 

4 define what is sufficient concentrations in highly 

5 radioactives. 

6 I think you have that available, so your 

7 approach number two, repeating myself, is recommended. 

8 And I think there are ways, and Derek said it a few 

9 minutes ago. This is actually integrated to your 

10 waste classification gap. The effort the NRC Staff is 

11 going through to address the waste classification 

12 system backs into this one, and can, I think, give you 

13 a tool to define what sufficient concentrations are. 

14 And it actually, in my opinion, does build 

15 on what Congress did in Section 31-16, which was 

16 referred to earlier. It's the 2005 National Defense 

17 Authorization Act. And in there is language that we 

18 put forth in the White Paper that defines, or proposes 

19 what you could do to define what is sufficient 

20 concentration. So, hopefully -- it's more than we can 

21 do here, but Jim Lieber and I did a paper on this some 

22 time ago, and I think you have access to that. 

23 MR. CAMERON: And we're going to go to 

24 Mark, and Susan, and I think Britt wants to respond 

25 here. But maybe logically it makes sense to go 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 

 177

1 talk about the waste classification gap next, since it 

2 seems to be related. And then take a break, and come 

3 back and do waste confidence, and effluents. So, let's 

4 do that. 

5 Britt, did you have something to say to 

6 John about his comment? 

7 DR. HILL: Well, a number of commentors. 

8 We're all talking about WIR. NRC Staff is very 

9 sensitive to the issues associated with WIR that are 

10 occurring at the legacy sites. And that has been a 

11 lot of our struggle internally in remaining aware that 

12 anything we propose has the potential to affect WIR. 

13 We're trying to come to come to a sensible 

14 classification scheme where we're not automatically 

15 requiring low activity waste to be disposed of in a 

16 deep geologic repository that doesn't exist, but still 

17 insure that we have a protective approach for the 

18 highly radioactive materials. 

19 It is that tension between the existing 

20 issues at the legacy sites and a sensible, practical 

21 implementation that is causing us to just not adopt 

22 the existing definition in 31-16 Section of the 

23 Defense Authorization Act, because there is no intent 

24 in any of these existing statutes or legislation. We 

25 just don't have that removed to the extent practical 
 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 issue. It's a much simpler issue for us. And we just 

2 don't want to promulgate language that further 

3 confuses WIR from legacy sites with the waste streams 

4 from a future reprocessing site. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you for that 

6 clarity on that. And, Mark, and then we'll go to 

7 Susan. 

8 MR. YEAGER: Britt, I just wanted to ask 

9 if you have considered as part of your approach, as 

10 far as incidental waste, mixed waste? 

11 DR. HILL: I think that this consideration 

12 has come up in the context of waste classification for 

13 the lower activity waste. So, it's not really 

14 something that we've been considering for the WIR 

15 issue itself. 

16 We're really functionally oriented on what 

17 is the high-level waste, more than the classification 

18 of the low-level waste, and the mixed waste, the 

19 blending issues that are associated, all of that with 

20 the ongoing Part 61 rulemaking. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Mark, are you suggesting 

22 that the regulation -- the rule should address mixed 

23 waste? 

24 MR. YEAGER: Kevin and I just talked about 

25 this issue before the meeting, and it will be a 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 

 179

1 that's generated by a reprocessing facility. So, I 

2 just -- I'll ask the question when we talk about waste 

3 classification. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay, which we'll get to. 

5 We're going to hear from Susan, and then, Miriam, if 

6 you could put the Waste Classification Gap up for us, 

7 please. Susan? 

8 MS. CORBETT: Thank you. I mean, I'm just 

9 a lay person speaking on behalf of the citizens of 

10 South Carolina, and it's kind of like we feel like 

11 fool me once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on 

12 you. So, we want to make sure that there is 

13 consistent language with -- when you say there's not 

14 going to be any WIR waste left on site, we want to 

15 make sure that's very clear, because like Tom said, 

16 you could say the site, oh, the site is here, but 

17 there's this greater site that we could just move it 

18 from there over to there. So, we want to make sure 

19 that there's very clear language about what is the 

20 site, and how that would, potentially, affect our 

21 state in terms of it being left here. Because, 

22 originally, that WIR -- that wasn't WIR. I mean, that 

23 just came about in 2005, and that was considered high24 level waste before. In fact, I think it's still 

25 considered high-level waste in every state except 
 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 Idaho and South Carolina. Everywhere else, even in 

2 Washington State, this is still considered high-level 

3 waste. 

4 So, we're just concerned about the rules 

5 keep getting changed on the fly kind of thing just to 

6 suit the situation. And I want to make sure that we 

7 don't get stuck in that situation here again in South 

8 Carolina. Thank you for clarifying what you said, 

9 though. I appreciate that. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Susan. Can we 

11 move to Waste Classification now? Okay. And -- 

12 MR. McCULLUM: That's why my tent is up. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead, Rod. 

14 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I wanted to go on to 

15 the next ride. And I think this, hopefully, will be a 

16 pretty simple discussion. 

17 I think what Staff has indicated here is 

18 that this is being addressed. They've already got 

19 Commission direction on this issue. It's being 

20 addressed in Part 61. I know there's a lot going on 

21 over in Part 61 right now, and I think the discussion 

22 belongs over there. 

23 I think that, in other words, our position 

24 is that's a sound approach, and there's nothing, as I 

25 think is indicated here, there's nothing 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 

 181

1 needed in this rulemaking beyond that. So, I just 

2 wanted to endorse that approach. 

3 MR. CLEMENTS: Sorry is there's any 

4 confusion on my part, but just to raise this 

5 reprocessed uranium issue again. Wherever it be 

6 addressed, I do think that the NRC does need to assess 

7 what constituents are in the uranium coming out of a 

8 reprocessing plant. And you can easily get that from 

9 AREVA, and how that's going to be classified no matter 

10 where it be, if it's Part 61 or otherwise. 

11 And, also, I'm a little confused as to 

12 where the issue of after capture of at least certain 

13 fission gases, where the storage of them would be if 

14 that's what it ends up, where containers of noble 

15 gases would be, and how that fits into your 

16 regulation. 

17 I know that, what is it, 40 CFR 190 is the 

18 EPA reg on this, but how are you going to be 

19 addressing onsite storage of containerized noble 

20 gases, if that's what it's going to be? 

21 MR. CAMERON: And, Britt, is that our 

22 issue here about whether all those noble gases are 

23 going to be treated under Part 61, or what is the 

24 answer to Tom's question? 

25 DR. HILL: Well, I think we're 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 

 182

1 about the effluent monitoring and controls issue more 

2 than the storage of radioactive gases. 

3 MR. McCULLUM: Yes, 40 CFR 190 is a 

4 effluent rule. 

5 DR. HILL: Right, for release limits and 

6 dose limits. 

7 MR. McCULLUM: There's an onsite issue of 

8 how you manage the storage, but that gets to be 

9 technology-specific. You're going to have to show that 

10 your exposures to your workers and everything at the 

11 storage meets the regulations no matter how you do it. 

12 MR. CAMERON: So, is this something that 

13 we should talk to when we go to the effluent gap? 

14 Okay. Let's not lose that. And Tom brought this up 

15 again, reprocessed uranium. We know that you 

16 mentioned that the -- one of the drivers for the, at 

17 least one change to Part 61, is how you deal with 

18 depleted uranium, because that defaults to Class A. 

19 Is reprocessed uranium different than 

20 depleted uranium? I guess I just would like to get 

21 some clarification on that. Sven? 

22 MR. BADER: Yes. Reprocessed uranium does 

23 contain some fission products that the separation 

24 process was not able to completely purge from the 

25 uranium that's been recovered. So, there are special 
 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 processes. I think it was brought up here, AREVA has 

2 its facility in George Besse II that's being 

3 specifically designed to re-enrich this reprocessed 

4 uranium. 

5 In addition, this reprocessed uranium has 

6 a higher enrichment, B235, than depleted uranium or 

7 natural uranium. So, it would have to go through less 

8 enrichment, but still go through an enrichment 

9 process. And I think the inevitable question also is 

10 the depleted tails from the re-enrichment of 

11 reprocessed uranium. And, again, some are calling it 

12 a waste. In France, that's a resource, again, for 

13 future reactors. I mean, it's still full of potential 

14 power that could be utilized, but it will require a 

15 next generation reactor. 

16 So, I guess maybe the question is, will 

17 there be storage requirements for this material that 

18 will be unique. And then, I guess, Tom also mentioned 

19 the capture of fission -- of noble gases. It's 

20 something we've done a lot of work on in looking at 

21 it, and I know the DOE complex is also working on 

22 that. 

23 Clearly, gases won't meet performance 

24 requirements for disposal of Class A, so what they 

25 have done, or are proposing to do is to -- if 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 

 184

1 to capture this material, somehow putting it in a 

2 matrixed material, so again you have to look at 

3 performance requirements then from a safety 

4 standpoint. And we have regulations for that type 

5 material. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Sven. Fairly 

7 complex in terms of all the different waste streams. 

8 That was an easy one. Okay. 

9 John, and then Mary -- John, Mark, Mary, 

10 and then we'll take a break. 

11 MR. GREEVES: I hate to do this, but I'm 

12 stepping back because I think waste incidental and 

13 classification are connected. We spent a lot of time 

14 talking about WIR issues. They are controversial. 

15 You rightfully included the discussion of 

16 other waste streams, Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Appendix D 

17 on page 27. I think you know what I'm talking about. 

18 I think I would be remiss if I didn't flag that and 

19 say you really do need to include something on the 

20 hulls, the ion exchange beds, laboratory items, et 

21 cetera, get that into a regulation, because it's not 

22 at the present time. It's included in DOE's border, 

23 but it's not in the regulation, so somehow you're 

24 going to need to address that, because anybody that 

25 operates this facility will have those materials. 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 

 185

1 we need to have a clear understanding of what are 

2 they? And it's expressed here that they're not high3 level waste, so I think that needs to be written down 

4 in a rule. So, I'm just emphasizing that. 

5 You already got it in there, and I agree 

6 with the way you've written it up. It does need to be 

7 in the rule. 

8 MR. CAMERON: Mark? 

9 MR. YEAGER: This is just a general 

10 question. I don't know if there's any NRC Staff member 

11 that's working on this initiative that has interface 

12 with the NRC group that's addressing the revision of 

13 Part 61. Is there? 

14 DR. HILL: Yes, there is. And, 

15 unfortunately, he could not be with us on this trip. 

16 MR. YEAGER: That's fine. You know, our 

17 state is engaged in that revision as part of that 

18 team, and I just wasn't aware of any contributions 

19 from this group with regard to some of the isotopes 

20 that were referenced earlier this morning that are 

21 kind of unique to this process, that might have to be 

22 made -- have provisions made for them when the 

23 revision happens. 

24 DR. HILL: Right. 

25 MR. YEAGER: 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 

 186

1 MR. CAMERON: And finally, Mary. 

2 MS. OLSEN: I want to note that we are 

3 involved with the Part 61 dialogue, and I understand 

4 not dragging that whole thing in here. I want to just 

5 say that we welcome a reexamination of waste 

6 classification, that we agree that the waste 

7 classification that exists is very misleading, and 

8 institutionally unhelpful. 

9 But one of the issues that we would like 

10 to see addressed is not only how highly radioactive, 

11 and how concentrated but, in fact, the source term 

12 issue of how long it is going to be hazardous, and 

13 what is the level of institutional control that's 

14 placed around that length of hazard. So, those are 

15 some additional issues that we bring in. 

16 And then I just want to for the record, 

17 because we did talk about this, say that the surface 

18 dose of the uranium that comes out of reprocessing is 

19 enormously different than other uranium. I'm not 

20 going to say I know what that surface dose is, but the 

21 gentleman from AREVA mentioned it may need special 

22 storage requirements. Well, it's every single step 

23 onward with that material that is not comparable to 

24 fresh uranium fuel, the transport of it, the handling 

25 of it, the storage of it, everything. 
 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 So, I don't want to overstate the case, 

2 but I just want to be very, very clear that those 

3 provisions were not made at Paducah, and the NRC 

4 really needs to do a lesson learned on that incident, 

5 which was not, as far as I know, commercial. But it 

6 was from West Valley, I don't know. But flesh that out 

7 and get a clear understanding that the "reuse" of the 

8 uranium from this process is not a simple plug `n play 

9 with your other uranium. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Mary. Thank 

11 all of you. Let's take a break, come back -- why 

12 don't we come back at 20 to. It's a 20-minute break. 

13 We have two more gaps to do here. And then we have a 

14 relatively short but important subject of financial to 

15 do. So, I think we still have time. So, let's take 20 

16 minutes. And thank you, Britt, and thank you, Wendy, 

17 for your work. 

18 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 

19 record at 3:19 p.m., and went back on the record at 

20 3:44 p.m.) 

21 MR. CAMERON: On the record. Okay, and 

22 just for clarification, we're going to finish up these 

23 two gaps in this subject. And then we're going to go 

24 on and see if anybody has anything to say in the 

25 audience on 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 

 188

1 Then we're going to bring Bret up to talk 

2 about financial. And we'll have the discussion of 

3 that and I think it's going to be sort of a short 

4 subject. But we'll also have public comment then. So 

5 there will be two public comment sessions. 

6 And we need to -- The next gap is waste 

7 confidence. Okay. And we'll get that up there for 

8 you and we'll talk about that. And the last gap is 

9 going to be effluents. I think we've talked about the 

10 EIS issue. And fortunately we have some members of 

11 the NRC staff here in the audience who are probably 

12 going to have a responsibility for working the EIS. 

13 So they've been listening to all your comments on that 

14 which is good. 

15 Okay. Here is waste confidence proposal. 

16 And basically, Brit, is this -- Should the NRC try to 

17 fold the high level waste that results for 

18 reprocessing try to do a waste confidence decision on 

19 that? Or should it be something that the licensee is 

20 going to have to address in their environmental 

21 report? 

22 DR. HILL: Right. Would you extend the 

23 existing waste confidence rule for spent fuel at any 

24 reactor to include high level waste from any 

25 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 

 189

1 MR. CAMERON: So that's the basic issue 

2 though. 

3 DR. HILL: Yes. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Well, let me ask people 

5 around the table on this one. Does anybody around the 

6 table think that the waste confidence rule should be 

7 extended to make a generic finding on the 

8 environmental impacts of this material? I mean, if 

9 that's the issue a very simple question. Do people 

10 think the waste confidence should be extended? Or 

11 should we have this addressed in the license 

12 application if anybody comes in for a reprocessing 

13 license? 

14 Okay. Mary. 

15 MS. OLSEN: I find it highly refreshing 

16 that a site specific approach might be taken. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Anybody else around 

18 the table want to differ from the site specific? 

19 John. And we won't close this off until we hear from 

20 Rod. Okay. 

21 MR. GREEVES: I think he wanted to 

22 participate and we sort of got out of order. And I'm 

23 surprised he's not back here. So I'd just keep the 

24 record open until he comes back. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. No, we will. 
 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 But I'm just -- Go ahead, Mark. 

2 MR. YEAGER: Dues to the inevitable 

3 pushback on any proposed commercial facility you have 

4 in order to get any kind-in from the potential 

5 location it would be, you'd have to have some kind of 

6 independent assessment done just to garner public 

7 support. I don't see how you can just make a generic 

8 decision. It has to be part of the licensing process. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Greeves is shaking 

10 his affirmatively. 

11 MR. GREEVES: I'm just -- I'm not an 

12 expert on this topic. So I wish Rod was here. But 

13 the point is we already have glass storage. We're 

14 storing it at West Valley. It's being stored by the 

15 government. So the issue is at hand already. 

16 I agree with Mark that you can't -- you 

17 have to pay attention to it in any licensing process. 

18 I'm not the expert on waste confidence, but -- 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Brit. 

20 DR. HILL: Just to try to help focus the 

21 discussion, our concerns really are in the waste 

22 confidence rule. The Commission came up with five 

23 findings about storage and disposal of spent fuel and 

24 at times of high level waste. 

25 The Commission expressed confidence 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 

 191

1 high level waste could be safely disposed of in a 

2 geologic repository and that the challenges associated 

3 with that disposal were bounded by the challenges of 

4 disposing spent fuel. So the Commission was very 

5 clear in Findings Nos. 1 and 2 that high level waste 

6 could be disposed of safely. In Finding 3, the 

7 Commission was very clear that spent fuel and high 

8 level waste would be stored at a licensed facility 

9 unless they had confidence that it could be managed 

10 successfully. 

11 The problem comes in for us in Finding No. 

12 4 which talks about the confidence in safe and secure 

13 long-term storage. That finding only talks to 

14 confidence for spent nuclear fuel storage at any 

15 reactor. 

16 So the challenge for staff is was there 

17 enough technical information for us to think that like 

18 the Commission did for Finding 4 for spent fuel 

19 storage could we make a generic finding for long-term 

20 storage which would be in this case 60 years beyond 

21 the license life of any facility that we had 

22 sufficient information to say "Staff was confident 

23 with reasonable expectation that there would be no 

24 significant environmental impacts from the storage of 

25 that waste." And that was where staff at this stage 
 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 felt that we did not have the sufficiency of 

2 information to make that as a generic finding. 

3 So it's not really about could we do it in 

4 the here and now. I don't think there's been any 

5 technical issue that's been raised to say that high 

6 level waste could be stored safely in the here and 

7 now. It's extending that here and now confidence out 

8 for at least 60 years beyond the license life of that 

9 facility. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's go to Derek 

11 Widmayer from ACRS and then Tom Clements. 

12 MR. WIDMAYER: And Brit just summarized 

13 the reason I didn't answer your question in the 

14 affirmative is what he just summarized there is that 

15 Criteria 4 is where they have difficulty. And I think 

16 they're being honest as far as what they can achieve 

17 with -- 

18 MR. CAMERON: Would be a non-starter. 

19 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

21 Tom. 

22 MR. CLEMENTS: Let me just point out that 

23 once again getting back to this issue of a 

24 reprocessing plant located on a DOE site. Savannah 

25 River site already has 3,000 canisters of vitrified 
 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 high level waste and around 7,500 are supposed to be 

2 made. 

3 If you're going to develop waste 

4 confidence and this reprocessing plant is located in a 

5 DOE site, be it Savannah River site or if Hanford ever 

6 vitrifies high level waste, where there's material 

7 that that doesn't fall under NRC regs. from a 

8 community and state wide perspective, if you develop 

9 regulations that apply only to the newest part of that 

10 vitrified waste and the oldest material is still 

11 sitting there, 7,500 canisters, this is going to 

12 impact what happens to your material, to the NRC 

13 regulated material. 

14 I'm just making this observation. But 

15 this is going to be a conflict once again if the 

16 reprocessing plant is located on a DOE site with 

17 vitrified high level waste. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Tom. And 

19 just to sum up for Rod, we really have not had anybody 

20 who really thinks that there should be any other 

21 approach. But it's feasible to do another approach 

22 other than a site-specific approach rather than a 

23 waste confidence approach. I don't think I'm 

24 summarizing that incorrectly. 

25 Do you -- I just wanted to tell you 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 

 194

1 we heard around the table while you were gone. Do you 

2 have anything to say about the waste confidence versus 

3 the site-specific issue? 

4 MR. McCULLUM: I don't think I would 

5 disagree with that. But the only thing I would offer 

6 is that of course the staff does have direction from 

7 the Commission separately that they're working on to 

8 look beyond the existing waste confidence rule beyond 

9 the 60 years. 

10 And in that I don't know whether or not 

11 they would consider reprocessing or not. But at this 

12 time I would not pending further information from that 

13 I would not disagree. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And that's a process 

15 that might be happening later on this year. But I 

16 think we closed that issue. 

17 Let's go to -- Can we go to effluence? 

18 I'm sorry to have you do this, Miriam. I probably 

19 would know if -- It would take me a half hour to do 

20 it. 

21 Okay. And when you say take Part 50 

22 regulations as a basis, could you just explain to 

23 everybody again since it's been a while since we 

24 talked about this what you're proposing to do here, 

25 Brit. What the NRC staff is proposing to do or when. 
 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 DR. HILL: I'd like Dr. Reed to answer 

2 that. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Dr. Reed. 

4 DR. REED: Yes, let's give Brit's voicebox 

5 a break. What we're proposing is we looked at 10 CFR 

6 Part 50 regulations and those in Part 70 to consider 

7 what would be most appropriate. And because of the 

8 more of a potential for effluence from nuclear power 

9 reactors than there are in existing fuel cycle 

10 facilities we though the 10 CFR Part 50 approach was 

11 more appropriate. 

12 So we would use aspects of the general 

13 design criteria found in Appendix A and to use the 

14 Part 50 regulations as a basis for developing 

15 monitoring requirements for these facilities. 

16 MR. CAMERON: What's the most vexing issue 

17 for the NRC in this approach? I mean, is there really 

18 a clear alternative or is this the devil's in the 

19 details? What would you pose to the people around the 

20 table about? Is it basically -- Does this sound like 

21 this makes sense or? 

22 DR. REED: Yes. Our concerns as I think 

23 have been mentioned periodically during the meeting 

24 with reprocessing is that it does have the potential 

25 for greater releases for greater effluence. 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 

 196

1 compare it to nuclear plant or fuel storage. 

2 Your fission product gases are 

3 encapsulated in the cladding in the matrix. However, 

4 by reprocessing, you are releasing those effluence 

5 into the process vessel. So you're increasing the 

6 mobility of the radionuclides. 

7 So really our question is would it serve 

8 the 10 CFR Part 50 regulations just as a basis be the 

9 most appropriate course of action? Or do the 

10 stakeholders have any other ideas? Do we just need to 

11 sort of start from scratch in developing these 

12 regulations? 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I think that's fair. 

14 Rod. 

15 MR. McCULLUM: Yes. Our position is yes, 

16 you should. And I know that there's a note in here 

17 that indicates that your approach is similar to the 

18 approach that we had proposed. We're pleased to see 

19 that. 

20 There's an EPA component of this and we 

21 know that EPA is working on trying to update 40 CFR 

22 190 to reflect current thinking. And NRC should stay 

23 engaged there. But I think you've outlined a path 

24 here that we consider workable. 

25 MR. CAMERON: And just to remind everybody 
 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 and correct me if I'm wrong, but the result of all 

2 this after it goes to the Commission, whatever goes up 

3 there, is if the NRC is going to work on this 

4 rulemaking and they're going to use this approach in 

5 their rulemaking. The rationale for what they would 

6 come up with under this approach would be presented in 

7 a proposed rule for public comment. Okay. Just to 

8 remind everybody about there's some other shoes that 

9 are going to drop on all of this. 

10 Mary. 

11 MS. OLSEN: I just want to go back to the 

12 fact that the people I work with really value 

13 isolating radioactivity from the biosphere. If we're 

14 going to talk about a value based approach, that's our 

15 deal. That's what we want. We even want zero 

16 release. 

17 So when I describe reprocessing, I say 

18 that you take this nice relatively stable waste form 

19 that's a ceramic with a metal wrapper on it and you 

20 chop it up and you dissolve it in acid. And then you 

21 smear it all over this huge facility with absolutely 

22 no reduction in radioactivity. And you pull out the 

23 plutonium and God only knows what happens to that. 

24 And then you've got all these wastes. 

25 And worldwide the typical thing 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 

 198

1 done with the intermediate liquid waste as a pathway 

2 off the site is to dump it into water. I mean that's 

3 what they did in Russia, in the former Soviet Union. 

4 That's what they did at Sellafield in the Irish Sea. 

5 That's what happened in La Hague. That's what's 

6 happened to some extent already in the Japan. So 

7 where has there been an instance of having something 

8 that isn't just plain outright dumping of a certain 

9 portion of the intermediate liquids? 

10 When we talk about effluent I get you that 

11 you're talking Part 50. But basically they just have 

12 to add more water. Right? Isn't that what we're 

13 talking about? So if we're talking about stuff 

14 leaving the site like this is what we're talking 

15 about. 

16 So I don't know. Maybe it's like I can't 

17 imagining this happening in New Mexico. I noticed 

18 that you held a meeting there and you're holding a 

19 meeting here which sort of suggests that this 

20 volunteerism is getting a certain amount of attention. 

21 But it just gives me really deep, deep concern to 

22 talk about using the Part 50 numerical guidance with 

23 ALARA because it basically just says dilute it down 

24 and dump it out. 

25 MR. CAMERON: And just before we -- Maybe 
 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 for all of our benefits, I think the statement was in 

2 the slides that the licensee, if someone did get a 

3 license, they would have to comply with the effluent 

4 limitations in 10 CFR Part 20, okay, which can be 

5 pretty low when you're looking for what the effluent 

6 limitations are. 

7 Maybe it would be helpful if someone and I 

8 don't know if it's Sven or Rod, if someone could just 

9 tell us or NRC staff what's the nature of the 

10 effluence, the normal effluence, air or water that 

11 might come out of one of these facilities. 

12 And just to say something that hasn't been 

13 said is that the NRC does not want anybody to think 

14 that the selection of sites for these roundtables has 

15 any implications for where there might be they would 

16 expect an application for a reprocessing facility to 

17 be. So I just wanted that to be clear to everybody. 

18 We're not here because we think that there's going to 

19 be one here. Who knows? There might be. But that's 

20 not why we're here. 

21 Can we talk a little bit about effluence 

22 for Mary and for the rest of our sakes? Sven. Rod. 

23 Anybody want to tackle that? 

24 MR. WIDMAYER: I'll defer to Sven on that. 

25 I wanted to address the larger point at the end. 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 

 200

1 go ahead, Sven, on the details. 

2 MR. BADER: There are gaseous effluents. 

3 You know when you split the fuel you can capture the 

4 vast majority with sophisticated technologies. There 

5 are La Hague. We do have liquid effluent releases. 

6 They do meet regulatory limits in France. So don't 

7 want to deceive people. 

8 The facility that we have designed for the 

9 United States as a potential opportunity would be zero 

10 liquid effluent facility. But then again if there are 

11 regulations that permit releases, you can redesign 

12 your facility once again. So it's really up to the 

13 regulatory limits. You know, we meet the regulatory 

14 limits which meet the safety guidelines within 

15 wherever we're at. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And, Rod, do you want 

17 to add anything? 

18 MR. McCULLUM: Yes. We obviously share 

19 the desire to minimize the release of radiation I 

20 think around the country at 104 nuclear plants. We 

21 don't just meet requirements. We exceed them. And in 

22 the cases of some of these things like tritium we're 

23 even going well beyond the regulatory requirements to 

24 provide additional assurances. 

25 It's probably true. I would 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 

 201

1 necessarily characterize what goes on in France in 

2 some of the existing facilities as dumping. However, 

3 and I think it's been alluded to, we recognize that 

4 here in the United States there may need to be a more 

5 stringent standard. 

6 It certainly needs to be a reasonable 

7 standard because zero is never a reasonable standard. 

8 If you apply a zero release standard to anything you 

9 can't drive your car, you can't wash your clothes, you 

10 can't do anything. 

11 But that being said that doesn't lessen 

12 our desire to minimize. And that's really what ALARA 

13 is. And I think again NRC is on a success path here 

14 particularly if it's done in conjunction with EPA. I 

15 don't think 40 CFR 190 is very satisfying as it is to 

16 either side of this debate because it talks about 

17 regulating releases on the entire scope of global 

18 nuclear energy which if you're living next to a given 

19 facility I don't think it gives you much comfort that 

20 because somebody else released less your neighbor can 

21 release more. 

22 So you need to have a regulation that 

23 reflects current understanding, current radiation 

24 protection, and does drive releases down. And I'm 

25 confident that that regulation in this country 
 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 probably will be a little different than it is in 

2 France. And as long as it's reasonable we won't just 

3 meet it. We'll exceed it. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Rod. 

5 Let's go to Derek and then we'll finish up 

6 with Wendy. 

7 MR. WIDMAYER: Okay. In doing my homework 

8 for the sessions, I mentioned that I thought Gap 2 was 

9 difficult. I thought that this particular gap was the 

10 easiest. I think that it's a sound approach to follow 

11 Part 50 and that this was a good sound approach by the 

12 staff. 

13 I did have a question for them though. 

14 The report that you mentioned before from ACNW&M, they 

15 had brought up the issue with the existing release 

16 limits for krypton-85 and iodine-129 and then those 

17 two things didn't make it into your specific questions 

18 as far as needing to do anything on it. I was 

19 wondering if there is something, if you know the 

20 answer to the question. Is there supposed to be some 

21 kind of technical approach that prevents the release 

22 of krypton-85 or why didn't that make it into the 

23 problems that need to be dealt with as far as effluent 

24 releases? 

25 DR. REED: Do you mean in terms 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 

 203

1 questions that we posed to the -- 

2 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes. 

3 DR. REED: Well, because the release 

4 limits are actually codified in 40 CFR 190 which is in 

5 the EPA regulation. So really that would be beyond 

6 our scope. 

7 MR. WIDMAYER: Okay. I guess the ACNW&M 

8 had suggested that you would work with the EPA. Are 

9 you guys working with -- 

10 DR. REED: That's correct. 

11 MR. WIDMAYER: Okay. 

12 DR. REED: Because we've also posed the 

13 question of whether NRC should actually engage with 

14 the EPA to discuss developing release limits also for 

15 tritium and carbon-14 which I think is one of the 

16 questions that currently we're not engaged in. 

17 MR. WIDMAYER: So those are not codified, 

18 the ones that you're asking the questions about or? 

19 DR. REED: That's correct. Yes. 

20 MR. WIDMAYER: Okay. 

21 DR. REED: The 40 CFR 190 covers krypton22 85, iodine-129 and then I think -- correct me if I'm 

23 wrong -- that some transuranic elements are -- 

24 (Off the microphone comment.) 

25 Plutonium, thank you. Plutonium and 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 

 204

1 alpha emitters, I think. 

2 MR. CAMERON: So that for people's 

3 edification around the table other people will be 

4 interested in whatever the -- does with -- 

5 DR. LESLIE: Chip, we can't hear you. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. I'm sorry. I 

7 just wanted to point out for people who are interested 

8 in this issue from what Wendy is saying the EPA 

9 rulemaking on 40 CFR 190 may have important 

10 implications for reprocessing. Is that correct? 

11 DR. REED: Yes, it will. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

13 Mark. 

14 MR. YEAGER: EPA's regulations on release 

15 limits for radionuclides has a direct impact on all 

16 state programs that have to deal with radiation 

17 effluence. The question, I think Chip sent me this in 

18 an email and it's not up there for public comment. 

19 But should the NRC in coordination with EPA develop 

20 release limits for carbon-14 and tritium? Not only 

21 should they do that for carbon-14 and tritium. They 

22 should probably do it for all isotopes. 

23 Because one of the problems we have as a 

24 state when our decisions are questioned is what 

25 regulatory regiment are we using, NRC or EPA. And 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 

 205

1 comes into play. This has come into many discussions 

2 with a committee I'm involved with CRCPD, the E-5, on 

3 radioactive waste management. We have advisors from 

4 DOE, EPA, NRC. And it's been a source of frustration 

5 for states for years that each agency seems to have 

6 their effluent limits. 

7 So when we have to make decisions they're 

8 questioned. "How did you come to that conclusion?" 

9 "Well, we used this." 

10 "Well, EPA says that." 

11 So it's very important. This is actually 

12 an effort that might lead to that consistency between 

13 Federal agencies to have a single approach to 

14 effluence and a single number that's risk-informed. 

15 And so if this leads to that I'm all for it. But 

16 carbon-14 and tritium are just two of them. I'd like 

17 to see it for all isotopes. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Mark. 

19 Let's see what the audience has to say 

20 about these issues and go back into the panel if 

21 necessary. Bret Leslie has been involved in the -- We 

22 had a question from I think Mary about whether the 

23 Part 61 rulemaking staff were fully aware of what was 

24 going on with this. And I think, Bret, is that what -

25 - do you want to close that loop for us please? 
 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 DR. LESLIE: Bret Leslie, NRC staff. 

2 Mark was one of the participants of 

3 previous roundtables that I facilitated on the unique 

4 waste stream rulemaking and the technical basis 

5 document indeed does talk about the incorporation of 

6 processing isotopes within the scope of that 

7 rulemaking. And that is available on the NRC website. 

8 Just wanted to close the loop because he had asked 

9 the question and we hadn't gotten a real good 

10 response. But that's it. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much 

12 for that, Bret. 

13 And we have another NRC staff person to -- 

14 Bobbie, do you want to say something first? 

15 (Off the microphone comments.) 

16 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead. We're here for 

17 whatever we discuss. 

18 DR. STAMATAKOS: Okay. So this is John 

19 Stamatakos from the CNWA. And my question goes to 

20 John or Sven. In your version of the 7X theme park 

21 would you also include advanced reactor prism reactor 

22 as part of something that would also be encompassed 

23 under 7X? And if not, don't you think that that part 

24 of a facility offers the same kind of challenges that 

25 you brought up about overlapping regulations 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 

 207

1 would occur under one in which we limit 7X to simply 

2 the repo cycling center? 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, John. 

4 MR. BADER: I'll try to take that one on. 

5 No, there's no fast reactor. I think it was your 

6 question. Could we co-locate a fast reactor on a 

7 site? And did 7X consider that? And 7X did not 

8 consider that certainly. And from a technology 

9 standpoint we don't foresee fast reactors being 

10 anywhere around for another 50 years or so. So I 

11 don't think that needs to be a necessary part of this 

12 rulemaking. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And Tom and then Rod. 

14 MR. CLEMENTS: Just a comment on that. 

15 It's -- I don't know if people are aware of this 

16 Enterprise SRS concept which is an evolution of 

17 earlier DOE energy park. And it's quite clear just 

18 for the record that besides a commercial and nuclear 

19 fuel cycle facility and advanced fuel recycling R&D 

20 there's a small modular reactor what they call FARM 

21 now. This has posted online by a public interest 

22 group because DOE would not release it. 

23 And I take it that one of these reactors 

24 is the GE Prism reactor which may accept material from 

25 the reprocessing plant. And just to add from a FOIA 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 

 208

1 have here if anyone wants to see it there have been 

2 discussions about producing the first load of fast 

3 reactor fuel in the MOX facility that's being built 

4 here at Savannah River site which is some stuff 

5 happening behind the curtain that's not being spoken 

6 about openly. I can show that FOIA and other stuff to 

7 people about that if you'd like to see it. Thank you. 

8 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Tom. 

9 Rod. 

10 MR. McCULLUM: Yes. And although I don't 

11 disagree with anything Sven said, I do have to speak 

12 up for some of my other member companies who may 

13 believe fast reactors are less than 50 years away 

14 whether they are or not. 

15 Absolutely a fast reactor would have to be 

16 considered a different facility than a reprocessing 

17 facility. You might very well have them both next 

18 door just like you could have a Part 72 facility next 

19 door to a Part 7X facility. 

20 But remember where we started out here and 

21 I think it's a path that NRC is following is that the 

22 reason we need a Part 7X is because a reprocessing 

23 facility is something different than a reactor and 

24 different than a fuel cycle facility. You don't have 

25 the sustained chain reaction. You don't have 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 

 209

1 energy levels. You don't have the need for active 

2 cooling or passive cooling. But anyway the fuel -- 

3 You just don't have the heat loads by the time you get 

4 a fuel into a reprocessing facility. 

5 So it would only be appropriate to 

6 regulate the reactor under reactor regulations. Now 

7 whether Part 50 could handle certain fast reactors or 

8 Part 52 that's a whole different questions for a whole 

9 different meeting. 

10 But absolutely agree that it would kind of 

11 defeat the purpose of coming up with a risk-informed, 

12 performance-based and technology neutral 

13 reprocessing, recycling plutonium green washing 

14 facility if you were to try to include the fast 

15 reactor itself in that. 

16 MR. CAMERON: So it wouldn't be a ride in 

17 the regulations theme park. 

18 MR. McCULLUM: No, it would be like this 

19 is Disney World. That would be over at Universal 

20 Studios I think. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I'm glad you made 

22 that clear. Thank you. 

23 Alex, I'm going to go to -- 

24 DR. HILL: Can I make a follow on first? 

25 MR. CAMERON: I'm sorry. Do you want 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 

 210

1 continue on this? Go ahead. 

2 DR. HILL: Yes. I just wanted to follow 

3 on with this to help us better understand the 

4 position. I appreciate what Rod is saying about we 

5 would not want to incorporate licensing a potential 

6 fast reactor as part of the regulatory framework for a 

7 reprocessing center because the requirements would be 

8 different and we already have a regulatory 

9 infrastructure, be that 50 or 52, to address it. 

10 Could you help me understand what the 

11 difference in that logic would be to applying it to a 

12 fuel fabrication facility that may be part or co13 located with a reprocessing installation where we 

14 already have an existing regulatory framework for 

15 licensing a fuel fabrication facility that would be 

16 co-located? 

17 MR. McCULLUM: Well, I think that there 

18 are distinct differences between fuel fabrication with 

19 fresh uranium out of the ground and fuel fabrication 

20 with reprocessed material. You would want to keep 

21 those processes integral to the same facility. You 

22 would not want to have regulatory boundary issues 

23 within that facility because you are dealing with fuel 

24 that will always have some trace amounts of fission 

25 products in it which the current fuel fabrication 
 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 facilities do not have. Again, a different level of 

2 hazard. 

3 So I would envision again the fast reactor 

4 would be a customer facility. It doesn't matter if 

5 you're sending MOX from a reprocessing facility in a 

6 non-descript town in the middle of the country 

7 somewhere to one of the East Coast reactors or whether 

8 you're sending some more advanced reprocessed fuel to 

9 a fast reactor that's sitting right next door. You 

10 still had a transaction where a facility has produced 

11 fuel and is shipping it to a customer. So you now are 

12 in a different facility, different operators, 

13 operating different procedures, operating in entirely 

14 different ways of operating and trained in different 

15 ways. You know, a reactor operator in a reprocessing 

16 facility, the operator would probably be different 

17 people entirely. 

18 While you can put these facilities next 

19 door to each other, that's really irrelevant because 

20 all you're talking about is how far the producer has 

21 to ship to the customer. But the fuel fabrication 

22 with the irradiated material definitely belongs inside 

23 the same facility and the same regulatory framework. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. 

25 And is it Dr. Roca? 
 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 DR. HAYES: No, it's Dr. Rose Hayes. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Oh, Rose Hayes. 

3 DR. HAYES: I'm Rose Hayes. As I said 

4 before I'm a member of the Department of Energy Site 

5 Specific Advisory Board for the Savannah River. 

6 And my question goes to the issue of -- 

7 the statement that was made -- that no waste would be 

8 left on site. You probably know that the State of 

9 South Carolina along with the State of Washington and 

10 I guess a couple of other parties are currently suing 

11 the Administration because Yucca Mountain was closed, 

12 taken off the table, as a national repository. And 

13 it's the view of South Carolina and the view stated in 

14 the court claim, the legal action, that the 1982 

15 Nuclear Waste Policy Act was a Congressional act. And 

16 until the Congress modifies that act the fact that it 

17 designates that spent nuclear fuel or waste will leave 

18 the sites, both commercial and the sites where legacy 

19 waste was generated, and go to a deep geologic 

20 repository. And, of course, then in '87 then the Act 

21 was amended to specify that would be Yucca Mountain. 

22 And that has not happened. The Congress 

23 has not modified that Act or withdrawn that Act. So 

24 as far as South Carolina is concerned there is 

25 regulatory environment that addresses spent nuclear 
 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 fuel processing. That is it prohibits it. It says it 

2 will go to a deep geologic repository and it's 

3 specifies that that site will be Yucca Mountain. 

4 We've had difficulty at the site because, 

5 of course, Yucca Mountain is off the table. And now 

6 when we have a report from any of the program managers 

7 and we have the flow charts the little square that 

8 used to say Yucca Mountain and then National 

9 Repository and then to be determined kind of thing 

10 it's problematic. Where would the waste go from a 

11 reprocessing site? 

12 MR. CAMERON: Britt. 

13 DR. HILL: Yes. Thank you, Dr. Hayes. 

14 I remember reading late last week in the 

15 press that the D.C. Court of Appeals is close to 

16 issuing a ruling on the pending lawsuits by the State 

17 of South Carolina and others. Hopefully that ruling 

18 will shed some light on a legal interpretation of how 

19 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is being implemented. 

20 I can say that the Nuclear Waste Policy 

21 Act is specific in that both spent nuclear fuel and 

22 high level radioactive waste would go into a deep 

23 geologic disposal site and that the high level waste 

24 is the highly radioactive materials resulting from 

25 reprocessing. So I think if I'm answering your 
 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 question correctly, the existing legal framework, the 

2 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, provides that the highly 

3 radioactive materials resulting from reprocessing 

4 would go to deep geologic disposal. 

5 The question, of course, is now that Yucca 

6 Mountain appears to be off the table by the actions of 

7 the Department of Energy and others where is that site 

8 located. And as we all know there is no specified 

9 site right now. And whether that can remain in limbo 

10 for awhile or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act must be 

11 going forward is a question that the courts will be 

12 ruling on fairly soon. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

14 DR. HILL: Did that address your specific 

15 concerns? 

16 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Do you want to 

17 do a quick follow-up? All right. 

18 DR. HAYES: Not actually because the 

19 statement has been made here that in a reprocessing 

20 facility no waste would be left on site. Are you 

21 assuming that that waste would go to this nuclear 

22 waste storage site that our government has committed 

23 to eventually provide or is there another kind of site 

24 that waste from a reprocessing facility would go to? 

25 MR. CAMERON: That's what are 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 

 215

1 assumptions behind your statement. 

2 DR. HILL: The assumption is for 

3 decommissioning and there are several stages for 

4 decommissioning that to get to an unrestricted license 

5 there is no intent to have disposal of any significant 

6 waste remaining on site. Now when you go to a 

7 decommissioned site, that would mean that the waste 

8 would have to be offsite. I'm afraid we don't -- 

9 Nobody knows what that disposition pathway for spent 

10 fuel and high level waste will be. 

11 MR. McCULLUM: Well, while we don't know, 

12 if I can interject, the absolute answer to the 

13 question is that the high level waste resulting from 

14 reprocessing or spent fuel will go to repository. 

15 There's only one thing in the whole world of nuclear 

16 waste there's absolute consensus on and that is that 

17 geologic disposal is required in any scenario. 

18 We had a path to site geologic disposal in 

19 Yucca Mountain. The Blue Ribbon Commission is 

20 affirming that geologic disposal is necessary. If the 

21 Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations are enacted 

22 into law we will then be embarking on the process of 

23 selecting an alternate geologic disposal site. 

24 I think the time frames are instructed 

25 here. We heard earlier today that NRC does 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 

 216

1 anticipate completely this regulation until 2015. It 

2 would be some years after that that even the most 

3 aggressive bidders would be able to build a recycling 

4 facility and get it licensed. Or get a license and 

5 then build it. 

6 So we will know before we move down this 

7 path whether it's going to be Yucca Mountain, whether 

8 we're selecting another repository. We'll know how 

9 long down that path we are. And I think NRC in its 

10 waste confidence decision talked about those time 

11 frames and how long it might take to select another 

12 repository. And that was part of the reason for 

13 expressing their confidence in whether or not those 

14 time frames could be met. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. We have two more 

16 commenters out here and then I'm going to ask Bret to 

17 come up to tee up financial for us. 

18 Mary, do you have something to say on this 

19 issue? And, Tom, I didn't know if you had something 

20 more. 

21 Okay. Mary, go ahead. 

22 MS. OLSEN: Just briefly. I think it's 

23 really important to remind everybody that Congress 

24 directed the National Academy of Sciences to do a 

25 study on Yucca and that one of the strongest 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 

 217

1 participants, Dr. Pickford, was one of the dissenting 

2 voices on that study. 

3 And I -- just very briefly. I agree a lot 

4 of time and money was wasted on Yucca Mountain. And 

5 200 organizations in 1998 tried very hard to say to 

6 the Department of Energy hang this up now. So I know 

7 the courts are grinding it out. But I really don't 

8 think it serves anybody's interest to advocate for 

9 something that was going to fail. 

10 So I personally am here to tell you that 

11 it's a fabulous success that we're turning away from 

12 it. And I hope we can all walk away from it together. 

13 And I hope that when and if a repository program is 

14 undertaken again the rules are the rules are the 

15 rules. And if you can't do that for a repository you 

16 certainly can't do it for a reprocessing facility. 

17 And if you can't do it for a reprocessing facility, I 

18 hope you all get some jobs you can be proud of. Thank 

19 you. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Mary. 

21 We're going to go to the two commenters 

22 here. And, Bret, if you could join us at the table. 

23 This is Alex Murray from the NRC staff. 

24 MR. MURRAY: Thank you very much, Chip. I 

25 am Alex Murray. I am a member of the NRC staff. 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 

 218

1 also a member of the public. So I'm very interested 

2 in all of this as well. 

3 I just have one quick comment and one very 

4 quick question. The comment does relate to effluence. 

5 The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials 

6 in NUREG 1909 does -- In that document, they have a 

7 very good discussion on effluence and they point out 

8 that there are both dose limits and quantity limits. 

9 And I think that has sort of been a little confused in 

10 the discussion here. 

11 In that same document, they point out that 

12 most likely the dose limits would be easily met by a 

13 modern reprocessing facility. The dose limits are 

14 quite low and the expected doses would be even much 

15 lower below that. 

16 The question comes with the quantity 

17 limits and the term that is used in the NUREG 1909 is 

18 "microdoses to mega populations." So you're talking 

19 about extremely low radiation doses from the releases. 

20 However, when you take it times a few billion people 

21 on the planet you actually come up with something that 

22 can be a measurable dose. 

23 The discussion is very good, very 

24 informative, what it really means. And the 

25 conclusion from that NUREG 1909 is that at the present 
 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 time if relatively standard fuel is used for 

2 reprocessing then there would have to be removal, fuel 

3 effluent treatment for removing at least krypton-85. 

4 By implication, if old fuel used then krypton-85 

5 removal might not be required. 

6 And this is all in the NUREG. And it's 

7 also discussed in some of the documents the staff has 

8 put out which are on the NRC reprocessing webpage, 

9 public webpage. 

10 My question to the panel here, just a very 

11 quick question, has to be are there any thoughts of 

12 any of the panel members about using fuel which you 

13 say is 35 or 40 years old of which there is plenty 

14 right now. Thank you very much. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Alex. That 

16 was a short question and maybe the answers will also 

17 be short. Does anybody have any opinions on that age 

18 of the fuel? 

19 Sven. Jan Bresee, Department of Energy. 

20 MR. BRESEE: In consideration of fuel 

21 recycle, any process regardless of the technology, any 

22 size plant, any pilot activities would always start up 

23 with the oldest fuel available simply as a safety 

24 issue. You would never begin with short-cool fuel. 

25 The question of whether short-cool fuel 
 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 and by short-cool I'm talking about five to ten year 

2 decay after coming out of the reactor, whether that 

3 will ever be a reasonable feed to a processing plant 

4 will depend ultimately on the regulations associated 

5 with it because there are additional problems brought 

6 on by material that has only decayed less than a half7 life of some of the radioisotopes. 

8 The biggest argument in favor of short9 cool fuel is related to the control of americium and 

10 that is a technical issue that will still require 

11 additional consideration. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Sven. 

13 MR. BADER: Yes. I'll just add a little 

14 bit to it. It's a huge tradeoff study. I mean, as 

15 Jan indicated, if you reprocess the young fuel you 

16 remove the Pu-241 which is a short half-life. It 

17 decays to americium-241 which is a long half-life. So 

18 it's really looking at the integrated process. What 

19 do you want your final waste form to look at that 

20 you're going to put in the disposal. 

21 The reason we're advocating recycling is 

22 we've got this borosilicate glass where I'm not going 

23 to releasing any fission gases any point down the line 

24 due to a seismic event or whatever that might cracks, 

25 used fuel that's been disposed of. You know we have 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 

 221

1 very robust waste form. 

2 But again the tradeoff study then is how 

3 do you meet the regulations on the gaseous releases 

4 such as the krypton-85. So it's a very large tradeoff 

5 study. But the one benefit we have in the United 

6 States is that there's an immense quantity of spent 

7 fuel here. And so you could do blending. You could 

8 add different aged fuels and meet the regulatory 

9 limits. But in order to establish the best process 

10 forward we really need to know the regulatory limits. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you both 

12 and thanks for that question, Alex. 

13 Yes, sir. 

14 MR. WOLF: My name is Clint Wolf. I'm 

15 Executive Director for Citizens for Nuclear Technology 

16 Awareness in Aiken. I'm also a former manager of 

17 laboratories that have involved nuclear research and 

18 development and actinide materials. 

19 And I have to admit that as I was listening to 

20 this discussion I was looking at the word "reasonable" 

21 up there as low as reasonably achievable as an aide to 

22 helping define release limits, etc. And I have to 

23 admit I'm not an expert on nuclear regulatory 

24 literature. 

25 But I'm wondering. Is there anything in 
 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 the NRC's literature that helps one define the term 

2 "reasonable"? Because it seems to me that in much of 

3 what we've done in the past we've simply done as low 

4 as achievable rather than as low as reasonably 

5 achievable. So is there something that really does 

6 help us tie things to real health effects, real 

7 environmental effects, as opposed to just going as low 

8 and low and low as technology will take us? 

9 MR. CAMERON: Does anybody want to put a 

10 further gloss on the ALARA concept and what reasonably 

11 means in terms of the ALARA concept? I won't ask 

12 anybody to put a gloss on what reasonable assurance 

13 means. But how about anybody on ALARA and the 

14 reasonable part of it for -- 

15 (Off the microphone comments.) 

16 Am I looking -- I'm looking for NRC. 

17 PARTICIPANT: Yes. I'm the wrong person. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Yawar or Wendy. 

19 Yawar, do you want to handle this one? 

20 Okay. This is Wendy. 

21 DR. REED: Hi again. I thought I just 

22 gave -- But never mind. I'll try and answer this. In 

23 terms of Appendix I, Appendix I was mentioned. One of 

24 the questions we wanted feedback on was whether we 

25 need to develop sort of similar requirements. And one 
 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 of those is the cost and to implement a technology to 

2 actually reduce release limits based on the benefit of 

3 doing that. And that essentially is how I think the 

4 reasonable is defined or quantified if you'd like. 

5 MR. CAMERON: And, Yawar and Wendy, after 

6 we break and if this gentleman -- is it Clint -- 

7 MR. WOLF: Yes. 

8 MR. CAMERON: If Clint Wolf is still 

9 around maybe you can have a further discussion on 

10 that. And now Greeves wants to get on the record on 

11 this or what? 

12 MR. GREEVES: It's an NRC answer that 

13 should be given. Maybe we just have the wrong NRC 

14 people in the room. But there's a rich history on 

15 developing criteria for ALARA. It's well documented. 

16 There's an answer to the gentleman's question. 

17 MR. CAMERON: And I think -- 

18 MR. GREEVES: There are guidance documents 

19 out there telling you how to go through an ALARA 

20 process. I can't remember what the exact guidance 

21 document is. 

22 MR. WIDMAYER: And particularly in the 

23 reactor arena. 

24 MR. GREEVES: Yes. 

25 MR. WIDMAYER: And I think we just 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 

 224

1 the wrong people in the room. But I think the path 

2 that they want to take on this particular subject 

3 there's well-documented path for ALARA. And I don't 

4 think they would -- It's a sound approach to take in 

5 this regard. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you for that. 

7 John and Derek and I'm sure that Wendy and Yawar could 

8 talk about the rich history on this. But trying to 

9 give a short answer. And maybe, John, you could get 

10 together with Mr. Wolf also on this and share. 

11 MR. GREEVES: I would be happy to share my 

12 experience historically. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

14 MR. GREEVES: There is a rich history on 

15 this. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Good. We're going there. 

17 We're going to Dr. Bret Leslie to talk financial 

18 protection right now. And go ahead. 

19 DR. LESLIE: Sure. Thank you, Chip. 

20 Actually this question is -- Clint, you 

21 had a really good question. But I think now that I've 

22 had a chance to listen it's actually twofold. ALARA 

23 is a concept within NRC regulation. And it's as low 

24 as reasonably achievable. 

25 But the concept of cost also came into 
 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 play in the 40 CFR 190 regulations. And that is an 

2 EPA process. So in fact if EPA comes forth with a 

3 public rulemaking on 40 CFR 190 that cost issue comes 

4 into play in their determination of what are 

5 appropriate release limits. So there are two 

6 different ways that the idea of reasonable comes into 

7 play and John Greeves is right. It's well-founded in 

8 NRC regulations in terms of NRC licensees, in terms of 

9 as low as reasonably achievable. But that same 

10 concept came into play in EPA's development of 40 CFR 

11 190. 

12 So now I'll put my financial protection 

13 and requirements and fees hat on. And now we're going 

14 to talk about a different topic and one that is much 

15 more constrained by the laws that exist. 

16 I have three topics I'm going to talk 

17 about and the first one has to do with nuclear 

18 insurance. And this is Gap No. 12. The Price 

19 Anderson law basically sets out a framework for 

20 ensuring that there's nuclear insurance in case of 

21 accidents for protection of public property in one 

22 instance. 

23 But basically when NRC staff developed its 

24 gaps it identified that the current regulations in 

25 which NRC implements the Price Anderson Act in 10 CFR 
 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

1 140 really did not address reprocessing facilities 

2 directly. And so what the staff has identified is 

3 that we would go forth in our rulemaking for 

4 reprocessing facilities to address that gap and 

5 identify in particular that because these are 

6 reprocessing facilities or production facilities they 

7 would be subject to Price Anderson. 

8 In addition, when we looked at 10 CFR Part 

9 40 there are agreements that are in these appendices 

10 as forms. Because the scope of 40 CFR -- 10 CFR 140 -

11 - just because I worked at EPA I have 40 on my mind -- 

12 the 10 CFR 140 does not include the forms for 

13 reprocessing. So basically there are two aspects that 

14 we would be proposing to revise. 

15 And again I just said that to extend the 

16 applicability of 10 CFR 140 to reprocessing facility 

17 one of the things that we would have to do is to 

18 establish a specific amount of primary liability 

19 insurance required for the reprocessing facility. 

20 Because NRC is fee-based in the sense that we charge 

21 the applicants or the licensees to basically regulate 

22 them, we would be having to execute an agreement. So 

23 that would take some time. In 10 CFR 140 there are 

24 fees associated with developing these agreements. So 

25 again that would be the third subbullet up 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 

 227

1 And finally the last thing for this 

2 particular gap would be to develop the appendices or 

3 include a new appendix for reprocessing facilities. 

4 In the previous meetings and in the NEI 

5 White Paper this topic was not addressed. We did not 

6 consider any alternative approaches other than 

7 rulemaking because by statute it has to be done by 

8 regulation. So that's the first topic. 

9 The second topic has to do with 10 CFR 

10 Part 170 which are the fees. Again this is a class of 

11 licensee or a different type of licensee. And in 

12 essence 10 CFR 170 lays out the fees for the different 

13 types of facilities. And that regulation does not 

14 include fees for a production facility licensed 

15 outside of Part 50. And because as you've heard today 

16 we're talking about something called 7X. Therefore 

17 this regulation would need to be updated. 

18 So the NRC staff position is that we are 

19 proposing to revise 10 CFR 170 again to extend the 

20 applicability of that regulation specifically to 

21 reprocessing facilities. We would also be proposing 

22 to establish what those fees are or the schedule of 

23 fees. And again no alternatives to rulemakings were 

24 considered because Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

25 tells us we need to do it by rule. 
 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 In this case for this topic, NEI didn't 

2 necessarily talk very much about it but acknowledged 

3 the fact that in terms of submission of a license 

4 application it would required them to submit the fees, 

5 whatever those fees are, prescribed in 10 CFR Part 

6 171. 

7 And again in the previous meetings we've 

8 had no other input. But again because the staff is at 

9 the proposal stage, we want to make sure that people 

10 are aware of what we're planning to do as we go 

11 forward. 

12 And the last bullet is kind of a 

13 reiteration of the first bullet. 

14 So the third issue that I want to talk 

15 about is the other part of our fee structure which is 

16 in 10 CFR Part 171 which is the annual fees. And when 

17 we identified this gap we specifically stated that 10 

18 CFR 171.3 does not again within its scope -- Up front 

19 in these regulations we define what the scope of the 

20 regulation. The current regulation does not include 

21 reprocessing facilities. 

22 On the next slide, this should be old hat 

23 by now. NRC's proposed position is to revise 10 CFR 

24 Part 171 extending the applicability to reprocessing 

25 facilities, establishing what the annual fee is. 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 

 229

1 did not look at other alternatives to rulemaking 

2 because the statute says we have to do it by rule. 

3 For this topic as well, there was no input 

4 in our previous meetings or any of the written 

5 submissions. And again we did not consider 

6 alternatives because we're constrained by statute. 

7 Not so meaty in terms of the gap 

8 integration. These all concern issues that are 

9 defined specifically and addressed by statute. The 

10 rulemaking is the only alternative considered. And to 

11 the extent that we've had stakeholder input we've 

12 considered that. 

13 In the summary that we put forth we didn't 

14 identify any specific questions. However, as we were 

15 getting prepared for the meeting, I tossed these up 

16 because you know there's nothing worse than giving a 

17 talk and actually having no one say anything 

18 afterwards. So these are for your consideration. 

19 And with that I'm going to sit down. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Bret. 

21 Do we have questions and comments on all 

22 this? Mary? 

23 MS. OLSEN: I have again a conceptual 

24 problem. I'm sure there's probably a simple answer. 

25 But Price Anderson as it applies to the reactor fleet, 
 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 it gives a nice cap on the liability. But up to that 

2 cap everybody's sort of joined at the neck and 

3 everybody pays in. 

4 So like who -- How does it work for Price 

5 Anderson to apply to something like this if there's 

6 only one? Where is its peer group that's joined at 

7 the neck? Or is it in fact the entire industry? 

8 DR. LESLIE: Maybe I'll let Rod try to 

9 address that or someone else. But I can say for 

10 instance there is a specific single facility that is 

11 also identified in 10 CFR 140 which is the MOX 

12 facility. And there's a specific limit and there's 

13 only one licensee there. But I think -- Rod, do you 

14 want to -- 

15 MS. OLSEN: One perspective licensee. 

16 DR. LESLIE: Right. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Good clarification. 

18 MR. McCULLUM: Yes. I don't think I'm in 

19 a position here to extend the liability of a 

20 reprocessing or recycling facility to all the reactor 

21 owners and operators. So there would have to be -- 

22 And I'm not an actuary and I haven't stayed in enough 

23 Holiday Inn Expresses to be one. But it could be 

24 worked out along the lines of the MOX facility. 

25 But I'm not saying that it's not something 
 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 that should be considered. But there's a lot of 

2 discussions, a lot of negotiating, that would have to 

3 be done on that. And I think the path that NRC is on 

4 for now is appropriate. 

5 MS. OLSEN: I don't understand what the 

6 path is. 

7 DR. LESLIE: First for that, it would 

8 identify specifically that -- Let's just say for 

9 instance that we were approved to go forward with the 

10 7X. We would have to revise 10 CFR 140 to say Price 

11 Anderson Act applies to facilities licensed under 10 

12 CFR 7X. 

13 We would have to identify what that limit 

14 of liability was. And again this would go through 

15 rulemaking. And we would take the information that is 

16 available to address what that appropriate limit is. 

17 And so today all we're seeing is this is 

18 kind of where we would have -- what we would have to 

19 do. We're not necessarily saying what the amounts are 

20 or the details. But this is kind of giving you an 

21 idea of where we're headed. 

22 MS. OLSEN: So if there's only one and 

23 there's a limit, then that one would pay it. 

24 DR. LESLIE: I'm not the best -- I'm the 

25 person presenting the information. I'm not the person 
 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 who wrote and did the analysis. So I will take that 

2 as an action and get back to you and perhaps we'll 

3 need to beef up what we've written so far. 

4 MS. OLSEN: Yes, get back to me. I'm 

5 really curious. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Good. We'll close that loop 

7 and as Bret said all of this, the rationale, the 

8 process, everything, will be explained in the 

9 supplementary information to a proposed rule. But you 

10 can get the information before that. 

11 Okay. I'm going to go back out to the 

12 audience and go to Bobbie Paul for some discussion. 

13 Bobbie. 

14 MS. PAUL: Thank you all for everything 

15 you've shared. It's been a long day. 

16 I did want to report that Georgia EPD I 

17 did talk with Director Alan Barnes and Jim Hardeman 

18 who heads up our radiological. He said to say hi to 

19 you, Mark. And they were not invited. So Jim had 

20 seen something a couple of days ago on the site. 

21 I was really interested in hearing about 

22 the inconsistency that you talked about, Mark, about 

23 EPA DOE and how the states are caught with that. 

24 We're extremely interested in tritium because of SRS 

25 and because of around Vogtle. 
 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 And I assume that most of you know that 

2 efforts are underway in different groups around the 

3 country to try to tighten the EPA standards on tritium 

4 from 20,000 picocuries per liter to 400 or 500, at 

5 least, as a health goal or something. I think it's 

6 passed in California, maybe in Colorado as well. 

7 And we do know that from our monitoring 

8 from years back of the ten years that we did have 

9 environmental monitoring of SRS releases into Georgia 

10 that SRS of course recorded many times well over 220 

11 picocuries per liter on site or above. 

12 And I guess the last thing I would say is 

13 that I'm not sure who were all stakeholders. I know 

14 it takes a village and I know there's NEI, the 

15 industry, AREVA, the individual company. And again I 

16 would just like to implore that the stakeholders on 

17 the ground and especially in Georgia and especially in 

18 the counties that sit directly across from Savannah 

19 River site and around Plant Vogtle, Burke County, 

20 Screven County, Effingham, Jefferson, parts of 

21 Richmond County, that these communities have felt shut 

22 out in part of a silence around SRS for years for 

23 decades. And that if anything that we can do with 

24 Georgia or other things that you can do to reach out 

25 on the front end we're looking at the back end 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 

 234

1 something that we haven't solved the problems with. 

2 But I think we would solve more problems if more 

3 common sense people were at the table. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Bobbie. 

5 And this process is for what's called the 

6 -- used to be called I guess the technical basis and 

7 now at least reading the Federal Register notice it's 

8 called the regulatory basis. That really is what the 

9 Commission needs to see to approve the rulemaking. So 

10 there's going to be reiterations of this process for 

11 the development of the proposed rule, the proposed 

12 rule. 

13 And so thank you for those comments and 

14 they will be well noted. I'm not going to touch the 

15 people with common sense at the table. But thank you. 

16 And this is Suzanne from the League of 

17 Women Voters in South Carolina. 

18 MS. RHODES: Yes. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Not Georgia. 

20 MS. RHODES: No, not Georgia. 

21 MR. CAMERON: South Carolina. 

22 MS. RHODES: I don't know if they're 

23 watching this. By the way, I thank Tom and some of 

24 the other folks for getting the word out. That's how 

25 I heard about 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 

 235

1 The League's been following particularly 

2 Savannah River for decades literally. And I have sort 

3 of a common sense thing. I think we need to resolve 

4 some really important challenges, particularly DOE, 

5 NRC and industry, that have come up this year. And I 

6 think it's a good time to focus on learning from 

7 experience and setting priorities. I'm speaking for 

8 the League. 

9 The need for reprocessing seems to be down 

10 the way. Our experience with reprocessing isn't that 

11 great. Neither is it by the way with MOX which is 

12 another concern of ours, both of which are expensive 

13 and not proven. And recently I'm not sure how many 

14 are aware, but the SRS experience with plutonium has 

15 been judged unsafe. 

16 So we think that industry, NRC and DOE 

17 ought to look together at hard and onsite storage 

18 casks, learn what we can from other's experience in 

19 reprocessing and MOX and take care of our immediate 

20 needs as best we can this year with our limited staff 

21 and funds. 

22 Thank you. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, 

24 Suzanne. And Suzanne gave us a written comment that 

25 we're going to attach to the record and that the staff 
 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 is going to put into the record. Suzanne, what is 

2 your last name for the record? 

3 MS. RHODES: Rhodes, R-H-O-D-E-S. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So, Brandon, you have 

5 that. All right. 

6 Well, thank you all for -- Oh, we have 

7 someone else. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. 

8 MR. EVANS: Hi. I'm Peter Evans. I'm not 

9 affiliated with anybody or any organization. But I 

10 live here and have property here and just like to give 

11 you an individual's concerns here. 

12 A major concern is having a for profit 

13 entity being involved with a reprocessing facility. 

14 There are so many areas or things that could come into 

15 play such as cost cutting resulting in risky 

16 practices, shareholder pressure, pressure from 

17 politicians, many concerns there. 

18 And then also you're dealing with an 

19 immensely potentially deadly substance or substances 

20 here. And if there is a major accident here there 

21 could be huge damage and especially if some of this 

22 got into the aquifer. And then you could easily get 

23 into probably the hundreds of millions of dollars if 

24 that were to occur. 

25 And you broached upon or talked about 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 

 237

1 level of insurance that you would have for the MOX 

2 facility. But you did not say what that level is. 

3 Earlier we heard mention of $1.2 billion for one 

4 cleanup. Would that -- Is there an insurer that would 

5 give insurance of that amount? Are you going to be 

6 realistic in how high the potential damage could be? 

7 The numbers are horrendously high. And this is of 

8 great concern. 

9 And then also we all worry about having 

10 more nuclear activities in an area like ours where 

11 it's a major metropolitan area. We've got major 

12 aquatic water resources here, rivers. We've got the 

13 City of Savannah. We've got Hilton Head depending up 

14 on the Savannah River for their drinking water. And 

15 none of this seems to come up. 

16 But in the future you've got to think 

17 about this before you think of any other expansion 

18 here. I mean this is a growing area. And many of you 

19 may want to retire here. So please keep it in mind. 

20 But thanks again for coming here and 

21 having the public forum. It's really appreciated. 

22 MR. CAMERON: And, Peter, you're from 

23 right here in Augusta, Georgia. 

24 (Off the microphone comment.) 

25 You're from Aiken. Okay. Thank 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 

 238

1 Peter. And I just -- Your concerns apply to a generic 

2 reprocessing facility. But I just wanted to -- They 

3 were stated in terms of here, in other words, this 

4 area of the country. I just wanted to reiterate that 

5 there's no -- We're not here because there's any 

6 indication that this is where we might ultimately get 

7 a license application for a reprocessing facility. 

8 But thank you very much for that. And if 

9 any of our MOX staff wants to talk to Peter about the 

10 limit that he brought up, I would hope that you would 

11 do that. 

12 Jack Davis. 

13 MR. DAVIS: Yes. Thanks, Chip. 

14 I just wanted to mention because it's come 

15 up as you said several times that this is actually the 

16 third meeting we've conducted this year. One was done 

17 in Washington, D.C. One was done in the West in 

18 Albuquerque. And now one in the Southeast. So it's 

19 not indicative of "Oh, we think that the facility is 

20 going to be here or there." We're trying to get a 

21 broad perspective of views across the country. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Thank you for that, Jack. 

23 And Mary. 

24 MS. OLSEN: I'm not trying to say that you 

25 guys don't mean every word you just said. But we all 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 239

1 have on our computer hard drives all the slides from 

2 Savannah River site. You know, what do they call 

3 themselves? We're calling them EI-EI-O because they 

4 changed the name to farm instead of green energy park. 

5 But come on. They've got reprocessing all over their 

6 overheads. So it's not like this community hasn't 

7 given indications that this was an idea. 

8 So I can hear you that you mean what you 

9 say about your choice of meeting location. But I just 

10 need to hit the nail on the head because there's been 

11 two or three years of me coming down from North 

12 Carolina from this area to hear about reprocessing. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Yes. And I don't think 

14 we're saying that there's no idea that there might be 

15 interest in reprocessing here. So thank you for that 

16 and thank you all for a great discussion and attention 

17 today. And I think we're ready to close out for 

18 today. 

19 We're going to start at 8:30 a.m. 

20 tomorrow, a half hour earlier. And I apologize for 

21 those who are driving. But there are comment or 

22 feedback forms. There are some for today. This is to 

23 help the NRC. And we've already gotten some process 

24 suggestions today. There's one for today. There's 

25 one for tomorrow. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 240

1 There will be coffee out in the morning. 

2 And I will save coffee for all of you who are driving 

3 in from South Carolina. And you can leave your badge 

4 and name tent overnight. 

5 Okay. Thank you all. I think we're 

6 adjourned unless anybody has anything further. Thank 

7 you. Off the record. 

8 (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the above9 referenced matter was concluded.) 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

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 

 241

1