Official Transcript of Proceedings 

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Title: Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Rulemaking and Strategic 

Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Regulatory Program Public Meeting 

Docket Number: (n/a) 

Location: Phoenix, Arizona 

Date: Friday, March 7, 2014 

Work Order No.: NRC-612 Pages 1-195 

NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. 

 Court Reporters and Transcribers 

 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20005 

 (202) 234-4433
 1 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

3 + + + + + 

4 PUBLIC WORKSHOP 

5 + + + + + 

6 THE STATUS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL 

7 RULEMAKING AND STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF LOW-LEVEL 

8 RADIOACTIVE WASTE REGULATORY PROGRAM 

9 + + + + + 

10 FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 2014 

11 + + + + + 

12 RENAISSANCE PHOENIX DOWNTOWN HOTEL 

13 50 EAST ADAMS STREET, SALONS 7 & 8 

14 PHOENIX, AZ 85004 

15 + + + + + 

16 The Public Workshop convened at 8:11 a.m., 

17 Chip Cameron, Facilitator, presiding. 

18 NRC STAFF PRESENT:

19 CHIP CAMERON, Facilitator 

20 LARRY W. CAMPER 

21 DAVID ESH 

22 CHRISTEPHER MCKENNEY 

23 ABY MOHSENI 

24 TARSHA A. MOON 

25 GREGORY SUBER 
 2 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MELANIE WONG 

2 MARIAN ZOBLER

3 PANEL MEMBERS:

4 RALPH ANDERSON, Nuclear Energy Institute 

5 BRAD BROUSSARD, Texas Commission on 

6 Environmental Quality 

7 WILLIAM DORNSIFE, Waste Control Specialists 

8 EARL FORDHAM, Washington Department of Health 

9 MICHAEL GARNER, Northwest Interstate Compact 

10 on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

11 CHRISTINE GELLES, U.S. Department of Energy 

12 RUSTY LUNDBERG, Utah Department of 

13 Environmental Quality 

14 DAN SHRUM, EnergySolutions 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
 3 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

2 PAGE

3 Facilitator Opening Comments.......................4 

4 NRC Welcome........................................7 

5 Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 

6 and Rulemaking Decisions........................11 

7 Public Comments on Status of Low-Level Radioactive 

8 Waste Disposal and Rulemaking Decisions.........22 

9 Strategic Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive 

10 Waste Regulatory Program........................43 

11 Public Comment on Strategic Assessment of Low12 Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program......53 

13 Panel Discussions.................................65 

14 Facilitated Public Discussions...................143 

15 Closing Remarks..................................184 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
 4 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

2 (8:11 a.m.) 

3 MR. CAMERON: Good morning everyone. 

4 (Multiple Good mornings) 

5 MR. CAMERON: My name's Chip Cameron and 

6 welcome to the Public Workshop today and the topics that 

7 we're going to address in the Workshop today, there's 

8 two topics, and the first is going to be the status of 

9 the NRC Rulemaking on Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

10 Disposal. 

11 And the second topic is going to be the 

12 NRC's Strategic Assessment Planning for Addressing 

13 Low-Level Waste Disposal issues and it's my pleasure to 

14 serve as your facilitator this morning. 

15 And what I want to do is just take a couple 

16 minutes to go through meeting format so that you 

17 understand what's going to happen today. Basically 

18 there's two parts to today's Workshop and the first part 

19 is going to be the status of the NRC Rulemaking and we 

20 have Dave Esh from the NRC staff to talk to us about that. 

21 And the second part of the meeting that's 

22 going to start about 9:45 is going to be a panel 

23 discussion where we have experts from around the Country 

24 who are going to be up here at the tables and we're going 

25 to have a dialogue on strategic assessment, low-level 
 5 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 waste strategic assessment issues. 

2 Now the people on the panel are not the only 

3 experts on this subject. There’s many of you in the 

4 room. We also have people that are on the phones and 

5 we have people who are going to be listening to this on 

6 the internet. 

7 After Dave's presentation we're going to go 

8 out to those of you in the audience for comments, 

9 questions, observations, and after the panel discussion 

10 we're going to do the same thing. We're going to go out 

11 to the people who are with us here and who are with us 

12 virtually on the phones and the internet. 

13 I just want to emphasize one thing about the 

14 public comment part of the meeting in terms of the first 

15 segment on the status of the Rulemaking that Dave Esh 

16 is going to talk about, is that the NRC is here to inform 

17 you about the status of the Rulemaking and they're also 

18 here to listen to any comments, any observations you 

19 have and answer any questions you have. 

20 But it's not a formal comment session with 

21 all of you on the status of the Rulemaking and I just 

22 want to emphasize that if you do want to have whatever 

23 you say registered as a formal comment on the Rulemaking 

24 that there will be a time to do that after the proposed 

25 rule goes out. 
 6 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 So there's no limit on what anybody can say, 

2 but I just want to tell you the NRC's going to be 

3 listening but it won't be a formal comment. The second 

4 part of the meeting, the panel discussion though, is the 

5 NRC not only wants to hear from the panelists and have 

6 the panelists react to what each other says, but they 

7 also want to hear from the public, the audience here, 

8 phones, internet, on these strategic assessment issues. 

9 And they will be considering those 

10 particular comments on that segment. So we're going to 

11 get started with Larry Camper, who all of you know, he's 

12 the Division Director, Division of Waste Management and 

13 Environmental Protection at the NRC. 

14 He's going to give you a formal welcome. 

15 We'll have a few minutes after Larry's done for some 

16 high-level process questions that anybody might have. 

17 Then we'll go to Dave Esh. Dave will give us the status, 

18 we'll go back out to you. 

19 Hopefully we'll be able to break at 9:30, 

20 take about a 15-minute break, we'll have our panelists 

21 come up, and then we'll kick that off and I'll have some 

22 more to say about that at the time. 

23 Note that we have Deborah Gonzalez with us 

24 who is a stenographer. There is a transcript being kept 

25 of the meeting and that will be your record and the NRC's 
 7 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 record of what transpires here today. 

2 We have a 1:00 end time that we have to be 

3 pretty strict about because a lot of people have planes, 

4 so we will be stopping at 1:00. And I should note in 

5 that regard, after the panel discussion and we hear from 

6 the public on the strategic assessment issues, we have 

7 Aby Mohseni from the NRC who's going to do a recap for 

8 us before we break at 1:00. 

9 So, with that, thank you all for being here 

10 and let’s go to Larry for a welcome. 

11 MR. CAMPER: Good morning. 

12 (Multiple good mornings) 

13 MR. CAMPER: Morning. Thanks for being 

14 here. It's been a long week. I know most of you have 

15 been at the Waste Symposia Conference all week and we 

16 appreciate you staying around to take part in our public 

17 meeting. 

18 This is the third or fourth year that we've 

19 had a public meeting to follow the WM Symposia. We 

20 think it was a good opportunity for interaction with 

21 people in the industry who are key players. It's a real 

22 opportunity for you to help us and for us to share 

23 information with you and, of course, with the public 

24 that wants to attend or listen in as well. 

25 So it's a real opportunity. As Chip said 
 8 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 we have two purposes for today's gathering. One is Dr. 

2 Esh, who's on the working group for the Rulemaking on 

3 the site-specific assessment for Part 61, will share 

4 with you current Commission direction. 

5 As Chip said there will be an opportunity 

6 for formal comments, but, again, we welcome your 

7 observations and thoughts at this point in time as well. 

8 And then later Melanie Wong, who's here helping us with 

9 the IT stuff, will lead you in our discussion of the 

10 Low-Level Waste Strategic Assessment. 

11 And for those of you who might not know just 

12 what that terminology means, let me just give you a brief 

13 explanation. Back in 2007, it became very clear to me 

14 as the Division Director that the Low-Level Waste 

15 Program, which is in a maintenance mode in terms of 

16 resources based upon Commission decisions in the past, 

17 was dealing with a tremendous amount of policy issues. 

18 And so we undertook this assessment, and 

19 Melanie will go through this in some detail, so we 

20 undertook this assessment to try to look at all the 

21 things that were on the plate and we identified seven 

22 high-priority items and we've been working on those 

23 since that time. 

24 Well fast forward to now and what we're 

25 trying to do in keeping with our Agency's outreach 
 9 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 efforts and trying to be more attentive to and aware of 

2 stakeholders concerns, we thought we would involve you 

3 within our current effort to update the strategic 

4 assessment. 

5 And so Melanie will step you through that 

6 and from that we'll take back information and factor 

7 that into looking ahead at what's coming down the road 

8 in this part of our industry and what should we as a 

9 regulatory body then be focusing upon. 

10 So I want to thank our panelists that will 

11 come up later and take part. Let me just mention their 

12 names, Brad Broussard, who's with the Texas Commission 

13 on Environmental Quality, Earl Fordham, from the 

14 Washington Department of Health, Rusty Lundberg, the 

15 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Ralph 

16 Anderson, with the Nuclear Energy Institute, Bill 

17 Dornsife, Waste Control Specialist, Dan Shrum, 

18 EnergySolutions, Christine Gelles, with the Department 

19 of Energy, Michael Garner, with the Northwest 

20 Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

21 Management/State of Washington, and Greg Suber, with 

22 the NRC, who's our Branch Chief for the Low-Level Waste 

23 Program. 

24 So on my behalf I want to thank all those 

25 panelists for taking part today, it's quite an August 
 10 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 (phonetic) group, and I think the discussion should be 

2 very interesting as you share your views with us about 

3 looking ahead in terms of our strategic assessment and 

4 focusing of our efforts, and, of course, all of your 

5 input. Thank you for that in advance. 

6 I also want to thank Tarsha Moon. Tarsha 

7 is sitting outside. Tarsha is a Licensing Assistant in 

8 our Division and she did all of the ground work of 

9 putting all this together and all the packages and 

10 everything you see. So much goes into one of these 

11 meetings that you just never see, so Tarsha's done a 

12 fantastic job and I thank her. 

13 The panel, of course, I thank you. I want 

14 to thank you for being here, like you said, I know it's 

15 been a long week and your being here forwards us the 

16 opportunity to get that valuable input, so we thank you 

17 for that. 

18 And, of course, our Facilitator 

19 extraordinaire, Chip Cameron, I think all of you know 

20 Chip, he's done a lot of facilitation for us over the 

21 years and, of course, he's NRC alumni, and we thank you, 

22 Chip, for doing that. 

23 Our Reporter, we thank you for recording 

24 everything. And, again, let’s have a good discussion 

25 today and we value your input. Thanks for being here. 
 11 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. CAMERON: And, Larry, did you want to 

2 take any high-level types of questions or should we just 

3 go on to David? Does anybody have a question for Larry 

4 at this point about the process or the meeting? 

5 Okay. And I think we'll go to the phones 

6 and the internet later after Dave Esh is done, so let’s 

7 bring Dave up at this point. 

8 DR. ESH: Thanks, Chip. As Larry said 

9 we're grateful that you're here to listen today and we 

10 appreciate your interest in this Rulemaking effort and 

11 strategic assessment. 

12 I hope you all got a chance to enjoy the 

13 delicious breakfast of water supplied by the NRC this 

14 morning. 

15 (Laughter) 

16 DR. ESH: I want to also acknowledge the 

17 Rulemaking team in this. This is not a small effort, 

18 there’s a lot of people involved. I just happened to 

19 draw the short straw to be here today and talk to you 

20 about it. Next slide, please, Melanie. 

21 I'm going to give you a little bit of 

22 background, a lot of this should be familiar to many of 

23 you, but not all of you. We were hoping to get some 

24 people here today that had later travel plans leaving 

25 the Waste Management Conference, and so I'll give you 
 12 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 a bit of background so you understand what this is all 

2 about. 

3 In 2009 we received some Commission 

4 direction under the Staff Requirements Memorandum for 

5 SECY-08-0147 and that had two tasks in it. The first 

6 task being what we're talking about today. To perform 

7 a Rulemaking to specify requirements for site-specific 

8 analysis and the technical parameters to support such 

9 analysis and to develop a Guidance Document. 

10 So that's the limited scope, site-specific 

11 Rulemaking that we're doing now and talking about in the 

12 first part of this meeting. There is a second part to 

13 that which is in a future budget request to basically 

14 re-look at the waste classification system and classify 

15 depleted uranium. 

16 That future effort could have a lot of 

17 options to it and it may not even be necessary, depending 

18 what's done in this Rulemaking effort that we're working 

19 on right now. Next slide, please, Melanie. 

20 So then in 2012 we received further 

21 Commission direction in SRM-COMWMD-11, with all the 

22 numbers there, and it had a number of pieces to it. That 

23 was kind of before we got to issue a draft proposed 

24 regulation. 

25 We got some more direction from the 
 13 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Commission and you can read the points that I have up 

2 there. The first one was some flexibility to use the 

3 current ICRP dose methodologies, and that's something 

4 that we have been doing for a while at NRC in analogous 

5 programs, such as when we performed reviews for waste 

6 incidental to reprocessing under the Department of 

7 Energy. 

8 So that wasn't a big deal to us, but it was 

9 something to kind of modernize the regulation because 

10 the original regulation was developed in the early 

11 1980's and things have changed since then. 

12 So if there are easy things that we can do 

13 to modernize the regulation we like to do those, too, 

14 within the scope of some effort. As many of you know 

15 this has been ongoing for a while now, I think, in my 

16 opinion, much too long, but the effort involved to do 

17 a Rulemaking is considerable. 

18 There are lots of things that go on behind 

19 the scenes and a lot of effort to go on even to change, 

20 you know, a few sentences in a regulatory requirement 

21 can take quite some effort, so understand that whenever 

22 you view the, put the schedule in context. 

23 The second part of their direction was to 

24 use a 2-tiered period of performance with the first tier 

25 being a compliance period covering the reasonably 
 14 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 foreseeable future, which was not defined, and then a 

2 second tier, a longer period to look at site 

3 characteristics and peak dose to a designated receptor 

4 that is not a priori. 

5 The period of performance, or the analysis 

6 timeframe, seems to be a hot button issue. It wasn't 

7 something that was required in this Rulemaking. There 

8 was really only one thing that we had to do in this 

9 Rulemaking and that was to provide a requirement to do 

10 an intruder analysis for 61.42. 

11 And Part 61, for those of you that may not 

12 be that familiar with the regulation, there's four 

13 performance objectives. 61.41, Protection of a Member 

14 of the Public, that's kind of interpreted as an offsite 

15 member of the public. 

16 61.42, also Protection of the Public, but 

17 it's more an onsite member of the public, called an 

18 inadvertent intruder. 61.43, Protection of the Public 

19 During Operations, which includes workers, and then 

20 61.44, which is related to site stability. 

21 61.42, as it was developed in the original 

22 regulation, NRC developed waste classification tables 

23 under 61.55. Those waste classification tables 

24 basically represent NRC did a generic analysis of 

25 intruders and did a, what we call an inverse calculation 
 15 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 to develop the concentrations that would afford 

2 protection to inadvertent intruders. 

3 So if you have a waste stream that's 

4 different than what was analyzed back during 

5 development of the regulations and you use the tables 

6 to ensure that somebody is meeting 61.42 they may not 

7 meet the implicit intent of their requirements for 

8 protection of the intruders. 

9 So that was the only thing that we had to 

10 do in this Rulemaking effort was to ensure that we had 

11 an analysis requirement for 61.42. We looked at other 

12 options, too. 

13 So we said, well we could revise the waste 

14 classification tables and add in all the isotopes or the 

15 isotopes that were missing and there were some other 

16 alternatives proposed to the Commission, but the 

17 Commission ultimately said, no, go ahead and handle it 

18 with analyses because that'll afford the most 

19 flexibility. 

20 We always talk about being risk informed, 

21 that'll allow people to reflect their actual conditions 

22 of their site and the disposal environment and other 

23 things that are designed in developing what the 

24 classification limits are appropriate for their site. 

25 So that's the approach that we took. This 
 16 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 second part here about the period of performance, like 

2 I said, that wasn't necessary, but we did see that a lot 

3 of different values were used in the Agreement State 

4 analyses and NRC doesn't have any of these disposal 

5 facilities ourselves, they're all in Agreement States. 

6 So we thought well if there's a way that we 

7 can kind of ensure some consistency there and propose 

8 something that was consistent with guidance that NRC 

9 issued in 2000 under NUREG 1573, well then we would try 

10 to go ahead and do that in this Rulemaking. 

11 The third element here was flexibility to 

12 establish site-specific waste acceptance criteria, I 

13 kind of talked about that. That's related to using 

14 site-specific analysis to provide intruder protection 

15 under 61.42. 

16 And then the last part was to balance 

17 Federal and State alignment and flexibility. So in 

18 this direction in 2012, you might notice there's at 

19 least three references to flexibility. That was one of 

20 the things that were focused on then. Next slide, 

21 please, Melanie. 

22 So then on -- We just received recent 

23 direction under SRM SECY-13-0075 and that has some 

24 different requirements for the staff to follow. One, 

25 a 3-tiered period of analysis with the first tier the 
 17 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 compliance period of 1000 years using a 25 millirem dose 

2 limit for 61.41 and a 500 millirem dose limit for 61.42. 

3 And then a second tier that is termed the 

4 protective assurance analysis period from 1000 years to 

5 10,000 years where you would be using a 500 millirem 

6 analytical threshold, and there's goal in parentheses 

7 there, for both 61.41 and 61.42. 

8 And then a third tier of performance period 

9 for the timeframe greater than 10,000 years and that 

10 would involve a qualitative analyses. Now we use the 

11 term qualitative analyses, but it's really qualitative 

12 interpretation of something that's probably going to be 

13 quantitative, so it might be some form of quantitative 

14 information that you interpret qualitatively, but a 

15 qualitative analyses is kind of a funny thing if you ask 

16 me. 

17 So anyway that's what they have for the 

18 period of analyses and then there are other features 

19 associated with their direction. The second one down 

20 here, the constancy of features, events, and processes 

21 of the natural environment for Tier 2, unless compelling 

22 scientific evidence is available. 

23 Lots of these as Chip said in his 

24 introduction and maybe Larry alluded to, this is pretty 

25 recent direction and we're working on it right now. As 
 18 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 part of the Rulemaking team one of my tasks is to write 

2 rule language, so I've done a first draft of changes to 

3 the Rulemaking language, but that's about it. 

4 There's a lot of pieces that go into this, 

5 you have the Statement of Considerations, you have the 

6 rule language, we have a Guidance Document, which I'll 

7 mention on the next slide, all of those things get put 

8 together as regulatory analyses. 

9 All of that gets put together in the 

10 Rulemaking effort and that's all materials that you get 

11 to see once it's proposed and you can provide us comments 

12 on. We do want to be responsive. 

13 It's tough for us to do that right now 

14 today, but if we make you aware of all of this 

15 information and, especially, if you felt like you've 

16 made comments in the past and boy, the NRC's really not 

17 listening to me, if you make those comments when we 

18 eventually get a proposed rule out you will get a 

19 response to them. That's the way our process works. 

20 So if you have something and you felt like 

21 we weren't responsive to, give it to us then and you'll 

22 be assured of getting a response to it. The constancy 

23 of features and events of the natural environment for 

24 Tier 2, that may create some difficulty depending how 

25 it's interpreted, so we'll have to be careful in that 
 19 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 area. 

2 Then the last one on this slide, the 

3 realistic intruder scenarios of expected activities on 

4 and around the disposal site at the time of closure, I 

5 believe that implies a projection of realism at the time 

6 of closure, which is going to be 100 years after 

7 operation. 

8 So you're trying to project something 

9 realistically at least maybe 130 years into the future, 

10 that may be a little tricky. So we'll look at that one 

11 carefully, too, and see what's the right way to go about 

12 it. Next slide, please, Melanie. 

13 So continuing on with the Commission 

14 direction, the first bullet, or tick, on the top of this 

15 page is likely to be an area of keen interest to a number 

16 of participants. 

17 Basically the Commission wanted a 

18 compatibility criteria, or a compatibility category of 

19 "B" applied to the most significant provisions of the 

20 rule and that would be to ensure consistency across all 

21 of the Agreement State programs. That seems to be 

22 swinging a little bit in the opposite direction from the 

23 flexibility that was stressed in 2012. 

24 And they also, though, are sensitive to how 

25 people might, or the input that people might want to 
 20 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 provide on this and they specifically asked for this to 

2 be posed as a question in the Statement of 

3 Considerations for all of you to provide feedback about 

4 this approach. 

5 The second tick here, the protective 

6 assurance analysis period, requires the applicant to 

7 propose remedial changes, so on and so forth. 

8 Conceptually that process is the same as really what 

9 occurs now in low-level waste facilities. 

10 The only difference is the way we're 

11 looking at it is that it would now require all sites to 

12 kind of use information up to that 10,000 year timeframe 

13 whenever they're proposing their site design and 

14 inventory limits and such, whereas right now it's not 

15 necessary that's included. 

16 The third tick, stress defense in depth in 

17 a safety case. The defense in depth, and our view on 

18 that is basically that the low-level waste regulations 

19 afford defense in depth through all of the things that 

20 are required. 

21 You have to do the siting requirements, 

22 there's waste characteristics, there's the technical 

23 analyses, there's the engineered design that goes into 

24 it, it's not one component that you use to rely on safety 

25 and protecting public health and the environment, but 
 21 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 in this proposed, or in the direction from the 

2 Commission it's, we believe it's pretty clear they want 

3 this defense in depth and the safety case reflected in 

4 the regulatory requirements. 

5 So the defense in depth would now become an 

6 explicit requirement in low-level waste disposal and 

7 that could be difficult to demonstrate for some sites 

8 or for some types of waste. 

9 The last one, I'm one of the primary authors 

10 of the Guidance Document, the draft that we had prior 

11 to this direction, I think it was maybe 394 pages, 

12 something like that. It will likely be larger than that 

13 now with the new information and requirements that we 

14 have here. 

15 And we do greatly value feedback on that. 

16 We recognize it's a challenge, especially for a large 

17 document like that for you to spend your time to look 

18 at it. To the extent that you can, we really value that 

19 feedback. 

20 We don't have many ways that we can 

21 incentivize people to provide us feedback on that 

22 besides let you know about it, let you know about the 

23 key information in it, and have some interactions to 

24 possibly talk about it. So, next slide, Melanie. 

25 Path forward then is we will revise the 
 22 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 rule, the Rulemaking language, the Statement of 

2 Considerations, the Guidance Document, the Regulatory 

3 Analysis, all of that over the next year. 

4 We have probably, I'd say half a year or 

5 less to actually do the work and then there's probably 

6 equally about that amount of time to go through the 

7 approval and concurrence process. So we're going to be 

8 very busy over the next half a year or less, the staff 

9 will, to implement all of these changes. 

10 And then what that will result in is, 

11 hopefully, a proposed rule issue for public comment in 

12 2015. And, like I said, that's when you really want to 

13 make sure you get your comments in and you will get a 

14 response to everything that you ask us. 

15 The extensive stakeholder outreach will be 

16 performed over this time. You'll have 120 days to 

17 comment on all of the materials and we'll have one or 

18 more public meetings to engage our stakeholders. 

19 Thanks, Chip. 

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

21 Dave. And we're going to go out to all of you for 

22 observations, questions on what Dave had presented and 

23 we're going to try as I said before to break at 9:30 and 

24 I'm sure that a lot of the discussion here and what Dave 

25 said is going to be grist for the mill for the panel 
 23 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 discussion also and we may have time to revisit all of 

2 this after the panel discussion. 

3 But there's some people in the audience who 

4 signed up to say something, so I'm going to go to these 

5 people and see if they want to say anything now and then 

6 we'll test our phone system out and then we'll come back 

7 to anybody else who might want to say anything that's 

8 here in the audience. 

9 And, Lisa, do you want to say some stuff? 

10 Go ahead. Please introduce yourself, first name, last 

11 name, so that -- 

12 MS. EDWARDS: Yes. Lisa Edwards with 

13 EPRI. Dave, on the previous slide you had the thorough 

14 review of guidance by the low-level waste community and 

15 I know that's a very large document, is there any chance 

16 that a draft of that can be put out early before it's 

17 in its final form so people can start digesting it? 

18 DR. ESH: Yes, I think the answer is I wish 

19 we could. The problem is that the guidance is 

20 intimately tied to the regulatory language. So until 

21 the regulatory language is in a firm state it would be 

22 premature to get the guidance out. 

23 A lot of it is maybe some technical 

24 information that isn't necessarily part of -- When we 

25 do a guidance effort we won't just limit it to the, say 
 24 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the changes in the rule language, but if we've developed 

2 guidance or worked on things pertinent to low-level 

3 waste that we think we can put in all one document that 

4 would help people perform their reviews we'll put that 

5 in there, too. 

6 So, you know, there will be sections in 

7 there on uncertainty and things like that. Some of 

8 those things are added to the regulation, or will be 

9 added to the regulation explicitly in the new 

10 requirements, and some of them won't be. 

11 So, you know, you could, that might help 

12 with the review that you could focus on those areas that 

13 you think are kind of less technical, or more directly 

14 related to the rule changes and less technical 

15 information that may be just something we added to be 

16 more complete. 

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

18 Lisa. Let’s go to Tom Magette. Tom? 

19 MR. MAGETTE: Thank you. Tom Magette, 

20 PricewaterhouseCoopers. Thanks for the update, David. 

21 I would just like to say that I really appreciate the 

22 process that we've gone through and we've had a lot of 

23 opportunities to read a lot of different versions of the 

24 rule, some of which I didn't really think were ready to 

25 be published as a proposed rule. 
 25 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 And while I may not agree with every word 

2 that I would expect to see in this one I think it is ready 

3 to be a proposed rule and I'm really anxious to see it 

4 published as a proposed rule, you know, without any more 

5 interim stops. 

6 I know you guys have a lot to do. I get the 

7 whole thing with the regulatory basis and the technical 

8 basis and you have to update for the different time 

9 periods, but it would be really cool to see something 

10 this year. 

11 I know you guys are working as hard as you 

12 can, but I just want to say that I think this is ready 

13 for publication. This concept, it's not necessarily 

14 the wording, and, you know, my comment is please publish 

15 it. Don't give us anything else that's not a formally 

16 published proposed rule. 

17 DR. ESH: Thank you. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

19 DR. ESH: Yes, we would very much like to 

20 get it out as soon as possible. I tend to be, 

21 personally, a bit overly optimistic about these things 

22 apparently, so, you know, I don't see the need sometimes 

23 to have extensive debate on every sentence. 

24 But one of the difficult challenges with 

25 writing a regulation is trying to foresee unintended 
 26 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 consequences or unforeseen interpretations of what you 

2 have, so that kind of expands it significantly when you 

3 have to go through that process and try to think how is 

4 somebody going to misinterpret this or misuse it, and 

5 so that takes a lot of time. Go ahead. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead. 

7 MR. MAGETTE: That's a really good point 

8 and I really appreciate that and I think we saw some 

9 pretty good examples of that in the Part 37 Rule that 

10 just came out, but I also think that's the kind of thing 

11 that's appropriate fodder for review of a proposed rule. 

12 And no matter what you guys do, until you 

13 let people who have to actually, you know, dispose of 

14 waste or processed waste, see the rule and see what it 

15 does to them. You're never going to predict them all. 

16 DR. ESH: Yes. 

17 MR. MAGETTE: And so I think you should 

18 spend less time on that and let the commenters help you 

19 with that when it's published. 

20 DR. ESH: Yes, I don't disagree with that. 

21 I mean I've felt like some of the other efforts could've 

22 gone out and we received all the comments and then made 

23 the necessary changes, that's how the process is 

24 supposed to work. 

25 So you don't have to get it 100 percent 
 27 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 perfect on a proposed rule. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Clint? 

3 You're okay. Billy? You're okay now. Okay, Tom 

4 Kalinowski? All right. Let’s test the phones out and 

5 then we're going to come back in the room and -- 

6 (Crosstalk) 

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay, we'll be back. I just 

8 want to make sure that we are getting in touch with the 

9 people on the phone. Kiandra, are you with us? Is the 

10 operator there? 

11 OPERATOR: I'm here. Are you able to hear 

12 me? 

13 MR. CAMERON: Oh, yes. Yes. Could you 

14 see if there's anybody out there who wants to talk to 

15 us here in Phoenix, and I would remind people that, who 

16 are on the phones that if you want to talk at any time 

17 just hit star 1 and give Kiandra your first and last name 

18 and then she's going to put you in the queue to talk with 

19 us. 

20 Is there anybody on the phone right now, 

21 Kiandra, who wants to ask a question or make a comment? 

22 OPERATOR: At this time there's no one in 

23 the queue. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay, great. We'll come 

25 back to the phones later and let’s go to Ralph, Ralph 
 28 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Anderson. 

2 MR. ANDERSON: I had a question, actually 

3 two questions. In reading the SRM for SECY-13-0075, 

4 although the NRC made, the Commission made very direct 

5 statements about compatibility, it sounded like to me 

6 when they discussed stakeholder engagement that the way 

7 they worded it, and they also talked, used the word 

8 "compatibility" in there, that they were still leaving 

9 the door open for additional discussion I think 

10 particularly with the States on the compatibility 

11 issue. 

12 Am I reading that properly, that having 

13 said do this, it sounded like they were saying but at 

14 the same time keep listening to the input you're getting 

15 on compatibility? 

16 DR. ESH: Yes, I would interpret it 

17 similarly. So, they said this is the approach, go forth 

18 with, but engage the stakeholders on it and see what they 

19 think about it, get extensive feedback on it, yes. 

20 MR. ANDERSON: And then my follow-on 

21 question to that is, can you briefly describe, if you've 

22 thought it through yet, how the States will be involved 

23 separately as co-regulators prior to us seeing a 

24 proposed rule in the Federal Register? 

25 DR. ESH: Yes, I believe our process is on 
 29 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the Rulemaking working group, we have two 

2 representatives of the States, is that of the -- Larry, 

3 are they serving for the OAS, is that who they represent, 

4 the two State members on the Rulemaking working group? 

5 MR. CAMPER: Well they, in this particular 

6 case, States are chosen to be on a working group for a 

7 number of different reasons. And in this case I think 

8 we have Texas, I believe, don't we? 

9 DR. ESH: Well Texas and South Carolina. 

10 MR. CAMPER: Oh, South Carolina, right, 

11 yes. 

12 DR. ESH: A representative from Texas and 

13 South Carolina. And one of their roles is to inform the 

14 other States of what's going on in the Rulemaking 

15 working group process. And then, of course, when the 

16 product goes out I believe all the Agreement States get 

17 an opportunity to see that and comment on it prior to 

18 when it's proposed. 

19 MR. CAMPER: I agree. That's correct, 

20 yes. 

21 DR. ESH: Yes. 

22 MR. CAMPER: I would add one thing, too, if 

23 I might, Ralph, in answer to your question and to echo 

24 Dave's comment. Based on my own discussions with the 

25 Commissioners I think it's very clear that on one hand 
 30 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 there was an interest in consistency of approach, but 

2 by the same token there is a great deal of interest in 

3 flexibility for the Agreement States. 

4 And so I think they have specifically 

5 directed us to examine this compatibility issue. It 

6 will be sensitive, of course, because it's 

7 compatibility "B." 

8 And as part of that process we do plan to 

9 talk specifically with the four States that have the 

10 operating facilities so that we're positioned when we 

11 communicate further with the Commission to know exactly 

12 how those States feel about this matter. 

13 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and I want to find out 

15 if, since we're talking about State participation in the 

16 Rulemaking, I just want to make sure that we hear from 

17 any States now that want to say anything about the 

18 Rulemaking process. 

19 But, Andrew, Andrew Stewart? Do you want 

20 to say something right now, Andrew, on this? 

21 MR. STEWART: (Inaudible). 

22 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good. Anybody from 

23 the State Governments want to talk about their 

24 participation in the Rulemaking process or do they have 

25 a question about this? 
 31 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 We're going to hear from the States when we 

2 get to the panel discussion on strategic assessment, but 

3 I just wanted to give them an opportunity now if they 

4 wanted to say anything. Rusty? 

5 MR. LUNDBERG: Rusty Lundberg with the 

6 State of Utah DEQ. I guess just to follow along with 

7 the current topic of discussion regarding engagement of 

8 States, particularly Agreement States throughout this 

9 process. 

10 One, previously I would agree with what 

11 others have said. The level of opportunity of offering 

12 comment and stakeholder engagement and all of that I 

13 think has been really tremendous to be able to offer at 

14 certain critical points comments back and giving 

15 direction through those comments. 

16 But I think that one of your slides, David, 

17 that you had put up there was about potentially engaging 

18 stakeholders once it's proposed and going out and maybe 

19 even to the States. 

20 I would again echo or reaffirm what we've 

21 said before, I think for sure you would look at the 

22 4-sited States to be able to conduct public meetings so 

23 that there's more of an opportunity to educate and help 

24 those public members understand the nature of the 

25 proposal as well. 
 32 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 And that way I think that the comments that 

2 you'll receive through the public, obviously being 

3 better informed, might be better, more of a directional 

4 help for you as well. 

5 So I think that's the only thing I would 

6 offer, is that as you look at the public engagement part 

7 of offering public hearings that you look at least the 

8 4-sited States as an opportunity. Thank you. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Rusty. Dave? 

10 DR. ESH: Yes, it's a good suggestion. 

11 You know, we have processes that we follow and sometimes 

12 we have to stick within those processes, but with that 

13 said, we received really good input from a number of the 

14 Agreement States on the previous iterations of this 

15 Rulemaking that were very helpful, you know. 

16 And I think it's because, to be quite frank, 

17 NRC doesn't have any of the licensed disposal sites 

18 under our direct purview. They're all in the Agreement 

19 States, so, you know, you're the ones with the boots on 

20 the ground and you gave us some really good information, 

21 so we hope that continues, yes. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Okay, other questions or 

23 comments for David on the Rulemaking, the SRMs from the 

24 Commission process? Oh, okay, good. We're going to go 

25 over here and if you could just introduce yourself. 
 33 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. GOLDSTON: I'm Sonny Goldston, Chair 

2 of the Waste Management Working Group for the Interview 

3 Facility Contractors Operating Group, IFCOG we're known 

4 as. 

5 We are a consortium of all of the 

6 contractors that do work for the Department of Energy 

7 and I wanted to make a couple of comments here because 

8 I have been following this process very carefully and 

9 I'm really impressed with it. 

10 My expertise is in low-level waste disposal 

11 and I've managed low-level waste disposal facilities 

12 for the Department of Energy and I've helped the 

13 Department in their Rulemakings and their orders. 

14 So I have limited expertise in the NRC 

15 process and I've been really impressed with what you've 

16 been doing and how you've been doing it. But just so 

17 I don't mess myself up I'm going to read something that 

18 I think is important, at least to me, and I hope it will 

19 be to you. 

20 "The low-level waste disposal facilities 

21 in this Country, both commercial and DOE, are National 

22 treasures." They're National treasures, we don't have 

23 very many of them and it's important to get this right 

24 and I would submit to you that until you analyze your 

25 facilities with state-of-the-art tools and 
 34 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 site-specific PAs, defense in depth, you don't know how 

2 your sites are performing or are capable of performing. 

3 The classification tables and A, B, C 

4 classification tables are no longer state-of-the-art, 

5 they're out of date, and they're no longer needed, in 

6 my opinion in watching this. My experience shows that 

7 you're underutilizing your facilities in the Agreement 

8 States. 

9 I'm reasonably sure when you go through 

10 these performance assessments you'll find out that you 

11 are, at least in the West Coast areas, underutilizing 

12 your facilities. And I've seen this time and again in 

13 being involved in PA reviews for DOE facilities. 

14 On the East Coast maybe not, but you don't 

15 know, and that's important. When we talk about the 

16 protectiveness I don't think there's anything in your 

17 current rule that says you're not being protected, but 

18 I think you are. 

19 I don't think there's any problem with 

20 that, but I think you are underutilizing your facilities 

21 and that's sad because we've got a lot of work to do 

22 that's going to create waste. 

23 So, again, until you do the PAs and you base 

24 your WACs on your PAs and your defense in depth program 

25 as described by SECY-13-0075, you are not going to know 
 35 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the answers to those questions and you can't continue 

2 to base it on, I don't know how old is it, those tables? 

3 How old are they? 

4 They're pretty old and they're not current 

5 and, you know, I think they're protective, but you don't 

6 know the answer to those questions. 

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Sonny. 

8 Dave, do you have anything you want to say on Sonny's 

9 comments and the relationship to the Rulemaking? 

10 DR. ESH: Yes, thanks for the comment, 

11 Sonny. Yes, the waste classification table served a 

12 good purpose and originally when they were developed 

13 there was discussion about how many low-level waste 

14 sites there were going to be. 

15 And at the time they felt there were going 

16 to be many low-level waste sites and they didn't want 

17 people to be needing to interpret how to do the intruder 

18 analyses, which they felt was relying on kind of the 

19 human interaction with the system and you could have all 

20 sorts of interpretations. 

21 So they wanted it to be done consistently, 

22 therefore, they decided, NRC decided, we'll do the 

23 analyses internally and come up with those generic 

24 classification limits that would apply to all. 

25 The challenge was though that you have a 
 36 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 diversity of sites across the Country in terms of the 

2 environmental conditions, what might be the appropriate 

3 human practices at a site, the disposal design, all of 

4 those things can be different and are different from 

5 site to site. 

6 NRC received comments on the waste 

7 classification system and, as I think you were alluding 

8 to, a number of those limits that are appropriate for 

9 a humid site may be conservative with respect to an arid 

10 site, but it also goes the other way. 

11 So, for instance, the limit for plutonium 

12 at an arid site would generally be lower than the limit 

13 for plutonium at a humid site because of the 

14 resuspension inhalation capabilities for it. 

15 But the proposed rule would basically have, 

16 or in the draft rule that we had leading up to this, we 

17 had an "or" approach. So the waste classification 

18 tables would be maintained but somebody could use waste 

19 acceptance criteria and that would basically be a 

20 site-specific analysis outside of the waste 

21 classification tables. 

22 The reason why they're kind of still there 

23 is because they're used in a lot of things. They're in 

24 the Low-Level Waste Policy Act, I believe, they're 

25 referenced in other legislation, so it's a really, it 
 37 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 would be a big effort to kind of strip those out 

2 completely when other things reference them. 

3 And, you know, whether you could do that, 

4 yes, I think you certainly could. It would probably be, 

5 as I talked about, the 2-prong effort of the 

6 site-specific Rulemaking and then a bigger Rulemaking 

7 possibly. If you were going to do that bigger 

8 Rulemaking that would be the place to look at that. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Dan? Yes, yes, no? 

10 MR. SHRUM: Thanks, David. My name is Dan 

11 Shrum, I'm with EnergySolutions. And you just said 

12 something as you were explaining the 55 tables that they 

13 were done to sort of limit intruder analyses. So in the 

14 new SRM, I'm not going to read it, it's Number 6, but 

15 it's "The proposed rule should clearly indicate that the 

16 intruder assessments," what is that going to look like 

17 in your mind? 

18 What specifically will the NRC be giving 

19 guidance for? Will you be giving guidance for these are 

20 the intruder assessments you need to look at or is it 

21 going to be generic in nature and anything goes? What 

22 is that going to look like in David Esh's mind? 

23 And I know that you're not down that path 

24 yet, and we don't know, maybe it's in the guidance that 

25 we can't see yet, but what does that look like? 
 38 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 DR. ESH: Yes, I talked about this a bit in 

2 a conference this week, a couple occasions. On one hand 

3 we like to afford flexibility for people to evaluate the 

4 scenarios that they think are appropriate at their site. 

5 On the other hand, I believe, sometimes we 

6 see people are very narrow-minded about the human 

7 influence of the environment and how things will evolve 

8 over time, okay. 

9 And the example I've used in the past is Las 

10 Vegas, okay. Two hundred years ago Las Vegas was a lot 

11 different place than it is today. So if you asked 

12 somebody 200 years ago, living near Las Vegas, what were 

13 people going to be doing there 200 years in the future, 

14 they probably would've been pretty far off with their 

15 estimate of what people were going to be doing. 

16 So you have to be kind of open-minded about 

17 the human part of the environment, but you also then 

18 don't want to ensure endless speculation because 

19 people, the imagination of people is unlimited and you 

20 can come up with anything. 

21 You know, this is a regulatory process that 

22 you have to do, not a risk analysis for the intruders 

23 I would say, but it's a regulatory analysis. So we try 

24 to look at something and we use like funny words like 

25 "reasonably conservative" and stuff like that. 
 39 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 But basically what you're trying to do is 

2 come up with a scenario that if you showed it to somebody 

3 independent, say somebody from the International 

4 community that's not familiar with your site or anything 

5 like that, they could look at it and say okay, yes, that 

6 seems pretty reasonable for a scenario to evaluating 

7 your problem. 

8 It's kind of that standard, so what you need 

9 to put in rule language to ensure that outcome compared 

10 to say in guidance, we try to take an approach of kind 

11 of the Einsteinian approach to regulation which is the 

12 rule language should be as simple as possible but no 

13 simpler. 

14 So that's what we shoot for, whether we 

15 always achieve it, that's what the whole process is for, 

16 that the proposed language will go out and you'll have 

17 a chance to comment on it and see whether we got it right. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay, go ahead. 

19 MR. SHRUM: So it won't be specific? It 

20 will not say "look at these scenarios?" 

21 DR. ESH: Yes, I think it -- I can't say 

22 that right now, but I don't anticipate that it's going 

23 to be much different than what we had issued before that 

24 was publicly available, there was draft language put out 

25 that people saw. 
 40 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 And it kind of gives a philosophy to set the 

2 scenarios. But it's important for people to understand 

3 that can have a big influence on your calculational 

4 results, the particular scenarios you pick. 

5 And what we like to see is that somebody 

6 will, if they're going to use kind of site-specific 

7 scenarios they'll also look at the kind of common 

8 generic scenarios and show the difference between the 

9 two, so that, especially, their regulators are informed 

10 about the importance of the scenario and they can 

11 critically look at that, and regulators or other 

12 stakeholders, but it's important to be transparent in 

13 the importance of the scenarios that are selected. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Any questions, 

15 observations about Las Vegas or the Einsteinian 

16 approach, or anything else? Yes? And please 

17 introduce yourself. 

18 DR. ESH: It's Friday, Chip. 

19 (Laughter) 

20 MR. JAMES: David James. I just had, you 

21 know, one observation. I think what we would be looking 

22 for is that number one that it's risk informed. Number 

23 two, that it uses realistic current technology, and 

24 three, that some restrain is shown on throwing a lot of 

25 canards around the (inaudible) scenarios. So that was 
 41 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 basically the comment. 

2 DR. ESH: Thank you, yes. 

3 MR. CAMERON: And thank you. Let’s see if 

4 anybody on the phone has anything. Kiandra, is anybody 

5 in the queue on the phone? 

6 OPERATOR: There are no questions in the 

7 queue at this time. 

8 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And, Melanie, 

9 nothing on the web at this point? 

10 MS. WONG: We do have one comment there. 

11 (Inaudible). 

12 MR. CAMERON: We'll have to -- let me get 

13 you on the, let’s get this on the transcript. 

14 MS. WONG: So Rich Janati commented and 

15 he's basically stated that States and compacts are also 

16 providing input through the Low-Level Waste Forum 

17 Working Group on Part 61. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Great. Thank you, Rich, for 

19 that comment. Anybody else in the room have a question 

20 or observation about the Rulemaking status at this 

21 point? 

22 DR. ESH: Apparently I didn't give you a 

23 Christmas card this year, did I, Chip? I mean -- 

24 MR. CAMERON: Well not yet, but there's 

25 still several months. 
 42 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 DR. ESH: From last year. 

2 (Off the record comments) 

3 MR. CAMERON: But we actually are ahead of 

4 time and I was going to make a suggestion which perhaps 

5 the tee up, so to speak, for the panel discussion on 

6 strategic assessment is going to be done by Melanie 

7 Wong, and I should note that Melanie has orchestrated 

8 a lot of things for this meeting on the substantive 

9 aspect, slides and whatever. 

10 Do we want to go ahead and hear Melanie's 

11 tee up at this point and then you can have a chance to 

12 ask her some clarifying questions and then we'll take 

13 a break and come back for the panel and I think that will 

14 help us with our flights. 

15 And, Melanie, is that okay with you? Are 

16 you ready to do that? 

17 MS. WONG: Yes. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And, David, thank you 

19 very much. 

20 DR. ESH: Sure, thank you. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. So we're going 

22 to bring Melanie up and you have, her PowerPoints are 

23 in your slide collection and we'll have her come up and 

24 do that and hopefully we didn't take her too much by 

25 surprise. Okay. 
 43 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MS. WONG: Thank you, Chip. I'd like to 

2 thank everyone, for those of you who stayed around after 

3 the conference and especially those who came in 

4 especially for this meeting. There’s a lot of 

5 panelists that came in and so I really appreciate you 

6 coming to the meeting. Next slide, please. 

7 Today I'll provide some background on the 

8 2007 Strategic Assessment. I'll discuss NRC completed 

9 activities, proposed updates to the assessment, and 

10 discuss next steps in the process. Next slide, please, 

11 Dave. 

12 As Larry mentioned back in 2006 the 

13 Low-Level Waste Program at the NRC was in a maintenance 

14 mode and yet it faced many new and emerging challenges 

15 and issues. Some of these include increased storage of 

16 Class B and C low-level waste due to the potential 

17 closing of the Barnwell Facility in 2008 to out of 

18 compact generators. 

19 There is also the potential need to dispose 

20 of a lot of decommissioning waste and depleted uranium. 

21 There was also increased concerns related to the storage 

22 of low-level waste in general and sealed sources in 

23 particular, and there was also new waste streams that 

24 could be generated, for example, by the next generation 

25 of reactors. Next slide, please. 
 44 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 As a result the NRC staff undertook an 

2 effort to conduct a Strategic Assessment of the 

3 Low-Level Waste Regulatory Program and the goal of the 

4 assessment was to identify and prioritize staff 

5 activities so that it could continue to ensure safe and 

6 secure disposal of low-level waste as well as ensure 

7 adaptability and predictability in the regulatory 

8 program. Next slide, please, Dave. 

9 Based on extensive stakeholder inputs the 

10 NRC received a variety of activities to be considered 

11 to be included in the assessment and these were 

12 evaluated based on the strategic objectives. 

13 A list of 20 activities was developed 

14 responsive to programmatic needs and they were assigned 

15 priorities of high, medium, or low. They ranged from 

16 narrowly focused activities, such as updating guidance 

17 on extended storage, to broader activities such as 

18 suggesting legislative change to Congress to improve 

19 the National Program. Next slide, please, Dave. 

20 Seven tasks were designated as high 

21 priorities, and these are updating the guidance on 

22 extended storage of low-level waste. The uncertainty in 

23 the availability of access to low-level waste disposal 

24 facilities for many licensees was an issue facing the 

25 community. 
 45 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Another high priority activity was related 

2 to the alternate disposal of low activity waste per 10 

3 CFR 20.2002 in non-traditional low-level waste 

4 facilities such as RCRA facility. 

5 Based on stakeholder input it appeared that 

6 the NRC process of authorizing these disposals was not 

7 entirely consistent and needed to be clarified in 

8 guidance. 

9 Two additional activities included 

10 developing guidance for alternate waste classification 

11 in 10 CFR 61.58 and determining whether depleted uranium 

12 warranted a change in the waste classification tables 

13 in 10 CFR 61.55. And the main focus of this activity 

14 was to determine whether a large quantity of depleted 

15 uranium could be disposed of in near surface facilities. 

16 Another high priority activity was 

17 updating the Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation 

18 Branch Technical Position, which was published in 1995, 

19 and the NRC would update the Guidance Document to 

20 clarify in several areas, the underlying basis of its 

21 position. 

22 We could also choose to develop internal 

23 procedures and guidance documents regarding reviewing 

24 the waste import and export applications, and we could 

25 also perform a scoping study on a need to expand the 
 46 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 financial assurance for Category 3 and 4 sealed sources 

2 to account for total life cycle costs, including 

3 disposition. Next slide, please, Dave. 

4 Six tasks were designated as medium 

5 priorities and these are developing licensing criteria 

6 for Greater Than Class C waste disposal facilities. 

7 Under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

8 Policy Amendment Act of 1985, the Department of Energy 

9 is responsible for the disposal of GTCC waste and the 

10 DOE is in the latter stage of defining a preferred method 

11 of disposal in a topical Environmental Impact 

12 Statement. 

13 As a result, NRC would need to develop 

14 licensing criteria for such a facility. Two medium 

15 priority activities are related to our guidance 

16 documents. Dozens of low-level waste documents have 

17 been published in the last 25 years and we could choose 

18 to consolidate those into one document, it would also 

19 help with knowledge management. 

20 We could also choose to consolidate all of 

21 our documents related to disposition of low activity 

22 waste. The three remaining medium priority activities 

23 included identifying low activity waste disposal 

24 regulations and practices at various agencies and 

25 programs, specifying improvements and suggesting 
 47 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 legislative change. 

2 We could also identify potential new waste 

3 streams with different radionuclides than have been 

4 assessed in existing regulations, and we could develop 

5 and issue an information notice that would provide the 

6 techniques and methods that small generators could use 

7 to minimize the amount of waste that they generate. 

8 And this task was developed in the context 

9 of reducing waste due to the potential closing of the 

10 disposal facility back in 2008. Next slide, please, 

11 Dave. 

12 Seven tasks were designated as low priority 

13 and these include promulgating a rule that would define 

14 the conditions under which low activity waste could be 

15 disposed of in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

16 waste disposal facility. 

17 We could also develop generic waste 

18 acceptance criteria for the disposal of low-level waste 

19 in 11e(2) mill tailing impoundments, and we could also 

20 promulgate regulations that would identify the data 

21 necessary to track the origin, the management, and the 

22 disposition of all low-level waste. Next slide, 

23 please. 

24 Since 2007 the NRC staff has completed 

25 three of the high priority activities. In 2008 and 2011 
 48 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the staff prepared regulatory issue summaries that 

2 clarified our position regarding extended storage of 

3 low-level waste. 

4 In 2009, the staff also developed interim 

5 staff guidance describing the procedures for our 

6 reviewing, authorizing, and documenting the results of 

7 the staff review of alternate disposal requests for low 

8 activity waste. 

9 We have also completed a DU Disposal 

10 Analysis and while the NRC staff has concluded that 

11 large quantity of DU could be disposed of in near surface 

12 facilities under certain conditions and still meet the 

13 performance objectives of 10 CFR, Part 61, the NRC staff 

14 proposed change in the regulation to incorporate these 

15 conditions. 

16 Among the revision to the regulation is the 

17 incorporation of site-specific waste acceptance 

18 requirements in 10 CFR 61.58, and this revised revision 

19 would supersede and replace the high priority task of 

20 developing guidance for 10 CFR 61.58. 

21 The NRC staff is nearing completion of the 

22 branch technical position on concentration averaging 

23 and encapsulation, and the last two activities were put 

24 on hold due to resource constraints. Next slide, 

25 please. 
 49 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 After seven years much progress has been 

2 made in several activities in the assessment. In 

3 addition, the National low-level waste program 

4 continues to evolve and is very dynamic. 

5 So, therefore, to set the directions in the 

6 next several years for the NRC Low-Level Waste 

7 Regulatory Program the NRC is embarking on updating its 

8 strategic assessment. A review of the assessment would 

9 be one of the first tasks in the update process and could 

10 result in the reprioritization of some of the 

11 activities. 

12 For example, the medium priority activity 

13 in the assessment for developing a licensing criteria 

14 for Greater Than Class C waste disposal facility could 

15 become a high priority activity based on the current 

16 low-level waste landscape on GTCC waste. 

17 The NRC could also elect to continue 

18 working on the remaining high priority task that was put 

19 on hold due to resource constraints. For example, we 

20 could complete the activity performing a scoping study 

21 regarding financial assurance for Category 3 and 4 

22 sealed sources. 

23 And this report, this would be informed by 

24 the related recommendation from the Radiation Source 

25 Protection and Security Task Force, which report is due 
 50 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 out in August 2014, as well as the Low-Level Radioactive 

2 Waste Forum Disused Source Working Group Report. Next 

3 slide, please. 

4 Informal outreach efforts have identified 

5 some activities which could remain in the assessment and 

6 some which could be added. We spoke about it, 

7 developing licensing criteria for a GTCC waste disposal 

8 facility. 

9 Another activity which could be moved from 

10 a low priority to a high priority is promulgating a low 

11 activity waste Rulemaking, and this is due to the 

12 potential need to dispose of a large quantity of 

13 decommissioning waste in the future. 

14 New activities could include a revision to 

15 the Waste Manifest to consider over-estimation of 

16 certain radionuclides and we could also address waste 

17 attribution issues. Next slide, please. 

18 One key aspect of the assessment involved 

19 information gathering, and that's why we're here today. 

20 We thought it would be very beneficial to hear from the 

21 public and also from our representatives from the 

22 Agreement States and industry. 

23 And so we'd like to hear in terms of what 

24 does the landscape look like in the future for the 

25 Low-Level Waste National Program and what are the 
 51 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 regulatory response to these changes in the landscape. 

2 Additionally we plan additional outreach 

3 efforts the future. We will issue a Federal Register 

4 notice in the next several months to solicit comments 

5 on proposed activities and we also plan to request 

6 comments once we have drafted an updated Strategic 

7 Assessment. Next slide, please. 

8 This concludes my presentation. Thank you 

9 for your attention. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Melanie. 

11 And, David, could we see Slide 27? 

12 DR. ESH: (Inaudible). 

13 MR. CAMERON: I think it's the next one. 

14 Huh, it's not on there. 

15 MS. WONG: Which was the -- 

16 MR. CAMERON: There's three -- In your 

17 slide package you should have a Slide 27 and they are 

18 the three questions that are going to be posed. 

19 MS. WONG: Okay, so it is forward, if you 

20 go forward. 

21 (Off microphone discussion) 

22 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Well there's three 

23 questions for our panelists and for all of you who are 

24 in the room and on the phones and on the net, and I'm 

25 just introducing this now because I want to give you a 
 52 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 chance to ask Melanie any clarifying questions about her 

2 Strategic Assessment presentation because we are going 

3 to get into the substantive issues that we want to hear 

4 from you on. 

5 But this would be a time to ask for 

6 clarifying questions and after we're done with that 

7 we'll take a break and you may want to augment the free 

8 NRC breakfast that David referred to. 

9 There are coffee places soon -- And there 

10 are the topics. And that's going to be the substantive 

11 discussion and I just wanted to juxtapose that with the 

12 idea of clarifying questions and we're going to go to 

13 -- Are you ready, Melanie? 

14 MS. WONG: Yes. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. We're going to go to 

16 Bill Dornsife and then we're going to go to Scott. And 

17 please introduce yourself. 

18 MR. DORNSIFE: Bill Dornsife, Waste 

19 Control Specialist. I guess I'm kind of interested in 

20 what NRC defines as the need for licensing criteria for 

21 Greater Than Class C? 

22 I mean we recognize that, you know, there's 

23 renewed interest in terms of using existing license, 

24 intermediate and near surface disposal facilities for 

25 disposal of Greater Than Class C, so what does licensing 
 53 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 criteria mean? 

2 MS. WONG: So we would go back and we would 

3 look, I mean we're taking a look at the regulation to 

4 see if it's suffice in terms of licensing a GTCC waste 

5 disposal facility. 

6 We recognize that the regulations do 

7 specify that if you are a geologic repository you would 

8 use Part 60 regulations, but we're looking to see in 

9 terms of the future if there is a need to augment the 

10 regulations. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And, Scott? 

12 MR. KIRK: Yes, Scott Kirk, WCS. Yes, 

13 this is a continuation for the Greater Than Class C 

14 question or issue. I think it's very timely that you 

15 start to assess this as part of your Strategic 

16 Assessment. 

17 This is really a continuation of questions 

18 I've asked earlier this week and also at your 

19 presentation, that was very well done, Melanie. 

20 MS. WONG: Thank you. 

21 MR. KIRK: Now my question is the role of 

22 an Agreement State. Now as we have spoken earlier this 

23 week there's been a lot movement, some discussions about 

24 the difference between GTCC waste, which is waste that's 

25 generated by NRC licensees, verses DOE GTCC-like waste. 
 54 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 And it's my understanding, and maybe you 

2 can reiterate that, that if it's GTCC-like waste that's 

3 generated by the Department of Energy an Agreement State 

4 today has the ability to license those facilities, and 

5 maybe there's not the need to develop, or a requirement 

6 to develop that technical criteria as it applies to 

7 GTCC-like waste. 

8 However, when it applies specifically to 

9 NRC regulated GTCC waste there is a requirement for 

10 developing the criteria, but as Larry had mentioned 

11 earlier this week that there's a provision in 10 CFR 

12 61.55 where maybe the technical criteria could be 

13 defined, but maybe an Agreement State could actually 

14 license that facility. 

15 And maybe the time, you can either defer 

16 answering the question now, but I think it should be teed 

17 up for the panelists, because I think this is a very 

18 timely issue especially as the Department of Energy is 

19 moving forward with their Environmental Impact 

20 Statement. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And we're going to 

22 come back over here. I just -- We are, I think as Scott 

23 alluded to and, Melanie, we're going to go to you for 

24 anything you want to say on this, but I think that we 

25 are getting into the substantive aspect of this. 
 55 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 So I'm going to put that Agreement State 

2 licensing of GTCC facilities just as a placeholder over 

3 here, but let me go to Larry and Melanie for anything 

4 they want to say at this point. 

5 MR. CAMPER: Just a couple of points about 

6 the GTCC question, and I think Chip is right. I think 

7 the level of detail that you're starting to get into 

8 around that issue is something you ought to have during 

9 the panel discussion, that would be helpful. 

10 But just to kind of set the landscape for 

11 that, as we all know the Department of Energy is working 

12 toward completion of its Final Environmental Impact 

13 Statement around the GTCC question. 

14 I think we all realize that under the 

15 Low-Level Waste Policy Act as amended in '85 the NRC is 

16 charged with licensing a facility for the disposal of 

17 GTCC waste which was licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 

18 Commission. 

19 There is something called GTCC-like waste, 

20 which is a DOE product over which we have no regulatory 

21 authority, and what's interesting about it is the more 

22 we look at this, and in fact I just spoke to Frank 

23 Marcinowski this week, we want to have a meeting with 

24 the Department of Energy and talk about this because 

25 when you look at Part 61 with regards to criteria you 
 56 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 find no criteria, you find verbiage that it's not 

2 suitable for near surface disposal. 

3 However, in 61.55(a)(2)(iv), the 

4 Commission put an interesting provision in the 

5 regulation that said that geologic repository per 60 or 

6 63 unless an alternative is approved by the Commission 

7 consistent with this Part. 

8 That seems to imply this Part, meaning, 

9 getting back to Scott's question, the Texas Regulations 

10 are a parallel to Part 61 if you will. So we need to 

11 explore that provision carefully and we've been talking 

12 with the Office of General Counsel about that and we do 

13 want to meet with DOE and we will see if that pathway 

14 could work, for example, for the State of Texas as an 

15 alternative. 

16 I think it's very clear when the Commission 

17 put that part, that component of the regulation in place 

18 it had three things on its mind. Number one, if you read 

19 the background on the Statements of Consideration it was 

20 clear that it didn't want to exclude a State operated 

21 facility, in other words, it didn't have to be 

22 exclusively a Federal facility. 

23 Number two, they wanted to have the pathway 

24 for allowing an alternative to geologic disposal and 

25 also the role of the State is articulated somewhat in 
 57 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 that Statements of Consideration around the part that 

2 I cited, the 61.55(a)(2)(iv). 

3 So what we want to do is explore that 

4 thoroughly. Now with regards to criteria itself, yes, 

5 that poses and interesting question, too, and perhaps 

6 the panel, when you explore this, I'll help set the stage 

7 for that. 

8 I mean on one hand I think everyone 

9 understands the characteristics of GTCC waste and 

10 perhaps the need to be more specific about some criteria 

11 as to how it should be disposed of, deeper, barriers, 

12 and so forth. 

13 You have to juxtapose that though against 

14 the ongoing Rulemaking which requires a site-specific 

15 performance assessment and what might that 

16 site-specific performance assessment tell you about the 

17 disposal of GTCC waste. 

18 So when we say "criteria" we kind of have 

19 those two thoughts in mind and getting some additional 

20 input from the panel today when you talk about this 

21 particular topic would be of value. 

22 But one thing I want to make sure that does 

23 happen for the NRC and that is as the Department of 

24 Energy proceeds to complete its FEIS, and presumably 

25 that may happen toward the end of this year, I want to 
 58 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 make absolutely certain that the Nuclear Regulatory 

2 Commission does not find itself then in the critical 

3 pathway that would delay disposal of GTCC once DOE 

4 articulates its position, its preferred alternative. 

5 So whatever it ends up being, whatever 

6 regulatory pathway we're able to use or whatever 

7 criteria that we create, it is timely now that we proceed 

8 for that reason. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Larry, for that 

10 tee up, and, Melanie, do you want to add anything to what 

11 Larry said on that? 

12 MS. WONG: Just one note in terms of GTCC 

13 waste under the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendment Act, 

14 1985. It's clear that in terms for the disposal 

15 facility for GTCC waste, it is something that NRC would 

16 license, so just to clarify. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And we're on 

18 clarifying questions to Melanie and obviously teeing up 

19 some issues that are going to be the subject of the panel 

20 discussion. Michael? 

21 MR. GARNER: Mike Garner with the 

22 Northwest Compact. Melanie, in your priorities you 

23 referenced low activity waste two or three times. Does 

24 that include waste that potentially now goes to a Part 

25 61 facility, the very lower end of that, or is that waste 
 59 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 that has never gone to a Part 61 facility? 

2 MS. WONG: No. We would include some of 

3 the lower end that have gone to Part 61 facilities. 

4 MR. GARNER: Because one of the things that 

5 I hear all the time is, well, the sited States there's 

6 no competition. Well for the Richland site by doing so 

7 in providing another pathway for disposal for the lower 

8 end of the waste that currently goes to Richland, it 

9 would be increasing the unit cost for all of the 

10 generators that must continue to use the Richland 

11 facility. So I just wanted to point that out. 

12 MS. WONG: Okay, thank you. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mike. Let’s go 

14 to Ralph. 

15 MR. ANDERSON: The remaining generic, I 

16 will obviously have a lot to say in the next session, 

17 but one comment on Greater Than Class C and recognizing 

18 some of my colleagues here, laws are not cast in 

19 concrete. 

20 Laws can be changed, in fact they're 

21 changed all the time. And in fact my understanding of 

22 the law governing Greater Than Class C waste is that 

23 nothing will happen unless a new law is passed, because 

24 the way the law reads, once DOE sends its report to the 

25 Congress DOE is to stop and cease until Congress acts, 
 60 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 I believe is the wording in the law. 

2 So there will be a new law and all things 

3 can be changed. I was just curious about the five to 

4 seven years. I don't remember how we came up with that 

5 in 2007, but I'm just trying to gain an understanding, 

6 is there something inherent about five to seven years? 

7 We keep using that phraseology in the 

8 Strategic Assessment or is that just a term of 

9 convenience because one of the comments that I'll be 

10 making in the next session is we ought to be thinking 

11 about life of RAD waste generation? 

12 You know we have a very foreseeable 85-year 

13 horizon right now in which we can predict certain kinds 

14 of waste being generated. But I wasn't sure if there's 

15 something in your budgeting or planning process 

16 inherent within NRC that restricts you to looking only 

17 at the near future. 

18 MR. CAMERON: And can we give some context 

19 to people? Do we have a slide that has that five to 

20 7-year statement on it? 

21 MS. WONG: It's actually the Slide 27. 

22 MR. CAMERON: I mean I think that might be 

23 helpful for people. 

24 MALE PARTICIPANT: Another topic slide. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Oh, okay. There it is. 
 61 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 This is the first question for the panel, is what changes 

2 are anticipated and that we're looking, reference five 

3 to seven years and, Melanie, do you want to take a first 

4 stab at explaining the five to 7-year timeframe? 

5 MS. WONG: It wasn't necessarily tied to 

6 any regulations or internal process, but we took a look 

7 seven years ago and so just in terms of another series, 

8 it would be another seven years, so that's why. There's 

9 nothing special about that. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good. Good question. 

11 And, Clint? 

12 MR. MILLER: Yes. Clint Miller from 

13 Pacific Gas & Electric. On your scoping update 

14 assessment slide you mentioned revisions of the Waste 

15 Manifest guidance and waste attribution in the last two 

16 bullets. 

17 Last year at this time there was a public 

18 meeting on that guidance. Waste manifesting could 

19 potentially affect the attribution, depending on what 

20 that guidance would be, and if that attribution were 

21 done, it might better inform the DOE's Waste Management 

22 Information System which would go a long way to tracking 

23 low-level waste at least as to where it came from and 

24 where it was disposed of. 

25 So in saying it's scoping does that mean 
 62 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 it's not necessarily bumped up on the priority list at 

2 this time? I was just a little confused because you had 

3 a public meeting, so obviously it must've had some 

4 importance. 

5 MR. SUBER: Now, Melanie, I can handle that 

6 one. Yes, this is Gregory Suber from NRC, Low-Level 

7 Waste Branch Chief. We are still working the Uniform 

8 Waste Manifest revisions. 

9 What we've discovered in working through 

10 the process is that some of the revisions that we were 

11 proposing for the Waste Manifest in the Guidance 

12 Document have to wait on Part 61 because they're 

13 complimentary. 

14 So in the interim we plan to issue a RIS that 

15 will allow us to have some benefit from some of the work 

16 that we've done on the Waste Manifest and we're going 

17 to complete the rest of the document as we work through 

18 the Part 61 process. 

19 So does that answer your question? Okay. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let me go to the 

21 phones. Kiandra, do we have anybody in the queue with 

22 a question for Melanie? 

23 OPERATOR: I'm sorry, not at this time. 

24 There are no questions in the queue. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Kiandra, are you there? 
 63 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 OPERATOR: Yes, I'm here. There are no 

2 questions in the queue at this time. 

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

4 very much. And is Dave going to see anything that comes 

5 on the net? 

6 MS. WONG: There's nothing. 

7 MR. CAMERON: There's nothing, okay, fine. 

8 Anybody else in the audience, clarifying questions? 

9 Yes? 

10 MR. JAMES: This is David James again, just 

11 a one side comment. I read something recently that it 

12 takes about five to seven years to make any significant 

13 cultural change in a large organization. 

14 So, given that, if we know right now with 

15 the change it's going to be able to take five to seven 

16 years to implement it. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Interesting, interesting 

18 point. I know that's -- We read the same thing. Okay, 

19 Bill Dornsife? 

20 MR. DORNSIFE: This is Bill Dornsife, 

21 Waste Control Specialist. Now that the last year's 

22 public meeting is mentioned, a major topic of discussion 

23 at the meeting was the Phantom 4 and how to fix it. 

24 Can anybody update us on what the status of 

25 that effort it? 
 64 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. SUBER: Yes. This is Gregory Suber 

2 again. What the staff is in the process of doing is 

3 issuing a Regulatory Issue Summary. And what the 

4 Regulatory Issue Summary is going to do, it's going to 

5 point to existing NRC guidance that tells people who 

6 have to fill out the Manifest how they could use scaling 

7 factors consistent with previous NRC guidance, which 

8 would give waste generators or people who are disposing 

9 of waste the option of using the previous guidance to 

10 substitute a value for the lower limits of detections 

11 that they are currently using on the Manifest. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Anybody else on 

13 clarifying questions? Okay, we're ahead of time -- 

14 MALE PARTICIPANT: That's all right. 

15 MR. CAMERON: -- and what I'd like to do is 

16 have everybody back, the panel up here and we'll put a 

17 slide up on who the panelists are, Larry already 

18 identified them earlier. 

19 But if everybody could be back at 10:00, 

20 okay, that gives you time to go out to get coffee. 

21 There's one coffee place about a half block, there's a 

22 Starbucks, whatever, so just do that and we'll come back 

23 and we'll start the panel discussion. Thank you. 

24 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 

25 the record at 9:33 a.m. and went back on the record at 
 65 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 10:06 a.m.) 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay, if we could have our 

3 panelists up we'll get started with the strategic 

4 assessment portion of the meeting. And in a minute I'm 

5 going to ask the panelists to just briefly introduce 

6 themselves. 

7 And we'll start with Bill Dornsife, and 

8 we'll go down this way. And just a couple real simple 

9 ground rules, when we get into the panel discussion, if 

10 you want to say something, if you could just turn your 

11 name tent up. 

12 Thank you, Dan. Now that was the 

13 challenge. Now I know you can do that. So we're good, 

14 we're good. But if you could just do that, then you 

15 won't have to worry about jumping into the conversation. 

16 And the first issue, and Melanie, could we 

17 see that mysterious Slide 27? We always have Aby 

18 Mohseni recapping. Okay, this first topic is what 

19 changes are anticipated to the National landscape and 

20 the level of radioactive waste area, context of safety, 

21 security, protection of the environment in the next five 

22 to seven years. 

23 What I'm going to do is, after we get done 

24 with just the simple introductions, I'm going to ask 

25 each panelist to give me one major change that they think 
 66 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 is going to happen and just enough to explain, to allow 

2 people to understand what that is. 

3 I'm going to put them on the board right 

4 there. And then we're going to come back and have a 

5 discussion of them. So it's sort of a little 

6 brainstorming here. But then we'll go through each 

7 one. 

8 And the purpose of the panel is not just to 

9 hear what the panelists' perspectives are, each 

10 panelist's perspective, but to hear what others on the 

11 panel think about that perspective. So hopefully we'll 

12 have an interesting dialogue on the issues. 

13 But we'll tackle that topic first. And we 

14 do have Greg Suber from the NRC on the panel, who's the 

15 branch chief, okay. And everybody works for you, as you 

16 always tell me. 

17 MR. SUBER: Except Larry, I think. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Except for Larry? Okay. 

19 But Greg is on the panel as a resource for the rest of 

20 the panel, in terms of providing information that might 

21 be needed on issues or perhaps if there's an 

22 implementation issue that the NRC might want to know 

23 about. And Greg might pose that to you. 

24 So I think we're ready to go. And we are 

25 ahead of time. So we have plenty of time. But, Bill, 
 67 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 can we just start with you, introduce yourself? And if 

2 you want to say, you know, a sentence, anybody wants to 

3 say a sentence or two about what they would like to see 

4 achieved by the panel, that would be fine too. But you 

5 can just simply introduce yourself if you want to. 

6 MR. DORNSIFE: Bill Dornsife, Waste 

7 Control Specialists. I think the single most important 

8 development in the near future in the area of 

9 radioactive waste management will be our new exempt 

10 disposal act Waste Control Specialists at the RCRA 

11 landfill. Because it no longer is based on the 

12 regulatory exemption, but it's based on concentrations 

13 that were developed with a site specific PA. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And Christine? 

15 MS. GELLES: I'm Christine Gelles. I'm 

16 the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste 

17 Management in the Office of Environmental Management at 

18 the Department of Energy. 

19 And within our portfolio is ensuring we 

20 have disposal facilities for all of the DOE generated 

21 waste or the other wastes that are designated Federal 

22 waste under the Low-Level Waste Policy Act amendments. 

23 And that includes providing for the environmental 

24 analysis to site a Greater Than Class C low-level waste 

25 disposal facility. I'm stymied to pick just one in 
 68 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 terms -- 

2 MR. CAMERON: Well, okay. Well, we'll -- 

3 MS. GELLES: -- of developing the 

4 landscape. 

5 MR. CAMERON: I'll tell you what, we'll 

6 come back. And we'll just do introductions now. 

7 MS. GELLES: Perfect, thank you. 

8 MR. CAMERON: And I would just ask 

9 everybody, the mics are not really directional either. 

10 So you probably have to speak pretty directly into them. 

11 Okay, Ralph, you want to just introduce yourself too? 

12 MR. ANDERSON: Sure. Are we going to do 

13 away with the one sentence -- 

14 MR. CAMERON: Well, what I'd like to do is 

15 just have you all just introduce yourselves. 

16 MR. ANDERSON: Ralph Anderson -- 

17 MR. CAMERON: And then we'll come back. 

18 MR. ANDERSON: -- Nuclear Energy 

19 Institute. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

21 MR. BROUSSARD: Brad Broussard, Texas 

22 Commission on Environmental Quality with the State of 

23 Texas. 

24 MR. LUNDBERG: Rusty Lundburg, with the 

25 State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality. I'm 
 69 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the Director of the Division of Radiation Control in 

2 that department. 

3 MR. SUBER: Gregory Suber, Chief of the 

4 Low-level Waste Branch at the NRC. 

5 MR. FORDHAM: Earl Fordham with the State 

6 of Washington Department of Health, Office of Radiation 

7 Protection. I'm the Deputy Director in charge of the 

8 waste management section. 

9 MR. SHRUM: Dan Shrum, EnergySolutions, 

10 regulatory affairs. 

11 MR. GARNER: Mike Garner with the 

12 Washington State Department of Ecology. I serve as 

13 Executive Director for the Northwest Compact. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you all. And 

15 we heard from Bill. I put his major change up on the 

16 board. And we just heard from Christine about it's hard 

17 to pick just one. But why don't you go ahead and tell 

18 us what you think are going to be the major things? 

19 MS. GELLES: Well, GTCC Disposal, you 

20 know, a policy decision, a recommendation from the 

21 Department, and then the regulatory aspect of that we 

22 teed up before the break is an obvious one. 

23 And then the second one would be the 

24 construction of new DOE disposal facilities and the 

25 impact that has on the commercial market and therefore 
 70 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the availability and viability of facilities. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Great, thank you. 

3 GTCC and construction of new -- 

4 MS. GELLES: New DOE disposal facilities. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And Ralph? 

6 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'd just like to 

7 build on the five to seven years issue with this, just 

8 by a simple factoid. There are four large nuclear power 

9 plants currently under construction that will go into 

10 operation in the next three to five years. And the 

11 expectation is, is that they will shut down for 

12 decommissioning right around the year 2100. 

13 So I'd like to suggest that we have a 

14 predictable time frame from nuclear electricity 

15 generation and the associated fuel cycle right now that 

16 extends throughout this entire century. 

17 So I'd just like to suggest that as you move 

18 forward with strategic planning that the strategic 

19 horizon, it may be very murky as you get further and 

20 further out. But I'd suggest a placeholder of through 

21 this century rather than the next five to seven years. 

22 MR. CAMERON: So a longer strategic 

23 horizon tied to nuclear generation, the new facilities? 

24 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And Brad? 
 71 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. BROUSSARD: Well, first of all I'd like 

2 to thank the NRC for the invitation for Texas to 

3 participate on this panel. I think it's a lot of good 

4 dialogue that's going on that actually should continue. 

5 Hopefully, some of these discussions will 

6 help further the progress that's needed for some of 

7 these waste management issues. Chip, I would have to 

8 agree with Christine. I think Greater Than Class C is 

9 going to be kind of a pressing issue at least for the 

10 State of Texas, DOE and the NRC. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Brad. 

12 Then, Rusty? 

13 MR. LUNDBERG: Thank you. I think also, 

14 just to add to what Brad said as his preparatory 

15 statement, is that I think this is a great cross section 

16 for a panel to have this kind of discussion and for the 

17 engagement and who's here, both either listening on the 

18 phone or here in attendance. 

19 I think this is a really great opportunity 

20 to fully flesh out a lot of the issues related to kind 

21 of this near term horizon view of low-level radioactive 

22 waste, the system itself and where it needs to go. 

23 A couple of things that I wanted to point 

24 out was obviously for us the impact that changes 

25 regarding the regulatory structure, for example, 
 72 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 changes in Part 61 and their domino effect on a matter 

2 like depleted uranium disposal. 

3 I have to bring that up, because that's 

4 obviously not only a near-term thing, but I also think 

5 it's not just handling the legacy. It's also handling 

6 the to be generated or as being generated. 

7 The other one I just want to posit it, 

8 because I always like to think I'm somewhat innovative, 

9 is I do think that there is a potential, given the 

10 advancements in technology, that even though nuclear 

11 power plant waste generation may not change a lot, I do 

12 feel that some of the other areas of radioactive waste 

13 use that's licensed out there and the resulting waste 

14 forms may have a potential to change because of changes 

15 in technology. 

16 I think changes, the time horizon for those 

17 kinds of changes can be a three, five, ten year kind of 

18 horizon. And I do think that we may feel comfortable 

19 about it, but we do have this idea that we're pretty 

20 confident about the near term waste inventory for 

21 low-level. I think it has the potential to change as 

22 well within that time horizon. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So the changes in 

24 technology could cover a lot of different types of 

25 changes -- 
 73 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. LUNDBERG: Right. 

2 MR. CAMERON: -- disposal technology or 

3 the changes in how waste is generated, correct? 

4 MR. LUNDBERG: That was actually on the 

5 bottom of my list. So I just wanted to capture one that, 

6 even though it's a little less of an importance to me, 

7 I think it's one that I just wanted to get on the board 

8 so it's there. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good. Thanks, Rusty. 

10 And Greg, we'll go to Earl, okay. Earl? 

11 MR. FORDHAM: Oh, yes you are, Greg. Some 

12 of the things that we see on the horizon are a couple 

13 of the items that they're currently working on. And 

14 that's the BTP. 

15 It's kind of near and dear to a site 

16 operator's heart. I understand it's coming out later 

17 this year. And I understand Jim Kennedy's retirement 

18 is based on that. I'm sure he's got an impetus to get 

19 that done. 

20 Some of the other work, I'd like the 

21 technology, because there's a lot of talk around Hanford 

22 right now about small modular reactors. And some of the 

23 prototypes of that might be in Idaho. So we may see the 

24 waste streams from that. And that could be a different 

25 ball of worms than the current commercial reactor waste 
 74 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 streams. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Earl. 

3 Dan? 

4 MR. SHRUM: Again, I'd also like to thank 

5 the NRC for the opportunity to be part of this panel. 

6 Some of the things that we've thought about have already 

7 been mentioned. 

8 But one that was mentioned briefly by 

9 Melanie was that there are several power plants that are 

10 ready to be decommissioned. And that will put not just 

11 a strain on disposal but also a strain on workers. 

12 Are there enough folks in this field that 

13 are expert enough to really start taking down all these 

14 plants in a timely and efficient manner? We're kind of 

15 stressed as it is and strained as it is. 

16 And so it's something that our industry, 

17 EnergySolutions in particular has always tried to bring 

18 up the next generation. And if we start 

19 decommissioning these five plants in the next five to 

20 seven years, that's going to be a strain on our resources 

21 as well as other people's resources. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Good, good. Thanks, Dan. 

23 Mike? 

24 MR. GARNER: Well, I guess I'll kind of 

25 build on Ralph's comments. And that is I would 
 75 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 anticipate, with the growing population and to address 

2 climate change, there will certainly be a push for 

3 additional nuclear utilities in the future. 

4 MR. CAMERON: Great. Thanks, Mike. And, 

5 Bill? 

6 MR. DORNSIFE: Can I add another one? 

7 MR. CAMERON: Yes. 

8 (Off the record comments) 

9 MR. DORNSIFE: You know, now that we, at 

10 least from a disposal resource standpoint, don't have 

11 any orphan waste, we still don't have "defense in depth" 

12 in terms of disposal capacity, okay. If one site were 

13 to shut down, we're back in the same ballpark. 

14 And my question is, is there anything that 

15 we can do as a waste management community to deal with 

16 that potential issue? You know, regulators, and 

17 disposal site operators and generators working 

18 together, how can we help to avoid something like that? 

19 MR. CAMERON: So the scarcity in disposal 

20 options, okay. 

21 MR. DORNSIFE: And, well, really it's how 

22 do we deal, you know, with the community -- 

23 MR. CAMERON: And I think that's an 

24 important point that you just emphasized, is dealing 

25 with it as a community. Ralph and then Rusty, Ralph? 
 76 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Considering a much 

2 longer horizon, one of the things that I see is lacking 

3 is a defined gap analysis of the current framework 

4 against both current low-level waste disposal needs and 

5 future low-level waste disposal needs. You know, where 

6 is the framework lacking and where is the framework 

7 inefficient or inconsistent? 

8 A second item is waste classification 

9 tables. My point in the 100 year time horizon is I'd 

10 like to think that in 100 years we're not going to be 

11 teaching PhD students in health physics how to use 

12 ICRP2. 

13 I currently do that, by the way. We get 

14 graduate students with master's degrees in health 

15 physics. And at the reactors, anyway, we have to train 

16 them on ICRP2. Because the only place they saw it in 

17 graduate school was as part of a history lesson. So 

18 there's an inefficiency there. 

19 And then thirdly, I'd like to add, in terms 

20 of the scope of our thinking, I'm working on some 

21 different task groups associated with recovery of the 

22 area around Fukushima. 

23 I think we ought to be thinking about the 

24 NRC Regulatory framework, and the criteria and the 

25 underlying technical basis and its relationship to 
 77 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 dealing with waste incidental to a large nuclear event, 

2 whether that event be a nuclear accident or whether it 

3 be a terrorist event. 

4 As we saw at Fukushima, NRC regulations 

5 were looked at by the people of Japan as kind of a 

6 benchmark on what's safe and what's not safe. So 

7 irrespective of who has statutory authority over those 

8 things, a certain amount of that thought should go into 

9 how NRC conceives future regulations. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay, okay. Thank you. 

11 And Rusty, and then we'll go down to Mike. And then I'll 

12 try to sum up some of these. And we'll go and visit each 

13 one. 

14 MR. LUNDBERG: If I may, I'm going to put 

15 on my other hat in terms of representing the Low-Level 

16 Waste Forum for just a moment. 

17 As noted, we've been working on a specific 

18 project under a grant from NNSA to look at disused sealed 

19 sources. And I think that some of the things that we 

20 have found tentatively under that working group I think 

21 fall within this opportunity of a dialogue within this 

22 near term horizon. 

23 And certainly that's the way I'd couch 

24 this, is that in the near term over this three, five or 

25 maybe even shorter, obviously, but to look at a dialogue 
 78 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 that would look at some of the gaps that may exit 

2 regarding financial assurance. 

3 And maybe we should actually say financial 

4 responsibility. Because I know there's this linkage 

5 sometimes of financial assurance just with 

6 decommissioning. And I'm talking about in terms of a 

7 licensee having sealed sources no longer in use. 

8 But yet, should there be some other 

9 financial responsibility for holding them in storage, 

10 given that disposition might be a better option for 

11 security purposes, but yet economically, it's 

12 difficult. But if you incent that process or that 

13 thinking in the near term through some other mechanism 

14 of storage, it also costs you, kind of thinking. 

15 And then second to that, a tracking aspect 

16 to maybe enhance or look at opportunities to improve the 

17 tracking aspect of sealed sources, again, that might 

18 fall into this security matter. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Rusty. And 

20 Mike? 

21 MR. GARNER: Yes. I would just add to, I 

22 guess, Bill's comment. It's been 29 years since the 

23 Policy Amendments Act was adopted. We've had 

24 EnergySolutions, we've had Waste Control Specialists 

25 come online. 
 79 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 But I know EnergySolutions has indicated 

2 that their current section of land that they use for 

3 disposal, they've got 25 to 30 years left. We've got 

4 about 40 years left in Richland. It's not too soon to 

5 be thinking about how we're going to develop new sites 

6 for the future. 

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I'm going to put that 

8 up here with Bill's. And, I mean, I apologize for the 

9 fact that my chicken scratch may not be real legible or 

10 legible at all, okay. But I know Melanie is capturing 

11 this. And I'm just going to go down the list and suggest 

12 a topic to start with. 

13 But we had changes in technology. An 

14 example is small modular reactors over a near term, 

15 three to ten year timeframe. Bill Dornsife phrased the 

16 generic exemption, giving the example of what's 

17 happening in Texas with Waste Control Specialists. And 

18 that might have a lot of implications. 

19 Recent power plant decommissioning, Dan 

20 Shrum talked about that. What are the implications, 

21 labor force, resources of disposal facilities? 

22 GTCC was mentioned by a number of people. 

23 And Christine brought up the new DOE facilities, what 

24 are the implications for commercial. Mike, climate 

25 change and the resulting perhaps increase in the need 
 80 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 for nuclear power plants. 

2 Ralph was concerned we needed a long 

3 strategic horizon tied to the new nuclear power plants 

4 that are coming on. Rusty talked about, I think he used 

5 the term domino effect, okay, the changes in Part 61, 

6 and used the example of depleted uranium. 

7 Then we came over, and this was first said 

8 by Bill Dornsife, as a community how do we deal with the 

9 scarcity in disposal sites. Ralph brought up this, we 

10 need to do a gap analysis. And I think that, Ralph, the 

11 gap analysis could cover a lot of these points. 

12 You know, the NRC is working on a strategic 

13 assessment. But as you're suggesting, perhaps, one 

14 topic on that assessment might be to do a gap analysis. 

15 Although whether that's totally within the NRC's 

16 regulatory jurisdiction is another question. But 

17 someone might do that. 

18 Waste classification, waste incidental to 

19 large events like Fukushima, as an example, Rusty 

20 brought up sealed sources, financial responsibility, 

21 tracking. 

22 So this is going to be a great discussion, 

23 already a lot of good ideas for the NRC to consider here. 

24 And I was going to suggest that maybe we start with the 

25 GTCC and the new DOE facilities. And I say that, 
 81 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Christine, you have your tent up. Why don't you tell 

2 us what's on your mind. And then maybe we'll move to 

3 the discussion of GTCC. 

4 MS. GELLES: Thank you, I appreciate it. 

5 So Ralph's thought about the gap analysis really 

6 resonated with me. 

7 And, you know, from the standpoint of waste 

8 classification here, as here you wrote it down, is in 

9 the context of the waste classification tables, the 

10 classes of low-level waste. But more broadly, public 

11 perceptions to include their understanding and 

12 agreement to broader waste classification questions of 

13 what waste is low-level waste, maybe risk informing a 

14 definition of what is high-level waste. Because that 

15 might have an impact on what is not high-level waste, 

16 and therefore is potentially low-level waste. 

17 These are matters that I think need to be 

18 considered. And I'm wondering, Ralph, if your gap 

19 analysis can include those sort of broad, softer human 

20 issues. 

21 And then related to that, you know, our 

22 regulatory structure, the Low-Level Waste Policy Act 

23 amendments, it may well need to be revisited because of 

24 the developments that are happening in the limited 

25 Rulemaking on Part 61. 
 82 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 So I said this a little bit flippantly on 

2 a panel during the conference, but in a world where waste 

3 classification tables don't exist in 61.55 potentially, 

4 the definition of what is Greater Than Class C, 

5 low-level waste, I mean, Greater Than Class C ceases to 

6 exist if there's not a Class C definition. Because 

7 there isn't a table. 

8 So I think that we need to be thinking about 

9 how there's connections between these issues. And that 

10 brings me to Greater Than Class C low-level waste. 

11 So Greater Than Class C low-level waste, 

12 not in homogenous inventory, you know, we generally 

13 break up the inventory amongst activated metals which 

14 has by and large the majority of the actual 

15 radioactivity of concern. 

16 But then there are sealed sources which, in 

17 terms of the estimate we have, and it's based on a lot 

18 of complicated assumptions, but the estimate we have of 

19 what's in storage today or will be generated over the 

20 next 30 years from facilities or operations that are in 

21 process, sealed sources make up nearly half of that 

22 inventory. 

23 And while it's a small inventory relative 

24 to the volumes that the Department of Energy manages 

25 annually, it's less than 6,000 cubic meters, sealed 
 83 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 sources are small. So if they're making up, you know, 

2 as much as a half of that, that's a lot of sources. 

3 You know, not all sources are small, but 

4 many of them are small. And they present that security 

5 concern, the non-proliferation, the RDD concerns. So 

6 there's got to a driver there for that. 

7 And then there's a third category which is 

8 everything else, any other radioactive debris or 

9 equipment that exceeds Class C levels. I want to 

10 clarify that the term Greater Than Class C-like is not 

11 a waste classification that the Department of Energy 

12 has. It's a descriptive term we used to describe and 

13 differentiate the volumes of waste that the Department 

14 of Energy was also analyzing in the EIS, but that did 

15 not have a disposal pathway. 

16 And that included non-defense transuranic 

17 waste. So we need to be clear that when we have 

18 discussions of could Texas or another Agreement State 

19 regulate the disposal of GTCC-like waste, if it's 

20 transuranic waste, it has a defined, you know, need for 

21 a geologic disposal. 

22 We don't dispose of transuranic waste as a 

23 matter of practice in near surface disposal facilities 

24 at DOE. We send them to WIPP. So the WIPP Land 

25 Withdrawal Act, with its defense only designation, is 
 84 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 another one of those statutory constraints that perhaps 

2 needs to be revisited in the context of us managing a 

3 really fully thought out radioactive waste management 

4 program as a Nation that, I think, would be greatly 

5 informed by a gap analysis such as the one that Ralph 

6 described. 

7 MR. CAMERON: So a lot of things could fit 

8 under the gap analysis. And, I guess, one question for 

9 all of you to think about, and we're going to go to Bill 

10 and see what Greg wants to add, is that how much of a 

11 starting point on a gap analysis could the DOE, FEIS fill 

12 in terms of providing this information? 

13 MS. GELLES: I mean, I think it's an 

14 important part of a gap analysis. I don't know if it's 

15 even a quarter of what needs to be addressed. But it's 

16 an important part, because it brings with it many of 

17 these softer human issues that we're talking about. 

18 So given that there's some heterogeneity 

19 amongst the GTCC inventory, our analysis, you know, was 

20 conducted in a hybrid, sort of a multi-dimensional 

21 level. So we provided for the possibility of multiple 

22 solutions. 

23 Maybe there's a different disposal 

24 recommendation for different sub-sets of the GTCC 

25 waste. And while our draft DIS did not contain a 
 85 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 preferred alternative, our final will. But the 

2 viability of finding those details within the preferred 

3 alternative is challenging for us for many reasons 

4 having to do with public acceptance and eventual impacts 

5 on commercial markets. 

6 So we are not certain when we're going to 

7 produce the GTCC EIS in its final form. We're actively 

8 working on it. We're actively thinking about it. 

9 But, I guess, what I'm saying is there are 

10 some human factors that are affecting the ultimate 

11 recommendation where the technical analysis is very 

12 clear. Near surface disposal could be protective for 

13 GTCC waste. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Good, that's a good 

15 start to a discussion of GTCC. And I think that we're 

16 going to always have this underlying concept here 

17 running underneath all this discussion of the gap 

18 analysis. So I think you should always keep that in 

19 mind. That may be an organizing framework for all of 

20 this. 

21 And just a second point is that second 

22 bullet up there which should remain on the list and how 

23 they should be prioritized. I think we may be morphing 

24 that into this discussion also. So keep that in mind. 

25 And, Greg, did you have a clarification you 
 86 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 wanted to put before we go to Bill and Dan? 

2 MR. SUBER: Yes, yes. Actually I did. 

3 When you talk about a gap analysis, I know we've done 

4 gap analysis in the past. In fact, when we were looking 

5 at reprocessing Rulemaking, we performed a gap analysis 

6 to see what our current regulatory framework called out 

7 and what types of waste would lie outside of that 

8 framework. 

9 Therefore, we would need additional 

10 regulations to find a home so that wouldn't be orphan 

11 waste that we were producing during the reprocessing 

12 cycle. 

13 In addition, we have started doing a gap 

14 analysis for GTCC. The challenge of course is, you 

15 know, GTCC has no ceiling and Class A has no floor. So 

16 it's a wide variety of things that could go in. 

17 And you talked about the heterogeneity of 

18 the waste itself. So can you help me understand a 

19 little better whether you're talking about a technical 

20 or regulatory gap analysis or both? And what would be 

21 helpful, and what type of analysis would be most useful? 

22 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And let's hold that 

23 thought. I mean, that's a great question. And we'll 

24 put that in the parking lot for an example. I mean, you 

25 know, I think the gap analysis is something that's 
 87 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 resonating with a lot of people. But what role would 

2 the NRC play in doing a gap analysis. And if you're 

3 doing that, where is that on your strategic assessment? 

4 But let's go to Bill. We're talking about 

5 GTCC. Bill? And then we'll go over to Dan. Bill? 

6 MR. DORNSIFE: Well, I think the most 

7 immediate issue in GTCC is the proper interpretation of 

8 the Federal law licensed by NRC. What does it mean in 

9 terms of Agreement States? 

10 I mean, typically when the words are 

11 licensed under the authority of the NRC, that includes 

12 Agreement States. Because that's a transfer of 

13 authority. So I think that's the most immediate thing. 

14 Because that will help DOE clear up the issues involved 

15 with their final impact statement and also help the 

16 state regulators to understand where they are. 

17 The second issue, I think, a little bit 

18 longer term but still very important is what entity is 

19 going to own and be financially responsible for the 

20 disposal of GTCC? 

21 MR. CAMERON: Let's hear from Dan, and then 

22 we'll go back over to Ralph. But Bill just put a couple 

23 of things on the table for the Agreement State issue that 

24 came up before and who's going to be the organization 

25 ultimately responsible for disposal. So anybody on the 
 88 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 panel has some perspectives on that, let's hear those 

2 too. Dan? 

3 MR. SHRUM: With respect to GTCC, and since 

4 I'm a very rule driven individual, I just want to be 

5 clear, Chip, that I think it's pretty clear that we want 

6 to move this from a medium to a high on the list. And 

7 you said that we're kind of creeping into two. 

8 My question is really for Christine. Is 

9 the DOE ready for this? Is it time to move this from 

10 a medium to a high? Because it really falls within 

11 their jurisdiction. And you're working on the EIS. Is 

12 it time to move this to a high? 

13 MS. GELLES: It's my opinion, my personal 

14 opinion, that the strategic item that was listed as a 

15 medium is not what needs to move forward. Because it's 

16 going to be overtaken by the changes to Part 61. What 

17 needs to move forward is the clarification that Bill 

18 just described. 

19 MR. SUBER: Okay. 

20 MS. GELLES: It's a regulatory licensing 

21 clarification. It's not developing new regulations 

22 for GTCC disposal that define a depth, or a degree of 

23 engineered barriers or a type of disposal facility. 

24 And it gets, fundamentally, I think to the language in 

25 the act that it's a facility licensed by the NRC presumed 
 89 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 that it was going to be a geologic disposal facility, 

2 much like the high-level waste disposal facility is to 

3 be licensed by the NRC. 

4 And the answer to your question is the same 

5 as for high-level waste. It is a Department of Energy 

6 Federal responsibility to site and fund that disposal 

7 facility, both the high-level waste one and the Greater 

8 Than Class C low-level waste one. 

9 But given that our analysis now has 

10 informed our opinion that near-surface disposal can be 

11 acceptable for at least some of the GTCC population, we 

12 believe that the appropriate place for that is in Part 

13 61. And if you change Part 61, you don't need new rules. 

14 That's my personal opinion. 

15 MR. CAMERON: I'm sorry, Christine, could 

16 you just repeat the last thing that you said? 

17 MS. GELLES: If you go to site specific 

18 performance assessment in Part 61, as seems to be the 

19 way that we're going, you don't necessarily, and again 

20 not withstanding an outstanding question about what 

21 happens with waste classification tables, you do not 

22 need to promulgate specific regulations for the 

23 disposal of GTCC low-level waste if a site specific PA 

24 would demonstrate it can be accepted. 

25 MR. DORNSIFE: But my issue, Christine, 
 90 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 when Brad brought up the ownership and financial 

2 responsibility, was for us, obviously, which cell would 

3 it have to go in in terms of who owns it. And secondly, 

4 who would pay for it? It's not who would finance the 

5 disposal facility. It's the waste itself. 

6 MS. GELLES: Okay. I also believe that 

7 the act is clear on that and that the generators have 

8 to bear financial responsibility for the cost of their 

9 waste being disposed. 

10 So one of the reporting requirements we 

11 have, and it's long been in existence, since '85, is to 

12 provide Congress with information on what would be the 

13 cost of pricing structure for GTCC disposal so that it 

14 could be, they can evaluate it, and it's a reasonable 

15 cost recovery process. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And we're going to 

17 hear a comment from Dave Esh in a minute on this and 

18 perhaps Larry Camper. But Dan asked Christine a 

19 question about is it time to move GTCC to a high 

20 priority. 

21 And I think Christine's answer was yes, but 

22 not from the perspective, I think that what you said, 

23 my interpretation of where it is on the medium priority 

24 list is now passé. And even though it might be high 

25 priority, it has to be looked at through a different 
 91 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 lens. 

2 MS. GELLES: Yes. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. All right. David? 

4 DR. ESH: I just wanted to clarify that I 

5 believe if you look at the existing regulations the 

6 requirements apply to the, the technical requirements 

7 in there apply to the near surface disposal of 

8 radioactive waste which is defined as the upper 30 

9 meters. So depending on the disposal alternative, 

10 there may, in fact, be a need to produce requirements, 

11 technical requirements suitable to analyze the other 

12 situation. 

13 MR. DORNSIFE: Well, let me ask a silly 

14 question then. If the disposal cell is deeper than 30 

15 meters -- 

16 MR. CAMERON: Bill, you're going to have to 

17 -- 

18 MR. DORNSIFE: If a disposal cell is deeper 

19 than 30 meters, is it still shallow land disposal? I 

20 mean, the bottom of our cells is deeper than 30 meters. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And again, I think we 

22 just need to keep in mind here what we're trying to do 

23 is to identify areas that should be on a higher priority 

24 or a lower priority in terms of the NRC's strategic 

25 assessment. So we may not be treating this as a seminar 
 92 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 on everything about GTCC, okay. If I got that acronym 

2 correct. 

3 MR. SUBER: Can Christine just clarify a 

4 little bit more what she meant when she said, she said 

5 something very different. She said that the way GTCC 

6 is explained in our chart is not the question that the 

7 NRC should be addressing. If she could just go into a 

8 little bit more depth about what she thinks we should 

9 actually be looking at right now. 

10 MR. CAMERON: And Greg, that's I think the 

11 premier question. If you wouldn't mind just -- 

12 MS. GELLES: You bet. 

13 MR. CAMERON: -- talking about -- 

14 MS. GELLES: And I'm sorry I didn't have 

15 the exact wording in front of me when I was making that 

16 comment. So in the list of medium priority activities, 

17 developing licensing criteria for Greater Than Class C, 

18 GTCC, disposal facility. 

19 My point is I don't think it's time to move 

20 forward on that specific action in front of Part 61 being 

21 revised or in front of this question of can an Agreement 

22 State regulate a facility that accepts any commercial 

23 GTCC waste. 

24 And, I mean, I agree with what they've said. 

25 Depending on what, getting back to my heterogeneity 
 93 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 point, depending on what the preferred alternative or 

2 chosen disposition facility is, disposal facility 

3 design is for each of the subsets of Greater Than Class 

4 C low-level waste, if some of that GTCC population is 

5 going to a facility that's not addressed by Part 61, then 

6 perhaps there would be some need for licensing criteria. 

7 But until such time that we complete the 

8 EIS, provide a report to Congress and receive their 

9 direction on how to proceed, I think proceeding with 

10 developing a single set of licensing criteria is 

11 premature. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And I think that's a 

13 pretty good expression of what you wanted to hear -- 

14 MR. SUBER: Yes, it is. 

15 MR. CAMERON: -- Greg. And let me go to 

16 the name tents that are up on this issue. And let me 

17 make sure that the NRC understands the point. Because 

18 it goes directly to the strategic assessment point. 

19 Larry, I'm coming back to you. I'm coming 

20 back to you. I want to go to, we'll go to Ralph, and 

21 then Rusty and then Earl. And then we'll get a point 

22 from Larry. 

23 MR. ANDERSON: I hate to do it this way. 

24 I'd like to hear what Larry was going to say. Because 

25 I have a hunch it's relevant to -- 
 94 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Well, good. Larry? 

2 MR. CAMPER: Thank you, Ralph, for that 

3 deference. The facilitator didn't do that. 

4 (Laughter) 

5 (Off the record comments) 

6 MR. CAMPER: That's right. The point I 

7 wanted to make is, when we talk about the GTCC issue, 

8 there are two camps of logic that you've got to think 

9 about. One is the legal policy question. 

10 And I mentioned earlier that we want to meet 

11 with DOE soon about this. But based on our discussions 

12 with the Office of General Counsel, it's pretty clear 

13 that our view is that's an assigned Federal 

14 responsibility as specifically articulated in the 

15 Low-level Waste Policy Act of '85 as amended. 

16 However, having said that though, it's also 

17 very clear that the Commission, when it created 

18 61.55(a)(2)(iv), recognized a number of things, not 

19 exclusive Federal ownership of a site, the role of the 

20 Agreement States, something other than a deep geologic 

21 disposal. 

22 So what we've got to do is work our way 

23 through that legal policy question. But a subset of 

24 that legal policy question is that if you look in Part 

25 61 right now, recognize that Greater Than Class C waste 
 95 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 is specifically articulated is not suitable for near 

2 surface disposal. 

3 Now that raises an intriguing question. 

4 Because Christine is right. We've got this ongoing 

5 Rulemaking that focuses upon the role of a site specific 

6 performance assessment for near surface disposal. 

7 MR. DORNSIFE: Which specifically says it 

8 could include Greater Than Class C. 

9 MR. CAMPER: But it's also defined as 

10 within 30 meters. So what do we do about that policy 

11 issue as well? And then the other side of the 

12 consideration is, even if you assume that a low-level 

13 waste specific site assessment could encompass GTCC 

14 waste, are there any minimalistic technical criteria 

15 that should be articulated for inclusion within that 

16 site specific performance assessment? Are there? 

17 I'm not sitting here, you know, pre-judging 

18 that there are. But it's a question we're going to have 

19 to run to ground. So the point I want to make is we do 

20 want to have a separate workshop probably later this 

21 year, this summer or early fall, around GTCC. 

22 And in the meantime, we'll be running to 

23 ground these legal policy questions so we can speak to 

24 that. And then we'll focus upon the technical 

25 criteria, whatever it is and if there should be some. 
 96 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 So just wanted to give you that waterfront (phonetic) 

2 to think about. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Larry. And 

4 given, I think, that's a nice segway about the workshop, 

5 because I think that what we need to do is what I want 

6 to do, is to go to Brad, and Rusty and Earl on GTCC. And 

7 then I think we need to go to the next issue at this 

8 point. And I'm sorry, not Brad, Ralph, Ralph, and Rusty 

9 and Earl. So go ahead. And did Larry -- 

10 MR. BROUSSARD: And Larry's sitting close. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Did Larry -- 

12 (Off the record comments) 

13 MR. ANDERSON: But I'm glad I did defer to 

14 Larry. And that was the point I wanted to make. It 

15 seems to me that looking at these issues too much in a 

16 vacuum, and looking at them as though they were stand 

17 alone issues, is part of the reason why I think we need, 

18 for want of a better name, a gap analysis. 

19 I've been intrigued over the years, dating 

20 back to when the concept of Greater Than Class C was 

21 invented, of how the terms that are used have become 

22 irrelevant. 

23 The quantitative definition of Greater 

24 Than Class C as embodied in legislation, to quote one 

25 of our colleagues from earlier, doesn't reflect the 
 97 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 state-of-the-art and doesn't really reflect our current 

2 understanding of adequate protection of health and 

3 safety which is the NRC's primary mission. 

4 Over time, that quantitative definition 

5 has moved away from a direct relationship to our 

6 understanding of protection of health and safety. And 

7 let me say, I think it's thoroughly protective, it's 

8 just that it may be protective by orders of magnitude 

9 now in some cases. 

10 And then secondly, I'm intrigued by how 

11 Greater Than Class C illustrates how unclear the thought 

12 of unsuitable for shallow land disposal has come. I'd 

13 like to think that many, many years ago we kind of knew 

14 what that meant. 

15 But I'll just tell you that the model we 

16 were looking at was represented by the sites that were 

17 in existence at that time, not the sites that were being 

18 envisioned for the future. And some of them aren't in 

19 operation anymore for good reason. 

20 So, you know, I'd just comment that even 

21 that concept of not suitable for shallow land disposal 

22 kind of begs the question of what do you mean by shallow 

23 land disposal? 

24 And I point to Bill's comment that, you 

25 know, I don't think Texas as it sits today is what we 
 98 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 had in mind when we were inventing all these terms and 

2 these laws. You know, I'd look at the site down there, 

3 and I'd say, well, that isn't anything like the picture 

4 that we had in our heads in those days. 

5 So the only point I wanted to make about 

6 that is taking Greater Than Class C, I think, is an 

7 excellent example for NRC to take on for several 

8 reasons. 

9 One is dealing with the issue of not having 

10 state-of-the-art understandings embedded in the issue. 

11 Two is a revisiting of the correlation of reasonable 

12 assurance and adequate protection of health and safety 

13 versus the costs that are going to be incurred. 

14 Because, frankly, the nuclear power industry and its 

15 consumers of electricity are going to pay for it one way 

16 or the other. 

17 And then thirdly, is the notion of how it 

18 crosses party lines in a way that NRC can't make its 

19 decisions in a vacuum in terms of its colleague, sister 

20 agency, Department of Energy. 

21 The Environmental Protection Agency, who 

22 is out working on a new 40 CFR 190 right now, even though 

23 it's not specifically focused on waste disposal, it's 

24 going to beg questions. So I just think it's the right 

25 issue for NRC to think about in terms of reformatting 
 99 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 how it would do the next strategic assessment. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I mean, it sounds 

3 like some of the things that you and others are saying, 

4 is that there's a new paradigm now, okay, that, you know, 

5 that's good. Rusty, and then Earl, and then let's see 

6 what our next topic is. Rusty? 

7 MR. LUNDBERG: Okay, thank you. I think 

8 that segways exactly to what I wanted to add here too. 

9 If this is a paradigm shift or a moving away from a more 

10 traditional view of the framework for low-level waste, 

11 I think that it's appropriate to also posit right now 

12 the opportunity to look at how you want to engage the 

13 public in outreach and education about this kind of a 

14 shift as well. 

15 Because some of the issues that are raised 

16 here about perhaps it is suitable for near surface 

17 disposal is one that will take some opportunity for 

18 education. 

19 I'm not saying that's supportive. But I'm 

20 just saying that I think a component of this is that with 

21 a significant shift like this you have to also add in 

22 the idea of engaging the public enough to inform them. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Good, good. Thank you, 

24 Rusty. And Earl? 

25 MR. FORDHAM: I'd like to take a little bit 
 100 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 further down what Larry had said is, you know, the 

2 shallow land barrier acceptance of, you know, Class A, 

3 B and C, all this is going to be based on a performance 

4 assessment that each site runs. 

5 Just down the road from me is a Department 

6 of Energy facility that can take Class B, in my world, 

7 it would be Class B unpackaged cesium because of their 

8 site specific performance assessment. 

9 Along that same idea though is they do have 

10 a performance assessment that will indicate some level 

11 that is the upper limit. Now, you will set an activity 

12 limit for maybe more than just the standard isotopes 

13 that we have in 61.55 right now, or it may actually 

14 reduce it. 

15 It would be up to each individual site as 

16 they run through the performance assessment. But 

17 you're always going to end up with, it may not be called 

18 GTCC, but it's going to be called unacceptable for, you 

19 know, near surface burial. And we can redefine that 

20 somehow. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Earl. So 

22 there's a lot of great conversation about GTCC. And gap 

23 analysis has been mentioned several times to address a 

24 number of issues. 

25 There were a number of topics brought up 
 101 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 that relate to changes in technology with the 

2 implications that are the longer horizon in terms of the 

3 new plants that are being built, the point that Dan 

4 raised about more plants being decommissioned, Mike's 

5 comment about climate change. 

6 Where do we want to go next in looking? It 

7 seems to me that a number of those topics might be lumped 

8 under a single discussion. But I don't want to forget 

9 Christine's point about new DOE construction. Should 

10 we just, can we go there? 

11 MS. GELLES: Yes. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

13 MS. GELLES: And perhaps this one can be 

14 dealt with very quickly. I just wanted to acknowledge 

15 that DOE is contemplating the development through a 

16 regulatory decision making process of three new, what 

17 we would call CERCLA disposal facilities to support the 

18 large facility decommissioning efforts that are going 

19 to take place at Paducah and at Portsmouth from the 

20 former gas use diffusion plants. 

21 But also a replacement, a second CERCLA 

22 disposal facility at the Oak Ridge Reservation is to 

23 support continued D&D of the nuclear facilities that are 

24 at that reservation, whether it's from the Y-12 facility 

25 which is run by NNSA, Oak Ridge National Laboratory or 
 102 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the completion of ETTP which was the first gas use 

2 diffusion plant for us to D&D. 

3 And the practical implications of creating 

4 these large facilities for the receipt of large volumes 

5 of construction or of contaminated facility debris or 

6 contaminated soils, as a result, takes that out of the 

7 market of going to either one of our DOE regional 

8 disposal facilities, the Federal waste disposal 

9 facility, Waste Control Specialists or Clive. As well 

10 as, if there was only some slightly contaminated, what 

11 could go to the exempt facilities or the permitted 

12 facilities that aren't licensed? 

13 So it's going to have an impact on the DOE 

14 wastes that are received in commercial facilities which 

15 could have an impact on the market and, I don't know, 

16 maybe the operability and financial decisions of those 

17 facilities. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's pull that 

19 thread that Christine just raised then, the 

20 implications for commercial disposal. And, Ralph, is 

21 that something you wanted to talk to? Let's go to Ralph 

22 and then Bill. 

23 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, just a simple comment. 

24 You had listed a number of things and talked about 

25 lumping together. And this is kind of driven by 
 103 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Christine's comments. 

2 Something I've been used to over the years, 

3 whenever we've done strategic planning, is that you lay 

4 out scenarios for planning purposes in which you 

5 describe sort of an expected case scenario. 

6 And then you develop a high impacting 

7 scenario and then a low impacting scenario. And in 

8 doing strategic planning, then you can prioritize, and 

9 then you give thought to what would be the implications 

10 if things went differently. 

11 And it seems to me that's one way to kind 

12 of lump those things together is for NRC to consider 

13 postulating some scenarios when they get into this 

14 process of public engagement and stakeholder engagement 

15 for the strategic assessment. 

16 It can be helpful to say, in our primary 

17 thinking, imagine that it's going to go like this in the 

18 low-level waste arena. It could go like that, and that 

19 has specific implications. Then it could quick go like 

20 something else, and that has specific implications. 

21 And that may be something that's lacking in 

22 trying to get our hands around the implications of some 

23 of these issues we have on our list, including what 

24 Christine referred to. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's -- Christine? 
 104 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MS. GELLES: I think Ralph, he's on to 

2 something there. So a few of the other ones that were 

3 listed was maybe it's time to start thinking about the 

4 next facilities, the next disposal facilities, having 

5 a longer time planning horizon for the Strategic 

6 Assessment. 

7 If we are unable to obtain regulatory 

8 approval to site one or more of those new CERCLA disposal 

9 facilities then there will be large volumes that will 

10 go offsite, and whether they go to a DOE disposal 

11 facility could be a function of political 

12 acceptability, it could also be a cost decision of 

13 whether it goes to a commercial facility and that could 

14 accelerate the use of the available capacities at those 

15 facilities as well. 

16 MR. CAMERON: And before we, and I'm glad 

17 Greg has his card up, but before we go to Bill I guess 

18 that one of the things I'm hearing and I need to check 

19 in with the NRC on this is that this is sounding much 

20 like strategic assessment for low-level waste disposal. 

21 Generally, things that might go outside of 

22 the NRC's Strategic Assessment, okay, that doesn't mean 

23 that it wouldn't be useful for the NRC to be the laboring 

24 oar, so to speak, to do those things, but, Ralph, in 

25 terms of that process you just talked about I just want 
 105 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 to be clear on how that relates to the gap analysis that 

2 we've been talking about? 

3 In other words, could that be the same 

4 thing? 

5 MR. ANDERSON: I think it could be. I mean 

6 both would seem integral to kind of a first stage of 

7 strategic planning. A comment I would make though is 

8 that even in the context of NRC's mission of adequate 

9 protection of health and safety it seems to me that it's 

10 very far ranging in that NRC's obligation is to assure 

11 that all bases are covered in terms of adequate 

12 protection of health and safety. 

13 And so I don't think it's NRC moving out of 

14 its scope to recognize where it needs additional input 

15 and information to make narrow decisions within the 

16 context of regulation for public health and safety 

17 purposes. 

18 You know, it's not that NRC isn't going to 

19 move out into those spaces and try to influence that, 

20 it's rather that NRC needs to take into consideration 

21 the adequacy of its regulations for its fundamental 

22 mission. 

23 MR. CAMERON: So all of this could be tied 

24 to that -- 

25 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 
 106 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. CAMERON: -- because all of them might 

2 have implications for DOE's mission. Bill, let’s hear 

3 from you and then we'll go to Greg and ask Greg and Larry 

4 some questions here. Bill? 

5 MR. DORNSIFE: Yes, I have no problem with 

6 the DOE using cost-effective waste disposal solutions 

7 because it saves taxpayer dollars. The problem I have 

8 is how you define what's cost effective. 

9 It's not a level playing field. You need 

10 to include complete life cycle costs of disposal, not 

11 just, you know, the operational cost when you're 

12 comparing options, and I think the commercial folks 

13 would be very happy if that playing field were level and 

14 we were fairly competing. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Bill. 

16 And, Greg, you've been listening to this discussion and 

17 it's a, you know, a broad idea of strategic assessment 

18 and I think people think that it's within NRC's scope 

19 to do something like this. 

20 And, you know, I know Melanie is listening 

21 to all of this and she's sort of the point person on 

22 strategic assessment, but I think you're hearing some 

23 things that might lead you to maybe take a different 

24 vision of strategic assessment. But what do you want 

25 to say about these things? 
 107 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. SUBER: Well I just want to get a kind 

2 of a better understanding of what we can do and as a 

3 Segway, I'll make a statement. When we first embarked 

4 on the Rulemaking, which started off as a unique, the 

5 DU Rulemaking, a unique waste streams Rulemaking, and 

6 now it's the site-specific analysis Rulemaking. 

7 One thing that we tried to do, and I don't 

8 know if we succeeded, we tried to revise the rule in a 

9 forward thinking way. What I'm trying to say is we 

10 tried to revise the rule not just to apply to existing 

11 facilities. 

12 As we gathered the information for the rule 

13 we understood a lot of things. Number one, we 

14 understood that our current practices were very 

15 different than what was envisioned when the rule was 

16 made. 

17 We realized that there were technology 

18 improvements, so on and so forth. And so we tried to 

19 incorporate that thinking into the rule and that's why 

20 in a lot of places in a rule we try to incorporate maximum 

21 flexibility. 

22 Maximum flexibility for whether it would be 

23 an Agreement State regulator, or the NRC who is 

24 approving the rule. So if I could get some more 

25 specific examples of what particular parts of the rule 
 108 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 as it is proposed, would not address the fact that the 

2 DOE may make a decision to use a commercial facility and 

3 that another commercial facility may come up on the 

4 horizon. 

5 What part of the rule that we are proposing 

6 would hamper that or what are we missing? Do we have 

7 a blind spot that we didn't consider when we did the 

8 site-specific analyses Rulemaking? 

9 MR. CAMERON: And let me re-frame that a 

10 little bit. You heard what Greg asked and I just, in 

11 listening to this conversation, are there suggestions 

12 that perhaps the focus on the rule is perhaps too narrow 

13 at this point that it shouldn't be the driver? 

14 I mean I don't -- I'm just trying to get a 

15 clarification on that part. Christine? 

16 MS. GELLES: Well first, Greg, I thought I 

17 did not have an answer to your question but then I was 

18 thinking about this and I think maybe if I draw a 

19 corollary to the DOE's Radioactive Waste Management 

20 Policy and the way we define waste classes, and it's 

21 high-level waste, transuranic waste, low-level waste. 

22 So we have been long doing site-specific 

23 performance assessments to inform the development of 

24 waste acceptance criteria for each of our DOE low-level 

25 waste disposal facilities and the WAC for those 
 109 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 facilities differ depending upon the hydrology and 

2 geology and the design of those specific facilities, but 

3 they're performance based. 

4 Now if we receive a low-level waste stream 

5 at a DOE facility we're not giving it, generally, with 

6 very few exceptions, any consideration of how it would 

7 be classified within Part 61. 

8 So I think the potential blind spot is if 

9 you're moving Part 61 to site-specific performance 

10 assessments you no longer have a need to classify A, B, 

11 C or GTCC. And the moment you realize that you realize 

12 that we've impacted a clear definition of what the 

13 Federal responsibilities are for the Department of 

14 Energy in siting a GTCC disposal facility. 

15 So the blind spot is thinking through the 

16 implications of State and Federal responsibilities for 

17 a category of waste that for all practical purposes will 

18 cease to exist because the site-specific PAs, as Earl 

19 said, are going to change, it's going to drive that. 

20 Is that clear? I'm not certain I'm 

21 articulating it as clearly as I want to, but -- 

22 MR. SUBER: Yes, I understand that one of 

23 the first things you have to do when you're shipping 

24 waste for disposal is you have to classify it. And what 

25 you're saying is that if you have a WAC that already says 
 110 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 this particular sealed source can be adequately 

2 disposed of at my site then what relevance is that 

3 classification, whether it's GTCC, Class C, Class B. 

4 Am I -- Okay. 

5 MS. GELLES: Let me be more direct. 

6 MR. SUBER: Okay. 

7 MS. GELLES: It gets to the issue of what 

8 is a Federal waste under the definition of the Low-Level 

9 Waste Policy Act. So DOE is responsible for waste 

10 generated by the Department of Energy, well we're AEC 

11 and, you know, the predecessor agencies. 

12 We're responsible for providing disposal 

13 of waste generated through the decommissioning of the 

14 nuclear submarines of the Navy and for classified waste 

15 associated with the production of atomic weapons, that 

16 could be classified from the Department of Defense. 

17 That means if they can't go anywhere else 

18 we have to provide for their disposal, it's a Federal 

19 waste. Those are the three, Paragraph A, B, and C, that 

20 are acceptable for disposal at the WCS Federal Waste 

21 Disposal Facility because they're a DOE responsibility. 

22 So the only people who can get waste into 

23 that Fed Cell are the Department of Energy, even if it 

24 comes from one of those other Federal agencies, but it's 

25 because it's a DOE responsibility to provide disposal. 
 111 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 The same exists, I believe, now we, DOE, 

2 also use commercial facilities for the DOE generated 

3 waste. If we send a low-level waste item to a DOE 

4 disposal facility it's low-level waste and it meets our 

5 performance assessment. 

6 We run, you know, we evaluate it against the 

7 WAC. If it triggers some limit in the WAC we do a 

8 special analysis to prove to ourselves that it can 

9 safely be disposed, that happens day in and day out at 

10 the Nevada National Security Site Disposal Facility. 

11 It happens at Hanford for Hanford generated 

12 waste. It happens at Savannah River for Savannah River 

13 generated waste. But if I take that same waste and make 

14 a cost-effective decision to send it to WCS, now I have 

15 to apply the Part 61 tables, the 61.55 tables. 

16 And if it exceeds Class C it can't go to 

17 their cell today. But my point is, is if you adopt a 

18 site-specific performance assessment based on Part 61 

19 that changes, unless you're still limiting it. 

20 So I mean if their facility is robust enough 

21 to take Greater Than Class C low-level waste because 

22 their site-specific PA says they can then, you know, is 

23 that going to be consistent with the revision of Part 

24 61 or not because what really they would be taking is 

25 Greater Than Class C low-level waste? 
 112 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And I'm going to go to 

2 Bill and then let me check in with anybody, I see -- Yes, 

3 I saw Ralph and I saw Earl shaking their heads in 

4 agreement when Christine was talking. 

5 Let’s see if anybody wants to say anything 

6 on this and then I'll make sure that Larry understands 

7 this, see what he has to say about it and then maybe move 

8 on to a new topic, changes and technology, because we 

9 do have the public that we have to hear from on all of 

10 this fascinating discussion. Bill? 

11 MR. DORNSIFE: I totally agree with you, 

12 Christine, when it concerns Federal DOE owned waste. 

13 The issue is with the commercial waste and the 

14 definition in the Federal law that could create, having 

15 two different classification systems could create 

16 orphan waste. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Larry, I know you 

18 were out for a little bit, but, you know, have you heard 

19 this discussion in terms of a new paradigm, the 

20 strategic assessment look at a broad range of issues in 

21 terms of low-level waste and how that might have 

22 implications for what the NRC does, I mean what's your 

23 perspective on this? 

24 MR. CAMPER: Well there are several things 

25 that come to mind listening to this discussion. First, 
 113 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 from a purely management operational perspective if you 

2 will, I mean what we're interested in in our update of 

3 the LLW SA is those things that are currently under NRC's 

4 regulatory purview as clearly articulated by law. 

5 And one of those things that, you know, like 

6 the list that you saw in Melanie's presentation, what 

7 are those things, how should they be re-stacked and the 

8 pecking order, or are there other things, and it's 

9 purely operational. 

10 The idea that looking at low-level waste 

11 disposal in the United States from a larger strategic 

12 vantage point if you will, certainly makes a lot of 

13 sense. 

14 You know, Ralph refers to it as a gap 

15 analysis, Christine refers to certain developments that 

16 might take place in DOE, and I think there is value in 

17 doing that and I think the NRC could play a role in it. 

18 I'm not certain that we're supposed to lead 

19 that given our charge to protect public health and 

20 safety, depending how you want to interpret that, Ralph. 

21 But the other thing is around this 

22 classification discussion just remember though what the 

23 Commission has directed the staff to do at this point 

24 in time is to add an "or" pathway. 

25 There is no elimination of the 
 114 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 classification table as currently directed by the 

2 Commission, rather it's to add an "or" pathway using the 

3 WAC and that's the charge the staff is working toward. 

4 Now the classification system in and of 

5 itself has a long standing history of utility in the 

6 United States. It's clearly well established, it's 

7 embodied within a number of laws, Federal and State, 

8 that would have to be changed or impacted in some fashion 

9 if the classification system were to not exist. 

10 So that's a much broader issue than what we 

11 have on our plate at this point in time. I would say 

12 though that the kinds of comments that I'm hearing about 

13 the role of the Waste Classification System are the 

14 kinds of comments that are prime time for the public 

15 comment period around the Rulemaking. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. And I know 

17 that one of Larry's staff wants to add some 

18 clarifications on Larry's comment and we'll get to you, 

19 Boby. 

20 MR. SHRUM: No, that's fine. 

21 MR. CAMERON: I want to hear -- Pardon me? 

22 MR. SHRUM: That's fine. Do you want to 

23 have Chris talk, is that who you meant? 

24 MR. CAMERON: No, no, Boby wanted to say 

25 something. 
 115 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. SHRUM: Oh, okay. 

2 MR. CAMERON: But I wanted to go to you 

3 first. 

4 MR. SHRUM: Well I just wanted to go on. 

5 MR. CAMERON: To another topic? 

6 MR. SHRUM: Yes. 

7 (Laughter) 

8 MR. CAMERON: I think that's probably an 

9 excellent suggestion. 

10 MR. SHRUM: Because it appears that we're 

11 still talking GTCC. It -- I think that -- 

12 MR. CAMERON: No. I think we're -- 

13 MR. SHRUM: -- it actually came back to 

14 that so I just would like to -- 

15 MR. CAMERON: Yes. Okay. 

16 MR. SHRUM: It was (inaudible) limit. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Boby, did you have a quick 

18 clarification you wanted to offer and then we're going 

19 to go on. 

20 (Crosstalk) 

21 MR. EID: Well my name is Boby Eid, I'm with 

22 the U.S. NRC and I work with Larry. I just wanted to 

23 make a clarification. There was a question about the 

24 30 meters and why 30 meters. Bill, he mentioned that 

25 and why not cannot be more than 30 meters. 
 116 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 I just wanted to mention that under NRC 

2 regulations in the definition of 61.2, the definition, 

3 defines near surface disposal as a facility with land 

4 disposal in which radioactive waste is disposed of in 

5 or within the upper 30 meters. 

6 So 30 meters is mentioned in NRC 

7 regulations, that's number one. Number two, I wanted 

8 to clarify that there was a question about what can be 

9 disposed at different depths. There is under 61.51, 

10 sorry 50, Paragraph B, it says "disposal sites with the 

11 regulatory requirement for land disposal other than 

12 near surface." 

13 This means we can accommodate according to 

14 the regulation already accommodated under Paragraph B 

15 for disposal not near surface as defined 30 meters. It 

16 can be accommodated, but needs to be explained, but this 

17 is reserved, so this needs further explanation and 

18 that's the point I would like to make about 30 meters. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Boby. 

20 And at least in my view I think if -- You've raised a 

21 number of points about Greater Than Class C, you talked 

22 about a process, what I call a process point in terms 

23 of what the Strategic Assessment/gap analysis should be 

24 looking at, but I think it's a little bit broader than 

25 the NRC's current vision. 
 117 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 And so now we're going to go to a new topic 

2 and I was going to suggest the changes in technology. 

3 Is that a good one to look at this point? Rusty, do you 

4 want to just tee that up for us and we'll talk about that 

5 and then we'll go on to some other topics? 

6 MR. LUNDBERG: Okay, thank you. It's 

7 probably a fairly easy one. When I made my statement 

8 I did say that there's likely not going to be a real 

9 impact from the nuclear power industry. 

10 I did that in context of knowing that there 

11 are other designs for modular reactors out there and 

12 that could offer something. What I was trying to get 

13 to is that was the traditional view, I was trying to 

14 infuse a little bit, if we're trying to look on this time 

15 horizon maybe broadening our view and thinking a little 

16 outside the box might say that there could be advances 

17 in technology and such that I'm not talking about really 

18 changes in the radionuclides that we're dealing with, 

19 it might be the waste form that we're dealing with, a 

20 little bit more on some of those changes and will those 

21 waste forms because of those technological changes 

22 impact the traditional way of looking at final 

23 disposition. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let’s talk about that 

25 and I guess the first question that I think might be 
 118 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 asked of the NRC is, is that type of change in 

2 technology, is that now considered in either the high, 

3 medium, or low priority, or is this a new thing? 

4 MR. SUBER: It sounds to me, and I guess 

5 Chris could probably, just a better -- It sounds to me 

6 that this is kind of new. It sounds kind of like a 

7 variation of some of the things that we are already doing 

8 in a WIR Program where we're looking at waste in 

9 different forms and trying to figure out what's the best 

10 form for disposals. 

11 DOE has several types of techniques they 

12 use in creating a particular waste form and we examine 

13 that, but that's, I think, is that similar to the 

14 technology variations that you're talking about? And 

15 Chris could -- 

16 MR. CAMERON: Chris, please. Introduce 

17 yourself, too, (inaudible). 

18 MR. MCKENNEY: Chris McKenney, NRC. 

19 Before we went into a maintenance mode we used to in the 

20 '90s do a lot of waste form analysis through technical 

21 papers for the actual evaluation of specific waste 

22 forms. 

23 They all had to be approved by the NRC 

24 before a reactor could use a certain concrete or use 

25 bitumen, or whatever process for waste form. But as 
 119 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 part of when we went into maintenance mode we provided 

2 that to allow the States to use that on the, for their 

3 own, for the disposal sites and we had stopped doing 

4 those sort of technical documents. 

5 So, Rusty, are you suggesting something 

6 around that type of thing where we used to do that and 

7 whether we should re-evaluate to the degree that NRC's 

8 involved versus the Agreement States or something else? 

9 MR. LUNDBERG: No, I don't think it was to 

10 envision a more structured approach or to try to make 

11 it more of a regulatory view of this. I think it's just 

12 to say that I think that we, as a strategic assessment 

13 as you look at things, things can change. 

14 MR. MCKENNEY: Right. 

15 MR. LUNDBERG: And the way that technology 

16 advances changes so rapidly I think that sometimes we 

17 sit here and say I can't think of any new waste streams 

18 coming down the pike, but what we're not -- Oh, I think 

19 there's an ability to just pause the idea in this 

20 assessment that technology and those advances that go 

21 with that, even on a short term horizon, can have an 

22 impact. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let’s go to Ralph and 

24 to Bill and then I would just ask the panel, generally, 

25 besides new technologies, new waste forms, is there 
 120 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 anything else in the new technology field that you want 

2 to mention now that the NRC should be looking at? 

3 Ralph, go ahead. 

4 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. In thinking about new 

5 technologies and perhaps Lisa Edwards can make a few 

6 comments later, too, there's the technologies 

7 associated with waste management and there's some very 

8 interesting developments that have been arising there 

9 that I know EPRI's been looking at that affect the types 

10 of waste that one would actually have to dispose of. 

11 And then there's also the issue of new 

12 technologies that generate different waste forms and 

13 different types of waste, you know, fuel reprocessing 

14 is a wide open area, for example. 

15 Dealing with high-level waste, I think back 

16 to Pete Domenici, there was a vision of processes that 

17 would develop different waste streams coming out of 

18 processing of used nuclear fuel, not for reprocessing, 

19 but actually changing the nature of waste. 

20 So small modular reactors are a new 

21 technology that might generate a different waste stream 

22 and there are also other reactor types on the horizon 

23 that might generate different waste streams. Use of 

24 radionuclides in medicine is evolving and changing 

25 virtually by the day that might change different types, 
 121 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 different waste streams. 

2 So I guess what I'm trying to say with that, 

3 I think it's a very appropriate topic and I would just 

4 point to a simple thing that kind of comes back to the 

5 rather simplified strategic assessment that NRC is 

6 currently engaged in. 

7 I look at the waste classification tables 

8 and those have a tendency to either inhibit or 

9 incentivize innovations in waste management 

10 technology. 

11 If you gave us updated waste classification 

12 tables there are technologies on the shelf that we could 

13 utilize to virtually make, under the current thought 

14 process, Class B and C waste go away. 

15 I mean they would be such a minute volume 

16 they wouldn't even be relevant anymore. But it's not 

17 worthwhile to do right now under the existing waste 

18 classification tables because we wouldn't derive the 

19 risk-informed benefit of doing that. 

20 So that correlation of new technologies to 

21 the current Strategic Assessment in my mind is vitally 

22 important even if it remains within a rather simplified 

23 approach as it was done in 2007, and even with the 

24 existing list of things. 

25 In my mind waste classification tables 
 122 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 informed by the idea of new technologies, which is, I 

2 don't remember, I think it's a low priority right now, 

3 that would be one of the things that would push that way 

4 up. 

5 MR. CAMERON: With this discussion, what 

6 you're saying is that would push that up into the higher 

7 priority. 

8 MR. ANDERSON: It would change its 

9 priority. It would change -- Yes. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay, let’s go to Bill and 

11 Christine and then I want to go to Dan Shrum's idea that 

12 he brought up earlier. 

13 MR. DORNSIFE: In terms of this new waste 

14 form, I mean you eliminate the radiological 

15 characteristics, all you have is stability and size. I 

16 mean what else can you throw out there that can't be 

17 accommodated and, obviously, you can take care of 

18 stability with re-enforced concrete containers. 

19 And size, you either cut it or, you know, 

20 you dispose of it as a larger component and make it 

21 stable. So I don't know how much effort we ought to 

22 spend on this issue. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Christine? 

24 MS. GELLES: I think I have a slightly 

25 different perspective on that topic from Bill in that 
 123 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 a different waste form could be a different 

2 concentration of the same waste products, or waste 

3 forms, into a smaller volume which, depending on what 

4 happens with waste classification tables, could affect 

5 where it ends up and could affect whether it's GTCC or 

6 Class C. 

7 MR. ANDERSON: I think that's a 

8 radiological. 

9 MS. GELLES: I recognize that, right. So 

10 it is within the red. What I wanted to say was just 

11 maybe, the discussion that Ralph had, and which I 

12 completely agree with, reminded me that not just new 

13 technologies, but new industries that produce waste 

14 within a different regulatory or statutory framework. 

15 And I'm thinking of domestic production of 

16 molybdenum-99 where those, depending on what technology 

17 is used, and there's great uncertainty about what waste 

18 will be produced, we tried to make certain assumptions 

19 and include those potential wastes in the GTCC EIS 

20 inventory, but there is a, under that Act that was just 

21 passed, well a year ago passed, it changes the Federal 

22 waste responsibility. 

23 So if domestic moly-99 producers generate 

24 a low-level waste for which there is no commercial 

25 disposal pathway, which could be a function of where 
 124 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 they sit in the compact system, it's a Federal waste 

2 responsibility. 

3 And what type of waste they generate, if 

4 it's GTCC it's already a Federal waste responsibility, 

5 I won't make Dan's head explode by going back to that 

6 populational change if we start talking about GTCC and 

7 Part 61 again, but my point is that it's the development 

8 of new industries that might produce the same kind of 

9 waste but under a different statutory framework that 

10 also affects these issues. 

11 MALE PARTICIPANT: Yes. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Good, that's great. Dan, do 

13 you want to -- You want on the new technology issue or 

14 do you want to go somewhere else? 

15 MR. SHRUM: Something else. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And is that 

17 something, something else? I'm glad you're our 

18 conscience on the panel. 

19 MR. SHRUM: No. 

20 (Laughter) 

21 MR. CAMERON: But that something else, you 

22 know, you brought up the thing about the implications 

23 for decommissioning, maybe we should -- Why don't you 

24 start us off with that and whatever else you want to say. 

25 MR. SHRUM: Thank you, Chip. This is 
 125 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 dealing with decommissioning and actually the list. 

2 I'm going to go back to the list. There were seven high 

3 priority issues that were identified on the list and I'm 

4 going to ask the NRC to consider un-checking one of the 

5 boxes. 

6 Specifically, on the developing guidance 

7 for 20.2002 exemptions, alternate disposal requests. 

8 The reason we're asking, or I particularly am asking for 

9 this to be un-checked is guidance was issued in 2009 and 

10 it was issued as a draft for interim use, that's the way 

11 I read it. 

12 MR. SUBER: Correct. 

13 MR. SHRUM: And that to me doesn't sound 

14 like the box should be checked. There are a lot of other 

15 implications of disposing of low-level radioactive 

16 waste at a subtitle C facility or even a CERCLA facility 

17 for that matter that are not being discussed, just, you 

18 know, it seems to me that it's become a surrogate for 

19 very low-level waste. 

20 And there's another item on here, Number 

21 15, promulgate rule for disposal of low activity waste, 

22 and if that's what we'd like to do then let’s do that 

23 or let’s finalize and have public input on the 20.2002 

24 exemptions, which we couldn't find any and I don't 

25 remember being a part of that. 
 126 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Not me personally, but the public in 

2 general, so that was that issue. And that gets into 

3 decommissioning of power plants and where is this waste 

4 really going to go and are we going to send it to right 

5 place and the IAEA has a very low-level radioactive 

6 waste category and if that's what we're going to do then 

7 let’s set it up that way. 

8 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

9 MR. SHRUM: That was my point and it was 

10 completely unrelated to GTCC because it's at the very 

11 other end of it. 

12 (Laughter) 

13 MR. CAMERON: We're not supposed to be 

14 using that term anymore. 

15 MR. SHRUM: Oh, I'm sorry. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I'm teasing. Greg? 

17 MR. SUBER: Can I go? 

18 MR. CAMERON: Yes. 

19 MR. SUBER: Okay. All right, thanks. 

20 All right, good. Just as we said GTCC has no ceiling. 

21 We said that Class A has no floor. And one thing that 

22 we have done with that Guidance Document, and I agree 

23 that it shouldn't be checked, we have received comments 

24 on the interim staff guidance for the 20.2002. 

25 We're in the process of consolidating that 
 127 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 and incorporating that and then we're going to put a 

2 revised Guidance Document out for comment, so we are 

3 still working that issue. 

4 The other concern with low activity waste 

5 is that it's kind of a shared responsibility. We work 

6 closely with the EPA when we're talking about, I'll use 

7 another term, below regulatory concern -- 

8 MR. CAMERON: Oh my God. 

9 (Laughter) 

10 MR. SUBER: And when you enter that arena, 

11 you know, you enter a very controversial arena, so we're 

12 trying to wade very lightly into those waters, but we 

13 do realize because of the bow wave of decommissioning 

14 and a lot of other issues that we can't ignore the 

15 elephant in the room. 

16 So it would be good to get some suggestions 

17 from the panel on, you know, how to best move forward 

18 in trying to address those issues. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And I just want to 

20 just ask the public to just, the audience, to be a little 

21 patient, we're going to move to you in just a few minutes 

22 and the phones to hear what you think about all of this. 

23 Ralph, what are you -- Are you going to go 

24 to Greg's point? 

25 MR. ANDERSON: Decommissioning/very low 
 128 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 activity waste. What's intriguing to me, only because 

2 -- 

3 MR. CAMERON: Yes, and, Ralph, could you 

4 just speak closer into the mic. 

5 MR. ANDERSON: What's intriguing to me, 

6 only because it rarely comes up in conversation is NRC 

7 already has a fully developed, ready to issue, proposed 

8 rule that addresses that issue, the document is about 

9 500 pages long. 

10 When it went to the Commission, the 

11 Commission did not disapprove the proposed rule. The 

12 Commission tabled the proposed rule because of resource 

13 impacts associated with post-9/11 regulatory 

14 activities. 

15 If you read the SRM it's very clear, it 

16 doesn't say "disapproved." It says we're going to 

17 table this for at least five years so that we can take 

18 care of 9/11 issues that are much more pressing. 

19 So, you know, I would just make the comment, 

20 I've always been frustrated that we never got a chance 

21 to comment on the culmination of all the controversial 

22 work that was done over all those years, but, you know, 

23 when I look at the item on the strategic assessment, I 

24 mean in my mind that's the correlation, is you don't have 

25 to go out and start work on a new proposed rule, you have 
 129 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 one. 

2 And I'm not saying it is the thing that you 

3 should issue today, I'm just saying that there's a lot 

4 of technical work that is reflected in that, so it's not 

5 a huge lift. 

6 MR. CAMERON: And when you -- Just for 

7 clarification, when you talk about this item or this 

8 item was tabled, can you just describe what that was? 

9 I just want to make sure everybody -- 

10 MR. ANDERSON: Well it -- I forgot what 

11 the, we ended up with a very convoluted name for it 

12 because we didn't want to sound like BRC or other things. 

13 MS. GELLES: I think it was Clearance. 

14 MR. ANDERSON: It wasn't Clearance. 

15 MS. GELLES: It wasn't? (Inaudible). 

16 MR. ANDERSON: It moved away, it was 

17 something like this disposition -- 

18 MR. SHRUM: Unimportant quantities of 

19 Source Material? 

20 MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry? 

21 MR. SHRUM: Was it UQSM, Unimportant 

22 Quantities of Source Material? 

23 MR. CAMERON: Well can we -- 

24 MR. ANDERSON: No, no, no -- 

25 MR. CAMERON: -- have the NRC -- 
 130 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. ANDERSON: No, this was -- 

2 MR. CAMERON: Greg, can we -- 

3 MR. ANDERSON: -- disposition of solid 

4 radioactive material or something like that. 

5 MR. SHRUM: No. 

6 MR. ANDERSON: Boby would know. 

7 MR. CAMERON: And, Boby, could you just 

8 concisely give us the description of what this term is 

9 because I want to make sure people know. 

10 MR. EID: I think Ralph is definitely 

11 talking about Release of Solid Materials, which is 

12 called the Clearance sometimes, and we have a NUREG for 

13 it and we have different numbers. 

14 I don't believe currently it is a problem 

15 waiting for the Commission to have regulations for that. 

16 The reason is if you read in NUREG 1757 we did actually 

17 more or less adopt an IAEA safety standard, which is the 

18 release criteria in microsievert. 

19 When we said, actually in NUREG 1757, we 

20 said one to five millirem, that's one thing, and 

21 definitely you could conduct those analysis, you could 

22 release the material and there is no problem with that 

23 and currently I believe the utilities they are using 

24 that kind of guidance. 

25 Number two, we have also a Reg Guide 1.17, 
 131 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 which also allows for the clearance based on surface 

2 contamination and most utilities they use this 

3 guidance. So I don't believe currently we are standing 

4 or waiting on some kind of waste for the Commission to 

5 act on for the regulation. 

6 That's one of the reasons it's not priority 

7 because already we are doing clearance based on 

8 guidance. Thank you. 

9 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So this is the 

10 daughter of BRC I guess, but are you suggesting that it 

11 be moved up in the priority range? Bill, go ahead, and 

12 then we're going to go to Larry. 

13 MR. DORNSIFE: Yes, I have a totally 

14 different opinion on this low-level waste Rulemaking 

15 issue because there's currently a very effective exempt 

16 disposal that's working. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

18 MR. DORNSIFE: And it's expanding and, you 

19 know, typical of the release limits that NRC has, you 

20 know, that was operating under the radar but BRC and all 

21 the other things you put out got killed. 

22 It raised the National fever that, you 

23 know, just was unbelievable. I'm afraid a Rulemaking 

24 on this issue is going to destroy the current system we 

25 have. 
 132 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And that's, you know, 

2 I think that's good information for Melanie and then for 

3 Greg in terms of where this is in the Strategic 

4 Assessment. And I'm not usually attacked by members of 

5 the audience, but I just want to note that I was. 

6 (Laughter) 

7 MR. CAMERON: But, okay, we're going out to 

8 you, but Larry? 

9 MR. CAMPER: Well I just wanted to -- We're 

10 sort of mixing apples and oranges here although they are 

11 very much alike in spectroanalysis, but as the cliché 

12 goes, I mean, you know, low activity waste is not a 

13 concept that's defined. 

14 If you go back to the ANPR that was put out 

15 by EPA a few years ago, it's hard to get a definition, 

16 but some people like to think of it maybe as the lower 

17 10 percent of Class A waste, so there's low activity 

18 waste. 

19 Then there is this Clearance that Ralph was 

20 referring to and he's right. The staff put together a 

21 huge effort, carefully avoiding below regulatory 

22 concern, and focusing upon clearance, the criteria, and 

23 so forth. 

24 And, yes, that was tabled by the 

25 Commission, Ralph was right. It was not eliminated by 
 133 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the Commission, but as a matter of practice what has 

2 happened is other Rulemakings have come along over time 

3 that have a higher priority, so it's remained on the back 

4 burner. 

5 And I think it would be fair to say that from 

6 the staff's standpoint raising that topic again as a 

7 Rulemaking is something that could be done, I mean that 

8 is something that could be added to the Strategic 

9 Assessment as a possibility, but I don't think it will 

10 get much traction, I really don't, with the Commission 

11 I mean, but it's a possibility. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. But I think that, you 

13 know, this is not only to talk about things that are high 

14 priority but things that, you know, shouldn't be 

15 addressed for various reasons and I want to see, and 

16 we'll go to Ralph and Dan -- I want see if anybody else 

17 has some ideas on the panel that they want to talk about 

18 and then I want to go out to the public and start with 

19 Billy, Billy Cox, okay, for my health's sake. 

20 MALE PARTICIPANT: So he doesn't attack 

21 you again. 

22 MR. CAMERON: But I want to give the panel 

23 some last shots here and I just want to note that we did 

24 hear from Mike, the climate change issue and the fact 

25 that there might be an increase in nuclear power. 
 134 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 We heard from Ralph about the four new 

2 units, okay, and what the implications of that are. So 

3 I don't want to lose track of this, but I think we do 

4 need to go out to the public and the phones and if we 

5 have time to revisit, to go back to the panel, we'll do 

6 that before Aby has to do his recap. But, Ralph, go 

7 ahead. 

8 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I just wanted to make 

9 a simple clarification. Larry, I wasn't suggesting 

10 that one would embark on a proposed Rulemaking. The 

11 point I was trying to make is that in a reconsideration 

12 of the waste classification tables and in looking at 

13 both the upper and in the lower end, the benefit that 

14 you have is it's not the proposed rule portion, it's the 

15 500 pages of supporting technical analysis that people 

16 spent all those years on that would allow one to factor 

17 that. 

18 If there's a reprioritization of waste 

19 classifications in general, you've already got a 

20 fantastic technical base on which to look at the lower 

21 end of the waste classification tables. Now in no way 

22 am I suggesting that we march out on a single Rulemaking 

23 that deals solely with the issue of low activity waste, 

24 no. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Ralph. 
 135 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Let’s go to Dan and then we'll go to Mike. 

2 MR. SHRUM: Just real quick, what Mr. 

3 Dornsife said is interesting that though it will raise 

4 a new can of worms and it would be a big issue and, you 

5 know, we've talked about GTCC quite a bit today and, you 

6 know, if we're going to talk about a can of worms when 

7 we talk about disposing of that in a near surface 

8 disposal facility, that's a big can of worms, too. 

9 Now I want to be clear on this. I'm not 

10 opposed to it, but we shouldn't not do things because 

11 it won't stand the scrutiny of the public. So that's 

12 the issue there, but it sounds like -- 

13 MR. ANDERSON: What's it suggesting then? 

14 MR. SHRUM: The 20.2002 exemption that 

15 process is going to be finalized and revisited a little 

16 bit more. That's all I asked for in the first place, 

17 so that's great. Thank you. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And, Mike? 

19 MR. GARNER: Just real quick. One of the 

20 things that would interstate compacts is defining when 

21 radioactive material becomes low-level radioactive 

22 waste, especially with sealed sources. 

23 That impacts right now a compacts revenue 

24 stream that it depends on for its operation. 

25 Specifically I'm talking about the Southwest compact. 
 136 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 But I think defining when a radioactive material becomes 

2 a low-level radioactive waste combining that with the 

3 attribution concerns that compacts may have may be a 

4 good way to go. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Mike. And I 

6 think Mike and Dan were looking at Page 3 of the 

7 Strategic Assessment document and that's open game for 

8 anybody on the panel to talk about now. 

9 The two things that we haven't talked about 

10 were Bill's opening comment about the generic exemption 

11 and Rusty was talking about the domino effect and 

12 depleted, so -- 

13 MR. DORNSIFE: Well we discussed it just 

14 recently. I mean -- 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. All right. 

16 MR. DORNSIFE: -- that's fine. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Ralph, final comment for 

18 now? 

19 MR. ANDERSON: No. I was just looking for 

20 the SECY Number for the -- 

21 MR. CAMERON: You're doing what? 

22 MR. ANDERSON: I was just looking for the 

23 SECY Number for the package, but, no, I'm good. I'm 

24 sorry. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Earl, anything? 
 137 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. FORDHAM: Yes, I just wanted to, you 

2 know, kind of go down that performance assessment rule 

3 one more time because I think DOE uses Class 1 and Class 

4 3 waste at one time, many, many years ago. 

5 The idea there is, you know, we've got A, 

6 B, and C, and A has no real packaging requirements. B 

7 ends up you got to make it stable, and C you got to go 

8 for depth. 

9 So if you do a site-specific performance 

10 assessment how are you going to take into account those 

11 extras as you went up before? Are you going to 

12 basically it's Class A and, you know, there will have 

13 to some sort of division point there where you require 

14 the waste to be stable or at least to be put into 

15 something that would provide stability. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Chris, are you going 

17 to address that? 

18 MR. MCKENNEY: Yes, I will. The 

19 consideration is that the performance assessment will 

20 specify the waste in all characteristics. Not only its 

21 range of radiological, but also the degree that which 

22 stability is required or its actual chemical form if 

23 it's used in chemical barrier also as a function of the 

24 waste form. 

25 And so that would be all of the possible 
 138 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 innovation methods that a waste would be able to 

2 specify, but then that would be its own definition. So 

3 you could do it grand form which is similar to just 

4 updating the tables for your site and just be sort of 

5 loose about that, or you could use a system like that 

6 to define specific small classes that say concrete waste 

7 forms have, I can take this and this ranges or whatever 

8 else. 

9 You have that flexibility in a system to 

10 develop all that. The definition of what waste needs, 

11 what stability, will be up to the licensee and their 

12 operation of the site. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I think you got some 

14 reaction on that. Let’s go to Bill and then Christine. 

15 MR. DORNSIFE: Yes, I guess in light of 

16 that site-specific WAC and the fact that, you know, yes, 

17 the standards are homogenized among the Agreement 

18 States, but the process, you know, what model do you use? 

19 You know, how detailed does your 

20 performance assessment model have to be? Does NRC 

21 intend to up their oversight in terms of making sure that 

22 part is also somewhat compatible? 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And, Christine? 

24 MS. GELLES: I'm reacting to something 

25 that Chris said and I apologize if I misunderstood what 
 139 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 you were saying, but it reminds me of Larry that the path 

2 forward under the proposed rule that's developing is an 

3 "or," right? 

4 So site-specific PA and the WAC derived 

5 from that or use of the tables. You just used the words 

6 "you update the tables for your site." 

7 MR. MCKENNEY: My clarification was that a 

8 site-specific analysis for a specific site could be as 

9 simple as effectively just updating the tables. So you 

10 just had a table of radionuclides and concentrations, 

11 or you could go to something like, what the NNSA does, 

12 where they have specific categories of things that have 

13 extra criteria -- 

14 MS. GELLES: Yes. 

15 MR. MCKENNEY: -- that make, you know, 

16 concrete waste forms have the following thing and if 

17 it's not concrete, if it's something else, it's 

18 something else, it's RTGs. 

19 You have all of these waste profiles that 

20 work it down. So I was just saying that a site-specific 

21 performance assessment could result in something as 

22 simple as an evaluated table for that site or as 

23 complicated as you want to make it. 

24 MS. GELLES: Okay. And I appreciate that 

25 clarification because what I just wanted to make sure 
 140 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 that we're not, that we don't end up with a system that 

2 has, you know, a site-specific PA for the four different 

3 operating facilities in the United States and an 

4 inconsistent application of the waste classification 

5 tables where what's defined as GTCC and becomes a 

6 Federal waste responsibility differs from compact 

7 region to compact region. 

8 That's not going to, that doesn't seem like 

9 that's something that can happen. Okay. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Uniformity -- 

11 MR. DORNSIFE: But I also advise Chris that 

12 there are State laws that define what current classes 

13 of waste have to, in terms of their packaging. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let’s hear from Rusty 

15 and then let me also ask Brad if he wants to offer 

16 anything on any of this. Rusty? 

17 MR. LUNDBERG: Did we move onto waste 

18 classification then somehow? 

19 (Laughter) 

20 MR. LUNDBERG: I just want to -- Because I 

21 have a comment. Well let me bring up my comment since 

22 it was mentioned earlier about -- 

23 MR. CAMERON: I think you should do it. 

24 MR. LUNDBERG: Okay. In terms of implying 

25 some kind of IMPEP review of States doing this more 
 141 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 consistently I want to offer that as you look at that 

2 and as a State with a sited facility, I think that I 

3 always also consider the sharing of the burden also as 

4 upstream somewhat in terms of the generator as well and 

5 their ability to package and to move forward so that it's 

6 safe from the generation point to the disposal point. 

7 So as you burden us more in terms of being 

8 subject to more scrutiny by NRC, I would like to see that 

9 also similarly viewed upstream at the point of 

10 generation as well. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Rusty. Brad, 

12 anything for us? 

13 MR. BROUSSARD: Just one comment I guess, 

14 or maybe clarification from Bill's statement. You 

15 refer to something that said that there was something 

16 in rules? You're referring to -- 

17 MR. DORNSIFE: Well in law regarding the 

18 containerization of statute -- 

19 MR. BROUSSARD: Okay. Texas statute? 

20 MR. DORNSIFE: Yes, yes. 

21 MR. BROUSSARD: Okay. 

22 MR. DORNSIFE: That was outside the, 

23 really outside of, you know, Rulemaking or -- 

24 MR. BROUSSARD: Right. 

25 MR. DORNSIFE: -- would not be impacted by 
 142 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 a revised Part 61. 

2 MR. BROUSSARD: Right. In addition to 

3 what's already required. 

4 MR. DORNSIFE: Yes. 

5 MR. BROUSSARD: That's all I had. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Brad. And 

7 let’s go to the public. We have a good amount of time 

8 for public comment here. We'll check on the phones. 

9 We're going to go to Billy Cox right now and, Billy, 

10 thanks for being patient. 

11 MR. COX: Billy Cox with EPRI. I'm sorry, 

12 Chip, I couldn't resist. I'd like to make a 

13 clarification because I think that there's a little bit 

14 of confusion, and that is that below regulatory concern 

15 and clearance are terms that are used for materials that 

16 are released for unrestricted use to the public. 

17 Low activity waste and very low-level waste 

18 are materials that are of low concern that are sent to 

19 licensed disposal in some other type of disposal 

20 facility. 

21 MALE PARTICIPANT: Right. 

22 MR. COX: So EPRI has done a lot of work on 

23 the benefits of very low-level waste disposal and it has 

24 a tremendous benefit in the utility industry, primarily 

25 for decommissioning plants. 
 143 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 There's some operational waste that would 

2 also qualify and there would be some associated cost 

3 savings with that, but the impact isn't as great. 

4 There's a huge benefit to the public for having easier 

5 access to very low-level waste disposal for medical 

6 waste and research waste from universities and things 

7 like that. 

8 And that's the subject of the National 

9 Academy's Report from, I think, like the early 2000's 

10 is the National Academy's Report on that. So I want to 

11 make sure that we're clear when we're talking about 

12 things that, you know, low activity waste, or very 

13 low-level waste disposal is something that we should be 

14 working towards. 

15 It makes us more in line with the 

16 International community, it's something that's 

17 accepted internationally, and it's not the same as 

18 releasing material to the unrestricted use of the 

19 public. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Billy, for that 

21 clarification. And, Clint? 

22 MR. MILLER: Yes. Clint Miller, PG&E. 

23 Three items I guess. First on the technology and waste 

24 forms, NRC's branch technical position on waste forms, 

25 the whole battery of tests, is still standing in a very 
 144 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 valid gold standard. I mean Korea's using it, Brazil's 

2 looking at it. 

3 Even though the NRC's program of issuing 

4 topical reports on waste forms went defunct last 

5 century, subsequent to that time three waste forms had 

6 been approved using the branch technical position. 

7 DOE-Idaho will do the tests. Our company 

8 co-funded two of those that had been approved 

9 subsequently and one that we funded completely. 

10 DOE-Idaho did the tests, presented them to the CRCPD and 

11 they approved them as stable waste forms. 

12 So I submit that there is another, it 

13 doesn't have to be the NRC, they've done their job making 

14 a good form and the States in their ability to associate 

15 with themselves have approved that. 

16 As to the (inaudible) 61 and the tables, I 

17 appreciate Larry talking about the "or," unlike our 

18 colleague, who's not in the room I guess, DOE, who said 

19 that, you know, the tables are out of date and unneeded 

20 and that Tom Magette's comment earlier in the week that 

21 he hopes to see them go away. 

22 As a generator, I want it to. I've shipped 

23 to all five operating disposal sites and we've lost 

24 access to three of them due to no fault of our own. For 

25 five years we had no access and I need to know what to 
 145 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 do when there's no access. 

2 And the tables provide a backstop or a 

3 floor, and are, you know, having that certainty of how 

4 you're going to separate your waste, how you're going 

5 to package your waste, is very comforting. 

6 So I think it comes to a crux now of, earlier 

7 this week I heard a presenter from the U.K., she said 

8 how do you deal with regulations when science never 

9 sleeps? And I would say that there's an analogous model 

10 in the radioactive regulatory world which would be 

11 transportation rules. 

12 The IAEA lives with A values and from time 

13 to time, periodically they update those A values based 

14 on the new dosimetry science and they publish those and 

15 then the individual Nations, or Countries, or States are 

16 free to adopt them at their leisure. 

17 But the science has been put out there and 

18 then those Nations can decide on themselves if what they 

19 had in the past was protective of the public or if they 

20 want to step up. And in the U.S., it typically takes 

21 us five to ten years to adopt those and that's called 

22 harmonization. 

23 And that I think is a very good model. 

24 Those IAEA documents are also very flexible. You know, 

25 you can ship Type A, Type B, or you can go another path, 
 146 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 LSA, and as we heard earlier this week, we can ship SCO, 

2 which would help the DOE with the infinity rooms. 

3 So I think having this "or" statement is, 

4 you know, excellent flexibility and now I think we've 

5 come to the crux of the matter is, okay, the tables are 

6 there, they're embedded in the law, is there anyway to 

7 get the new information on the dosimetry tables out that 

8 the, in an NRC document other than, you know, a study 

9 and a petition to your Government, and I think Boby 

10 suggested a NUREG. 

11 If it's too hard to change the rule with the 

12 numbers in the table than a NUREG, which I never thought 

13 of, I would be happy -- 

14 MALE PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible). 

15 MR. MILLER: Private, but I'm personal. 

16 But a NUREG, you know, a NUREG is a means of compliance 

17 and I think on the utility side we would very much like 

18 to know that this is a means of compliance. 

19 We would be doing it at risk, but then 

20 everything's at risk. You know, when we lost access to 

21 Barnwell, Barnwell wasn't straight (inaudible) 61. We 

22 decided to package straight from the rules figuring that 

23 we weren't certain, but we were pretty confident that 

24 at the end of the day, if a site opened, we could submit 

25 it and it might be approved and it did get approved at 
 147 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Texas. 

2 Now I have a stable waste form, I don't know 

3 why it's going to concrete over pack, but it's being 

4 accepted. 

5 MALE PARTICIPANT: It's a State law. 

6 MR. MILLER: So, the last one, thank you 

7 for the RIS on my item two for the Manifest, that takes 

8 care of that question. The other was the, I guess a 

9 dialogue with the States. 

10 Again, I think the NRC is issuing excellent 

11 guidance, I guess I'm old enough to remember when Jesse 

12 Jackson ran for President and he said what we're selling 

13 nobody's buying. It was back in the '80s when we were 

14 making jet planes and stuff for war machines and 

15 technology. 

16 And then, you know, when we started bolting 

17 those jet engines in the ground and making them gas 

18 turbines and took that computer technology and made 

19 consumer products, people started buying it. 

20 But what we don't -- The BTP is an example 

21 for waste form, you know, it's not being recognized by 

22 the State even though it's an excellent product. So I'm 

23 just hoping that dialogue keeps going on, NRC keeps 

24 putting the backstops out there, and the States and the 

25 regions, it's their prerogative on when they want to 
 148 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 accept them. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Clint, and 

3 we're going to come back to Andrew, but I wanted to go 

4 to Lisa and we're going to get to Tom. Lisa? 

5 MS. EDWARDS: Thanks, Chip. Lisa Edwards 

6 with EPRI. And first of all, I just want to say the 

7 discussion today has been fascinating. I appreciate 

8 the perspectives that have been offered. I do have to 

9 admit that the topics of discussion were a little 

10 different than what I expected them to be. 

11 EPRI's chartered for public benefit so I'm 

12 going to just kind of highlight a few areas that we 

13 consider to be important to be elevated on the strategic 

14 assessment prioritization list. The first is kind of 

15 long-term vision on very low-level waste. 

16 We think this is important from a 

17 decommissioning aspect, and we think it helps conserve 

18 precious disposal space. And we think with the 

19 upcoming discussions on 40 CFR 190 that topic is going 

20 to come very much to the forefront, and it probably 

21 behooves both communities to collaborate on that and 

22 have a common understanding as we go forward. 

23 Second point would be classification 

24 tables. I did a presentation during the symposium 

25 related to that. EPRI does believe that the 
 149 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 classification tables should be updated, and I guess I 

2 would highlight or hinge that on Larry's description of 

3 the "or." The direction is in "or." 

4 I think site-specific performance 

5 assessments are far superior to any generic 

6 classification table. But unless you're going to 

7 remove the classification tables, per se, we think it's 

8 important that the latest science be updated. 

9 And the reason we think that is important 

10 is the tables right now drive people to chase cesium, 

11 strontium and nickel. And the new dosimetry indicates 

12 they shouldn't have such a high emphasis on those 

13 nuclides. Instead, people should be chasing 

14 technetium, iodine and carbon-14. 

15 And as the "or" option, and if we take 

16 Ralph's perspective of let's look out 100 years not five 

17 to seven years, we need to have that "or" option reflect 

18 more current science than what was available in the very 

19 early 1980s. 

20 I think a third area of emphasis that I 

21 thought would get more discussion than it did is not one 

22 of EPRI's particular focus items but Christine did 

23 mention it, is source disposal. I keep hearing that, 

24 you know, it's a threat to national security. And to 

25 me, somewhere in this assessment is, I think, a place 
 150 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 for looking at how that can be, continue to be 

2 encouraged. 

3 I didn't expect the very, I'm just going to 

4 say it, BRC or the clearance level to get brought up, 

5 and I will just echo that, in my opinion, is different 

6 than very low-level waste. One is for free release, one 

7 is for regulated disposal that just doesn't happen to 

8 be the same as low-level waste disposal. 

9 And finally, manifesting requirements. I 

10 appreciate what you had to say on that Greg. I think 

11 it still belongs on the list because I haven't yet seen 

12 what the RIS says, and I'm hoping that there'll be 

13 consideration of generic scaling factors that may prove 

14 to be more economical and may be better representative 

15 than site-specific scaling factors. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Thank you for those 

17 specifics, Lisa. And we're going to come back over 

18 here. I want to go to Andrew first, then I want to get 

19 the public in and I'm going to just see if anybody's on 

20 the phone also. But then we'll come back to the NRC 

21 staff. 

22 And I would just note for the panel, if you 

23 hear comments such as Lisa gave just now, if you want 

24 to say anything about that in terms of agree, disagree, 

25 whatever, add something, you know, feel free to do that. 
 151 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 And please introduce yourself. 

2 MR. STEWART: Hi everyone. My name's 

3 Andrew Stewart. I come from the Great White North, or 

4 Canada, and I was just here as part of my personal 

5 learning development just learning about radioactive 

6 waste management being part of the next generation. 

7 And I wanted to thank you guys for the opportunity to 

8 hold this public workshop. It was a great learning 

9 environment. 

10 If I could, I'd just like to give you guys 

11 some reflections on the strategic assessment of 

12 low-level regulatory programs. And I guess my personal 

13 observations or reflections with regards to the first 

14 topic, or anticipation, are areas of the low-level waste 

15 area in the context of safety and the protection of the 

16 environment. Was one topic or one word that I didn't hear 

17 today and that was recycling. 

18 So in terms of just to give you guys an 

19 example that's under our noses, each one of you have a 

20 beverage container and on that beverage container is 

21 sort of a recycling logo. So what I'm trying to learn 

22 about is why aren't we recycling low-level waste within 

23 the controlled nuclear sector itself? 

24 So even though that this might have 

25 radiological restrictions, with the proper RPP would we 
 152 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 be able to use that in the next generation? So for 

2 instance, we have 100 operating reactors in the United 

3 States of America, and when those are decommissioning 

4 all that concrete that's being generated, you know, what 

5 are the unit costs of disposal of that unit concrete and 

6 could you use those costs instead of disposing of it? 

7 What are the unit costs for recycling it 

8 into a self-contained waste form for a nuclear new 

9 build? So are there any regulatory barriers preventing 

10 that or, that's one of the answers that I'm looking 

11 forward to see in the future, so if any of you have any 

12 comments or suggestions that could help my learning 

13 development it would be greatly appreciated. Thank 

14 you. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Boby, go ahead. 

16 MR. EID: Yes, when we talk about 

17 clearance, this means the material would be at least 

18 for, consumer product can be used for anything. With 

19 the recycling this is actually what it is for, 

20 recycling. The people, they are concerned sometimes 

21 about when you recycle a material you cannot control it 

22 and it could be frying pan scenario, for example. 

23 What you are talking about is more, it's 

24 restricted recycling where you could use the material 

25 or like RPPs for other industry. Actually, this is for 
 153 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 in France, actually they adopted this kind of approach. 

2 They do not have what's called the clearance or 

3 recycling. What they do, they could use the same 

4 material for the same industry and recycle it, yes, but 

5 they do not call it recycling or clearance. 

6 So far we do not have a specific kind of 

7 guidelines or rules for other uses for the same 

8 industry. We do not have this. We have only clearance 

9 guidance. That's what we have. That's the common 

10 term. 

11 If you allow me now, since I have the 

12 microphone, to make comments on BRC. So please, do not 

13 use the term BRC because it is not used in NRC definition 

14 and regulations. And BRC before, it was rescinded 

15 because it is equivalent BRC to 10 millirem. It is 

16 different than a clearance. 

17 So please don't use the word BRC. It is not 

18 anymore used by NRC. Thank you. 

19 MR. CAMERON: And it's the only 

20 three-letter acronym that really is a four-letter word, 

21 as I remember it. But Christine, and then Bill. 

22 MS. GELLES: In response to Lisa's comment 

23 about sealed sources, so I see the disposition of sealed 

24 sources being intrinsically tied to the questions of 

25 GTCC responsibilities, because it is a significant 
 154 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 portion of the GTCC inventory. If a source is less 

2 than, or is Class C or lower, in theory it has a 

3 commercial disposition pathway, albeit potentially 

4 through import to the compact facility in Texas. 

5 If it's greater than Class C, then the 

6 Department of Energy has the stop-gap measure of, if 

7 it's orphan, having the Off-site Source Recovery 

8 Program go and recover those sources. In theory, when 

9 there is a GTCC disposal facility that program will go 

10 away. 

11 Much as they're facilitating A, B, and C 

12 sealed sources of proliferation concern getting to 

13 available commercial pathways, we will do the same to 

14 get to the GTCC disposal facility or facilities. 

15 So this discussion of can a greater than 

16 Class C source be disposed of in a facility licensed 

17 under Part 61 can resolve the problem entirely. 

18 Because DOE, a DOE origin source that otherwise would 

19 be categorized as greater than Class C can safely be 

20 disposed at a DOE disposal facility which is a near 

21 surface disposal facility, okay? 

22 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. 

23 MS. GELLES: Thank you. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Christine. And 

25 Bill? 
 155 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. DORNSIFE: Now I have three. First of 

2 all, if the guidance document ever gets issued for waste 

3 classification we believe that most of the sealed 

4 sources could be disposed of under that guidance either 

5 in a 55-gallon drum or in a bigger container. I mean 

6 you can literally dispose of thousands -- yes. 

7 MS. GELLES: As Class C waste. 

8 MR. DORNSIFE: Thousands of curies of 

9 cesium using that guidance. So I don't see sealed 

10 sources as a problem in terms of greater than Class C. 

11 Secondly, you know, in terms of the 

12 recycling we very effectively do recycling, but again 

13 it's under the radar recycling. For example, in the 

14 NORM arena pipes, get routinely cleaned and the scale 

15 gets disposed of, typically in deep well injection. 

16 In the other arena, you know, the 

17 commercial arena, we use the release limits that have 

18 been around Reg Guide 1.86, I guess it is, we use that 

19 release limit and stuff routinely get recycled if it's 

20 below that limit. And it's a major amount of stuff that 

21 gets recycled. I mean, it's labor intensive to do the 

22 surveys but it works. 

23 And finally, on the low activity disposal, 

24 if we're going to do site-specific WAC things for 

25 low-level, why shouldn't we also do it for low activity? 
 156 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

2 take a comment here and then we'll see who's on the phone 

3 and we'll come back here. 

4 MR. AZAR: My name's Miguel Azar. I'm 

5 with Exelon Generation. I guess when I look at, I've 

6 been listening so I kind of put you all into a different 

7 category. You've got commercial side operators, and 

8 then you have States, and then you have the NRC. 

9 The NRC's charter is to protect the public, 

10 which a nuclear operator is a part of the public. 

11 You've got DOE who has a standard that they follow, and 

12 you have an NRC who also dictates a standard for the rest 

13 of the commercial market. 

14 So I guess as I look at it you have two 

15 standards right now, but you're trying to create one 

16 single standard, whether you update the classification 

17 rules or you adopt the site-specific, it should be only 

18 one single standard. 

19 Why should we have two standards, because 

20 that's where confusion comes, right? Where there's 

21 confusion there's profit, and utility doesn't profit 

22 from that it's the commercial side operators that 

23 profit. So to me, if you're protecting the public you 

24 need to have one single standard that you follow for 

25 everything. 
 157 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 The second thing, I guess that I look at is, 

2 you know, besides Ralph I don't see anyone really 

3 representing the non-commercial generators of waste. 

4 I don't see anybody from hospitals or universities or 

5 anything of that source. And they need to really have 

6 a seat at this table because they really impact us in 

7 a personal way. 

8 So for next time, maybe you can find whoever 

9 that if they have a leader invite him to this discussion 

10 and we can get a different perspective on things too. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, 

12 Miguel. 

13 MR. SUBER: Can I, just on the last? 

14 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead. 

15 MR. SUBER: I just want to emphasize that 

16 this is the first of many meetings that we plan for this. 

17 And the point that you make about medical and industrial 

18 generators of radioactive waste, we're going to reach 

19 out to them as well. This meeting is dominated by the 

20 people who you see here based on the proximity of the 

21 meeting to the waste management symposium. 

22 So I mean that's a good comment that there 

23 are generators, there are hospitals, there are academic 

24 institutions and other industries that should have a 

25 voice, and they will. 
 158 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good. There's 

2 another more shoes to fall, so to speak. And we're 

3 going to Paul and Tom, but let's hear from Rusty, and 

4 then I want to check in with our operator and see if we 

5 have anybody on the phone. Rusty? 

6 MR. LUNDBERG: Okay, thank you. I can't 

7 help resist, just offer a little bit of thought about 

8 your comment there. I think certainly States, as a 

9 regulatory agency we do look to looking at consistency 

10 as well as something that it's more certain for the 

11 regulatory community to work from. 

12 But also I think that the other aspect of 

13 this, when you include policy makers that want to offer 

14 up their backyard I think that's a different matter than 

15 what you're addressing, I would think. And so what I'm 

16 trying to say is that it's nice to look at one standard, 

17 and if you only did the site-specific performance 

18 analysis to determine acceptability that should have 

19 been the starting point and not the waste classification 

20 tables. 

21 So what I'm getting to is in Utah we've made 

22 the decision that waste classification is important in 

23 terms of marking a line in the sand. And I think that 

24 when you say it's easy to say one standard, it's going 

25 to be hard to remove that line in the sand for policy 
 159 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 purposes. 

2 I don't disagree in terms of safety issues, 

3 but I do say that there is that option that States have 

4 under Federal law to mark the line in the sand. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And just let me check 

6 the phones because people may have been waiting 

7 patiently. Kiandra, do we have anybody in the queue? 

8 OPERATOR: Not at this time. But I just 

9 would like to remind them to press star 1 and record your 

10 first and last name if you happen to have a question or 

11 a comment. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Kiandra. 

13 I'm going to go to Paul, and then we're coming up to Tom. 

14 MR. BLACK: Paul Black, Neptune & Company. 

15 And I'm not going to get all of this out. I'll try the 

16 best I can. But what we've been doing for years is 

17 working on PAs and trying to move them in a better 

18 direction, with the idea of we believe in site-specific 

19 PAs. That's the way this should be done and there's 

20 some move now in 10 CFR 61 towards that. 

21 There are also challenges with the waste 

22 concentration tables. They get in the way, and they get 

23 in the way of making good decisions. And I understand, 

24 though there are lots of challenges for dealing with 

25 that, it's a problem. There are different legal and 
 160 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 policy issues to be dealt with, as Rusty just said and 

2 others have said. 

3 But what we're talking about here is a 

4 result of the new national landscape. And we're 

5 talking, Ralph said something about national power 

6 plants that won't be decommissioned until 2100. We're 

7 a hundred years out in the future still, disposing of 

8 radioactive waste. 

9 We have an opportunity at the moment, 

10 through what's been going on the last few years, to do 

11 something about our regulations and our laws. Do we 

12 really want to be a hundred years from now still arguing 

13 about GTCC and Class A versus B versus C when we're 

14 trying to move down the path of site-specific 

15 performance assessments to make better decisions? 

16 So what I would put to people involved in 

17 the policy and getting up to the lawmakers, is it's time 

18 to change those laws? We don't want to be having the 

19 same argument a hundred years from now. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Paul. And we're 

21 going to go to Tom Magette, and then we have a comment 

22 or a question on the Internet on the web. So we'll go 

23 over there and then we'll come back to Dan. Tom? 

24 MR. MAGETTE: Thanks, Chip. I'd like to 

25 make two comments about the strategic review going to 
 161 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Gregory's ceiling and floor. First as to the ceiling, 

2 I've not advocated for the tables going away. I like 

3 the "or" approach with either a site-specific WAC or the 

4 tables, mostly because I think it establishes that 

5 Federal/State line. 

6 Now there's been a lot of discussion today 

7 as to whether or not that should even go away if you're 

8 doing a more site-specific approach and maybe it should. 

9 That's an awfully heavy lift. And so I'm trying to seek 

10 a practical ground as well, which is why. 

11 But I think the tables do serve a purpose 

12 for establishing that, but I think that's about the only 

13 purpose that they serve and I think they should, as I 

14 said on the panel, decay into uselessness even though 

15 they remain in the regulations, and serve the one 

16 purpose that they can then serve. 

17 As to the floor, I have long been a vocal 

18 advocate of a Part 61 light or a very light activity 

19 scheme. I've also been a long critic of the 20.2002 

20 exemption process partly because of the way it was 

21 handled. 

22 Partly because of the fact that it's being 

23 handled, as Bill pointed out, to handle increasingly 

24 large volumes of waste, which I don't believe are 

25 appropriate for an exemption process, which is what it 
 162 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 is. I don't believe it's being applied as it was 

2 originally intended to be applied. 

3 I'm glad to hear that the, I guess its 

4 guidance is going to come out. It started as an office 

5 instruction, I believe. And, you know, if you look 

6 around the NRC you'll find that there are many office 

7 instructions being used to help guide how things are 

8 done, none of which used to be public. And I started 

9 complaining to office directors about that. 

10 And I've seen a few, but the original answer 

11 when I found out there was a 20.2002 office instruction 

12 was it's not public and I couldn't see it. Now after 

13 pushing back it became this draft document, but I don't 

14 really think the document itself would compare well with 

15 most other guidance documents. 

16 I think it needs to be more robust, but it's 

17 good that we'll have a chance to comment on that now. 

18 But I don't think that's appropriate. The exemption 

19 process, as I said, is an exemption, and I will take 

20 exception with those that say very low-level waste is 

21 regulated. 

22 I don't agree, Billy. That is simply not 

23 true. It can be true, and I'm not saying it's parked 

24 on the side of the road, but the bottom line is once it's 

25 exempt, it's exempt. There are no requirements for 
 163 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 monitoring. There are no requirements for anything 

2 about that waste. It's out of the regulatory system. 

3 Now if it goes into a RCRA site it may then 

4 fall under another regulatory system, but there's 

5 nothing about an exemption process that provides for any 

6 after-the-fact consideration of that waste. 

7 So it's one thing if it's small quantities, 

8 it's another thing if it's millions of cubic feet of 

9 decommissioning waste. There simply is no provision 

10 for doing anything with that waste once it's gone 

11 through the system. The system says thank you very 

12 much, you're gone now. 

13 So as I said, it could go into a disposal 

14 site where that's not true, but there's nothing about 

15 20.2002 that ensures that so I don't think that's 

16 appropriate. 

17 I echo the comments that were made that we 

18 don't need to be talking about clearance necessarily. 

19 I echo the comments that were made that you could deal 

20 with this in a regulatory way that would not constitute 

21 the end of the world. I think this is something that 

22 would be easily handled in a new regulatory process, and 

23 I think that is the appropriate way to do it. Thank you. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Tom. And we'll 

25 be back to Scott, and first Dan, but what do we have on 
 164 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the email circuit? 

2 (Off microphone comments) 

3 MS. WONG: One is, as it relates to 

4 compatibility with Part 61 for non-sited Agreement 

5 States without a disposal facility, could the NRC staff 

6 confirm the compatibility with a new revised Part 61 

7 rule and regulation would not be an issue until or unless 

8 the State has a plan for a low-level waste disposal 

9 facility requiring regulatory oversight by the State? 

10 And I believe that's a yes. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and another? 

12 MS. WONG: Okay, those were related to the 

13 -- 

14 MR. CAMERON: I guess we should identify 

15 who this is from since everybody -- 

16 (Off microphone comments) 

17 MS. WONG: That was Rich Janati. 

18 MR. CAMERON: Oh Rich, okay. 

19 MS. WONG: Jim Kennedy also provided that 

20 the title of the 2005 Rulemaking document was 

21 disposition of solid waste, solid material. And then 

22 the last comment is, the Appalachian Compact and the 

23 whole State of Pennsylvania define radioactive 

24 materials as waste, once it's manifested for shipment 

25 to a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. 
 165 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 And that's by Rich Janati. 

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

3 Rich. Let's go to Dan and then we'll go on to Scott. 

4 Dan? 

5 MR. SHRUM: Paul just mentioned something 

6 about maybe we need to consider some rules or changing 

7 some of the rules. And I know this is a bit of a stretch, 

8 but 61.41 gives a dose criteria to a member of the public 

9 at 25 millirem. And I'm not HP -- and that's one of our 

10 favorite lines that Sean and I have, we're not HPs -- 

11 but that just seems awfully low. 

12 Put it in the context of the background dose 

13 for everybody, just everybody, has gone from 360 to 620. 

14 That's a 260 millirem increase for everyone. And 

15 that's a ten-fold, you know, it's an order of magnitude 

16 higher than what 61.41 allows. I may sound a little bit 

17 like Mr. Dornsife over there. I mean we're just dosing 

18 people up and they're walking around, and that's okay. 

19 I'm not opposed to that. But then when you 

20 look at 1,000 years, are we really going to keep that 

21 at 25 millirem? And I don't think we need to do anything 

22 about it, I just wanted to have that comment thrown out 

23 there. It's just too low. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Dan. 

25 Scott? 
 166 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. KIRK: Just to add a little bit to the 

2 Part 20.2002 or the exemption process. I think as I've 

3 mentioned before, at WCS we use the Part 20.2002 health 

4 based standards to help guide what our limits should be, 

5 but we went through an exemption process. 

6 You know, Texas doesn't have a Part 20.2002-like 

7 process so we used a general, generic exemption process 

8 that Texas and other States have that would get us to 

9 the same destination but just along a different pathway. 

10 But I think what's also unique about the 

11 exemption process that we have is under our low-level 

12 license, we have requirements that we have to evaluate 

13 the interactions of all of our sites as part of an 

14 updated annual performance assessment that we provide. 

15 So I think that provides a really unique tool that shows 

16 that if you have a low-level waste facility that's 

17 adjacent to a RCRA facility, it provides a couple of 

18 unique aspects. 

19 One is it allows for low activity waste to 

20 be disposed of in a cost effective manner, but you still 

21 ensure that the interactions between all your sites are 

22 accounted for and it's assessed annually. And that's 

23 evaluated by the radioactive materials assessment 

24 division so that's a bit unique. And it's also 

25 evaluated against a comprehensive environmental 
 167 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 monitoring program that evaluates potential impacts 

2 from all of our sites. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Scott. 

4 Let's go to Billy and then I'll see if Earl is going to 

5 say something. 

6 MR. COX: Billy Cox with EPRI. 

7 Respectfully, Tom, under RCRA all disposal solid waste 

8 disposal facilities, be it under subtitle D or subtitle 

9 C, are permanent and regulated. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks. And I think 

11 he did refer to that. But we'll see. But let's, rather 

12 than going back and forth right now, let's see if we have 

13 any new thoughts. Earl? 

14 MR. FORDHAM: This one I don't think is 

15 more the policy makers than for Chris over there. We're 

16 hearing a lot of argument over 25 millirem versus the 

17 CERCLA standard of 10 to the minus 4. Can you guys put 

18 something in writing to the equivalent? 

19 MR. CAMERON: Do you understand what 

20 Earl's talking about? 

21 MR. MCKINNEY: Give me a model and I might 

22 make them so. It is all about the decisions and the 

23 scenarios you use, they can be. In decommissioning 

24 space we run into it a lot, where in the end game by using 

25 both processes and with the different levels of 
 168 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 scenarios we get the same concentrations out or similar 

2 concentrations at the end of decommissioning so they 

3 make similar things. 

4 Now there are a lot of assumptions that have 

5 to go into for the 10 to the negative 4 and if you go 

6 by strictness on the NCRP, 25 is 5 times 10 negative 4 

7 or around that range because it continually changes for 

8 a 30-year exposure. 

9 So they're not exactly equivalent, but 

10 again it's, when you go back to reality, back to 

11 concentrations, they're fairly close and it all depends 

12 on their scenarios. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Kiandra, do we 

14 have anybody on the phones? 

15 OPERATOR: There are no questions queued 

16 at this time, Mr. Cameron. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you. 

18 We're going to go in the back to this gentleman back 

19 there and then we'll come back. Yes, sir. 

20 MR. WALKER: Yes. Stewart Walker. I'm 

21 with the EPA Superfund program. So I think what pretty 

22 much what Chris said was pretty accurate, but basically 

23 it's always been our policy that when NRC implements 

24 their decommissioning rule, in the vast majority of 

25 cases they're going to follow within the CERCLA risk 
 169 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 range. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Thank you for that EPA view. 

3 Since we're back here let's hear from Paul. And did 

4 you, you were out of the room, I think, but someone 

5 addressed your comments -- 

6 (Off microphone comments) 

7 MR. BLACK: Too low, okay. Well, I could 

8 make more comments about all of that too. But the 

9 1,000-year issue, for example, when we're dealing with 

10 compliance period we think that we're modeling that far 

11 or further out into the future because we want to protect 

12 future populations in some sense. And I'd argue that 

13 we should be doing a cost-benefit analysis, and since 

14 most of the world deals with social discounting I'm not 

15 sure why we're not. 

16 But the issue though of protecting the 

17 people in the future, I think the best thing we could 

18 do to protect them in the future is to fix our laws. Fix 

19 the way that we approach this. Then 100 years from now, 

20 we won't still be having these arguments. We'll have 

21 a better path forward on how to do these as dose 

22 assessments or risk assessments. 

23 But that wasn't why I asked for the 

24 microphone, but you threw that back at me a little bit, 

25 I think. So just one comment on the 25 millirem versus 
 170 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 10 to the minus 5 issue. And it's a comment that some 

2 other people have made in very different ways than I'm 

3 going to make it now. 

4 But we do a lot of environmental 

5 characterization and risk assessment work and sometimes 

6 that involves radionuclides, CERCLA sites, RCRA sites, 

7 and we're talking about soil samples. And sometimes we 

8 have no contamination, but we have thorium and radium 

9 and uranium in the soil. 

10 What's the dose? What's the background 

11 dose? Anyone want to hazard any guesses? Do you all 

12 know? Because usually we think of it as 3 times 10 to 

13 the minus 4. 

14 MALE PARTICIPANT: Well, it's more than 

15 that. 

16 MR. MCKINNEY: It's radon. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Paul. Dan, 

18 did you have something from before? But let me go to 

19 Tom. That's right, he's been waiting. Tom? 

20 MR. MAGETTE: Thanks, Chip. I just want 

21 to say again, 20.2002 is an exemption process. There 

22 is no health standard in 20.2002, nor is, unless you have 

23 a different copy of 20.2002 than I do, Billy, is there 

24 a requirement in 20.2002 that waste exempted under that 

25 process goes to a RCRA facility. 
 171 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 It's an exemption. It can go anywhere. 

2 If it goes into a RCRA facility, then, it can go to a 

3 RCRA facility, in which case, it is then treated under 

4 whatever the regulatory requirements of that site are. 

5 But that's not what the regulation requires. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And let's remember 

7 that we're talking about strategic, or supposed to be 

8 talking about strategic assessment issues here. So 

9 maybe one more point on this and let's see if there's 

10 any strategic assessment comments. We'll go to Larry. 

11 MR. MCKINNEY: I just want to clarify. 

12 Under 20.2002, material is not exempted. The 

13 possession of material is exempted. And so therefore 

14 that can relate to requirements and stuff because 

15 20.2002 is used on site quite a bit too. But 

16 technically the material is not exempted. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Chris. 

18 Larry, do you want to, let me give you this. 

19 MR. CAMPER: Yes. What I want to do is, 

20 Melanie, could you put the slide up that shows the medium 

21 priorities? The questions that we challenged you with 

22 have led to fantastic discussion, some of it at a very 

23 high level and philosophical in nature. And that's 

24 fine. That's good. Because the kinds of questions 

25 that we asked prompted that kind of dialogue. 
 172 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 What I would like to do though is in the few 

2 minutes that we have left is to specifically put the 

3 medium priority activities up, ask the panel to take a 

4 look at them, and clearly other than Number 1 which I 

5 think we've already agreed that greater than Class C 

6 waste supposedly should move up to a higher priority, 

7 do any of the others warrant being moved up to a higher 

8 priority? 

9 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Specific questions. 

10 And I think we've heard some discussion on these topics 

11 at least broadly. But Mike, are you going to go to the 

12 mediums? 

13 MR. GARNER: No, I was going to go to even 

14 lower. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. While you're 

16 thinking about Larry's question about medium priority, 

17 let's hear from Mike and Dan. 

18 MR. GARNER: Well, you know, there's two 

19 that I think the, I guess, develop, perform scoping 

20 study of need to revise/expand byproduct material 

21 financial assurance to account for life cycle, but 

22 that's already a high. I would just again emphasize -- 

23 oh, I'm sorry. 

24 I would again emphasize that I think it will 

25 be at least a medium to look at when radioactive material 
 173 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 becomes a waste and to fold that attribution in there. 

2 I think that's very important to interstate compacts, 

3 and right now all the sites are located in interstate 

4 compacts. So I would appreciate you throwing us a bone. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I think they'll 

6 remember that throwing the bone comment. Dan? 

7 MR. SHRUM: As I mentioned before, with the 

8 20.2002 low activity waste, Task Number 2 needs to be 

9 unchecked. Task Number 10 and 11 which are both medium 

10 get to this issue also. Oh, I'm sorry. Mine's listed 

11 differently because it went through 20. So it's going 

12 to be -- well, I'll just read them off the board there. 

13 Number 3 and 4 also get to low activity 

14 waste, as does 15. On the other one, on Number 6 -- it's 

15 hard to read from here -- 5, identifying new waste 

16 streams, I think that'll be handled with a site-specific 

17 performance assessment. If there's a new waste stream, 

18 I think it'll be captured there. 

19 I think that one can actually just come off 

20 unless somebody wants to spend a lot of time looking into 

21 the future and, you know, that's pure speculation and 

22 there's a way to handle this anyway. And I 

23 think on Number 6, develop an information notice on 

24 waste minimization, I think the industry's done, the 

25 utilities, they've done an excellent job in waste 
 174 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 minimization. You came out with this earlier, you 

2 evaluated it. I think that one can come off also. 

3 MR. CAMERON: So you're saying to delete, 

4 eliminate 5 and 6, and on 3 and 4 you're saying that they 

5 should be properly medium priority -- 

6 MR. SHRUM: Well, they're going to be 

7 rolled into when something gets accomplished on the 

8 20.2002 when it gets finalized. Those should be 

9 considered in finalizing 20.2002. 

10 MR. CAMERON: And your point from before is 

11 that it shouldn't be a checked box. It's not done. Is 

12 that correct? 

13 MR. SHRUM: That's my opinion. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay, in your opinion. 

15 Right. Okay, Ralph? 

16 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would just offer the 

17 simple comment that in our view at this point would be 

18 consolidating all of the items that have the word low 

19 activity waste in them, and the item that has greater 

20 than Class C in it, and then the item that says implement 

21 major revisions to 10 CFR Part 61. 

22 I would tend to look at if you can pull all 

23 those together into a single item because in theory 

24 those would be the significant aspects. So updating 

25 the waste classification tables, looking at the upper 
 175 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 end, looking at the lower end. That would be my 

2 suggestion. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And let's go to 

4 Christine and then Bill, and then I think we'll see what 

5 Mike has, and Larry may have a question for you. 

6 Christine? 

7 MS. GELLES: I'm going from Slide 19 in the 

8 list of low priority activities rather than working with 

9 the total 20. So I think it's the next slide. Just an 

10 observation that Number 1, Number 3, Number, the next 

11 to the last one, I can't tell. Number 6 is Mike's point, 

12 and Number 7. All of those in my mind are elements of 

13 the gap analysis that Ralph and I were discussing early 

14 on. 

15 So in response to Larry's point, I do agree 

16 that the scope of what we were talking about could most 

17 certainly be bigger than the NRC, but if you were to 

18 combine those four items into one and effectively look 

19 at it, sort of holistically and not in isolation that 

20 goes a long way to the gap analysis that I think would 

21 inform and be responsive even to Paul Black's comments 

22 about revisiting the laws. 

23 MR. CAMERON: And thank you for bringing 

24 that up again, because let's not forget that was a major 

25 point where we started this discussion about having a 
 176 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 gap analysis and that gap analysis could include a 

2 number of these points. 

3 Doing the gap analysis, I think is, from 

4 what I heard people saying should be a high priority item 

5 even if it isn't identified as such. And some of these 

6 other issues are going to be folded into the gap 

7 analysis. Bill? 

8 MR. DORNSIFE: Yes, can we transition to 

9 the high one? 

10 MR. CAMERON: Can we go to the high 

11 priority activities, Melanie? 

12 MR. DORNSIFE: Okay, well, there are two on 

13 there that we haven't discussed. I mean, granted, 

14 they're not within our expertise necessarily, but I 

15 guess -- 

16 MR. CAMERON: And use the mic, Bill. 

17 MR. DORNSIFE: There are two on there that 

18 we haven't really discussed. I mean it's not 

19 necessarily handles background, but if Number 5 and 

20 Number 7, now Number 5, is that related to low-level 

21 waste import only? 

22 MR. CAMERON: He just took, for everybody 

23 on the phone, Number 5 is develop procedures for 

24 import/export review. And what was the other one that 

25 you -- 
 177 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 MR. DORNSIFE: 7. 

2 MR. CAMERON: 7 is perform scoping study of 

3 the need to revise/expand byproduct material financial 

4 assurance to account for life cycle cost. Okay, and 

5 what are you saying about this? 

6 MR. DORNSIFE: Well, on Number 5, is that 

7 specific to low-level waste? 

8 MR. CAMERON: And Gregory Suber's saying 

9 yes. 

10 MR. DORNSIFE: I mean if it is, I mean isn't 

11 that effectively banned? I mean should that need to be 

12 high priority? 

13 MR. CAMERON: And Christine, did you have 

14 something on that? 

15 MR. DORNSIFE: Well, on Number 7, I mean I 

16 think that's important, but I think we also need, if it's 

17 your purview we need to elevate the same thing for sealed 

18 sources, financial assurance for sealed sources. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Christine? 

20 MS. GELLES: Mine was just a 

21 clarification. I always interpreted 5 to be 

22 import/export internationally, so importing from 

23 outside the United States and not within the compact 

24 system. Okay, just wanted to make sure. Okay. 

25 MR. GARNER: But Christine -- this is Mike 
 178 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Garner. When imports are considered, like 

2 EnergySolutions they import something from Germany, 

3 then NRC's office sends us the paperwork for us to then 

4 comment if we have any issue with this. 

5 MR. CAMERON: Leonard, did you want to say 

6 something? Let's make sure we get Leonard on the 

7 transcript. 

8 MR. SLOTSKY: I just wanted to expand a 

9 little bit on the notion of sealed sources which relates 

10 to Number 7 but it's really broader. And I would 

11 support several previous comments that sealed sources 

12 be made a priority because of the national security 

13 concern. 

14 And as Rusty mentioned earlier, the Forum's 

15 Disused Source Working Group will be issuing its report 

16 in ten days and it has a number of recommendations, some 

17 of which are directed in NRC's bailiwick. So I invite 

18 everyone to look at that and we want to have a continuing 

19 dialogue with NRC on that issue. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Leonard. Ralph, 

21 and then we'll go to Paul. 

22 MR. ANDERSON: I just wanted to add on to 

23 the notion of consolidating items that would be related 

24 to a Part 61 Rulemaking. However you think about this 

25 in strategic assessment, the truly appropriate tool is 
 179 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 an advance notice of proposed Rulemaking, which if you 

2 look at many of the ANPRs the very first issue that's 

3 put up is should we even change the rule? 

4 So you have that overarching capability and 

5 then you have all the sub-issues that are involved. 

6 Again I'll just point to the recent 40 CFR 190 ANPR for 

7 the environmental radiation standards for nuclear fuel 

8 cycle. But the key is that's probably the best right 

9 way to elicit broad stakeholder input on a number of 

10 those issues that if you took them on would involve an 

11 actual Rulemaking, especially in light of the type of 

12 input that you got with the so-called limited 

13 Rulemaking, which now I understand wasn't limited at 

14 all. 

15 But you got a lot of input surrounding that 

16 when you had the policy issue. Remember in that long 

17 myriad list of SRMs that you had to respond to, you went 

18 out at one time and sort of asked on some high level 

19 issues. 

20 If you built on that with ANPR at some 

21 point, it seems to me that you'd elicit the proper 

22 information to formulate a much better staff position 

23 for the Commission, you know, specific to the issue of 

24 Rulemaking. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Ralph. 
 180 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 We're going to go to Paul, and I'm going to check on the 

2 phones again. And we do need to go to Aby Mohseni for 

3 a recap at 12:45 so that people can get their planes. 

4 So this is Paul Black. 

5 MR. BLACK: This is just a minor issue 

6 perhaps but this is the first time I've seen the list 

7 of priority activities and they're split into low, 

8 medium and high. And it looks to me that to some extent 

9 what's high priority activities and more high urgency 

10 activities, they're things that apply to this is what 

11 we want to do in near term. 

12 I'm not sure if that really, if urgency 

13 distinguishes between priorities quite so well. I 

14 think some of those on the low priority list are maybe 

15 more of a priority, but maybe not quite the urgency. 

16 MR. CAMERON: And that's apropos of the 

17 comments that began our discussion about, I think, 

18 people were saying that maybe the NRC should be looking 

19 at its strategic assessment perhaps from a different 

20 perspective. So that's another thought on that. 

21 And Kiandra, do we have anybody on the 

22 phones? 

23 OPERATOR: There are no questions in the 

24 queue at this time. 

25 MR. CAMERON: And Melanie, any emails? 
 181 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 Okay, no emails. I've got to go to Larry. Okay, I've 

2 got to go to Larry, and then I think we need to go to 

3 the recap. Okay. 

4 MR. CAMPER: Thank you, Chip. I want to 

5 provide clarification because Ralph said something that 

6 triggered a thought. On the low priority activities 

7 which was Number 4, which was identified as implement 

8 major revisions to 10 CFR Part 61, remember that this 

9 document was created in 2006-2007. 

10 And the thinking behind those words was a 

11 comprehensive revision to Part 61, and recall what 

12 happened. A, the staff viewed it as a low priority 

13 activity, continued ahead with the Commission paper 

14 recommending the site-specific performance assessment, 

15 which of course became massaged and modified along the 

16 way, blending, and some other things. 

17 But along the way, remember that the 

18 Commission actually asked us to question during the 

19 blending briefing as to why we aren't pursuing a 

20 comprehensive revision to Part 61. Staff prepared a 

21 paper, identified five options, told the Commission we 

22 would go out and shop it, come back after we heard. 

23 And we went back and made a recommendation 

24 that activity be truncated, and the Commission approved 

25 that. So that option, that issue falls off the table, 
 182 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 so to speak. 

2 And the only Rulemakings that we have are, 

3 1, the one that's ongoing of course, and 2, we have the 

4 assignment to risk inform the waste classification 

5 table, currently, and unless that changes that would 

6 involve a Rulemaking. But those are the only 

7 Rulemakings that are in play and no comprehensive 

8 revision at this point given Commission direction. 

9 MR. CAMERON: And do you want to go up there 

10 or do you want to -- 

11 MR. MOHSENI: I'll do it up there. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

13 MR. MOHSENI: Well, thank you very much for 

14 the panel's discussion, very informative. We're back 

15 to revise everything we thought we knew to accommodate 

16 the new information we gathered this morning. 

17 We had two major topics to discuss. We had 

18 Part 61 and the strategic assessment on Part 61. We 

19 heard very interesting comments, although we are not 

20 officially collecting any comments. It was mostly 

21 dealing with process, so that's welcome. 

22 One of the items that dealt with process was 

23 get the draft of the guidance issued early or piecemeal 

24 so that people have time to look at a 500-page document, 

25 and you heard some discussions on that. 
 183 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 There was also a proposal, don't give us anything 

2 that's not a proposed rule. In other words be careful 

3 how unfocused we can become if you do not focus what is 

4 it that you are actually proposing, which we had some 

5 discussion on that as well. We had some clarification 

6 that the SRM language appears to leave open the issue 

7 of compatibility and perhaps some other issues to 

8 further discussion with the Commission after we get more 

9 public input, and that was all well discussed. 

10 There was some discussion about role of 

11 Agreement States as co-regulators in Part 61. There 

12 was good discussion about the fact that we have Texas 

13 and South Carolina reps on the working group is viewed 

14 positively. 

15 And States believed generally, the States 

16 represented here, that the engagement up until now has 

17 been well, but they recommend that the public engagement 

18 occur in sited States and allowing more closer people 

19 involved to actually participate. 

20 We also hear that the low-level waste sites 

21 are national treasures and we should not underutilize 

22 the resource. We also heard the importance of the 

23 selection of scenarios for intruder assessment. It 

24 does a lot, hinges upon the type of scenario selected. 

25 Making them risk informed was a suggestion, 
 184 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 and Low-Level Waste Forum indicated that they on behalf 

2 of the compacts will be providing input. Then we had 

3 a very animated discussion about the strategic 

4 assessment. While we had those four areas listed as 

5 questions, we had a hard time finding the slide that 

6 actually had it. And we did ask the question of how is 

7 the landscape changing. Folks on the panel did 

8 some good critical thinking and provided good input in 

9 terms of what about a gap analysis that would look at 

10 a scope of the nation in a way that it's much broader 

11 than just what NRC's interested in from its regulatory 

12 mission. And I think the first slide made that 

13 assumption that we are really looking at the landscape 

14 in the nation not just as at the NRC alone. 

15 And indeed, good input we received from 

16 both the DOE and NEI and others on the panel that there 

17 was also a suggestion to utilize scenarios in strategic 

18 thinking, and the time horizon of five to seven years 

19 may not be adequate to capture the essence of the changes 

20 that might be needed to be thinking about in the next 

21 five to seven years, so it has to be a little bit of a 

22 bigger purview to be able to better focus on the five 

23 to seven years. 

24 That's the interpretation I'm giving. 

25 That was not stated exactly this way, but nonetheless 
 185 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 you have to be realistic in what's, a good discussion 

2 of what's urgent versus what's high priority. I think 

3 that priority list we had from 2007, as Larry indicated, 

4 reflected the priorities at the time and we often 

5 confuse at the NRC what's urgent versus what's high 

6 priority. 

7 So the recognition of that was very well 

8 founded. We will indeed focus on high priority, always 

9 mindful of the urgent. If you knew how much that 

10 manifest is pressing us, the issuing the one sheet of 

11 paper that we need to open up, I mean that's taking more 

12 resources than actually addressing important issues 

13 that are important but not urgent. Nonetheless, that's 

14 our behavior and we stand right behind it. 

15 There was a lot of good discussion on 

16 greater than Class C, very significantly insightful for 

17 us. And I really thank you, Christine and others on the 

18 panel, to shedding so much light on where we are in 

19 greater than Class C. 

20 Although Christine remarked in her remarks 

21 that a subset of what constitutes greater than Class C 

22 would easily meet the requirements of proposed language 

23 in site-specific analysis, what she didn't capture is 

24 what about the pieces that don't fall and where would 

25 they end up. And is it the transuranic, we only have 
 186 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 three options. The high-level waste, transuranic, or 

2 low level waste. So that may be something you may help 

3 us with to better understand what that gap looks like. 

4 But we talked about the relevance of the 

5 classification tables. I mean there were a lot of good 

6 thoughts that why not do away with the classification 

7 tables as science has overtaken that. And there were 

8 some good discussions of why you could still use the 

9 greater than Class C without making it an obstacle to 

10 the good science and allowing the States the flexibility 

11 that they might need in terms of their internal 

12 infrastructure of the regulatory frame that they have 

13 in place. 

14 And so being mindful of that is very 

15 helpful. You guys provided that insight to us. We 

16 talked about the financial responsibility versus 

17 financial assurance, another concept well appreciated. 

18 This is mostly for sealed sources. 

19 Now the urgency of the sealed sources again 

20 was forefront in this discussion from a national 

21 security standpoint. The updating of the tables could 

22 still occur without actually eliminating the table. 

23 Apparently the necessity was described here that update 

24 and bring good science to the table, that's another 

25 input we got and we appreciate. 
 187 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 And then the DOE, Larry indicated that 

2 there would be future meetings between NRC and DOE to 

3 better understand the level of the plans, basically, 

4 about greater than Class C to better have an 

5 appreciation and understanding, and future workshops on 

6 this, which would be appear to be welcome by folks. 

7 Then we talked about new technologies and 

8 new waste streams. And new technologies, I think a lot 

9 of good discussion occurred, but what I did not hear was 

10 at what point in the future do new technologies cause 

11 what is called waste today to become a resource, and 

12 therefore affect the waste stream in some ways that we 

13 can't anticipate yet. But that would be something one 

14 could pursue further. Finalization of the 

15 staff guidance 20.2002 appeared to get much more 

16 attention than I thought. This was interesting. Good 

17 discussion on that. Good discussion on low activity 

18 waste and the consolidation of so many different pieces 

19 of stuff that could all be consolidated. That's 

20 certainly something worthy of investment. 

21 Talked about the new DOE constructions of 

22 CERCLA facilities, potentially for the decommissioning 

23 of Paducah and Portsmouth and the impact that they may 

24 have on the landscape, basically, both in the private 

25 sector and capacity of if it doesn't go through how much 
 188 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 more capacity, or how much more volume will be heading 

2 towards the existing sites and what does that do in terms 

3 of available capacity to everything else. We 

4 do need, a suggestion was made the non-reactor side of 

5 the waste generators ought to be more involved in 

6 providing, issue, comments, and that was well 

7 appreciated. 

8 When does rad material become waste? An 

9 issue that clearly seems to be of interest to some folks 

10 and use of the ANPR process. And I think that's my notes 

11 to highlight some of the key aspects of what we heard 

12 today. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Great. Great summary, Aby. 

14 And Boby said that he had something extremely important 

15 to clarify. 

16 MR. EID: Yes. 

17 MR. MOHSENI: I'm sorry. 

18 MR. CAMERON: You're not done yet. 

19 MR. MOHSENI: I wasn't done. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Sorry, Boby. Go ahead. 

21 MR. MOHSENI: So next steps. You know, 

22 obviously we'll have more outreach on this effort. 

23 This assessment, this is as Greg said, this was the first 

24 session we got together. We will have more workshops, 

25 more opportunities for engaging the stakeholders and 
 189 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 the public at large. 

2 And we will perhaps have a Federal Register 

3 Notice sometime issued as Melanie said in 2014, in a few 

4 months from now, requesting comments. And hopefully 

5 you will have a document by 2015, I think. That's for 

6 the strategic assessment. 

7 For the low-level waste, for the Part 61, 

8 the next steps obviously was like you heard from Dave 

9 that it will take us about a year to be able to issue 

10 a proposed rule based on where we are, and there will 

11 be significant public engagement following that. And 

12 we expect to have workshops, at least one workshop if 

13 not more, and be able to get that to a final place. 

14 Thank you. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Aby. And one 

16 other point is when will the transcript be available for 

17 people approximately? 

18 (Off microphone comments) 

19 MR. CAMERON: I'm sorry, Melanie, I should 

20 have brought you this so that you can get it on the 

21 transcript. 

22 MS. WONG: So we should have it, in at least 

23 a month we should have it up in ADAMS. 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay, so it will be in ADAMS 

25 in a month. And Boby, can you give your clarification 
 190 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 very quickly for the people? 

2 MR. EID: Yes, just something which is 

3 missing here, a reference point for safety, IAEA safety 

4 standard for waste disposal and the safety requirement. 

5 The safety requirement for the international community. 

6 And the point of reference is they say that 

7 if it is less than one millisievert or 100 millirem, you 

8 do not need to optimize as accepted before waste 

9 disposal, and if it is two rem, this means you need to 

10 optimize. So that's their range for waste disposal. 

11 So therefore I want to emphasize that 

12 currently the proposed safety criteria is appropriate, 

13 is good, is quite safe for protection of the public. 

14 Thank you. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. And thank 

16 all of you. Thank the panel, great discussion. Thank 

17 everybody in the room, and I think we're adjourned. 

18 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

19 above-entitled matter was concluded at 12:57 p.m.)