Official Transcript of Proceedings

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

Open Session

Docket Number: (n/a)

Location: Rockville, Maryland

Date: Thursday, November 3, 2016

Work Order No.: NRC-2708 Pages 1-273

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

DISCLAIMER

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION’S

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the 

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards, as reported herein, is a 

record of the discussions recorded at the meeting.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, and 

edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+ + + + +

638TH MEETING

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

(ACRS)

+ + + + +

OPEN SESSION

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

NOVEMBER 3, 2016

+ + + + +

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

+ + + + +

The Advisory Committee met at the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint 

North, Room T2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:29 

a.m., Dennis C. Bley, Chairman, presiding.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

DENNIS C. BLEY, Chairman

MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, Vice Chairman

PETER RICCARDELLA, Member-at-Large

CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member

MARGARET CHU, Member
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

WALTER KIRCHNER, Member

JOSE A. MARCH-LEUBA, Member

DANA A. POWERS, Member

HAROLD B. RAY, Member

JOY REMPE, Member

GORDON R. SKILLMAN, Member

JOHN W. STETKAR, Chairman

MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Member

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:

GIRIJA SHUKLA

ZENA ABDULLAHI

DEREK WIDMAYER

ALSO PRESENT:

GLENN ADAMS, Xcel Energy

GINA BORSH, Dominion

GARY COMFORT, NMSS

JOSEPH DONOGHUE, NRO

DAVID ESH, NMSS

YOUSEF FARAWILA, AREVA

JOSEPH GIACINTO, NRO

ERICA GRAY, Public Participant*

CHRISTOPHER J. GROSSMAN, NMSS*

JOE HEGNER, Dominion
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

PAKSIS KALTA, Public Participant*

DOUG KEMP, Bechtel

ROB KUNTZ, NRR

TAMARA MALANEY, Xcel Energy

CHRIS MCKENNEY, NMSS

TIM MCGINTY, NRR

MATTHEW PANICKER, ORNL

GARY PETERS, Xcel Energy

DIEGO SAENZ, NRR

JAMES SHEA, NRO

RICK STADTLANDER, Xcel Energy

RAO TAMMARA, NRO

DAN TINKLER, AREVA

DOUGLAS TONKAY, DOE

ANDREA D. VEIL, Executive Director, ACRS

STEVE WILLIAMS, NRO

ANDREW WYSOCKI, ORNL

PRIYA YADAV, NMSS

*Present via telephone
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Welcome and Introduction...........................5

North Anna 3 Combined License Application..........7

AREVA Extended Flow Window/Monticello.............72

Recess

10 CFR Part 61 Rulemaking.........................93

Adjourn..........................................273
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 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 (8:29 a.m.)

3 MEMBER CORRADINI: Okay. The meeting 

4 will now come to order. This is the first day of 

5 the 638th Meeting of the Advisory Committee on 

6 Reactor Safeguards. During today's meeting, the 

7 Committee will consider the following: North Anna 

8 3 Combined License Application, the AREVA Extended 

9 Flow Window for Monticello, 10 CFR Part 61 

10 Rulemaking and preparation of ACRS Reports.

11 This meeting is being conducted in 

12 accordance with the Provisions of the Federal 

13 Advisory Committee Act. Mr. Girija Shukla is the 

14 designated Federal official for the initial portion 

15 of the meeting.

16 Portions of the session on AREVA 

17 Extended Flow Window for Monticello may be closed 

18 in order to discuss and protect information 

19 designated as proprietary. We have received no 

20 comments or requests to make oral statements from 

21 members of the public regarding today's session. 

22 There will be a phone bridge line and 

23 to preclude interruption of the meeting, the phone 

24 will be placed in a listen-in mode during the 

25 presentations and Committee discussion. 
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 A transcript of portions of the meeting 

2 is being kept and it's requested that the speakers 

3 use one of the microphones, please identify 

4 themselves and speak with sufficient clarity and 

5 volume so that they can be readily heard. I will 

6 remind members of the Committee and Attendees to 

7 turn off all your electronic devices so we don't 

8 hear any sort of strange noises. 

9 I also want to make sure that everybody 

10 here is aware that this meeting is being Webcast 

11 with the ability to view our presentation slides on 

12 the Web. Those of you who are out on the bridge 

13 line, you may want to do that and dial into the 

14 Webcast versus dialing into the bridge line, as 

15 that will probably be a much clearer connection. 

16 If there's an issue relative to the Webcast or the 

17 bridge line, please call our office.

18 So with that, I'll turn it over to Dr. 

19 Riccardella for our first topic.

20 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Thank you Mike. 

21 The first topic is the Application for a Combined 

22 License for North Anna 3 and ESPWR. We had 

23 Subcommittee meetings on the North Anna application 

24 in September and October of this year. Prior to 

25 that, the ESPWR Subcommittee reviewed and approved 
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 the generic ESPWR design in October of 2010. There 

2 was a subsequent discussion of steam dryer issues 

3 and another letter issued by the Committee in April 

4 2014. 

5 And finally, since North Anna is a 

6 subsequent COLA, a Combined Operating License has 

7 already been issued for Fermi, and we reviewed that 

8 and agreed with the staff on that in September of 

9 2014. So with that brief introduction, I'll turn 

10 the meeting over to Joe Donoghue from NRO.

11 MR. DONOGHUE: Good morning. I'm the, 

12 I'm Joe Donoghue, the Grants Chief in Licensing 

13 Branch 3, as of this week. The staff presentation, 

14 when we get to it, will be led by our new Project 

15 Manager, James Shea. Some of the faces in the 

16 Committee are new. So I wanted to introduce 

17 myself, since I was last here a couple of years 

18 ago. I believe we're starting with the Licensee's 

19 presentation, the Applicant presentation. I think 

20 that's you, Gina.

21 MS. BORSH: It is. Good morning. I'm 

22 Gina Borsh from North Anna 3 Dominion. On behalf 

23 of Dominion, I'd like to thank you all for having 

24 us today. We look forward to making our 

25 presentation following up from our Subcommittee 
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 meeting. With me is Joe Hegner, who is our 

2 Licensing Manager for North Anna 3. 

3 What I'd like to do today is cover with 

4 you an overview of the North Anna 3 site and talk 

5 with you about the licensing history, give you a 

6 summary of that. And then I'll talk about some of 

7 the COLA changes that we've made since we were last 

8 here in 2009 and then I'll conclude our 

9 presentation.

10 This, Slide 3, is an overview of the 

11 North Anna location, the North Anna site location. 

12 You'll see the star here in the Northeast section 

13 of Virginia. The North Anna 3 site is about 40 

14 miles northwest of Richmond and it's about 22 miles 

15 southwest of Fredericksburg, just to give you a 

16 sense of the location of the site.

17 This next slide, Slide 4, is an artist 

18 rendering of what the site will look like when the 

19 ESPWR is built at North Anna but you'll see here is 

20 the existing units, 1 and 2, are over here and 

21 then, over here, is the power block for North Anna, 

22 Unit 3 and on this far right side, are the cooling 

23 towers.

24 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Which, which 

25 direction is north on that?
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 MS. BORSH: We're kind of looking north 

2 -- north is about this way, so we're kind of 

3 looking from the north a little bit west.

4 MR. DONAGHUE: Right. Looking 

5 generally from the north.

6 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes. Okay. So 

7 north is down.

8 MS. BORSH: Correct. Okay? Slide 5 is 

9 the planned view of the North Anna 3 site and 

10 you'll see, here is the turbine building, reactor 

11 building, control building. Over here are the 

12 cooling towers. And then, switchyard is over here 

13 and you saw where, in the previous slide, in 

14 relation to units 1 and 2.

15 If there aren't any other questions about that, 

16 I'll just give you a brief overview of the North 

17 Anna 3 history. We are a plant that started with 

18 an Early Site Permit. 

19 So we submitted our Early Permit 

20 Application back in September of 2003. The NRC 

21 issued the Environmental Impact Statement in 

22 December of 2006 and then the permit was issued in 

23 November of 2007. We submitted our COLA as an 

24 ESPWR COLA -- we were the R-COLA at that time, in 

25 November of 2007. We had Subcommittee meetings 
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 with the ACRS in June, July, in August of 2009. 

2 And then we had the Full Committee meeting in 

3 October of 2009 and a letter was written by the 

4 Committee at that point.

5 Then the NRC issued the Supplemental 

6 EIS in February of 2010 and last month, as Dr. 

7 Riccardella said, we met with the Subcommittee to 

8 present the ESPWR changes that have occurred since 

9 our last NCR visit in 2009. And part of the reason 

10 for this, I think you all know, is because we did 

11 change technologies for a time. We went with the 

12 APWR technology in May 2010 and ended up reverting 

13 back to the ESPR technology in 2013.

14 So, are there any questions on that 

15 before we talk about COLA changes? So we reverted 

16 back to the ESPWR design in 2013 and when we made 

17 that decision to revert back, we followed two 

18 strategies, two basic, the strategy used two basic 

19 principles to make the changes to revert back to 

20 the ESPWR design.

21 One was, we wanted to standardize the 

22 content that was in the COLA as much as possible 

23 with the ESPWR DCD, and with Fermi-3's R-COLA. And 

24 we used the design centered working group approach 

25 to do that, which was endorsed essentially, or 
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 described originally by the NRC in a RIS, I think.

2 And then the second piece was that we 

3 wanted to rely as much as possible on the 

4 site-specific COLA information that we had provided 

5 previously, that was in the ESPWR COLA before we 

6 switched to the APWR. So as a result of that, most 

7 of the COLA content that you see before you today 

8 is consistent with the information that we 

9 previously provided in 2009. Okay?

10 If there aren't any questions about the approach, 

11 I'll start going through, give you an overview of 

12 some of the changes.

13 The first change that I'd like to talk 

14 with you about is hazardous chemical analyses. So 

15 what we did was, we looked at the potential 

16 accidents -- that's described in Section 2.2 of our 

17 FSAR and two of the accidents, the categories that 

18 we had to consider were explosions and delayed 

19 ignition of a flammable vapor cloud. 

20 When we did these analyses, we found 

21 that the blast effects would not exceed the peak 

22 over pressure of 1 PSI at any of the safety-related 

23 structures, except for storage of and transport of 

24 liquid hydrogen. So we had to do further analysis 

25 there.
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 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Excuse me, the use of 

2 the hydrogen. Are the primary uses static cooling 

3 and reactor coolant system chemistry? 

4 MS. BORSH: That, mostly reactor 

5 cooling system chemistry, yes.

6 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.

7 MS. BORSH: So, for liquid hydrogen, we 

8 did our analysis and what we found -- we had two 

9 6000-gallon capacity tanks that we analyzed for the 

10 storage -- and what we did find when we did this 

11 more detailed analysis is that the actual distance, 

12 distances between the tanks and the nearest 

13 safety-related structure exceed the calculated 

14 minimum safe distance. So we were okay there.

15 MEMBER CORRADINI: Just a reminder, 

16 what is the minimum safe distance?

17 MS. BORSH: Oh gosh, we have it, it's 

18 7, we talked about it last time, 

19 MEMBER CORRADINI: Sorry, I wasn't at 

20 the Subcommittee meeting --

21 MS. BORSH: No, yes, that's okay. But 

22 what I'm saying is I know we have the number. It's 

23 in the FSAR and we'll pull that up for you.

24 MEMBER CORRADINI: That's fine. That's 

25 fine. Just -
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 MS. BORSH: Yes, it's around 700 feet.

2 MEMBER CORRADINI: Okay. 

3 MR. DONOGHUE: 750.

4 MEMBER CORRADINI: Thank you.

5 MS. BORSH: Okay.

6 MEMBER CORRADINI: Thank you.

7 MS. BORSH: Sure. For transporting 

8 liquid hydrogen, we assumed that we had a 

9 13,000-gallon capacity tank and we did a PRA, 

10 probabilistic analysis, and we concluded that the 

11 probability of an accident involving the delivery 

12 truck is less than 10-6 per year, which is 

13 acceptable per the NRC guidance. 

14 So we didn't have to assume that there 

15 would be any missiles from that sort of event. So 

16 as a result, we didn't have any design-basis 

17 events, with respect to storage or transport of 

18 chemicals.

19 MR. MARCH-LEUBA: Yes. I was at the 

20 Subcommittee meeting. Is this is because you 

21 design the parking lot so that the truck doesn't 

22 have to back, backtrack, I mean, this is low 

23 probability of a truck having an accident. Is 

24 because you design the approach to the tank 

25 properly, right? 
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 MS. BORSH: Yes, it is designed 

2 properly. MR. MARCH-LEUBA: Yes.

3 MS. BORSH: That's your question.

4 MR. MARCH-LEUBA: So the probability 

5 was reduced by taking proactive action and 

6 designing it properly?

7 MS. BORSH: Yes. That's correct.

8 MEMBER STETKAR: That's not, just for 

9 the record, so we're clear for the meeting. That's 

10 not the frequency of a truck accident. That's the 

11 frequency of a truck accident resulting in an 

12 explosion.

13 MS. BORSH: That's right. That's 

14 right.

15 MEMBER STETKAR: Trucks have accidents 

16 more frequently than once in a million years.

17 MR. BORSH: But before we leave this 

18 topic, I think Doug, from Bechtel, has a comment. 

19 Yes. This is Doug Kemp, from Bechtel.

20 MR. KEMP: Hello. It's on?

21 MEMBER CORRADINI: It's on Doug.

22 MR. KEMP: Oh. Doug Kemp from Bechtel. 

23 The question was on the safe stand-off distance, 

24 yes. The calculated safe stand-off distance from 

25 the source, analysis was 495 feet and for the vapor 
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 cloud, analysis was 777 feet.

2 MS. BORSH: Thank you Doug. Okay. Any 

3 other questions about hazardous chemicals before we 

4 go on? Right. We also performed additional 

5 analyses for our local intense precipitation work, 

6 which was documented in Section 2.4.2 and our 

7 analyses of the maximum inundation flood levels 

8 that result from probable, from local probable 

9 maximum precipitation found that these potential 

10 flood levels are bounded by the DCD. The DCD set 

11 parameter is 1 foot below grade. And we were, we 

12 found that our results were acceptable there. 

13 We did further analysis looking at the 

14 sheet flow, because of an RAI that we received and 

15 in the analysis, we assumed the, what is stipulated 

16 in the FSAR, which were certain flow directions 

17 from the rooftops for the runoff. As a result of 

18 the flow analysis that we did, we found that there 

19 were three locations that, where the sheet flow 

20 depths are above the floor elevations at the 

21 entrances to some safety-related buildings. 

22 So in the FSAR we committed to place 

23 curbs at these entrances or to raise their 

24 thresholds to prevent water from entering these 

25 buildings.
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 So as a result of the analysis work we did and the 

2 commitments that we've made, we found that the site 

3 grading and structure configuration precludes 

4 flooding in safety-related buildings during a local 

5 intense precipitation event. Questions on that?

6 All right. Another accident that we 

7 had, that we reviewed again, was the accident on 

8 release of liquid effluence to the environment. 

9 This is documented in Section 2.4.13 of the FSAR. 

10 The design of the ESBWR does include mitigating 

11 features to preclude any accidental releases of 

12 effluence. However, per the SRP 11.2, we do have 

13 to do an accidental release analysis and we 

14 performed that analysis. 

15 We used the condensate storage tank to 

16 be, as the source of our release, based on ranking 

17 of the tanks and looking at the mitigating features 

18 that we have for each of the tanks. And, as a 

19 result of this analysis, we found that the release 

20 from the condensate storage tank to the environment 

21 would result in concentrations and doses that are 

22 well below the 10 CFR 20 limits.

23 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Gina, would you 

24 explain what ranking of tanks means in that 

25 context, please?
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 MS. BORSH: Yes. What we looked at was 

2 the concentrations of radioactive material in each 

3 of the tanks. So previously, our -- we had used a 

4 different tank for -- when we were here in 2009, we 

5 used a different tank for doing the analysis but, 

6 because it had a higher radioactive nuclei 

7 concentration. But because of revisions to the NRC 

8 Guidance, we were able to switch over to the 

9 condensate storage tank this time. But it's 

10 looking at the amount of radioactive material 

11 that's in the tank, each tank.

12 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay. And what would 

13 be the isotopic burden in the condensate storage 

14 tank? This would be from condensate if you had a 

15 steam generator tube leak or if you had a, if you 

16 had fuel preparation and you're carrying that 

17 isotopic inventory over into another condensate 

18 storage tank?

19 MS. BORSH: Let me ask our, ESPWR 

20 experts, if that's okay with you?

21 MEMBER SKILLMAN: What I'm really 

22 wondering is what is the source term upon which you 

23 would make the statement, we've ranked this tank, 

24 thus and so?

25 MS. BORSH: And I don't have, 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 information is in our COLA. Do you want me to 

2 pull that up for you? In our FSAR? 

3 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Sometime in the next 

4 hour, that'd be fine.

5 MS. BORSH: Okay. All right.

6 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.

7 MS. BORSH: So, we'll get back with you 

8 on that. 

9 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay.

10 MS. BORSH: Okay. Any other questions 

11 about this one?

12 MEMBER SKILLMAN: No.

13 MS. BORSH: The next change that we 

14 made was actually a departure from the DCD and it 

15 involves a Radwaste discharge typing change that 

16 we made. So overall, Unit 3 is designed to be a 

17 zero liquid release plan. So our goal is to not 

18 release any radioactive material to the site. But 

19 it's designed to recycle all the processed water. 

20 If we do have to make a release though, 

21 we will be, at North Anna, we'll be using a 

22 dedicated liquid Radwaste effluent discharge 

23 pipeline and that would discharge to the discharge 

24 canal. We won't be using the circulating water 

25 systems cooling tower blowdown line, which is what 
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 is currently described in the DCD. So that's the 

2 departure there. 

3 And then in FCR Section 12.3, we 

4 explained that and make a commitment that this 

5 discharge line that we're, we'll be designing, is 

6 going to run underground and it will be run in a 

7 guard pipe or it's going to be accessible via a 

8 trench or a tunnel. 

9 And so this discharge line that we're 

10 talking about complies with 10 CFR 20.1406 to 

11 minimize to the extent practicable, contamination 

12 of the facility and the environment. Any questions 

13 on that?

14 This next slide, Slide 13, is about Reg. Guide 

15 1.221, which provides guidance from the NRC on 

16 design-basis hurricane winds and hurricane 

17 missiles. 

18 This Reg Guide was not in place, it had not 

19 been issued when the DCD was originally submitted, 

20 so, as part of the rule making for the DCD, we 

21 basically were required to do our evaluation using 

22 this Reg. Guide and the guidance therein. 

23 So we did our evaluations and we found 

24 that the seismic Category I structures are going to 

25 be designed to withstand the loads due to the DCD 
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 tornado wind speed and missile spectrum, because 

2 the DCD wind and missile demands bound all of the 

3 North Anna 3 sites specific tornado and hurricane 

4 wind and missile demands. 

5 For seismic Category II structures, and 

6 those structures that are housing Regulatory 

7 Treatment of Non-Safety Systems, RTNSS structure 

8 systems and components, we're going to be designing 

9 those to withstand both the DCD criteria and the 

10 Reg. Guide 1.221 hurricane and missile demands. 

11 So the conclusion here is that the 

12 seismic Category I structures will meet the DCD 

13 wind speed and missile criteria and the Category II 

14 structures and RTNSS structures, or structures 

15 housing RTNSS, will meet the DCD and Reg. Guide 

16 1.221 criteria for hurricane winds and missiles. 

17 Okay?

18 Now we're going to talk about seismic, 

19 that's what the next few slides are about. There 

20 were a number of drivers of, for the seismic 

21 revisions that we made to R-COLA and this is a list 

22 of the major ones. You know, on August 23, 2011, 

23 there was an earthquake that occurred in the 

24 Mineral, Virginia area. 

25 Also, EPRI and the NRC issued some new 
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 criteria, the new Central and Eastern United 

2 States- Seismic Source Characterization Sources, so 

3 we needed to use that information and then, also, 

4 the ground motion model was updated by EPRI.

5 In addition to that, the NRC revised 

6 several guidance documents, three SRPs and one of 

7 the, and they issued ISG 17. So, as a result of 

8 all these changes, we decided that we had to make 

9 changes, both to the vibratory ground motion that 

10 is used in the seismic analysis and then, of 

11 course, we had to redo the seismic analysis to 

12 incorporate these changes. 

13 This next slide, Slide 15, basically 

14 shows us the process that we used to develop our 

15 seismic hazard. So you'll see, we start with the 

16 seismic source which comes from the new CEUS 

17 Seismic Source Characterization data and then, we 

18 move that source through to the ground motion. As 

19 it attenuates, it comes up through the rock site, 

20 amplification occurs here and then we eventually 

21 develop our sites-specific seismic hazard, which is 

22 used in our seismic analysis.

23 This is a summary of what I just showed 

24 you. So what we did was, we updated our seismic 

25 sources using the new CEUS and updated seismicity 
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 and it included the 2011 Mineral Earthquake. We 

2 revised our probabilistic seismic hazards analysis 

3 using the updated CEUS-SSC and new ground motion 

4 model that was provided by EPRI. 

5 We developed our new site-specific 

6 response factor using the revised PSHA and then we 

7 developed our new ground motion response spectra 

8 and our Foundation Input Response Spectra or FIRS. 

9 We refined these using the site-specific response 

10 spectra and the new ISG 17 guidance that the NRC 

11 had issued.

12 As a result of doing all this, we 

13 identified certain exceedances at certain 

14 frequencies of the Certified Seismic Design 

15 Response Spectra or CSDRS, and so that was what 

16 drove us to, revise, not redo, I'm sorry, because 

17 we hadn't had to do this before, but perform 

18 seismic analysis of the structures and some of the 

19 systems and components. 

20 This slide is, shows you, just as an 

21 example, the exceedances that we have for the 

22 reactor building control building, and you'll see 

23 the black line here is the DCD CSDRS, and then the 

24 blue and red lines provide the reactor building 

25 control building FIRS and you'll see that just at 
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 certain frequencies around, starting at around 10 

2 hertz, we have some exceedances here. The same 

3 holds true for the fire water service complex, but 

4 I don't have that slide for you. 

5 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Just, just a 

6 comment while we're on that slide. It's not shown, 

7 but for those of you who weren't at Subcommittee, 

8 the combination of the design spectrum plus the 

9 other ones significantly bounds the spectra from 

10 the Mineral, Virginia earthquake.

11 MS. BORSH: Thank you sir. Yes, the 

12 Mineral earthquake had, minimal -- it really had no 

13 impact on the results overall of the seismic 

14 analysis, so, but we did incorporate it, just to 

15 confirm that.

16 Slide 18 now talks about our seismic analysis and 

17 our evaluation of the seismic Category I 

18 structures. 

19 So after we got the input from the 

20 vibratory ground motion, we developed the seismic 

21 design parameters using the site-specific soil 

22 structure interaction input soil profiles and the 

23 ground motions and we performed the site-specific 

24 SSI and structure soils structure interaction 

25 analyses, so that we could evaluate the Cat I 
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 buildings, which are the RBFB, the control building 

2 and the fire water service complex. 

3 And we were looking at those using our 

4 site-specific ground motion and soil properties.

5 We used the results of those analyses to determine 

6 the site-specific seismic demands on the structures 

7 and then we performed site-specific analyses of the 

8 structures and the components using the 

9 site-specific seismic demands, along with the other 

10 demands on those items. 

11 Finally, just to point out the 

12 methodology and mathematical models that we used 

13 for these analyses were consistent with what was 

14 used for the DCD structures and systems and 

15 components.

16 The results of the analyses show that 

17 there were no changes to the DCD concrete member 

18 properties so, for example, the slabs and wall 

19 thicknesses all stayed the same as the DCD. We did 

20 have to make a couple of minor local changes to the 

21 shear ties and the reinforcement in the reactor 

22 building, building exterior walls one place there. 

23 We changed the size of a control 

24 building girder and then we also made some 

25 modifications to the rebarring shear ties that are 
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 in the fire water service complex shear case and 

2 basement. For the components, there was a slight 

3 increase in the size of the support saddle bolt for 

4 the Passive Containment Cooling System Condenser 

5 and we slightly increased the ankle bolt size and 

6 corner base plate welds for the field storage 

7 tracks in the buffer pool. 

8 So basically, the seismic 

9 constructional analyses that we performed and the 

10 minor design enhancements that we made demonstrate 

11 the capability of the structures, systems and 

12 components to operate at North Anna 3. Any 

13 questions about seismic?

14 In conclusion, we just want to point 

15 out that we did, as I said earlier, implement the 

16 design-centered review approach to maximize 

17 standardization with the DCD and with the R-COLA. 

18 We provided site-specific topics that the NRC has 

19 reviewed and evaluated. And our determination, 

20 along with the SER, is that North Anna 3 site is 

21 adequate to support construction and operation of 

22 the plant.

23 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Gina, would you go 

24 back a slide please?

25 MS. BORSH: Sure.
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 MEMBER SKILLMAN: For the four changes 

2 that those four bullets represent, should we be 

3 thinking that each place a change has been made, 

4 there is a calculation package that has been 

5 conducted under 10C-450, Appendix B, demonstrating 

6 the seismic capability of the revised device.

7 MS. BORSH: Yes, that's correct.

8 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.

9 MS. BORSH: You're welcome. And those 

10 reports have been submitted to the NRC for review 

11 too. They've either seen them through audits or 

12 they're on the docket.

13 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you Gina.

14 MS. BORSH: You're welcome. Question? 

15 Okay. Thank you.

16 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Thank you Gina. 

17 That I guess will have the staff briefing?

18 MEMBER SKILLMAN: I'd still like to 

19 hear about source term on the condensate storage 

20 tank, please.

21 MS. BORSH: Yes.

22 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay. Thank you.

23 MR. SHEA: Morning. My name is Jim 

24 Shea. I'm the NRC's Division of New Reactor 

25 Licensing Lead Project Manager for the North Anna 3 
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 review. The staff is presenting its Phase 4 SER 

2 with no open items. This is a follow-on from the 

3 Phase 2 SER with open items that was completed 

4 based on a full ACRS meeting back in October 2009. 

5 During the last ACRS Subcommittee 

6 meeting, the staff presented the review highlights 

7 of the Phase 4 review, and focused on, I think like 

8 Gina mentioned, the differences between the 

9 site-specific differences from the DCD and, of 

10 course, the R-COLA with Fermi.

11 And when you look at it, the review 

12 focus essentially is on, there's, there was five 

13 exemptions, there's a number of departures from the 

14 DCD and then there's some variances associated with 

15 the ESP. And that was the staff's main focus on 

16 the review. And in the past 24 months, the review 

17 focus has really been on the seismic issue. 

18 The seismic closure plan, that was 

19 submitted by Dominion in October of 2014 has been, 

20 really, the main focus and you could say the 

21 longest pole in the tent of the review. 

22 Our staff spent, along with Dominion, 

23 spent several hours and review time and a couple of 

24 audits in that meantime, and, in fact, we held 

25 biweekly public meetings, to go through all the 
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 issues of the seismic, to go through the seismic 

2 closure plan, answer all the RAIs, address a number 

3 of issues that were raised during audits, etcetera. 

4 So that's been going on for the last two years. 

5 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: For those members 

6 who weren't at Subcommittee, we spent about four 

7 hours on this topic at the Subcommittee meeting.

8 MR. SHEA: So, the structure, to get 

9 through the structure, today's meeting, I'm going 

10 to do a brief highlight of what we did at the 

11 Subcommittee meeting and you're going to see in my 

12 slides, a lot of them are coming directly from the 

13 Subcommittee meeting, so I just highlighted a 

14 couple of the bottom line issues. 

15 And if there's any questions that stems 

16 from that, we have our staff that were on the 

17 panels, that we had for Subcommittee, are here to 

18 answer any of your additional questions. 

19 And I'd just like to point out, we 

20 mentioned that our review was really, there's other 

21 issues besides the seismic, but that was the main 

22 issue that we reviewed and I want to thank Dominion 

23 and our staff working very diligently through all 

24 these issues, several technical issues, to get to 

25 the point where we are now to be able to present 
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 this Phase 4 SER. 

2 And there are some of things that we 

3 have are direct duplicates of Dominion, so I'm not 

4 going to reiterate those, except just to point out 

5 like where I highlighted some of the key things 

6 that occurred that influenced our, our review from 

7 the staff side, including the Mineral earthquake on 

8 August 23, 2011.

9 And a couple of other things there, the 

10 seismic closure plan, which I mentioned was 

11 submitted in October 22, 2014 and then the last 

12 updated revision to the FSAR, which included all 

13 the incorporation of all the changes associated 

14 with the seismic analysis have been included in 

15 that June 22 FSAR update.

16 This just kind of highlights what we 

17 already mentioned, the Phase 2 ACRS review. 

18 Mentioned that, just a couple of things, Phase 4 

19 SER. Now this is a 6 Phase review, so if you're 

20 not familiar with the NRO review process, Phase 2 

21 is the SER with open items and then Phase 4 is the 

22 SER, with, the final SER, with all those items 

23 closed and the only thing left really is some 

24 confirmatory items. 

25 And that's, really the staff's findings 
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 are associated with the Phase 4. The Phase 6 is 

2 more of an admin, the FSAR is an admin review of, 

3 to get it ready for basically, a new Reg. so that 

4 it can be submitted to the Commission. It goes 

5 through an administrative process which is what 

6 we're going through now, and we're, we did actually 

7 confirm all of the items that were open in the Rev. 

8 9 of the FSAR.

9 And that will be included in that, 

10 those confirmations will be included in the final 

11 SER from the staff.

12 MEMBER STETKAR: So Jim, just to be 

13 clear, that, what you're saying -- we had some 

14 discussion about what the SER, what the ACRS is 

15 actually being asked to review.

16 MR. SHEA: Yes.

17 MEMBER STETKAR: And the current 

18 document that we have refers to various 

19 incarnations of the, various revisions of the 

20 Applicant's FSAR, and the supporting DCD. And what 

21 I think I hear you saying is you're going to clean

22 that all up between now and when you go final?

23 MR. SHEA: No, 

24 MEMBER STETKAR: Oh.

25 MR. SHEA: Really, everything is in 
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 Phase, the Phase 4, and I think I fed back to 

2 Girija on this issue that was brought up at the 

3 Subcommittee --

4 MEMBER STETKAR: You did and I didn't 

5 understand that, so maybe you could explain it to 

6 the rest of us.

7 MR. SHEA: Okay. Let me see if I can 

8 do this again. So, for example --

9 MEMBER STETKAR: For the Committee's 

10 reference, if you read through the different 

11 chapters of the SER, some, some of them refer to, 

12 and I haven't got it here in front of me, I guess 

13 for the record, I should get it here in front of 

14 me.

15 MR. SHEA: Well I could probably 

16 explain it.

17 MEMBER STETKAR: Let me, let me get my 

18 thing on the record here. That would be because --

19 if I look at, for example, all of the chapters, 

20 except Chapters 7, 16, 18 and 20, in the SER, refer 

21 to Revision 8, of the COL-FSAR, which is based on 

22 Revision 10 of the ESPWAR-DCD. 

23 However, Chapters 7, 16, 18 and 20 of 

24 the SER refer to Revision 7 of the COL-FSAR, which 

25 is based on Revision 9 of the DCD. So there's 
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 essentially four chapters in the version of the 

2 FSAR that we're reviewing that explicitly, in 

3 writing, referred to a previous, not the current 

4 revision either of the COL-FSAR and ESPWAR-DCD. 

5 So I was questioning about, you know, 

6 why we have that, sort of, time disconnect, in the 

7 SER.

8 MR. SHEA: And, you know, based on your 

9 comments from the Subcommittee meeting, I actually 

10 updated the slide and you can see that Phase 2 SER 

11 was done per the FSAR Revision 6, July 2013, based 

12 on DCD Revision 9. And so, when you look at those, 

13 those are the confirmatory items.

14 So open items were closed based on, 

15 like you mentioned there, was the DCD Revision 10 

16 and FSAR Revision 8. So you're going to see, 

17 there's various stages of the SER and how, over the 

18 years, has evolved. In the sense, the staff made a 

19 number of findings back in Phase 2 and there 

20 weren't, and nothing has changed from those 

21 decisions. 

22 And so it was based on those particular 

23 revisions that you see on that slide and we're not 

24 going to go back, you know, since nothing changed 

25 in the FSAR updates except what was requested 
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 through RAIs and through these open items. For 

2 example, in Phase 2, the open items were closed by 

3 the Revision 8.

4 Because all those open items had RAIs 

5 associated with them and the response of those RAIs 

6 and then additional, there's been some follow-on 

7 RAIs associated with that, you know, our normal 

8 process, those were closed by that Revision 8 for 

9 the most part. 

10 Those were 71 items, Revision 8, June 

11 2014. So when you read the SER, you're going to 

12 see specific sections that were resolved back under 

13 those revisions. Now, Revision 9 hasn't changed of 

14 the FSAR --

15 MEMBER STETKAR: In those areas --

16 MR. SHEA: Yes, in those areas. So, 

17 what you're seeing is, the staff at the time, at 

18 that time, made a decision and found that 

19 acceptable. So the only place where you're going 

20 to see in the FSAR where it says, staff made 

21 decision based on its, the Rev. 9 of the FSAR, it's 

22 really in the area of the seismic in Chapter, 

23 Section 3.7 and 3.8 of Chapter 3. 

24 Because just as John pointed out in 

25 Subcommittee meeting, there are sections in Chapter 
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 3 that were completed back in Phase 2, that refer 

2 back to these previous revisions. And you're going 

3 to see the same thing, this is the same, and I had 

4 to verify it myself. Based on your question, I 

5 went back to the Fermi SER, and they have very 

6 similar types of -

7 MEMBER STETKAR: I didn't check it --

8 it happened to be the chapters, some of the 

9 chapters that I was reading, kind of caught my 

10 attention here, that I certainly saw a different 

11 revisions --

12 MR. SHEA: I took back your point, and 

13 you know, I didn't look at Fermi, other than, I did 

14 a lot of comparison. Really, when you look at 

15 this, this SER that we had completed in Phase 4, 

16 one of the things that I did is, to make sure that 

17 it looked similar to the -- obviously it's 

18 incorporated my reference here. 

19 You're looking at Fermi, one of those 

20 that line up and so I just confirmed that. And if 

21 there's a question there, I went back to the staff 

22 and asked them. So, you'll see that. These FSER 

23 is very similar to the Fermi FSER, where these 

24 decisions were made for, even Fermi back in that 

25 time frame of 2009, 2008 and under Revision 9 of 
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 DCD and Revision, and then following, final 

2 Revision 10. 

3 So that's how it went and in fact, if 

4 you look at -- now every Chapter will say, 

5 incorporate, all the incorporations by reference 

6 from the DCD, is going to say, NUREG 1966, and 

7 that's your key to say that, incorporated by 

8 references, the latest staff FSER related to the 

9 DCD.

10 In fact, I remember you read an excerpt 

11 out of that FSER for DCD and it referred to, in the 

12 I & C area, back to Rev. 6 of the, Rev. 6 of the 

13 DCD. Rev. 7. Anyway, so you'll see that 

14 throughout, how, you know, how we do these FSERs, 

15 because it's not efficient for us to take that 

16 issue and go back every time we have a new Rev. of 

17 the FSER, to go back to the staff and ask them to, 

18 I mean they can do that, if they have the time, but 

19 generally, those issues were finalized back in 

20 previous revisions. So that's kind of the 

21 explanation.

22 MR. BROWN: I just want to make a point 

23 on Chapter 7 in that, in fact when we did the 

24 original DCD certification in, Mike, 2009? 

25 MEMBER CORRADINI: 10.
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 MR. BROWN: 10. GEH had made 

2 commitments relative to the configuration of the I 

3 & C systems and changes were made, proposed. They 

4 said they would make changes to the DCD to 

5 incorporate the agreements we had reached during 

6 the Subcommittee and the Final Certification. And 

7 my biggest concern was, based on going from Rev. 8 

8 and seeing universe references to Rev. 10, did all 

9 those agreements translate into the later 

10 revisions. 

11 And as soon as I found my earlier 

12 emails and other agreement pieces of paper, from 

13 seven years ago, and then translated, I actually 

14 worked it walking through, I didn't have Rev. 8, 

15 which I now have.

16 MR. SHEA: Yes, I sent that to you.

17 MR. BROWN: Yes. I got it. 

18 MR. SHEA: Or I sent it to Girija.

19 MR. BROWN: Yes. He sent it to me and I 

20 was able to step through the agreements to Rev. 8. 

21 They were documented. Rev. 9, Rev. 10 were 

22 consistent. 

23 Whether I agreed with everything that we 

24 didn't quite catch back then is a different issue. 

25 We issued the certification and I feel that, you 
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 know, we got to agree with what we agreed with. And 

2 so I'm satisfied right now and think I was the 

3 biggest vocal --

4 MR. SHEA: I think that was the one 

5 issue that came out of the Subcommittee meeting was 

6 this issue and we weren't going to raise it again, 

7 because we thought, like you did, it's the DCD and 

8 I'm glad you closed that loophole for us. Because 

9 --

10 MR. BROWN: It's all gone.

11 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: You know, I just 

12 wonder would it help John, if they put something in 

13 the introduction to those Chapters that still refer 

14 to Rev. 7 that says --

15 MEMBER STETKAR: You know, what bothers 

16 me --

17 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: That says, these 

18 were closed based on, based on that.

19 MEMBER STETKAR: What bothers me --

20 MR. SHEA: I already did this.

21 MEMBER STETKAR: Oh. Okay. That's good 

22 because what bothers me is that 20 years from now, 

23 people might pick up this safety evaluation report 

24 and say, well what was, what was the real technical 

25 basis and they'll go back to what it refers to and, 
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 you know, it could raise questions. So I thought it 

2 was a good point,

3 MR. SHEA: It was a good point and I 

4 thought it was confusing, to me it wasn't confusing 

5 because I deal with it every day, but I could see 

6 someone from the public or anybody for the first 

7 time looking at this --

8 MEMBER STETKAR: That's, that's, or 

9 other, other staff --

10 MR. SHEA: Right.

11 MEMBER STETKAR: Or the licensee when 

12 the plant is built, to go back and look at, at 

13 least, the staff safety evaluation of a particular 

14 issue, you know. What was the fundamental 

15 traceability of that.

16 MR. SHEA: So as part as the FSER of 

17 Chapter I, we added a short paragraph to explain, 

18 this very slide basically explained in a paragraph 

19 format, that how these things were reviewed and 

20 finalized, these issues.

21 MEMBER STETKAR: Thank you for doing 

22 that.

23 MR. SHEA: Yes. Thanks for raising that 

24 issue, and you know, I was able to add, I think, add 

25 clarity for Chapter 1, so I appreciate it. 
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 So, just as last time for the 

2 Subcommittee, we split this thing up into two areas, 

3 which was really the non-seismic information that 

4 were, you know, changes from the DCD or 

5 site-specific issues related to North Anna and the 

6 seismic issues. And we'll, like I said, we'll go 

7 through some of the highlights of those. 

8 Start with meteorology. I don't think,

9 the meteorology was pretty straightforward. The ESP 

10 meteorology was finalized way back in '06 and the 

11 only thing that was really changed in the later 

12 date, was this update analysis to corporate use of 

13 both ground level mix-mode releases related to the 

14 stack for the Radwaste building. 

15 There was some concern from the staff. 

16 They were originally using it as an, it was a 

17 mixed-mode release, and the staff questioned that 

18 based on the location and they did a re-analysis and 

19 did the conservative route and did a ground level 

20 release and that was all resolved. It still meets 

21 all the requirements and you can see that, you know, 

22 all the regulatory requirements were satisfied and 

23 no additional open items. But that was really the 

24 only issue associated with meteorology over the last 

25 couple of years.
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 And this really reiterates the flooding 

2 that Dominion talked about. We, this is the same 

3 information. One foot below the DCD high parameter 

4 on the maximum flood and then the recent analysis on 

5 the LIP, the Local Intense Precipitation sheet flow, 

6 found that there's a few doors that needed to have, 

7 you know, thresholds that, it's, that, so that water 

8 would not ingress into the doorways and that's part 

9 of the FSAR.

10 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Those aren't 

11 considered a departure from the DCD? The fact that 

12 they have to build up the doors?

13 MR. SHEA: I, no, I, they weren't -- it 

14 wasn't a departure in a sense because the DCD 

15 really, the DCD is neutral to where, you know, you 

16 have to do your individual site-specific flood 

17 analysis based on the site. It's not really DCD 

18 issue, correct?

19 (Off mic comment)

20 MR. SHEA: The issue was, the question 

21 was, is this a departure from the DCD related to the 

22 LIP flow analysis.

23 MS. BORSH: No.

24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm sorry. You'd better 

25 get on the record with that.
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 MEMBER CORRADINI: Would you identify 

2 yourself?

3 MR. SHEA: Did our staff, Joe, did you 

4 want to add anything to that? We have Joe Giacinto 

5 from the staff, if he wants to add anything to that.

6 MS. BORSH: This is Gina Borsh from 

7 Dominion. The answer is no, it's not a departure.

8 MR. SHEA: Joe, did you want to add 

9 anything?

10 MR. GIACINTO: Well -- Joe Giacinto --

11 hydrologist. It's not a departure from the DCD. 

12 It's just a matter of flood protection which we 

13 cover in Section 24.10, so, although it's called out 

14 in Section 24.3, in Section 24.10, it explains the 

15 type of flood protection. So Hydrologic Engineering 

16 Section 24 is built specifically for these types of 

17 things. It's not a matter of being DCD. It's a 

18 matter of reviewing it, the Hydrology section.

19 MEMBER CORRADINI: Thank you.

20 MR. SHEA: Thanks Joe. Okay, again we 

21 also did this accident analysis and we essentially, 

22 the staff just confirmed what Dominion did, using 

23 our own independent confirmation calculations in 

24 confirming these accident analyses associated with 

25 the industrial transportation in military 
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 facilities. Yes.

2 MEMBER KIRCHNER: May I ask a question, 

3 since I asked it of Dominion at the Subcommittee 

4 meeting. So, what was the analysis done to waive 

5 the accident with the delivery truck, the hydrogen 

6 delivery truck? How did you go about confirming 

7 their analysis?

8 MR. SHEA: Do we have, is it Rao 

9 Tammara? From the staff, yes, he will come up.

10 MR. TAMMARA: My name is Rao Tammara. 

11 The Applicant has evaluated the frequency of the

12 truck and also calibrated this upon the historical 

13 accident event. They determined the probability of 

14 the accident and then they had shown the calibration 

15 that the probability is less than 104-7, which is 

16 acceptable to screen out that kind of accident. 

17 So we reviewed their calculations and we 

18 accepted the parameters and also the data that they 

19 have presented. And based upon that one, we agreed 

20 the calibration is acceptable and the probability 

21 is, since it is less than 104-6 with the actual, 

22 realistic data, and it is, within the guidelines of 

23 all the acceptance criteria. Therefore, we accepted 

24 that.

25 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So as John pointed 
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 out, the probability, or the frequency is probably 

2 the right word here, for the truck accident is much 

3 higher than 10-6, so --

4 MR. TAMMARA: An actual accident might 

5 be but the design basis accident is defined as the 

6 probability of the accident --

7 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Right.

8 MR. TAMMARA: In connection with the 

9 release that were the 9:18:36 a dose in excess of 10 

10 CFR, 15.34 -- that probability should be less than 

11 104-6. So it is not the, just the mere accident 

12 which has a greater than 104-6 would not entitle 

13 that to be a designated as a design-basis accident. 

14 So the definition is that both have to have the 

15 probability of 10 4-6. The accident --

16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So let me just --

17 MR. TAMMARA: In connection with the 

18 dose --

19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Let me just 

20 intuitively compare that to the other accident that 

21 was analyzed, which was a leak from the storage 

22 tank. So you have a larger source --

23 MR. TAMMARA: Yes.

24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: And it's hydrogen in 

25 the delivery truck. And --
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 MR. SHEA: Probably a smaller source in 

2 the truck, compared to the storage tank, because 

3 you've got a liquid --

4 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Oh okay.

5 MR. TAMMARA: You have 6000-gallon tank. 

6 So the maximum tank can hold is 6000 meter. Two 

7 tanks. So they have calculated the minimum distance 

8 that would not yield more than 1 psi to the SSC and 

9 that minimum distance is less than the actual 

10 distance. 

11 So that is the analysis performed for 

12 the tank. So the other analysis is you have a 

13 13000-gallon tanker truck, delivering the hydrogen, 

14 which may, for our bound in case, we are assuming 

15 that is totally filled with 13 thousand gallons. So 

16 this is, you know, this is done on a probabilistic 

17 basis, because of the truck route. So that, that is 

18 the difference.

19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you.

20 MR. TAMMARA: Thank you.

21 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: How often do you, 

22 you know, you're using the hydrogen regularly in 

23 operation. How often do you have to make 

24 deliveries?

25 (Off mic comment)
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 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: How often would you 

2 expect the deliveries to be made? That might affect 

3 the probability, I would think.

4 MEMBER STETKAR: While they're checking, 

5 from my experience, you use hydrogen continuously 

6 during plant operation, at a PWR, you use some 

7 continuously so you're keeping a cover on the volume 

8 control tanks so you're losing a little bit of that. 

9 You're losing a little through the hydrogen seal oil 

10 system on the main generator, there's a little leak. 

11 But your usage during power operation is limited to 

12 that. 

13 When you, the time where you really use 

14 a lot is when you shut down, purge the main 

15 generator and have to refill it with hydrogen, you 

16 know? So during any time you shut down, and have to 

17 open up the main generator, you've got to purge the 

18 whole thing, and that's a reasonable volume of 

19 hydrogen in there. So make-up requirements are kind 

20 of limited by, by those evolutions.

21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Not to belabor this, 

22 but I just go back to the presentation. You've got 

23 two 6,000-gallon capacity tanks on site. So let's 

24 assume one of those leaks at some frequency or such. 

25 Obviously you go into a calculation based on one of 
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 those tanks leaking, delayed ignition, and then some 

2 kind of blast over pressure conflagration over 

3 pressure. Now you have a single source that could 

4 be 13,000 gallons, twice as big as one of the tanks, 

5 in an accident, why wouldn't you analyze that, 

6 instead of a leaking tank?

7 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Because, the reason 

8 I ask my question is, the tanks are sitting there 24 

9 hours a day, 365 days a year. The truck only comes 

10 in once every 10 years. I'm sure it comes more than 

11 that, but, you know, there's a much lower prob --

12 MEMBER KIRCHNER: You're handling the 

13 hydrogen when you have the delivery. It's kind of 

14 static tanks. Just, I'll let it go at this point.

15 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes. Gina, were 

16 you going to make a comment?

17 MS. BORSH: Yes, this is Gina Borsh from 

18 Dominion and the analysis assumes 24 deliveries per 

19 year.

20 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: That's twice a 

21 month.

22 MS. BORSH: Yes.

23 MR. SHEA: And for the record, Pete just 

24 reminded me they're employing hydrogen water 

25 chemistry here, right? So that's an additional 
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 source of constant makeup, so --

2 MEMBER STETKAR: When I really well

3 What the primary use is, I asked if it was static 

4 cooling or if it was primary chemistry and Gina says 

5 it was primary chemistry. This is the hydrogen feed 

6 to the reactor coolant system for suppression 

7 radiolysis.

8 And, once every two weeks for a delivery 

9 of gas? That's probably on a par with most plants. 

10 You've got a hydrogen truck coming in every couple 

11 of weeks, got a nitrogen truck coming in about the 

12 same frequency. So that's not uncommon.

13 MR. SHEA: Okay, we'll move on to the 

14 next slide. Accident release. I have the little 

15 pretty picture. Dominion didn't have it - again, we 

16 just iterate that the assumption from the condensate 

17 storage tank, again it's surrounded by a moat and 

18 also a drain line that's designed to capture all of 

19 that leakage if the tank just instantaneously broke 

20 and spilled its contents. 

21 However, the evaluation is based on all 

22 the contents spilling into the yard and finding the 

23 closest, finding the fastest path to the water 

24 source and all that analysis was done. Staff 

25 confirmed that and found it acceptable and meets all 
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 the requirements.

2 MEMBER SKILLMAN: So Jim, I ask you, why 

3 is the condensate storage tank the objective of this 

4 analysis? 

5 MR. SHEA: We have Steve Williams here 

6 that could, from the staff, that could answer that.

7 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Oh.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams, from the 

9 Radiation-Protection-Accident-Consequence Branch. 

10 To give you some background on why the condensate 

11 storage tank was chosen as part of the release to 

12 the environment was, in 11.2 and 2.13, we do a 

13 combined analysis based on Branch Technical Position 

14 11-6. 

15 And that requires you to take the 

16 maximum concentration of any activity, in an inside 

17 tank and then release that to the environment, even 

18 though it does have a dyke and some protection 

19 around the dyke, as far as the prevent releases. 

20 Then, Hydrology takes that and takes their values 

21 for dispersion and calculates an end point ECL 

22 concentration, to ensure that they meet 10 CFR 20 

23 requirements. 

24 Initially when Dominion submitted their 

25 COLA, they had chosen two tanks that were inside of 
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 the ox-belt or inside of the plant. They weren't 

2 outside tanks, so it didn't meet the criteria for 

3 the condensate storage tank. 

4 And the reason, and for your question, 

5 you asked how does the condensate tank get activity 

6 in it. Well, it's used at points to recirculate 

7 from the stud field pull and cleanup and then just 

8 the normal cleanup from the condensate system as 

9 during operation. Any contamination may be from 

10 primary, secondary leaks and cleanup the iodine or 

11 any particulates that they find.

12 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you, Steve. 

13 That takes care of my question to the Applicant and 

14 also to the staff. Thank you.

15 MR. SHEA: Thanks, Steve. Okay. We've 

16 talked about this hurricane missiles and really, the 

17 affect was on the RTNSS Structures, which was 

18 evaluated per the new Reg. Guide. Really, the 

19 departure is related to a new Reg. Guide that came 

20 out. 

21 Reg. Guide 1.221 an update to that Reg. 

22 Guide, following the DCD Final Revision that was 

23 approved. And this Reg. Guide came out so 

24 subsequently, these COLA Applicants, I believe Fermi 

25 even revised their COLA to include this Reg. Guide, 
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 this new Reg. Guide criteria. 

2 And so it was a departure. Dominion 

3 evaluated it. It essentially affected the RTNSS 

4 structures, which is the non-seismic I structures. 

5 All the seismic I structures met all the criteria, 

6 based on the wind speed and the hurricane.

7 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: So you're saying 

8 Fermi had the same departure?

9 MR. SHEA: I believe they did. I 

10 believe they had a similar departure. Yes. Fermi 

11 didn't? Gina has additional information on Fermi on 

12 this issue.

13 MS. BORSH: You were busy with North 

14 Anna 3. This is Gina Borsh, from Dominion. Fermi 

15 doesn't have a departure here.

16 MR. SHEA: Hurricanes aren't as big 

17 there, I guess.

18 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Probably too. We 

19 talked about that.

20 MEMBER STETKAR: This is rather strange 

21 and I understand why Fermi doesn't have a departure 

22 here and why North Anna does.

23 MR. SHEA: Moving on. All right so now 

24 onto seismology. Essentially in the seismology 

25 area, the Mineral earthquake occurred and there was 
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 a number of field studies. You can see the field 

2 reconnaissance determined presence or absence of 

3 surface rupture displacement. 

4 There was a very extensive review of 

5 that and our staff talked about that at the last 

6 meeting. It also came up from the Public on, it was 

7 Fault A, which was previously discovered when Unit I 

8 and Unit II were being constructed.

9 And that was evaluated in addition, and 

10 showed that there was, that Fault A has been, you 

11 know, for over a million years, has been, it's an 

12 old structure that has, had no deformation 

13 associated with it when the Mineral earthquake 

14 occurred. Any questions? We do have our staff here 

15 if you have. Okay.

16 And the vibratory ground motion, again, 

17 affected by the Mineral earthquake, August 23, 2011, 

18 that affected the, so the local seismic evaluation 

19 was affected by that, along with the other, the new 

20 Central Eastern United States Seismic Source 

21 Characteristic, Characterization, was, came out 

22 around the same time, so that was new. 

23 So they combined both, some of the local 

24 information and that new seismic CEUS-SSC to come up 

25 with a site-specific ground motion, which was, 
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 again, then that affected the seismic I structure 

2 evaluations. That was the crux of the whole seismic 

3 closure plan and all that input into the final 

4 results of the seismic I structures. No questions?

5 So the staff concluded that the GMRS, 

6 the local Ground Motion Response Spectra adequately 

7 represents the seismic hazard at North Anna 3, and 

8 meets the relevant regulatory requirements provided 

9 in 10 CFR Part 52, 10 CFR 100 23. And I think 

10 Dominion showed that the input for the seismic I 

11 structures.

12 So associated with the seismic 

13 structures, Sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the Staff SCR, 

14 reviewed the site-specific Foundation Input Response 

15 which is the FIRS, which exceeded the DCD, which is 

16 part of the Certified Seismic Design Response 

17 Spectra, CSDRS.

18 So the departure and the exemption 

19 associated with the departure essentially was the

20 definition of the site-specific SSE, which is the 

21 FIRS plus the CSDRS, so they combined those two 

22 rather than just, in the case of, like Fermi, it was 

23 the CS, you now, the DCD was bounded the Fermi 

24 site-specific results. So they used just the CSDRS.

25 So that's the difference. That's the 
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 departure that was evaluated through the seismic 

2 closure plan. I think someone mentioned all these 

3 calculations, the specific calculations for each one 

4 of these structures and buildings, the staff 

5 completed two on-site audits. One was for the 

6 demand side, which was the input based on the, you 

7 know, the FIRS and the responses of the input to the 

8 structures. 

9 And then, the second, which is, the 

10 second audit focused on all the calculations on the 

11 site-specific structures and the impact of that 

12 demand on those structures. And we spent a week at 

13 the GEH site and reviewed all these calculations. 

14 Had a team of our staff of 5 or 6 of our staff 

15 members, along with our consultant, participated in 

16 those audits.

17 Now that, that also, those were 

18 significant efforts associated with verifying these 

19 calculations, met our criteria, and met all the 

20 appendix B requirements, etcetera, along with all 

21 their RAI responses and additional documents that 

22 are on the docket associated with our RAI responses. 

23 And then this all culminated in the final FSAR 

24 Revision 9.

25 And all this information that was in RAI 
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 responses and COLA markups, that's how we reviewed 

2 these final sections 37, 38 through the COLA 

3 markups, which were responses to the RAIs and then 

4 verified those in the final redline that they met 

5 what we accepted in the COLA markups.

6 And you can see the staff did their own 

7 confirmatory analysis and seismic input motions and 

8 strain compatible soil profiles, SSI effects on the 

9 FWSC, which is, that's the, what, for some reason I 

10 got S, W, Fire Water Service Complex. Yes, which is 

11 one of the three Seismic I structures.

12 And here's some of their results. In 

13 Appendix 3G, in the FSAR, it shows that the 

14 site-specific demands, except in a few cases, were

15 met by the DCD. Our staff was very comfortable 

16 after reviewing the, all the reevaluation that the 

17 actual DCD was only exceeded in a few minor cases 

18 that Dominion mentioned, and we mentioned also here 

19 about the steel girder weld sizing anchor bolts 

20 associated with a couple or the structures. 

21 The thing that really struck me as a guy 

22 kind of following this as a non-seismic person that, 

23 when we come to the results and found out that 

24 nothing as far as the actual physical plant changed, 

25 as far as the structure of the walls, the 
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 thicknesses, the base mats, you know, the actual DCD 

2 structure was already a very robust design and the 

3 staff, just in some areas, with all this analysis. 

4 And let me tell you, there was a lot of analysis, it 

5 came down to just some of these few items. So, you 

6 know.

7 MEMBER RICCARDELLI: You know, the 

8 exceedances are at relatively higher frequencies at 

9 7 hertz and above, so. You wouldn't expect to have 

10 that much of an effect on the building. 

11 MR. SHEA: And I think I just mentioned 

12 this. This last slide that, standard design is 

13 adequate to meet the site-specific seismic demand is 

14 what the staff determined and meets all the NRC 

15 regulations and guidance.

16 The last thing we, part of this, part of 

17 this effort, we looked at, just some of the effects 

18 of components and two of them was, really, that the 

19 fuel racks inside the structures, we looked at 

20 those. And in some cases, we determined that, you 

21 know, Dominion, we reviewed Dominion's results and 

22 determined that there was a couple of places where 

23 they did some reinforcement for the fuel racks. You 

24 see that, they found that, for this spent fuel pool, 

25 was adequate.
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 And then there was a, in the buffer 

2 pool, I believe, yes, the anchor bolts, there were 

3 some anchor bolts in the buffer pool that were 

4 upgraded.

5 And also, the staff reviewed the fuel inside the 

6 vessel associated with that seismic exceedance. And 

7 the concern there was that in the DCD, some of the 

8 stresses in the references to the DCD for the fuel 

9 design, exceeded what was in the DCD. 

10 So, even though the fuel design reports 

11 had much higher margin as far as those design, you 

12 know, conditions, the DCD had a specific number of 

13 them, because of their exceedances. They're 

14 exceedances obviously where the fuel, some of the 

15 fuel, and therefore the staff looked at it and they 

16 wanted to get a confirmation that, at the end, that 

17 when you combined the loads that you still don't 

18 exceed the actual mechanical design of the fuel as 

19 referenced in the DCD. 

20 And that was all confirmed and none of 

21 those design constraints were exceeded. So that was 

22 part of the staff review in Chapter 4.

23 So in conclusion, the staff completed a 

24 thorough review of North Anna 3 COLA and, as we 

25 mentioned, that focused on those areas that were 
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 site-specific. Much of the COLA, as you can see 

2 through our FSAR or FCR, the Advanced Safety 

3 Evaluation, much of the information is incorporated 

4 by reference from the DCD or in the, or directly 

5 Fermi evaluation. 

6 The published Phase 4 Advanced Final SCE 

7 represents the staff Final Safety Review Findings 

8 for the North Anna 3 ESBWR. So, I think that 

9 answers the question. A little question came up 

10 about the FSER. The FSER is really just an 

11 administrative final product that's going to be, 

12 that will be prepared for the new Reg. Just part of 

13 a process that we go through. And that's all I 

14 have. Any questions?

15 MEMBER STETKAR: Yes, I had one where we 

16 have ample time here. So, the Applicant and the 

17 staff, neither of you discussed the departures and 

18 exemption on the electric power system. We had some 

19 discussion about that at the Subcommittee meeting.

20 For the benefit of the other members, 

21 they're, North Anna is proposing a change to the 

22 certified design connections to the switchyard. 

23 They're installing what's called an intermediate, 

24 they call it an intermediate switchyard but 

25 basically, it's three single phase step-up 
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 transformers that go from 500 kV down to 230 kV with 

2 an isolation circuit breaker and motor operating 

3 disk connects.

4 By doing that, it allows them to use the 

5 same design and voltage ratings for their unit 

6 auxiliary transformers and their reserve auxiliary 

7 transformers. In the certified design description, 

8 there's no, you just see lines going off to offsite 

9 power. So there's no, there's no particular voltage 

10 indications or anything. But this is something new 

11 and it required a departure from the DCD because it 

12 does affect --

13 MEMBER BLEY: Even though those things 

14 weren't specified in the DCD?

15 MEMBER STETKAR: Yes, because --

16 MEMBER BLEY: It's curious to me.

17 MEMBER STETKAR: No because changes that 

18 can -- the DCD implies that there's a single 

19 switchyard. It implies that there's a single 

20 switchyard

21 MEMBER BLEY: Oh.

22 MEMBER STETKAR: It implies that there's 

23 single switchyard but it doesn't specifically say 

24 that. The, I'll eventually get to what I'm getting 

25 to, but I'm trying to get the background to 
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 everyone. The reason that it had to be a departure 

2 is that it altered the configuration of the 

3 connections in a way that is different from what the 

4 DCD implies on what's called the normal preferred 

5 power supply, which is the generator connection to 

6 and what comes back into the unit auxiliary 

7 transformers. 

8 So okay. They made a change and they 

9 had to do it. It's an exemption because it affects 

10 a drawing in Tier 1 of the DCD so it's more than 

11 just a point specific departure.

12 And I got curious. And there's some 

13 discussion in the FSA, in the Applicant's FSAR. 

14 There's a good discussion about what it is. I mean, 

15 it's well documented what it is. So I got curious 

16 about, well, how does this affect the risk from 

17 things. And we had some discussion in the 

18 Subcommittee meeting and the Applicant noted that 

19 they did not change the certified design PRA to 

20 account for this. 

21 That they will do that for the PRA 

22 that's submitted before fuel load, but it hasn't 

23 been changed. So in the SER, I then went to look to 

24 see what the staff did about this and I found a 

25 statement in Chapter 19 out of the PRA part of the 
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 SER that says, the staff finds that the ESBWR design 

2 PRA provides a bounding assessment of loss of 

3 preferred power events. So I said, well bounding is 

4 a strong word. 

5 We had quite a bit of discussion about 

6 what that might be, what it might mean. I, since 

7 the Subcommittee meeting, and today's meeting, I 

8 went and dredged up Revision 6 of the PRA Report, 

9 which I found is a public document so, indeed I can 

10 talk about it. The long and the short of it is that 

11 the ESBWR PRA is not a bounding assessment. 

12 That, indeed, this configuration will 

13 increase the risk primarily, the only thing that I 

14 could find, the only that it introduces is it 

15 increases the frequency of loss of preferred power 

16 from the 500 kV supply. Not loss of all off-site 

17 power. And those failures, the mass majority of 

18 them would be non-recoverable within the PRA 

19 ignition time. So it's a, non-recoverable loss of 

20 that supply.

21 When I delved into the PRA models, that 

22 particular type of event was not evaluated in the 

23 PRA. Now it can be mitigated because the 230 kV 

24 supply should not be affected by failures, should 

25 not, unless there's some sort of strange electrical 
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 transmit, be affected by failures in the 

2 intermediate switchyard. So my conclusion, my 

3 personal conclusion, and I've got numbers to kind of 

4 back this stuff up but that's too much detail. 

5 My personal conclusion is that it's, 

6 it's clear that the risk would be higher but I think 

7 the increase would be rather small. And the current 

8 contribution from switchyard-related losses of 

9 preferred power is a small contribution to overall 

10 risks. It's not miniscule. It's a couple of 

11 percent.

12 I don't think that that would increase visibly. I 

13 mean, it might be in the second significant figure, 

14 or something like that. So I think that, I think 

15 that, you know, from my perspective, it's okay. 

16 It's not a risk-significant change certainly.

17 On the other hand, I'd caution the staff 

18 very carefully about using terms like, the design 

19 certification bounds this, is an indication to any 

20 rational reader would be that it can't be any higher 

21 than the design certification. It certainly will 

22 be somewhat higher.

23 MEMBER BLEY: Sounds like a reasonable 

24 caution but helping you beat this dead horse a 

25 little bit, I would have kind of thought, and I 
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 haven't looked at this at all, but if you'd dug even 

2 deeper you might find that there's more flexibility 

3 from that kind of arrangement you described and 

4 maybe it gives you something back somewhere else.

5 MEMBER STETKAR: It, what it gives back, 

6 is it allows them, and I don't know what their plans 

7 are, it allows them to have, for example, one spare 

8 transformer on site that they can use to replace any 

9 one of the four UATs and RATs which, under the PRA, 

10 under the PRA configuration, they had 500 kV UATs 

11 and 230 kV RATs. 

12 So this allows the Applicant to have a 

13 single spare transformer, rather than having two 

14 spare transformers, that they can swap in and out if 

15 they do have a failure of one of the UATs or RATs. 

16 It doesn't help you in PRA space because it takes 

17 you a long time to swap out a transformer that's 

18 been failed.

19 That's the only flexibility that I see. 

20 When I dug into the PRA, the PRA, with the exception 

21 of what I mentioned on the record here, the PRA does 

22 cover, it covers two different voltage switchyards. 

23 It covers unavailability of the 230 kV switchyard. 

24 It covers common cause failures of all of the 

25 transformers. So about the only thing that I could 
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 find was the one thing that I mentioned on the 

2 record here.

3 But again, in terms of staff 

4 conclusions, just be careful about that word, 

5 bounding. Thank you. I don't know if the staff or 

6 the Applicant wants to say anything about that.

7 MS. BORSH: I don't. Dominion doesn't 

8 have anything we want to add to that. Thank you.

9 MR. DONAHUE: Mr. Stetkar, we, this is 

10 Joe Donahue from the staff. We didn't have the 

11 staff from that branch here to deal with that 

12 question, so I'll bring your comments back to them 

13 and bring back a --

14 MEMBER STETKAR: Yes. We had some 

15 discussion, a little bit of discussion during the 

16 Subcommittee meeting, and well, as I said, at that 

17 time I only had the previous revision of the PRA 

18 reports, so I didn't want to draw any particular 

19 conclusions until I dredged up the current revision 

20 and confirmed that, indeed, it can be discussed in 

21 public, which it can.

22 MR. DONAHUE: Thank you.

23 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Okay, I'd like to 

24 put also a comment on the record. And it's going to 

25 be in the form of a rhetorical question. I don't 
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 expect an answer from this and it's somehow related 

2 to this, but it has to do with digital I & C. Okay. 

3 In the generic ESBWR design, everybody 

4 concluded it was prudent not to specify the platform 

5 of the protection system because it's evolving so 

6 rapidly that it makes sense, at least it's very 

7 prudent, to wait until the implementation to gain 

8 some more benefit of experience and eventually, you 

9 install the one that makes more sense. Okay. 

10 Now, but because of that, it had not 

11 been reviewed, the platform itself. And we 

12 mentioned the PRA for fuel loading that will be 

13 executed on the as-built plant, and that PRA will 

14 have a probability of failure for scram on demand. 

15 Now, I, and here's my rhetorical 

16 question. I expect that the staff, the expectation 

17 of the staff be that probability of failure on 

18 demand, not the historical number, based on all the 

19 analog system that have been implemented in the 

20 past, but be an evaluation of that platform as 

21 implemented. And, as I say, I don't expect a 

22 question. 

23 But I want to put it in the record that 

24 whatever platform North Anna decides to implement 

25 and build on their plant, use that number in the 
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 PRA, not a historical from 1960 so with analog 

2 systems.

3 MEMBER STETKAR: All right. Thank you 

4 Jose.

5 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Sorry. I, final 

6 question. Just a caveat, we realize that PRA 

7 analysis of digitalizing systems and so forth and 

8 they've all been scram, maybe has to be qualitative 

9 on this, okay, but at least an attempt to identify 

10 the failure models should be made.

11 MEMBER STETKAR: Yes. I think the, you 

12 know, the, just again for the record, the 

13 requirement is that the PRA that's submitted before 

14 fuel load has to be a local 1, local 2 PRA, yes, 

15 local 1, local 2 PRA for all operating modes 

16 consistent with the NRC-endorsed standards that are 

17 available one year prior to that date. I believe 

18 that's correct. 

19 I think I've characterized that. The 

20 methods for evaluating quantitatively and 

21 qualitatively digital systems are evolving and maybe 

22 by the time they perform their site-specific PRA, 

23 one year before fuel load, we'll have a lot better 

24 guidance in that area. It's pretty sparse right at 

25 the moment.
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 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes, my comment is 

2 use this judgement of the time and just because it's 

3 difficult don't say we've got to do it. Try to do 

4 your best in identifying failures that could be 

5 inserted by that system.

6 MEMBER BROWN: Since everybody else is 

7 talking about my area, I feel compelled to amplify 

8 -- I'm sorry --

9 MEMBER CORRADINI: Where does your 

10 ownership lie?

11 MEMBER BROWN: I've got lots of 

12 ownership here. They may have confidence that we 

13 may evolve methods for PRAs that adequately 

14 represent digital I & C in whatever form it takes, 

15 either five years from now, or 10 or 15 years from 

16 now. 

17 I have voiced in the past skepticism 

18 that PRAs and FMEAs would adequately define the 

19 performance of these things. I think that's 

20 consistent with some of my past comments. And the 

21 effort that has been made in the digital I & C world 

22 is to ensure that the application of digital 

23 systems, computer-based, software-based systems, 

24 can't, because of their inherent characteristics of 

25 locking up and other types of performance 
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 characteristics, have a mechanism built into them to

2 sense that, and translate that into a more 

3 deterministic demand for a trip in any division that 

4 goes, that comes up, if that division locks up.

5 So, maybe by the time my grandchildren, 

6 okay, have graduated and gone on to the, if they go 

7 into the technical world, maybe 20 years from now, 

8 there may be somebody that's smart enough to get a 

9 PRA analysis. 

10 Right now, I think the approach we're 

11 taking to try to get a computer-based system to be 

12 monitored by hardware-type systems that trigger 

13 themselves and initiate trips in the various 

14 divisions, if they are so, if they lock up, is the 

15 proper approach right now, while we're in this 

16 mushy, ambiguous area for FMEA and PRA.

17 So that's the path we've been taking. 

18 We've been approaching it that way and I just wanted 

19 to reemphasize that we did do that on ESBWR in terms 

20 of, and it can be done in a number of ways. You 

21 don't necessarily always have to trip. 

22 If you can reset the microprocessors or 

23 the computer, and it gets back up within a few 

24 hundred milliseconds, that's an acceptable approach 

25 to doing things, as opposed to issuing a trip. And 
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 actually, the GEH systems as they talked about them, 

2 do initiate an automatic reset and generate a trip 

3 at the same time. 

4 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Kind of like 

5 rebooting your laptop every so often?

6 MEMBER BROWN: Pardon?

7 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Kind of like 

8 rebooting your laptop?

9 MEMBER BROWN: Yes. We do it 

10 automatically. Well, no, your laptop will take five 

11 minutes, you know, they can take, and if you're 

12 looking at one of the other projects, I think, I've 

13 forgotten what platform it was. Well I don't want 

14 to mention, it takes literally five or ten minutes 

15 to reboot, which is unsatisfactory. 

16 So, in the Naval Nuclear Program, if you 

17 lose a processor due to lockup, it'll reboot in less 

18 than about a 150 milliseconds, faster than you can 

19 blink your eyes. So, anyway, that's kind of a 

20 design concept. It's a prescriptive design concept 

21 but it can be done in a non-technology based manner, 

22 which is what we've attempted to do. 

23 So I just reiterate that. Maybe in a 

24 little more coherent than I was, ten years or eight 

25 years ago. That's, I just wanted to get my two 
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 cents' worth in here on the record. Thank you.

2 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Thank you Charlie. 

3 Okay, with that, are you finished Jim?

4 MR. SHEA: Yes. 

5 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Are there any other 

6 comments or questions from members? Okay, so then 

7 we will then ask for comments from the public. Are 

8 there any members of the public in this room that 

9 would like to address the Committee? I'm not 

10 hearing anything. Could we have the phone line 

11 turned on and ask for questions from any members of 

12 the public that might be on the line?

13 ERICA GRAY: Yes. This is Erica Gray, 

14 in Richmond, Virginia. Can you hear me?

15 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes we can. 

16 MS. GRAY: Yes. I would like to know, 

17 first of all, I mean, I guess, I'm not watching the 

18 presentation, I guess, viewing it so, unusual that I 

19 didn't hear an introduction. So don't really even 

20 know, when you say full Committee, how many members 

21 are there? And who's present?

22 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: It'll be in the 

23 transcript. The entire Committee is here. It's 14 

24 members.

25 MS. GRAY: Okay. And then, also, for 
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 the members, because this is a full Committee. I've 

2 been participating through this COLA application for 

3 years and I'm curious to know if all the members, 

4 the Full Committee Members, have read through the 

5 last two transcripts of the Subcommittee.

6 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm sorry. This is a 

7 time for public comment. It's not a time for 

8 interaction with the Committee. We're receiving 

9 information to help us in our deliberations. So if 

10 you have any comments, please go ahead. This is 

11 Dennis Bley, Chairman of the Committee.

12 MS. GRAY: Okay. Well, I mean, I think 

13 it's relevant, though, because it was even stated in

14 the very last meeting that this seems to be a very 

15 rushed proceeding and there were a lot of other 

16 discussion about other departures and exceedances, 

17 quite a few, and it seems to be kind of being 

18 glossed over here. 

19 I mean, even I the last transcript, it

20 was mentioned by Member Stetkar that you have to 

21 recognize that part of the Committee these days, we 

22 have new members, who aren't even familiar with the 

23 history the ESBWAR, including the Chairman. 

24 And the reason why I'm mentioning this 

25 is the last meeting was 9 hours long and the 
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 transcript really went over a lot of stuff that, 

2 today, is not even being mentioned. The polyfiber 

3 piping is not being mentioned. 

4 The Radwaste storage, that Dominion's 

5 asking for, for to allow them to store ten years of 

6 such storage of Class BC Radwaste and 3 months of 

7 storage of Class A for right now, the DCD has 6 

8 months. There's quite a few other issues, including 

9 the departure and exemption from Reg. Guide 1.221 

10 for hurricane force missiles. In certain instances, 

11 the velocities of certain missiles at North Anna is 

12 higher than the velocities that are in the DCD.

13 I mean, one after the other, this 

14 process is being glossed over in so many ways, 

15 including the issues of the seismic issues, because, 

16 frankly, someone needs to question Dominion how they 

17 came up with the numbers, because I have been on 

18 these meeting calls before, where obviously we were 

19 missing the data and at least for some amount of 

20 time, we didn't get the data during our 5.8 

21 earthquake. There was failures and including the 

22 failure of free field sensor.

23 And I'd also like to mention that the 

24 USDS has stated, Mr. McNutt, unlike the typical 

25 situation in the Western U.S. fault, in this part of 
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 the country, we do not have surface expression, 

2 making it more difficult to estimate the maximum 

3 possible magnitude earthquake that a fault can 

4 generate or the expected repeat time of earthquake. 

5 And, you know, the data that's being used is not 

6 complete.

7 And I'd also like to mention that how 

8 can this full Committee move forward with an 

9 approval or proven of the safety, so many issues, 

10 including fire safety, site-specific fire hazards 

11 need to be analyzed. The issues with the fuel rods 

12 themselves being different, need to be analyzed. 

13 There are so many issues with this COLA 

14 that's being pushed through. And even my comments 

15 at the last, because there were only two at 

16 Subcommittee, is why is it being rushed? Because 

17 there was a lot of issues that came up and including 

18 the one that was sort of mentioned earlier, that 

19 didn't want to really be rehashed.

20 But it frankly stated in the last 

21 meeting about that loose end, and that loose end 

22 being that there was an issue where the DCD for 

23 Fermi, where they were granted their combined 

24 license, where the cybersecurity firewall, you know, 

25 there was no, there was nothing mentioned in the DCD 
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 at all. So there was more than a loose end. 

2 Something went through with actually being analyzed, 

3 looked at and taken care of.

4 So, of course, I have a lot of problems 

5 with this COLA, in general. And I'd also like to 

6 mention that, you know, we've only gotten through, 

7 and I'm even sure complete, the Tier I post action 

8 items.

9 You know, risk assessment need to be, 

10 will not be required to be completed until 2016, 

11 2019 so, you know, we're not even through the Tiers 

12 of lessons learned, yet this Committee, or at least 

13 the Subcommittee felt like everything looked so 

14 great. 

15 There are a lot of loose ends. 

16 This should not move forward and I'm 

17 very disappointed that the way things are worded, in 

18 particular also with the issue of how the departure 

19 of the liquid waste management system, that's also 

20 involved the piping line discharge instead of the 

21 blow down. I mean, there are a lot of departures 

22 from the DCD and, you know, trying to converge 

23 things just to kind of make them look good is way 

24 different than actually using data and looking over 

25 things well.
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 So I could probably go on longer but I 

2 was told that I would have five minutes and I'd also 

3 like to say that, when the public can't even receive 

4 the information needed, not even within 24 hours, it 

5 makes it very difficult to be able to look over 

6 what's going to be looked at and reviewed, including 

7 transcripts that are not usually made public, like 

8 the last transcript of the Subcommittee. 

9 It took 11 days and finally, I called 

10 and I received it from Mark Banks and so, you know 

11 if this full Committee, is just going to agree with 

12 everything that Dominion has put forward, it really 

13 shows that this is not a regulating body to protect 

14 the public and the safety in the environment. It's 

15 more to just push this process through because 

16 Dominion wants it. That's all I have to say.

17 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Thank you for your 

18 comments. Are there any other commenters on the 

19 line that would like to speak?

20 MR. KALTA: This is Paksis Kalta, a 

21 local resident.

22 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Okay. Go ahead 

23 please.

24 MR. KALTA: My comment is a little bit 

25 an echo of Erika's in that it's extremely likely, 
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 unlikely that this reactor is going to go forward 

2 quickly. It seems like the Subcommittee and the 

3 Committee are pushing forward faster than is 

4 necessary, when we actually have the luxury of time 

5 to be able to review these issues, especially 

6 seismic issues. So, I think that's all I have to 

7 say at this point.

8 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Thank you. Are 

9 there any other members of the public who would like 

10 to make a comment? And, with that, I'll turn the 

11 meeting back over the Chairman Bley.

12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you sir. At this 

13 time, we're going to recess until the 10:45 

14 presentation on the AREVA extended flow window for 

15 Monticello and there'll be a recess until 10:45.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

17 went off the record at 10:06 a.m. and resumed at 

18 10:47 a.m.)

19 CHAIRMAN BLEY: We're back in session. 

20 At this time, I will turn the meeting over to 

21 Professor Corradini for AREVA extended flow window.

22 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Okay, thank you, 

23 Mr. Chairman. So our session now is speaking about 

24 the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant and the 

25 extended flow window. Rob Kuntz is going to lead us 
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 through this. 

2 I'll just mention to the members, 

3 because I looked at Rob's slides, and he'll give us 

4 the beautiful history of all of this as to where we 

5 are, just to mention to the members that we're not 

6 at the last two subcommittee meetings. 

7 This is a particular discussion about 

8 the application of AREVA methods and with their fuel 

9 to the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. All of 

10 the other specifics, if you've missed the 

11 subcommittee meetings, will be dealt with by Mr. 

12 Kuntz. Rob?

13 MR. KUNTZ: Oh, I don't know about all 

14 of them.

15 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Well, and I'm 

16 sorry, I did forget one other thing. And Member 

17 March-Leuba is not going to participate in this 

18 discussion.

19 MR. KUNTZ: Okay, thank you, Chairman. 

20 As mentioned, my name is Rob Kuntz. I'm a senior 

21 project manager in the division of operating reactor 

22 licensing, and I'm the Monticello project manager.

23 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Maybe pull your mic a 

24 little closer.

25 MR. KUNTZ: Is that better?
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 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah, thank you.

2 MR. KUNTZ: So a quick review of the 

3 history of the ACRS review of this license request, 

4 so there was an information session in July of 2015, 

5 and then we've had two subcommittee meetings, a full 

6 day on September 19, and then a half-day again on 

7 October 5.

8 Just a quick history of the Monticello 

9 licensing pertaining to this amendment, they were 

10 approved for APU in 2013, came in for a MELLLA+ and 

11 were approved in 2014. They had a separate 

12 amendment to transition the AREVA fuel, and that was 

13 approved in June of 2015, and then this extended 

14 flow window amendment request came in 2014, and this 

15 is the first extended flow window amendment request 

16 the staff has received.

17 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Just one 

18 clarification for the members. When they were 

19 transitions to AREVA fuel, until this is reviewed 

20 and approved by staff, they are going to be 

21 operating in the MELLLA regime.

22 MR. KUNTZ: Correct.

23 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Okay.

24 MR. KUNTZ: We issued a draft safety 

25 evaluation that went to the ACRS a month before the 
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 first subcommittee in September. Since the issuance 

2 of that draft, we've received two supplements from 

3 the licensee, and they dealt with the safety limit 

4 minimum critical power ratio. 

5 So the supplement revised the technical 

6 specifications to include that penalty. So the 

7 safety evaluation you got stated that the staff felt 

8 that that penalty still applied, and to address that 

9 penalty, the licensee submitted revisions to the 

10 tech spec to include that.

11 Then there was another limitation 9.23, 

12 and that has to do with submitting cycle specific 

13 icon value tracking data. The licensee said that 

14 that does not apply, and the staff agrees, and so 

15 the final SE will note that that limitation is not 

16 applicable to Monticello.

17 And the last one had to do with 

18 submitting a reload licensing report, and they're 

19 just verifying that they'll do that in the time when 

20 that's prepared. And so, all of these, the topics 

21 in those two supplements, the staff has reviewed, 

22 and the final SE will be consistent with the 

23 licensee's request.

24 This is just a quick overview of the SE 

25 that you guys got. I don't think we need to go 
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 through all of the sections, just the agenda for 

2 today. We'll have an open session. After the 

3 staff's done Xcel, go through some of the 

4 operations, and then we'll close the meeting as Xcel 

5 goes into ATWSi, and then the staff will present the 

6 results of their review.

7 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Just one 

8 clarification though, Rob, so I understand. So will 

9 staff want to come up prior to the closed session to 

10 give their evaluation of the open session topics?

11 MR. KUNTZ: No.

12 MR. SAENZ: No, we were just going to 

13 present it in closed session.

14 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Okay, all right, 

15 so then my plan then will be, if we're going to go 

16 into closed session -

17 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm sorry, if we have 

18 staff review of open public area materials, we 

19 really ought to have that in the - we have to have 

20 that in the open session. We can't have that 

21 closed.

22 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: But I thought 

23 Diego said - can you clarify? I heard it 

24 differently. Are you going to -

25 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Well, he said it
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 differently. We can't have your comments on public 

2 information in a closed session.

3 MR. SAENZ: So most of our presentation 

4 is geared toward AREVA methods, and that contains 

5 proprietary information.

6 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay, so you don't have 

7 anything particular to say on the public 

8 information?

9 MR. SAENZ: That's right. It will be 

10 proprietary discussion.

11 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay, that's probably 

12 all right.

13 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Okay, and so my 

14 plan would be then to ask for public comment before 

15 we go into closed session so that we don't have to 

16 go through open, close, open, close, okay? That was 

17 my only clarification.

18 MR. KUNTZ: Then that will be after the 

19 first presentation from Xcel.

20 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Okay.

21 MR. KUNTZ: Okay, all right, and so now 

22 I'll just turn it over to Tim McGinty.

23 MR. McGINTY: Thank you. Good morning. 

24 I'm Tim McGinty. I'm the director of the division 

25 of safety systems in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 
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 Regulation. The Monticello application is the first 

2 to request operation in the extended flow window or 

3 EFW with AREVA methods. EFW is parametrically the 

4 same as MELLLA+, and Monticello has been previously 

5 approved to operate in the MELLLA+ power to flow 

6 domain.

7 Since the fuel at Monticello was changed 

8 to AREVA fuel, the review focus of my staff was on 

9 the reactor systems. There are three main parts of 

10 the review from Monticello to operate in the EFW, 

11 first, the review of the AREVA design basis methods, 

12 second, the review of the AISHA and SINANO codes as 

13 acceptable codes for an ATWSi beyond design basis 

14 analysis, and third, the application of those 

15 methods and the acceptability of the plant specific 

16 portions of the enhanced option three, also EO3, 

17 stability solution.

18 The staff has been working long and hard 

19 on this review. We had a very productive audit at 

20 the AREVA facility in Richland, Washington during 

21 the week of June 15, 2015. The staff did a thorough 

22 review of the areas described above, and was 

23 assisted by ORNL, Oak Ridge.

24 We would specifically like to thank Dr. 

25 March-Leuba for the outstanding job he has done for 
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 the staff for the last, it says here, 30 years, and 

2 so we want to thank you. And I know you already 

3 acknowledged that, so appreciate it.

4 MEMBER POWERS: You realize, of course, 

5 that we're now going to have to put up with him.

6 MR. McGINTY: I apologize in advance for 

7 that.

8 MEMBER POWERS: We will get even for 

9 this. We fully intend to get even.

10 MR. McGINTY: Thank you very much for 

11 that.

12 MEMBER POWERS: You're welcome.

13 MR. McGINTY: The staff also has had 

14 some very productive meetings with the ACRS 

15 subcommittee on thermal hydraulics on September 19 

16 and October 5 of this year, and we're fully prepared 

17 to discuss the result of the review with the full 

18 committee today. Thank you very much, and with 

19 that, I'll turn it over to Pete Gardner for the 

20 licensee's presentation.

21 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Okay, if the 

22 licensee will come up? If the team will come up, I 

23 should say. Glenn, are you going to start us off or 

24 -

25 MR. GARDNER: I'm going to start off.
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 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: I'm sorry. 

2 Excuse me.

3 MR. ADAMS: You can go ahead and go.

4 MR. GARDNER: All right, very good, just 

5 making sure we're ready. All right, good morning. 

6 I'm Pete Gardner. I'm the Monticello site vice 

7 president. And on behalf of Xcel Energy, I just 

8 wanted to thank Mr. Kuntz, the NRC staff, and the 

9 ACRS for performing this review on an AREVA extended 

10 flow window for Monticello. This amendment does 

11 support our transition from GNF fuel over to AREVA. 

12 Including our informational briefing in 

13 July of 2015, this is actually our fourth visit with 

14 the ACRS. We have no follow-up open items from the 

15 prior meetings, and our presentation today will be 

16 an abbreviated version just to kind of give you the 

17 highlights of what we've been through.

18 All right, before we get the AREVA 

19 presentation, we're going to go through a couple of 

20 particulars specifically from the Xcel team, and who 

21 you see in front of you right now is Rick 

22 Stadtlander. He's from operations, and currently in 

23 engineering from our site, and Tamara Malaney, and 

24 she's one of our staff reactor engineers, and she's 

25 done a lot of work on this project. So right now, 
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 I'm going to turn it over to Tamara, and we'll 

2 continue into the presentation.

3 MS. MALANEY: Okay, so I want to provide 

4 a little bit more detail on what this EFW amendment 

5 is. This is a site specific license amendment 

6 request. We're using many AREVA topically approved 

7 methods, but the submittal is site specific, and we 

8 are in no way seeking any form of topical review for 

9 generic use for any other BWR.

10 EFW is the region on the power flow map, 

11 and it's, as been previously said, is parametrically 

12 identical to the MELLLA+ region that we're currently 

13 licensed to use with AREVA - or with GE fuel and GE 

14 methods. The new EFW domain will be implemented in

15 the core operating limits report the same way that 

16 MELLLA+ is implemented in our current core operating 

17 limits report. 

18 The main point of similarity is that 

19 they're both the same power flow domain. And 

20 finally, we're using enhanced option three instead 

21 of the detect and suppress solution confirmation 

22 density for long term stability protection.

23 This is the only physical modification 

24 required to implement EFW. We have to put the 

25 jumper back on, and so we don't use the DSS-CD 
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 algorithm anymore, and it greatly simplifies the 

2 progression through our technical specifications in 

3 the event of an inoperable OPRM, which has honestly 

4 been the biggest challenge for implementation. It's 

5 a very complicated progression through the tech 

6 specs. 

7 MEMBER SKILLMAN: So Tamara, on that 

8 note, what is the primary safety benefit of this 

9 change?

10 MS. MALANEY: I would say it's 

11 approximately equivalent from a safety perspective.

12 MEMBER SKILLMAN: As what?

13 MS. MALANEY: As our current fuel and 

14 methodology.

15 MEMBER SKILLMAN: So neither more safe 

16 nor less safe?

17 MS. MALANEY: On the whole, yes. It's 

18 primarily an economic decision.

19 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay, thank you.

20 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: You may want to 

21 speak up a bit.

22 MS. MALANEY: I'll try.

23 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Please do.

24 MS. MALANEY: I'll look down more.

25 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm just a little 
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 curious. Can you give me a little brief tutorial on 

2 why the progression through your tech specs was so 

3 difficult? I've never heard this one before, so I'm 

4 a little - I missed the - I wasn't part of the 

5 subcommittee.

6 MS. MALANEY: Yes, so right now, when 

7 your OPRMs are operable, you are not required to use 

8 any backup stability regions.

9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay.

10 MS. MALANEY: If your OPRMs become 

11 inoperable, then you immediately implement your 

12 backup stability regions. You have 12 hours to turn 

13 on your automatic backup stability protection trip. 

14 Now, if for some reason your automatic 

15 backup stability protection trip doesn't work, then 

16 you're still using the BSP regions implemented 

17 immediately, and then you cut off a chunk of the top 

18 of the power flow map that's called the BSP backup 

19 region, the BSP boundary.

20 CHAIRMAN BLEY: So it's kind of a giant 

21 set of "and" and "ors" that are confusing.

22 MS. MALANEY: And everyone gets confused 

23 because it all has BSP in it, so we've renamed -

24 there's a stability trip that's based on simulated 

25 thermal power on the EPRMs for the enhanced option 
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 three. We've renamed it to the Extended Flow Window 

2 Stability trip because everyone got confused with 

3 BSP boundary, BSP backup, BSP -

4 CHAIRMAN BLEY: So it's really the 

5 renaming that's made it easier for your operators.

6 MS. MALANEY: And the tech spec 

7 progression is a lot easier because we always have 

8 the EFWS trip on -

9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Oh, okay, you don't have 

10 to go back and forth.

11 MS. MALANEY: - when we're above 70 

12 percent power.

13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay, thanks.

14 MS. MALANEY: We did want to update you 

15 on how our experience in the MELLLA+ domain has 

16 been. Honestly, it's no different from day to day. 

17 I talked to a bunch of our operators, and I couldn't 

18 get any operating experience that said it was any 

19 different. We finished our MELLLA+ testing in June 

20 of 2015 with no issues there, and we have had no 

21 stability events.

22 This slide is a little bit big and 

23 complicated. It shows all of the methods that we 

24 had before for GE analysis in blue, and then it 

25 shows everything we have for AREVA in red. And you 
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 can see we have equivalent analysis. We have ATWSi 

2 methods and analysis over on the right for AREVA, 

3 and the GE methods and analysis over on the left.

4 Besides showing the EFW meets the 

5 licensing precedent set by MELLLA+, we also want to 

6 talk about three fundamental concepts, one, the 

7 AREVA codes are applicable, codes and methods are 

8 applicable in the EFW region. We have met the 

9 applicable limitations of the MELLLA+ licensing 

10 topical reports, and then we have a comparison of 

11 the non-proprietary MELLLA+ versus EFW results.

12 In ANP-3135, which was submitted as part 

13 of the initial license amendment request, we 

14 describe specifically the applicability of each code 

15 and method. First, the method was checked for SER 

16 restrictions on power, flow, or the parameters most 

17 impacted by the increased power level, so steam or 

18 feed flow, jet pump M ratio, or core average void 

19 fraction.

20 The AREVA methods are characterized by 

21 technically rigorous treatment of phenomena, and are 

22 very well benchmarked. Key Monticello data was 

23 plotted against the method qualification data to 

24 show that Monticello is within the qualification of 

25 the method.
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 One example of this that was going to be 

2 fairly quick and easy to explain is the SPCD and the 

3 ACE CPR correlations. We're using SPCD for the GE 

4 fuel, the co-resident GE14 fuel, and we're using ACE 

5 for the ATRIUM 10XM fuel. 

6 There are no SER restrictions on power 

7 or flow on either of those methods, and our data is 

8 within the qualification database. That's all I had 

9 for methods. If there's any other questions, it 

10 would have to be deferred to the proprietary 

11 session.

12 This picture shows where we did 

13 analysis, so primarily the thermal hydraulic type 

14 analysis. We didn't do every single analysis at 

15 every point, but you can see we covered all of the 

16 corners of the map and then quite a few places in 

17 between.

18 For MELLLA+ limitations and conditions, 

19 like I said, we either met them, or we decided that 

20 they were not applicable and showed why they were 

21 not applicable. 

22 So one that we met was NEDC-33173, 

23 limitation and condition 9.3 requires that extended 

24 operating domains are either limited to 50 megawatts 

25 thermal per megapound per hour, or additional 
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 information needs to be provided. The Monticello 

2 application is less than 50 megawatts thermal per 

3 megapound per hour, so this limitation and condition 

4 is met.

5 One that was not applicable for us is 

6 out of the same topical limitation and condition 

7 9.14 requires that the part 21 on the GESTR-M 

8 thermal conductivity degradation needs to be applied 

9 until the NRC approves what ended up being the prime 

10 methodology. This is not applicable because thermal 

11 conductivity degradation is already included or 

12 addressed in AREVA methods.

13 Next, we have the key results 

14 comparison. You can see this slide just as well as 

15 I can. The one thing to note is the OLMCPRs are for 

16 the representative core because we're not quite to 

17 the point in the cycle, in the next cycle core 

18 designs, that we have OLMCPRs for next cycle. We 

19 don't refuel until next April, but we do have the 

20 safety limits set up now.

21 And then on the next slide, we have the 

22 LOCA, a short discussion on Appendix R, and then 

23 both of the LSI PCTs meet applicable limits, but 

24 both of the values are proprietary, so I can't tell 

25 you now. This is the end of my presentation. Oh, 
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 sorry, I have - I forgot. I added a bunch. 

2 One thing that we talked about at every 

3 meeting, and quite a bit with the staff, is the 

4 operator action times. The primary action time for 

5 ATWSi is the 90 seconds to initiate level reduction 

6 by terminating and preventing feed water injection. 

7 The other 10 critical operator actions related to 

8 boron and - what's the other one - oh, suppression 

9 pool cooling, are unaffected by what's going on 

10 exactly on the core. It's just about decay heat.

11 So here, I have a timeline, and this is 

12 something that nobody's seen written out like this 

13 before, so maybe it will be useful even for the 

14 people who were here before. For the two recirc 

15 pump trip, which is our limiting event with 

16 oscillations -

17 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: If I might just 

18 ask you to back up, so you might want to tell 

19 everybody why the 2RPT is limiting because I think 

20 the subcommittee people will remember vividly, but 

21 other members might want to hear that.

22 MS. MALANEY: I can say that now instead 

23 of the next slide.

24 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Okay, yeah.

25 MS. MALANEY: The 2RPT is limiting 
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 because as long as we take our operator action to 

2 terminate and prevent within 90 seconds, there are 

3 no significant oscillations during the turbine trip 

4 with bypass event, so we went looking for another 

5 event. It's the same event as was analyzed for the 

6 MELLLA+ under GE, and we used the same boundary 

7 conditions.

8 MEMBER REMPE: So I have a question, and 

9 I know I kind of kept asking this during the 

10 subcommittee meetings, and probably didn't ask it 

11 well, but I've thought about it some more since 

12 then. And if you want to wait until the closed 

13 session, you can answer it there. 

14 But when you did these analyses with the 

15 2RPT and the turbine trip, you assumed the analysis 

16 of record feed water flow down reduction, and then 

17 to really try and get some oscillations going, I 

18 believe it was the 2RPT where you actually did some 

19 more conservative run down temperatures. 

20 How do you know what's conservative and 

21 what's best estimate? I mean, you have the nominal 

22 case, and you have this more conservative estimate. 

23 Do you have, like, plant data, or what's the basis 

24 for saying something's conservative or nominal?

25 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Let me try 
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 something as your expert is coming to the mic. My 

2 memory is from the subcommittee meeting that they 

3 basically took the analysis of record that GE used 

4 in terms of what was determined conservative. So 

5 they were -

6 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, I know.

7 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Okay.

8 MEMBER REMPE: I remember analysis of 

9 record, but what's the truth is where I'm coming 

10 from, and we made other licensees who came in after 

11 you guys talk about what the truth is, and that's 

12 what I was trying to get to here.

13 MR. TINKLER: Yeah, this is Dan Tinkler 

14 from AREVA. For Monticello, we license typically 

15 with a nominal feed water temperature, and we give 

16 that versus steam flow, so as the steam flow 

17 changes, you get different heating, so we have a 

18 nominal feed water temperature that we know. 

19 We also license it with a feed water 

20 temperature band. So we say as long as the feed 

21 water temperature is within, I believe it's -5 

22 degrees of the nominal, then you're within license 

23 space. 

24 MS. MALANEY: It's plus five, minus 10.

25 MR. TINKLER: Oh, plus five, sorry, plus 
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 five, minus 10. So the feed water temperature is 

2 based on plant operation, so the nominal is a plant 

3 operation value, but we do license it within a 

4 certain band.

5 MEMBER REMPE: So what's on the analysis 

6 of record? Does it just stay pretty constant the 

7 whole time, or does it assume some sort of transient 

8 behavior, and what is assumed in the analysis of 

9 record, and why do you know it's true? Is it just 

10 within that band the whole time?

11 MR. TINKLER: We actually, for our 

12 analysis, it was outside of the band.

13 MEMBER REMPE: And what's the basis for 

14 that analysis to make you feel comfortable that the 

15 nominal case is correct?

16 MR. TINKLER: We can get into that in 

17 closed session.

18 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, that's fine.

19 MR. TINKLER: I think I have some things 

20 in the slides. I'll try to - if I don't elaborate 

21 on it, please remind me.

22 MEMBER REMPE: Okay.

23 MR. TINKLER: I will try to address that 

24 during the closed session.

25 MEMBER REMPE: Thank you.
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 MS. MALANEY: Okay, so at time zero, 

2 both of the recirc pumps trip. Within the first 

3 minute, we would expect our operators to take manual 

4 action to initiate a trip, but we are not crediting 

5 that action in this analysis, which I think is

6 different than some other licensees. 

7 Within 50, 45 to 100 seconds, we would 

8 expect the stability trip, the extended flow window 

9 stability trip based on simulated thermal power on 

10 the APRMs to initiate a trip. We are also not 

11 crediting that trip. 

12 We are only crediting the trip to fail 

13 at about 300 seconds from when the OPRMs detect 

14 instabilities. That is the trip that we are 

15 crediting to fail. And then within 90 seconds of 

16 that trip failing, we have the operators initiate 

17 level reduction. 

18 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: And that is the 

19 same as the analysis of record from under GE 

20 assumption, so the timing is identical?

21 MS. MALANEY: That is correct.

22 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: Okay, thank you.

23 MS. MALANEY: The turbine trip with 

24 bypass timeline is much less interesting because at 

25 time zero, the turbine trips. There's a failure to 
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 scram, and then within 90 seconds, operators 

2 initiate level reduction. This terminates the event 

3 prior to significant instabilities developing. 

4 That's why we had to do the 2RPT analysis to give 

5 you an ATWSi analysis. And that's all I have. 

6 Questions?

7 VICE CHAIR CORRADINI: So, to remind the 

8 members, staff has nothing to discuss about these 

9 topics in open session, so my plan is to get 

10 comments from the members, comments from the public, 

11 and then go into closed session because of 

12 proprietary material. Members, any questions? 

13 Okay, so why don't I turn to - does 

14 anybody from the members of the public want to make 

15 comments in the room? And can we please have the 

16 phone line open so if there is comments from members 

17 of the public on the bridge line, we can hear their 

18 comments?

19 I hear noise. Can someone who is on the 

20 bridge line please at least acknowledge that they're 

21 there so we know the line is open? Anyone? So no 

22 one is on the line. Why don't we close the line? 

23 And then can we ask members of Xcel Energy and of 

24 AREVA to verify that no one in the room is -

25 everybody in the room is bonafide? And we can close 
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 the outside line since we're going to go into closed 

2 session. 

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

4 went off the record at 11:13 a.m. and resumed at 

5 1:46 p.m.)

6 CHAIRMAN BLEY: The meeting will come to 

7 order. Again, before we move on to this afternoon's 

8 session, we said this morning we had no one who had 

9 asked to make public comments. We erred. In fact, 

10 Doug Tonkay of the Department of Energy had asked 

11 for five minutes to read comments in the record at 

12 the end of this session, so we will certainly allow 

13 him to do that.

14 At this time, I'll turn the meeting over 

15 to Dr. Chu to lead us through the Part 61 work.

16 MEMBER CHU: Thank you Mr. Chairman. On 

17 October 18th, the Radiation Protection and Nuclear 

18 Materials Subcommittee heard from the staff on the 

19 final proposed rule language for revisions to 10 

20 C.F.R. Part 61, low level radioactive waste 

21 disposal. This full Committee session is the sixth 

22 time the staff has briefed the Committee on proposed 

23 revisions to Part 61.

24 The Committee has previously written 

25 four letters to the Commission on this matter. The 
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 proposed rule is with the Commission now as SECY-16-

2 0106, waiting for the decision of the Commission. 

3 The staff has been provided extra time today to 

4 present the rule language, but also the guidance on 

5 implementing the rule, which was not discussed in 

6 any detail at the October subcommittee meeting.

7 So with that introduction, I turn to 

8 Gary Comfort of the NMSS staff to begin with 

9 session. Gary.

10 MR. COMFORT: Thank you, Margaret. 

11 Today, as you indicated, we're here to talk about 

12 the Part 61 low level radioactive waste disposal 

13 final rule, the draft final rule is before the 

14 Commission right now for their review. To my right 

15 is Dr. Dave Esh. He's going to be doing a 

16 presentation on more of the technical aspects. I'm 

17 going to be going over the overview of the rule.

18 I'm a senior project manager in NRC's 

19 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in 

20 the Division of Material Safety States, Tribal and 

21 Rulemaking Programs. We last discussed this topic 

22 before the Committee back in -- before the full 

23 Committee back in 2013.

24 So first of all, just to give quick 

25 overview of the discussion topics, I plan on going 
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 over what the purpose of the rule was, just to 

2 remind you all of that, what types of Commission 

3 direction we've gotten through the years, and just 

4 remind of the letters that, you know, some of the 

5 major topics that were discussed before.

6 Then because what you last saw was 

7 really what we submitted to the Commission as part 

8 of a SECY paper in 2013, I'm going to go over the 

9 transition from the SRM as to what kind of comments 

10 they gave us and what we actually published for 

11 public comment, and then move into the description, 

12 you know, what kind of comments we got and then the 

13 description of the final rule. Dave will then take 

14 over with the technical elements. Feel free if you 

15 have any questions to jump in at any time.

16 The purpose of the rule, I'd like to 

17 star with first, and it's really to ensure the safe 

18 disposal of new waste streams not analyzed as part 

19 of the original 10 C.F.R. Part 61 regulation. Back 

20 when the rule was originally promulgated in 1982 or 

21 thereabouts, the rule was based upon what was the 

22 waste streams being disposed of at that time period.

23 And so it didn't include many of the 

24 waste streams or some of the waste streams that are 

25 now being disposed or were envisioned to be disposed 
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 of in the future. For example, depleted uranium. 

2 Back in the 1980's, you know, the early 1980's, 

3 uranium enrichment was primarily a function of the 

4 U.S. government, and there weren't any privatized 

5 operations.

6 So the expectation was a lot of the 

7 depleted -- all that depleted uranium would be 

8 disposed of by the Department of Energy complex. 

9 Since then, enrichment has become a privatized 

10 activity and one of the pathways that they're 

11 looking at doing is through the low level, 

12 commercial low level waste sites, you know.

13 Similarly DOE, Department of Energy is 

14 also considering doing some waste through the 

15 commercial waste sites that wasn't envisioned back 

16 in the early 1980's. Other things that have 

17 changed, that there's some consideration of 

18 including blended wastes into the commercial waste 

19 stream. 

20 Blended waste is basically taking a 

21 class of waste that's higher like, you know, Class B 

22 and combining it with a lower class waste such as 

23 Class A, but it going to keep it a higher 

24 concentration than the Class A level than what was 

25 envisioned to be going into these waste sites.
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 So the idea of the whole rule that we 

2 were going forth in this rule is to capture all of 

3 these known new wastes, as well as anything that may 

4 come up in the future when we developed this rule. 

5 Over the years, we've had a lot of interactions with 

6 the Commission. This thing really came out of a 

7 procedural, a license hearing procedure for 

8 Louisiana Energy Services, which was a uranium 

9 enrichment facility and the question came up as to 

10 was it -- could this material be disposed in low 

11 level waste sites?

12 The Commission came back and asked the 

13 staff to evaluate how Part 61 fit into this and what 

14 the rule of DU in Part 61 right now, because a lot 

15 of depleted uranium wasn't really envisioned to go 

16 into these sites. The final rule didn't 

17 specifically address DU, so it kind of falls under a 

18 default category of Class A waste.

19 So the question was well, now that we 

20 have a lot more, is that appropriate? The staff 

21 came back and provided the Commission what they 

22 wanted, and the Commission directed us to go forth 

23 with this rulemaking. That was in 2008. 

24 Eventually, the Commission directed the staff to add 

25 into the idea of the blending into the rulemaking in 
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 2010.

2 The staff went out and it had gone 

3 through and developed a regulatory basis for the 

4 rule, where we did a lot of public interaction, 

5 trying to determine, you know, what aspects we 

6 should be considering during the rule. We went out 

7 with proposed rule or preliminary proposed rule 

8 language, and eventually the Commission came forth 

9 during this process and provided us additional 

10 direction in 2011, which is the SRMCOMWDM-11-0002 

11 and COMGEA-11-0002, basically giving us more 

12 specific direction on how we should require the 

13 analysis using a two-tiered approach.

14 We eventually finally got a final 

15 proposed rule to the Commission in 2013, which was 

16 SECY-013-0075. In this rule, that's the language 

17 where we last provided this Committee to look at, 

18 and you guys provided comments back to the -- that 

19 were directed to the Commission, and I'm going to go 

20 over what was in that in a minute.

21 But the Commission then eventually came 

22 back with their SRM and had us to some significant 

23 revisions, which I'll describe briefly that ended up 

24 in the proposed rule. But one of the things that 

25 they also directed is they encouraged the ACRS to 
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 provide an independent review on both the rule 

2 language as well as the guidance, and that's a large 

3 part of the reason why we're here today.

4 Now this next slide basically shows a 

5 comparison on the left side of the slide is what's 

6 known as SECY-013-0075. This is the package that 

7 the staff had provided the Commission, including the 

8 rule language and it basically encompasses what you 

9 saw. During that time period when we went to the 

10 Commission, we had recommended going forth as the 

11 Commission directed with an analysis of two time 

12 frames.

13 This included a compliance period of 0 

14 to 10,000 years. It would have for the -- a 

15 performance assessment would be part of that, which 

16 would have a 25 millirem dose limit for protection 

17 of the public, as well as we added an intruder 

18 assessment as part of that, which would have a 500 

19 millirem limit.

20 We added also basically waste acceptance 

21 criteria, because we're going to site-specific 

22 intent. So you could actually use the 

23 classification tables, or you could use the site24 specific information that you develop to determine 

25 what your waste acceptance criteria were.
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 Then we updated the ICRP dosimetry 

2 modeling that would be allowed to be used in the 

3 performance objectives in 10 C.F.R. 61.41 and 42, 

4 and we recommended to the Commission to allow 

5 flexibility to the Agreement States, that the rule 

6 should be compatible with Category C.

7 The Commission reviewed the rule and 

8 then as I said had gotten your comments and all, and 

9 they provided us back additional direction, which on 

10 the right, which is what's shown to be the published 

11 portion of the rule. The big changes in that were 

12 the Commission directed us to instead go to a time 

13 frame with three tiers. 

14 They basically directed a -- they 

15 directed -- my mind just went out of words -- a 

16 compliance period, thank you, of zero to 1,000 years 

17 versus the zero to 10,000 years that we had 

18 originally suggested. Again, it had the 25 millirem 

19 dose limit for the public, as well as a 500 millirem 

20 dose limit for the inadvertent intruder assessment.

21 And real quickly, on the inadvertent 

22 intruder assessments, what we're talking about there 

23 is somebody who doesn't -- isn't aware of the 

24 radioactive material disposed of at the site. 

25 Instead, they're walking onto the site randomly and 
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 taking upon activities that would be normal for the 

2 activity, and they happen to infringe upon the waste 

3 or possibly do. 

4 So what you're doing is assessing it. 

5 It's not to evaluate somebody coming advertently 

6 into the site and trying to remove the waste or do 

7 something to the waste because they know it's there. 

8 So the compliance was there to 1,000 years. Then it 

9 was followed by a new protective assurance period 

10 that the Commission directed that was from 1,000 to 

11 10,000 years. Now this was going to have a 500 

12 millirem dose goal. It wasn't a limit, but a dose 

13 goal to try to be compared to.

14 And then this was followed by a 

15 performance period, which we've also suggested in 

16 our rule, the original rule as a second tier. This 

17 was now the third tier for 10,000 years out. The 

18 performance period assessment was basically supposed 

19 to be a qualitative review that looked at what was 

20 going to -- what the assumptions that would go on 

21 after that time period not, you know, very 

22 quantitative although you could use quantitative 

23 data.

24 But the intent was to basically provide 

25 an opportunity to minimize potential exposures out 
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 to the far future. They did include, you know, 

2 allow us or they did agree with the performance 

3 assessment and intruder assessment. One of the 

4 changes, though, they did address in the intruder 

5 assessment is we had not really defined down the 

6 scenarios the time frame for where those scenarios 

7 should be evaluated out to.

8 The Commission instead directed in their 

9 rule or in their SRM for the staff to include that 

10 the scenarios should be evaluated based upon the 

11 time of closure of the site so you're not looking 

12 far into the future and trying to guess what's going 

13 on at the site and developing scenarios based on 

14 that.

15 They added a requirement or directed the 

16 staff to add an explicit description of what a 

17 safety case is. I mean the staff had already 

18 thought the safety case was implicitly evaluated and 

19 included in Part 61 at the time, but they wanted to 

20 describe it explicitly. Similarly, they wanted us 

21 to add an defense-in-depth analysis, which we had 

22 added per the Commission direction.

23 Finally, in the compatibility category, 

24 instead of doing the C, they directed us to do 

25 Compatibility B. Compatibility B basically says 
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 that the rule language that the states incorporate 

2 has to be basically exactly the same as what the 

3 NRC. So things like the compliance period time 

4 frames that we incorporated for the three tiers, the 

5 states would have to match in their regulations.

6 If it were in Compatibility Category C, 

7 they can be more -- they can be similar or more 

8 restrictive than what we had done on that. So 

9 that's basically what we published back in -- we 

10 ended up publishing as the rule. 

11 Next, I'm going to go quickly over -- we 

12 have had, as we said, numerous meetings with you 

13 over the years prior to this. What the letter 

14 reports that the ACRS had identified as some of the 

15 key issues that we saw in the letters. The ACRS 

16 directed that we do a -- or suggested that we do a 

17 risk-informed based on site-specific realistic 

18 performance assessments, with a consideration for 

19 uncertainties.

20 Basically, they wanted us to make sure 

21 the scenarios were realistic and looked at a range 

22 of site-specific conditions. They suggested that we 

23 use time frames based on case by case site-specific 

24 basis, rather than finding specific fixed periods 

25 for performance.
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 They also requested that or recommended 

2 that we do compliance with the performance 

3 objectives after the institutional control period 

4 be evaluated, considering features, events and 

5 processes or otherwise known as FEPs for a given 

6 site for a period, commensurate with a site-specific 

7 risk.

8 For protection of the inadvertent 

9 intruder, they were concerned that we were 

10 requiring, being too specific in the requirements 

11 for that with the dose limits and all, and that the 

12 large -- because there were large uncertainties 

13 associated with human intrusion, and it wouldn't 

14 really help a lot with the decision-making process.

15 Instead, they felt that durability and 

16 stability of the site and evaluation of that should 

17 be sufficient. Finally, they recommended that 

18 previously disposed waste should not be subject to 

19 any additional compliance evaluations. So if a 

20 material's already been disposed of, it shouldn't 

21 fall under this rule.

22 These letters went to the Commission. 

23 Although we incorporated some of the recommendations 

24 of this Committee, we didn't incorporate all of 

25 them. Things like we do have time periods, time 
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 periods specified and all, and in response to the 

2 recommendations, the staff did provide responses as 

3 to why we weren't accepting or what recommendations 

4 we did accept.

5 Quickly, I just want to go where we are 

6 in the rulemaking process, you know, what we are --

7 and where we got to since we last had met with you. 

8 We issued the proposed rule as SECY-013-0075 in 

9 March 26th, 2015. That was after the SRM was issued 

10 about a year earlier. Because the Commission 

11 provided us so much direction, it took us a period 

12 of time to incorporate all the new requirements and 

13 get all the documents up to speed.

14 Per the Commission direction, we issued 

15 it for a longer than normal period for review by the 

16 public, for 120 days for the comment period. We got 

17 a significant number of comments, but we also got a 

18 few -- a number of people who requested additional 

19 time. So we reopened the comment period from August 

20 27th to September 21st, 2015.

21 So we finally closed the period and 

22 moved forward with development of the rule, to the 

23 point that we about a year later just recently 

24 submitted the draft final rule to the Commission on 

25 September 15th. The paper is in -- part of the 
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 package of SECY-016-0106, and currently the 

2 Commission is reviewing that package.

3 As part of the rule, you know, we went 

4 out for the public comment period and we received 

5 2,401 comment letters. Approximately 2,300 of those 

6 were form letters. While the document was out for 

7 public comment, we held six workshops. We did 

8 extensive public outreach. We also held a webinar 

9 on the guidance document.

10 We got comments from a large number of 

11 people, through both written and during these oral, 

12 which we transcribed the oral comments and included 

13 them in our package. The people that were 

14 represented are listed individuals, public interest 

15 groups, Native American tribes, industry groups, 

16 licensees and state and federal agencies.

17 Overall, we had over 800 comments that 

18 we identified and then binned them, and we've 

19 responded to those in the statements of 

20 consideration of the draft Federal Register that was 

21 part of the SECY that we recently sent. 

22 MEMBER REMPE: I'm curious. 2,300 were 

23 form letters. The same form letter or --

24 MR. COMFORT: Yeah. They were the same 

25 form letter basically. We get that often in a 
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 rulemaking, that somebody will put out a general 

2 form and people will sign their name to it, put 

3 their name.

4 MEMBER REMPE: Oh, so it's almost a 

5 petition basically?

6 MR. COMFORT: Yeah, effectively.

7 MEMBER REMPE: Got it, okay.

8 MR. COMFORT: These were a lot from, you 

9 know, individuals in some of the states that 

10 basically, you know, were concerned are we being 

11 restrictive enough or, you know, they were concerned 

12 about what waste was going into their sites and all 

13 that, that may be nearby.

14 MEMBER REMPE: But this is the identical 

15 same one, 2,300?

16 MR. COMFORT: They were all -- oh, I 

17 mean there might have been a word or two that were 

18 different, but yes, they were effectively the same 

19 letter and, you know, we go through. We have 

20 software that goes through and divides it all out 

21 and looks at it to compare it out, to make sure that 

22 they are similar and identify where there's objects 

23 or statements that are different.

24 MEMBER REMPE: Thank you.

25 MR. COMFORT: So I'm going to move on 
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 and discuss a little bit of some of the comments 

2 that we received. Remember, this is on a proposed 

3 rule that we did actually publish with the three 

4 tier system. A big comment that we got from most, a 

5 large number of the stakeholders was that the system 

6 was much more complicated than necessary.

7 They felt going to the three tier system 

8 would be very difficult to evaluate, you know, the 

9 separate tiers. A lot of the individual members of 

10 the public had a perception concern that the 500 

11 millirem dose goal that was associated with the 

12 protective assurance period assessment period would 

13 reduce, actually reduce public health and safety.

14 In our regulations, you know, for public 

15 health and protection we had a 25 millirem dose 

16 limit. Now again, you have to look at it that in 

17 Part 61, the currently Part 61 it doesn't have any 

18 time frames associated with it. So one could argue 

19 that time frame goes -- should go out that long. A 

20 lot of people, you know, when we were doing the 

21 evaluations, it was considerably lesser that we were 

22 allowing and applying that 25 millirem.

23 But what the rule change would do is 

24 basically clarify the time period that we would 

25 expect, so there's not any confusion. So as part of 
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 this rule, in response to those comments, we did go 

2 back and we tried to move to a new, more simplified 

3 approach that I'll get to in a few minutes.

4 Another big area was the compatibility 

5 category. We got a lot of comments on this. A lot 

6 of people thought this reduced the current health 

7 and safety provided by some states. Again, under 

8 Compatibility B, which is what we went out with the 

9 rule, the states would have to meet exactly what we 

10 had, which was the zero to 1,000 year compliance 

11 period.

12 Many of these states already had 

13 requirements that were longer, 5,000 or 10,000 year 

14 requirements, or even at the peak dose in some 

15 cases, and that they applied the dose limit to. So 

16 by having this Compatibility B, they would be 

17 actually having the states have to, you know, go 

18 back and change the regulations to effectively 

19 reduce the amount of time they were already 

20 evaluating against.

21 Most of the commenters, as a result, 

22 recommended Compatibility C. This would allow the 

23 states such that if we had a 1,000 year compliance 

24 period, that they could make it 10,000 years. 

25 They're meeting the 1,000, they're being more 
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 restrictive. They could do whatever they wanted to 

2 on that and apply the limit. So it gave them a lot 

3 more flexibility.

4 And that's effectively what we did, is 

5 we changed the compliance period definition, and 

6 then the waste acceptance criteria information in 

7 61.58 Compatibility C to provide them that 

8 flexibility. 

9 Not directly stated in the rule, you 

10 know, what we did state in the rule for 

11 grandfathering, that there would be no 

12 grandfathering to sites that were still operating. 

13 We expected to those sites to go back and do their 

14 performance, redo their performance assessments, to 

15 address both the new waste and the old, you know, 

16 and the waste that were currently in site.

17 The intent was not to make them go and 

18 find out, you know, we think that if there's 

19 anything wrong with their sites currently. We 

20 don't, but you really have to have an overall 

21 assessment of the site to do your site-specific 

22 evaluations and all, and that's all we were trying 

23 to indicate with the grandfathering and all.

24 So basically some of the comments we 

25 got, that the grandfathering should be allowed. You 
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 know, particularly if a site's not going to be 

2 accepting any of these new wastes, why should these 

3 rules apply to them, you know? If it does, they 

4 shouldn't really have to apply it to the wastes that 

5 are already disposed of and all.

6 There was also a segment of persons that 

7 identified that in 10 C.F.R. 61(1)(a), that there's 

8 some statements in there that basically say that a 

9 state can adopt only part of the regulations that 

10 come about. That was kind of an over, an artifact 

11 from the original rulemaking, that at that time we 

12 really didn't have a framework when Part 61 was put 

13 on.

14 So we didn't want to suddenly throw all 

15 these rules at somebody at a state and say you have 

16 to meet them all at once. So they were able to 

17 adopt them over a longer time period, and address 

18 them to their sites as needed. 

19 Our indication from reading of the rule 

20 language and finding, you know, reviewing it was 

21 that 61(1)(a) really only applied to that first time 

22 the rule was implemented. It was never intended to 

23 address future amendments to the rule. 

24 So as a matter of fact, one of the 

25 things we did as a result of those comments that 
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 wasn't in the proposed rule was to remove those 

2 clauses in 61(1)(a) that identified that ability for 

3 the state to not include, you know, not meet the 

4 regulations for NRC or include in their regulations 

5 on it. So that is removed from the final rule.

6 The other big issue that came out of the 

7 public comments was the idea of backfit. Part 61 

8 does not have a backfit requirement. We do have to 

9 do a regulatory analysis, which is effectively a 

10 cost benefit and that's included as part of the 

11 package that was sent to the Commission.

12 Particularly some of the licensees that 

13 were fuel cycle operators and stuff had concerns 

14 that there are backfit provisions under their 

15 requirements. They felt that their backfit 

16 provision should apply, since they were going to be 

17 indirectly impacted because it was going to 

18 potentially impact where they could dispose of their 

19 wastes.

20 We did a review of what the backfit 

21 requirements are and how we've applied them before, 

22 and in the past we have not applied them to 

23 secondary, you know, secondary persons who are 

24 affected by a rule. So if you're not part of that 

25 rule, that part, you know, we don't really address 
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 that.

2 It doesn't say the Commission can't, you 

3 know, go back and take a review of these comments 

4 and redirect the staff to do a backfit. There's 

5 nothing saying that they can't. We determined that 

6 there is no requirement for us to do a backfit in 

7 our regulatory analysis, which we did based on 

8 public comment also do a lot of revision to provide, 

9 you know, more data that was from the states as well 

10 as the licensees themselves.

11 So that's really the major comments that 

12 we got. This resulted in the --

13 MEMBER CHU: Gary, Gary.

14 MR. COMFORT: Yes.

15 MEMBER CHU: Can I ask you only a slide 

16 question. What was the Commission's direction on --

17 I'm looking at Slide 5. What was the Commission's 

18 direction on the intrusion scenario?

19 MR. COMFORT: Basically, after the --

20 when the staff submitted theirs, they basically said 

21 we're going to do an intruder assessment and then 

22 you'll basically look at what is going on at the 

23 site, you know, reasonable activities and all. It 

24 didn't define a time period a time period so it 

25 could go out, you know, far into the future. You're 
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 looking at evaluations past 10,000 years.

2 The Commission basically came back in 

3 theirs and said no, basically put the assessment 

4 only at time of closure, what you expect the 

5 activities to be at the time of closure at the site. 

6 Don't try to look far into the future. But they 

7 agreed that we should have an intruder, an 

8 inadvertent intruder assessment as part of the rule, 

9 as well as with the --

10 MEMBER CHU: But at closure not --

11 MR. COMFORT: But at closure, not at 

12 yeah. That's one of the things I'll get into is we 

13 did have a -- we did get public comment on that, and 

14 in the final rule we did change that even further, 

15 because a lot of these sites may be operating for 40 

16 years. A lot of things can change in 40 years.

17 So instead, we changed it to instead --

18 the rule language would say you do the activities 

19 going on at the site at the time that you're doing 

20 the actual assessment. Don't try to predict what's 

21 going on in the future. As time goes forth, they're 

22 going to redo the assessments at renewals, as well 

23 as we've got an explicit requirement that they'll 

24 have to update their safety case at closure, and at 

25 that point they'll actually get the Commission's 
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 final, you know, this is what it is.

2 But we're not requiring to look out 

3 after that as to what kind of -- you know, 

4 unexpected activities. I mean if they're aware that 

5 yes, you know, hey in ten years the building 

6 requirements around the thing have changed to allow 

7 certain other activities, we'd expect them to 

8 probably address that. 

9 But we're not trying to, you know, if 

10 that hasn't happened and it's a desert, we're not 

11 expecting them at this point to say hey, we expect 

12 to major city to be in there in 100 years and stuff 

13 on it, and to evaluate it against that.

14 So going back to the major rule changes 

15 and all, so as a result of all the public comments 

16 that we received, we did make a lot of, you k now, a 

17 lot of changes. I mean we thought the comments, 

18 many of them were quite good. They were well 

19 spelled out as to what there were problems. I mean 

20 everything from, you know, we have some technical 

21 issues, that we have areas that we need to enhance 

22 direction both in the rule as well as in guidance, 

23 you know, as well as just minor editorial that fixed 

24 a lot of issues that we had.

25 But this slide basically shows some of 
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 the major items, you know. Now this is all compared 

2 to what's in the current rule, the changes from it, 

3 that the new rule is going to require site-specific 

4 analysis that you have to do, whether you're using 

5 the waste classification tables or not. It provides 

6 now for a compliance period that you're going to 

7 have to do, that you can evaluate. 

8 But the change now is that we're 

9 requiring it only 1,000 years if there aren't 

10 significant quantities of long-lived waste. If 

11 there are significant quantities of long-lived 

12 waste, and Dave will get into what that means in a 

13 few minutes in his slides, you'll have to do your 

14 evaluation out to 10,000 years for the compliance 

15 period, for protection of general public and 

16 similarly the requirement is the same out for the --

17 have similar requirements for the inadvertent 

18 intruder.

19 We do a add new requirement for the 

20 technical analysis for the protection of the 

21 inadvertent intruder, that -- in addition, it has a 

22 dose limit associated with it, which wasn't in the 

23 current rule. Protection of inadvertent intruder, 

24 the performance objective is found in 61.42, and we 

25 now have a new requirement for a 500 millirem limit 
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 as part of that assessment that you have to meet.

2 We now add a new post-10,000 year 

3 performance period analysis. Again, as I indicated 

4 before, our intent is that's not supposed to be a 

5 real detailed quantitative analysis. It's more 

6 supposed to be used qualitatively to make sure that, 

7 you know, you're minimizing the -- you're aware of 

8 what types of impacts you can have, so that you can 

9 minimize them out in the future.

10 The expectation is in most cases, you 

11 can just, you know, run your model out further what 

12 you currently are for the compliance period. It 

13 adds a new requirement, as I said before, to update 

14 your technical analyses at site closure, so that you 

15 know that what, you know, when you're closing the 

16 site, you know what your waste, all the waste that 

17 you disposed of and now you can do an evaluation for 

18 the final impacts and make any changes that you need 

19 to, to make sure that you continue to meet the 

20 performance objectives.

21 Finally, we also add a new requirement 

22 to identify defense-in-depth protections, as well as 

23 we explicitly state safety cases as was directed by 

24 the Commission.

25 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Dave, before you 
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 change this slide, let me ask a question about the 

2 800 comments two slides back. Among those 800 

3 comments, were there any comments related to the 

4 volume of DU waste that would be handled under this 

5 rule? 

6 MR. COMFORT: I mean in the way of 

7 asking how much would be handled?

8 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Yes.

9 MR. COMFORT: I don't remember. I mean 

10 I don't remember any specific to asking that 

11 specific question at all, I mean, because we would 

12 have come up with a response saying we expect, you 

13 know, this amount. I know in the rule though, I 

14 mean in the statements of consideration, I think we 

15 look at where the volumes are coming from. But I 

16 don't think we specifically address that. Dave may 

17 have more.

18 MEMBER SKILLMAN: I'd be curious what 

19 your and David's thoughts are on this, and I'll tell 

20 you why in just a minute. Go ahead.

21 MR. ESH: Yeah. This is David Esh. 

22 Leading up to this phase of the regulation, 

23 especially early on we had some workshops on the 

24 various topics, of which we communicated about the 

25 depleted uranium issues and how much material you 
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 might be dealing with. So the estimates, I believe, 

2 were there's about 700,000 metric tons in DOE's 

3 inventory with Paducah and the other enrichment 

4 programs.

5 Then there was estimated to be maybe 

6 about that much or a little bit more that would be 

7 generated on the commercial side also. So there was 

8 more than a million metric tons of depleted uranium 

9 and the potential source term. But I agree with 

10 Gary. I don't remember for sure that we received 

11 any specific comments about the volume.

12 The volume is large, but whether it's, 

13 you know, a million or two million or 500,000, I 

14 don't remember anything like that.

15 MEMBER SKILLMAN: It seems to me that 

16 that's -- that's an important feature that we 

17 haven't spoken about, and since our last meeting was 

18 about 10-12 days ago, I was reviewing some material 

19 that I had, and was involved with the Zippe 

20 Centrifuge Plant in Eunice, and see in your mind, a 

21 short take off and landing airport, two side by side 

22 just north of that facility.

23 I estimate those landing strips are 

24 three to four thousand feet long, and they are only 

25 there for the DU cylinders. If the experience at 
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 Capenhurst, which is the -- which is the leading 

2 facility for Hobbes is any example, both of those 

3 runways will be filled with as many DU cylinders as 

4 can be parked there safely stacked two or three 

5 high. So we're talking hundreds of thousands of 

6 cylinders.

7 MR. ESH: Right. It's many football 

8 fields to use a sports analogy of these cylinders. 

9 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Bingo. That's what I 

10 --

11 MR. ESH: When you see pictures of the 

12 ones that exist right now, that's a lot of material.

13 MEMBER SKILLMAN: That's what I --

14 that's exactly. That's what I'm communicating. So 

15 it seems as though that little piece of information 

16 might be a factor in what it is that we're talking 

17 about and some of the concerns that the ACRS has 

18 expressed, particularly this idea of in the future 

19 having to rehandle or rebury or do something else 

20 with what's already there, because this is as much 

21 material as will fit in a small city. Thank you.

22 MR. ESH: Thank you.

23 MEMBER REMPE: So in the subcommittee 

24 meeting a few weeks ago, you had another bullet that 

25 you seem to have taken off now about better aligning 
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 with the requirements with current safety standards. 

2 Was there a reason that you -- I mean that was 

3 something that was discussed by one of the public 

4 comments at the end of our meeting about other 

5 safety standards, and is there a reason you decided 

6 --

7 MR. COMFORT: It was more just to keep 

8 it, you know --

9 MEMBER REMPE: Focused?

10 MR. COMFORT: Keep the meeting focused 

11 more on the more technical aspects rather than, you 

12 know. I mean that is technical but, you know, 

13 something I stated earlier, that we did do that 

14 change, you know, in the rule, that we were 

15 addressing changing the performance objectives to 

16 allow more site or to allow more up to date dose 

17 methodologies to be used versus what was, what's in 

18 the current regulations and all. 

19 MEMBER REMPE: Okay.

20 MR. COMFORT: But yeah. I did just do 

21 it more -- it wasn't because, you know.

22 MEMBER REMPE: That you found that 

23 you're not aligning with them, okay.

24 MR. COMFORT: No, no, that we're still 

25 aligning with the newer requirements. It's just it 
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 didn't seem to be quite the technical area that we 

2 were really looking at on this.

3 Just real quickly, I'm going to go over 

4 some of the key areas where we did changes. 61.12, 

5 which we covered specific technical information. We 

6 added a new requirement O, which is that it -- for 

7 defense-in-depth, which requires identification of 

8 the defense-in-depth protections, including a 

9 description of the capability of each defense-in10 depth protection relied upon. 

11 This is not supposed to be a big 

12 elaborative analysis. One of the big areas that we 

13 got comments from, including one of our 

14 Commissioners, was in our original proposed rule we 

15 had this in 61.13, which is under the category of 

16 "Technical Analyses," and we called it a technical 

17 analysis. 

18 Our intent was never that it was 

19 supposed to be a big, new evaluation or anything. 

20 There was only supposed to be summation of all the 

21 other evaluations you've done, so that you can 

22 identify what your defense-in-depth. So by moving 

23 it to this location, we thought that we, you know, 

24 hopefully covered that, that it's not supposed to be 

25 that big technical evaluation or analysis.
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 The biggest changes really in the rule 

2 came in 61.13, in the area of technical analyses. 

3 First of all in A, we added -- the requirement, you 

4 know, in A really covers the technical analyses for

5 protection of public health which were there. We're 

6 now making it more defined to call it a performance 

7 assessment, and that falls into that category.

8 We do require you to do it for the 

9 compliance period that we've now defined and 

10 evaluated. It still meets, you know, goes towards 

11 meeting the performance or demonstrating the 

12 performance objective in 61.41 on it, and you 

13 basically have to meet the requirements as indicated 

14 on the slide. Most of those are a lot similar to 

15 what it was before.

16 In 61.13(b), we've now added this new 

17 more specific requirement that you have to do an 

18 inadvertent intruder assessment, and you have to 

19 meet the new limit that's in the performance 

20 objective in 61.42 on it. 

21 And basically as I indicated before, one 

22 of the big changes from the proposed rule in this 

23 area was that instead of doing the scenario at the 

24 time of closure, you do your evaluation of scenarios 

25 at the time that you're doing the assessment, so 
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 there's less, you know, conjecture as to what's 

2 going on at that time period or somewhere out in the 

3 future.

4 And then the other big area in 61.13 

5 that we made a change to was we added this new 

6 performance period analysis, which is your 

7 qualitative review post-10,000 years, to basically 

8 assess how the disposal site limits the potential 

9 long-term radiological impacts during the 

10 performance period. There are performance 

11 objectives in 61.41 and 42 for the public and an 

12 inadvertent intruder, that basically say, you know, 

13 minimize the exposures to -- as I'll come up in a 

14 second to say the exact wording.

15 That's where, again, 61.41, the big 

16 changes were for the compliance period for 61.41(a) 

17 basically stayed the same. You've got a 25 millirem 

18 dose limit, but it's really using the more modern 

19 update dose standards that we're allowing. You're 

20 going to demonstrate it through 61.13(a) as I said, 

21 and now you have this performance period that you 

22 also have to do for protecting the public health 

23 post-10,000 years. 

24 MEMBER POWERS: A question about this. 

25 You have these analyses, a performance assessment 
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 and things like that, none of which will be devoid 

2 of uncertainty.

3 MR. COMFORT: Correct.

4 MEMBER POWERS: And then you've got this 

5 defense-in-depth description that you talked. Why 

6 aren't the two tied together? Why isn't the need 

7 for defense-in-depth tied to the uncertainties in 

8 these various analyses you do?

9 MR. ESH: Right. So the defense-in10 depth, I think is tied to the analyses in our mind, 

11 and that's one of the primary ways that you may be 

12 able to mitigate the impact of some uncertainties, 

13 especially unanticipated events or things like that 

14 that may go on.

15 MEMBER POWERS: Well, it seems to me 

16 that they really ought to be explicitly tied, that 

17 says okay. If you can do your compliance analysis 

18 and you come back and you're compliant, and there's 

19 no big uncertainty that you've identified here, the 

20 heck with defense-in-depth. You've already got it.

21 MR. ESH: Yeah. Well in --

22 MEMBER POWERS: And on the other hand, 

23 more typically I suspect, you've come along in your 

24 performance assessment and they said well, you know, 

25 I assume they also have good justification for 
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 assuming this, but I could be wrong. And so here, 

2 I'm going to do a little defense-in-depth, you know. 

3 Why aren't they just tied together at, welded at the 

4 hip?

5 MR. ESH: Right, and I think we were 

6 probably more in that direction with the initial 

7 proposed language that went up to the Commission, 

8 where the defense-in-depth was in 61.13. But as 

9 Gary indicated, we had both public comment but a lot 

10 of the public comment, I think, parroted what the 

11 one Commissioner said.

12 Basically that, you know, you're 

13 requiring this burdensome defense-in-depth analyses 

14 of these people and you don't need to do that. You 

15 know, okay. That's fair, but also in many cases the 

16 defense-in-depth analyses may be quantitative. 

17 There's no reason why it can't be if somebody feels 

18 they can do a quantitative. 

19 But by making it in 61.12, in basically 

20 an information requirement, then it allows somebody 

21 to do something more qualitative or softer. They 

22 could still do something quantitative, which would 

23 be tied more directly to the technical analyses.

24 So I don't disagree with you at all. 

25 I'm just trying to explain where, why we're at the 
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 point that we're at. 

2 MEMBER POWERS: I appreciate it.

3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I just wanted to 

4 concur with Dana. It strikes me odd that it's not 

5 integrated. I would build my performance analysis 

6 or technical analysis or safety case, there's a lot 

7 of terminology out here, based on the measures I 

8 chose to ensure that I had defense-in-depth. I mean 

9 it's just a logical thing. I mean I don't want to 

10 make the reactor analogy but I will.

11 You know, you start with the fuel and 

12 you start with the primary cooling boundary and have 

13 the containment, and you go through some kind of 

14 performance analysis, actually very detailed 

15 technical analysis to show that for, you know, the 

16 design that you are proposing for licensing, these 

17 key elements provide that level of protection to the 

18 public.

19 It's a way of addressing the 

20 uncertainties that we obviously have in something 

21 that's going out so many years, 1,000 or 10,000.

22 MR. ESH: Right, and we hope to have in 

23 the defense-in-depth analyses information that's 

24 developed by a licensee, we hope that it will 

25 describe the defense-in-depth protections, and it 
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 will also provide a basis for them. The basis for 

2 them, I think, is part of what you're getting at, 

3 and there's kind of two ways I think you could go 

4 about it.

5 You could look at the material you're 

6 dealing with and then say what protections do I need 

7 to add in there to provide safety and to provide 

8 resilience of my system. The other way though, and 

9 this happens in this field of performance 

10 assessment, is people will identify safety functions 

11 that they need for their system, and then based on 

12 the safety functions, they'll build their analysis 

13 of the problem and then they even build out their 

14 design and modify their design.

15 So they might determine I need to limit 

16 water contact with the waste. Now what are the ways 

17 that I can limit water contact with the waste? And 

18 so that kind of top-down approach of coming at it 

19 from the safety functions, it starts with the 

20 performance objective, which is the, you know, the 

21 main criteria. Then off that allows you some, I'd 

22 say considerable flexibility of how you achieve the

23 performance objective.

24 From the other direction, if you come 

25 from the waste and build things in, that might in 
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 some cases from a regulator's standpoint push you in 

2 the direction of building like subsystem performance 

3 requirements or objectives, and that was done 

4 previously in our high level waste regulations, but 

5 it runs into a lot of challenges, especially in the 

6 waste field.

7 Not when maybe when you have one waste 

8 site, but where you have lots of waste sites that 

9 are substantially different. The subsystem 

10 requirements or what you might want to achieve for 

11 one site might be considerably different for another 

12 site. So that's part of why you have this approach 

13 that we have here. I think you can make it work 

14 either way, even though I'm very sympathetic to your 

15 views and Dr. Powers.

16 MR. COMFORT: Okay. Next Dave. 

17 Continue on. Just the performance period, to 

18 minimize the release, the radioactivity to the 

19 general environment for 61.41(a), and it's 

20 demonstrated through 61.13(e). 61.42 is parallel to 

21 it. We do have the in compliance period the new 

22 limit of 500 millirems that we've added. But 

23 otherwise, it's effectively similar to the 

24 requirements of 61.41.

25 Finally, just going over where we're 
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 going from here, the Commission currently has the 

2 paper. They'll be reviewing it, including whatever 

3 input that the ACRS provides to them. If the 

4 Commission approves the draft final rule for 

5 publication, we'll incorporate any changes that they 

6 may have if they do.

7 Then we'll send the package to the 

8 Office of Management and Budget for a review of 

9 approximately 90 days. Once the OMB approves that, 

10 we'll send it to the Federal Register publication. 

11 Once it's published, it has an effective date of one 

12 year from the publication. And then licensee 

13 updates are due at their next renewal within five 

14 years of an effective, of the effective date.

15 Now since NRC doesn't have any direct 

16 licensees for Part 61, instead the Agreement States 

17 will have to incorporate similar regulations or 

18 compatible regulations. They actually have three 

19 years from the date of publications, and then they 

20 would have similar, or likely have similar 

21 requirements about the five years. So we may not 

22 see an actual update to this for, you know, eight 

23 years or something of that sort at all.

24 So that's where we're at. Next, we're 

25 going to turn over to Dave for going over more of 
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 the technical portion that you're going to enjoy in 

2 the guidance. Or there any other last questions on 

3 that?

4 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: I wasn't at 

5 the Subcommittee meeting, so I have a lot of 

6 questions that were probably answered. So just help 

7 me. The 25 millirem is an EPA limit. It's set with 

8 mutual agreement between EPA and NRC; is that 

9 correct?

10 MR. ESH: The 25 millirem as established 

11 by NRC, so like in the high level waste project, EPA 

12 set the standard at 15 millirem, when then NRC 

13 adopted. But in low level waste, the NRC 

14 established the 25 millirem limit.

15 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: And the logic 

16 of that number is from where?

17 MR. ESH: The basis for the 25 millirem?

18 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Yes.

19 MR. ESH: I think it's -- there is the 

20 idea that 10 C.F.R. Part 20 public dose limit is 100 

21 millirem per year, and that from other licensed 

22 facilities that could contribute to that public dose 

23 limit, each of them should be a portion or it could 

24 be some portion of that public dose limit. So the 

25 low level waste dose limit was established as a 
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 fraction of an overall public dose limit, in this 

2 case 25. Chris, do you have --

3 MR. McKENNEY: Yeah. This is Chris 

4 McKenney. I'm the Chief of the Performance 

5 Assessment Branch. The 25 millirem was established 

6 in 1982 as the dose limit, the original dose limit 

7 in 61.41, and it is very similar to the fuel cycle 

8 numbers and it is based largely similar on that. 

9 But it was a question asked during the rulemaking 

10 and during the rulemaking for -- in 1981.

11 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: And that limit 

12 is --

13 MR. McKENNEY: But it's not directly 

14 tied to that -- but it's not directly tied to the 

15 fuel cycle rule.

16 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay. So if 

17 this is -- Margaret, you stop me if this is ground 

18 that's being plowed and I'll just be quiet. --

19 MR. McKENNEY: It's for any sort of --

20 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: What I guess 

21 I'm getting at is that's from release, right?

22 MR. McKENNEY: Right, from the release.

23 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So is an 

24 intruder an accident or is an intruder a normal 

25 release? In other words, I'm trying to get a siting 
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 criteria equivalency, 10 C.F.R. 100, where one limit 

2 is for some sort of accidental event versus 

3 something of normal release. So I assume 25 

4 millirem is normal release, not accident?

5 MR. McKENNEY: Right.

6 MR. ESH: Right, correct. 

7 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Then is there 

8 a different standard for the intruder?

9 MR. ESH: The intruder is 500 millirem. 

10 Well, in the original regulation developed in 1982, 

11 there is not a dose limit for the intruder, because 

12 intruder protection for wastes that were similar to 

13 what was analyzed to develop the regulation, 

14 protection is provided by meeting the other 

15 requirements in the regulation, such as waste 

16 segregation and the waste meets the waste 

17 classification tables, Table 1 and Table 2 in 10 

18 C.F.R. Part 65.

19 But in this rulemaking, where we're now 

20 requiring an intruder analysis because some wastes 

21 are materially different from what was analyzed in

22 the original regulation, we're using 500 millirem, 

23 which is the same value that was used to calculate 

24 the waste classification tables. Yes, it is an 

25 unexpected or in your language accident scenario. 
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 It's not an expected release scenario for the 

2 intruder.

3 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: And the 500 is 

4 just a -- okay. 

5 MR. ESH: I'm going to talk about that 

6 in more detail when we get to mine. If I don't get, 

7 scratch your itch, then come back at it.

8 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay, that's 

9 fine.

10 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay.

11 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Can I try 

12 another thing? So some people have thought this 

13 through. So what's limiting under this new set of 

14 rules for a -- if on 1,000 -- I'm sorry. Let me say 

15 it, if I understand the logic. If I don't have DU 

16 as 1,000 years I can choose. If it's DU of some 

17 threshold quantity, it's 10,000 years, and is it 

18 normal release or is it accidental release that 

19 tends to limit these sites?

20 MR. ESH: All right. So first, it could 

21 be depleted uranium that triggers that 10,000 years. 

22 It could be something else too. It's written 

23 generically to just be long-lived isotopes, because 

24 we didn't want to get in the situation where this 

25 would address depleted uranium, but then some new 
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 waste stream comes into play or blended waste, where 

2 you're raising the concentrations of say the long3 lived isotopes, but you're in the same situation.

4 So the issue is generic that we wanted 

5 to solve, and so we did that with these time frames 

6 and the language of the significant quantities, 

7 which I'm going to talk about here in a bit. So it 

8 was intended to be generic. Yes, the main problem 

9 that we're trying to address is the one that the 

10 Commission gave us direction for, which was these 

11 large quantities of depleted uranium.

12 That's the one that this rulemaking is 

13 supposed to address. But we also wanted to address 

14 other circumstances that are similar. So what was 

15 the second part of your --

16 MEMBER POWERS: Wouldn't you get in 

17 trouble if a large -- if I have a large pile of 

18 banana peels?

19 MR. ESH: No, because it's -- in some 

20 cases it's driven by inventory and other -- I 

21 remember now. The other part, it's driven by 

22 concentration. So it's a combination of the two, 

23 concentration and inventory, and from a risk 

24 perspective, of course you can have large quantities 

25 of dilute material, and you're not going to trigger 
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 that 10,000 year analyses.

2 Likewise, you could have small 

3 quantities of very concentrated material, and you're 

4 also not going to trigger that 10,000 year analyses. 

5 It's only as you move up the risk spectrum and you 

6 have both enough quantity and enough concentration, 

7 that that should kick into play. The other part of 

8 your question was --

9 MR. McKENNEY: Which of the --

10 MR. ESH: Oh, which are the drivers, 

11 yeah. So the drivers could be different from site

12 to site, and some sites, say some of our very arid 

13 sites, where the releases to groundwater might be 

14 very low, in those cases the intruder protection 

15 performance objective might be more of the driver. 

16 In other sites, say in some arid, especially a humid

17 site, the releases to groundwater might be the 

18 driver rather than the intruder protection 

19 objective.

20 So that's -- these two are supposed to 

21 work together and cover all the different types of 

22 sites that we might have the U.S. The U.S. is, you 

23 know, in my opinion a great country and it's a great 

24 country for waste disposal too because you have all 

25 these different sites, different environmental 
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 conditions that you can dispose of material and you 

2 can target your solutions to your material.

3 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Your comment 

4 almost choked our chairman.

5 (Laughter.)

6 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay, fine. 

7 Sorry. That was helpful. I'll wait for your other.

8 MR. ESH: So I appreciate the 

9 opportunity to come give you an overview of the 

10 major technical elements. I haven't got a read yet, 

11 but I hope the Committee is comprised of Cubs fans 

12 and not Indian fans. Okay, we've got at least one. 

13 If I cover something as I go through 

14 these slides, feel free to talk about it, either 

15 during or after or whenever, anything, because 

16 there's a lot of material and we kind of had to make 

17 a guess of what material you might want to hear 

18 about, and we might not have addressed something in 

19 these slides that you want to talk about. But 

20 hopefully we're prepared to address it, even if it's 

21 not in the slides.

22 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Dave, you slides I don't 

23 think really are anchored to specifics of the 

24 guidance. But maybe as you go along, you could 

25 highlight places where --
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 MR. ESH: Right.

2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: --the guidance is there, 

3 because we've only had that very short time to look 

4 at it.

5 MR. ESH: Right, and the guidance is --

6 it's a decent size and has a lot of material in it. 

7 So I can see if you're busy people like we are, that 

8 you want to focus your attention on the parts that 

9 might be more sensitive or more important to you 

10 from the issues you're trying to address. So I'll 

11 try to cover that. Gary, you can go ahead.

12 MEMBER REMPE: The area that I was 

13 curious about was I mean we were talking about well, 

14 the rule has to stand on its own. But from what I 

15 went back and looked at later, the treatment of 

16 radon would only come from the guidance in how you 

17 expected it to be treated, not from the actual rule. 

18 Is that a true statement?

19 MR. ESH: I believe that is an accurate 

20 statement, because the rule does not have explicit 

21 language in it about radon. But I have a couple of 

22 slides here where I'm going to talk through that 

23 issue.

24 MEMBER REMPE: Yeah, because I'd like to 

25 hear more about that issue.
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 MR. ESH: So on the outline here, it's a 

2 little bit different form the regulation, partly 

3 because we're going to come from the top down and 

4 look at some of the important elements that we felt 

5 you wanted to hear about, and then also during the 

6 subcommittee briefing, there were a couple of areas 

7 that the subcommittee expressed interest in getting 

8 additional information on. 

9 So I'm going to cover those in a bit 

10 more detail. I hope to explain what we did and why 

11 we did it, and I've combined the rule and the 

12 guidance in this talk. In some slides, I have 

13 guidance on the title. But a lot of it is kind of 

14 intertwined. Of course, the rule has to stand on 

15 its own and the guidance does not provide 

16 requirements. That's a clear thing you need to 

17 understand.

18 Our licensees in some cases will use the 

19 guidance and in some cases they will not. So if 

20 they can achieve the requirements by their own 

21 means, then they're not obligated to follow guidance 

22 of course. We feel that those provide a useful tool 

23 for them and especially for Agreement State 

24 regulators.

25 I have a lot of respect for our 
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 Agreement State regulators, because they have tough 

2 jobs. They have to interface with the public. They 

3 have to work on a lot of these complicated things, 

4 on essentially a part-time basis, you know. They 

5 don't have teams of different ologists to work on 

6 various things that go into a performance 

7 assessment. So hopefully our guidance is useful to 

8 them.

9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Maybe there's something 

10 I didn't ask at the subcommittee, but this ties to 

11 it.

12 MR. ESH: Uh-huh.

13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: The rule tells the 

14 Agreement States to some extent what they have to 

15 do. The guidance, is that up to the -- you know, if 

16 they were submitting to the staff, then if you met 

17 the guidance you're good. If you're submitting to 

18 an Agreement State, does the same thing apply or do 

19 they adopt the guidance or do they have their own 

20 guidance derived from yours? How does that work?

21 MR. ESH: In some cases they will use 

22 our guidance. In other cases, they'll develop their 

23 own guidance. So and they might use not just this 

24 NUREG-2175 that we developed now, but they'll also 

25 consult other NUREGs and other technical documents 
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 in doing their review. 

2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: And so if I'm a licensee 

3 who's got a -- in an Agreement State, I can't really 

4 say I meet the NRC's guidance; therefore, I'm good. 

5 I have to know what my own regulator is requiring of 

6 me?

7 MR. ESH: Right. The Agreement State, 

8 because it is guidance, it doesn't hold the weight 

9 of the rule requirements. Even the Agreement State 

10 regulator, I think, could push for a deviation from 

11 the guidance if they chose, based on their state12 specific circumstances so --

13 MR. COMFORT: And remember also, the 

14 states can adopt sometimes regulations that are 

15 different in ways from what we have. So they would 

16 of course, you know, what may meet our guidance for 

17 our regulations, if they do something more 

18 conservative it may not meet their requirement.

19 MR. ESH: So next slide please Gary. 

20 This is an overview of all the pieces of the 

21 regulation that from my viewpoint I would say are 

22 risk-informed performance-based. I know that's a 

23 sensitive terminology to some, but the argument I 

24 would put forth is if you take these things out, do 

25 you believe it is more risk-informed and 
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 performance-based than if they are in.

2 I would argue that all these things 

3 combined, individually and in totality, give you a 

4 more risk-informed performance-based way to do low 

5 level waste regulation. An interesting challenge 

6 that we face is that some stakeholders, of course, 

7 don't view it that way and they even present things 

8 in somewhat of the opposite direction, based on the 

9 staff's approach in the proposed final regulation.

10 I'm going to explain many of these in 

11 more detail and our guidance document provides quite 

12 a bit more detail of most of these topics. Now 

13 throughout my presentation today, when I refer to 

14 the original regulation and if I talk about things 

15 that were done in the past, I might use "they." I'm 

16 referring to NRC. I am NRC, but it's just not 

17 straight in my mind yet that I should be saying 

18 "we." I remember I was playing Little League when 

19 that was done.

20 So it's just understand, I'm speaking of 

21 NRC, whether I say we or they. And I also use the 

22 language existing and current. So existing and 

23 current is what's on the books right now. What we 

24 came to talk to you about is what the proposed final 

25 regulation would be. So that's some terminology 
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 things I might use.

2 Next slide, please. So the first area 

3 that I'll talk about here is the safety case. This 

4 was added at the direction of the Commission, and 

5 our view is that the safety case has always been an 

6 implicit part of Part 61, and it's now being made 

7 explicit and at least in the sense of terminology.

8 It's defined as the combination of 

9 defense-in-depth and technical analyses. So this is 

10 where you do get some merging of defense-in-depth 

11 and technical analyses and how they both come 

12 together to form the safety case. We do believe 

13 that the safety case should be a plain language 

14 description. 

15 So essentially an executive summary of 

16 your licensing basis. It should be understandable 

17 to many. It may be, have some, quite a bit of 

18 technical information, but it should be presented in 

19 the language and form that provides your overall 

20 safety basis. The overall safety basis is going to 

21 be a lot different than just your calculations. 

22 There's a lot that goes into developing the safety 

23 case for a low level waste disposal facility, of 

24 which only one part of it is the calculations.

25 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Can I ask you about 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 language a little bit?

2 MR. ESH: Yeah, sure.

3 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm familiar with what 

4 the Brits do in this area, and what their safety 

5 case is and the safety case there is filed by the 

6 applicant or licensee, and it's maintained at the 

7 regulator's headquarters and they refer to it. Here 

8 in the past, we have a submittal from an applicant 

9 or licensee, and an SER from the staff, and some 

10 could argue that that combination constitutes the 

11 safety case under which we operate.

12 Why did you pick the language, and do 

13 you see something different than what we've always 

14 had here?

15 MR. ESH: I don't see it as different. 

16 I believe that -- I mean the overall safety basis, 

17 of course, is what's supplied by the licensee. But 

18 then part of that is the independent regulatory 

19 review provided by the NRC. That's a key part of 

20 the overall decision process. But the licensee's 

21 basis has to stand on its own merit.

22 So as we get information in, of course 

23 if it's not complete or insufficient, we'll develop 

24 requests for additional information, which they'll 

25 go forth and produce more information. But then 
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 ultimately the decision as to whether to approve the 

2 application or not is dependent on the licensee's 

3 information. 

4 So I don't know if I answered your 

5 question or not. 

6 CHAIRMAN BLEY: So now I'm still not 

7 sure why we introduced the new language.

8 MEMBER CHU: Can I add something? 

9 Safety case is sort of a standard language in the 

10 waste disposal community, especially in Europe.

11 CHAIRMAN BLEY: And it is in the nuclear 

12 power plants in Europe too, but it hasn't been over 

13 here.

14 MEMBER CHU: See, I don't know. I'm 

15 just telling you I see the phrase "safety case," you 

16 know and used all the time in the European community 

17 in waste disposal.

18 CHAIRMAN BLEY: So this is an effort at 

19 harmonization with the Europeans?

20 MEMBER CHU: I don't know. I think 

21 people read it all the time and then they kind of 

22 use it, okay. That's my interpretation why it's 

23 there.

24 MR. ESH: And I would concur with Dr. 

25 Chu. I mean this was added at the direction of the 
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 Commission, the specific language, the language for 

2 the safety case. And our approach is, I believe, in 

3 alignment with the IAEA, the International Atomic 

4 Energy Agency. 

5 There are some differences though, so 

6 for the IAEA and especially in the European 

7 community, partly their safety case process may 

8 involve very direct and collaborative integration 

9 with stakeholders, especially in the siting phase of 

10 development of a facility.

11 So that's different here in the NRC 

12 licensing processes. We don't have that step in the 

13 process. Then in addition in the European 

14 community, some member states will do multiple 

15 safety cases. So they'll do a safety case for site 

16 selection, they'll do a safety case for 

17 construction, a safety case for operation, a safety 

18 case for closure. In NRC, our safety case is all 

19 wrapped up in one. 

20 So you may and you will update your 

21 safety case potentially when you get to the closure 

22 step, but everything -- you should have all the 

23 basis up front whenever you come in to say yes, I'm 

24 going to authorize the facility. To me personally, 

25 I don't think it makes sense to do a safety case for 
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 site selection, and then do a different one for 

2 operation and construction.

3 What happens if you say well no, you 

4 can't operate it and construct it. Well then you 

5 spend all that money and energy in doing the site 

6 selection, and then you never can see the thing 

7 through. It's better if all the information is 

8 developed up front, so you can determine whether I 

9 get from A to B with what I've done. So that's kind 

10 of my personal opinion on it.

11 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So this --

12 you're going down a path that's going to help us. 

13 But let me ask, what is considered a site? If I'm 

14 just storing depleted uranium as a gas in a 

15 monitored facility above ground, is that a site?

16 MR. ESH: No. This is for disposal.

17 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So as long as 

18 I do that, I don't have to follow these rules.

19 MR. ESH: No. This is for disposal. So 

20 disposal is defined in the regulation in 61.2, a 

21 disposal site and disposal facility. There's 

22 definitions that describe what those are.

23 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: All right, so 

24 let me ask my next question then. Is when I do 

25 enrichment, which we've stopped doing here. We do 
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 it all somewhere else. But if I'm still doing it in 

2 New Mexico and I have a bunch of depleted uranium on 

3 the LES site, and it's manned, that's not one of 

4 these sites? That doesn't have --

5 MR. ESH: No.

6 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So is the 

7 safety there any different than I'd expect from the 

8 safety of depleted uranium on a site such as this? 

9 It seems to me the mobile nature of it, I'd more 

10 worry about LES than I'd worry about a bunch of 

11 reengineered chemical form that's a hell of a lot 

12 less, a hell of a lot more inert. So am I missing 

13 something? 

14 MR. ESH: Well, I mean the material has 

15 to be managed safely throughout its life cycle. So 

16 if it's in UF6, uranium hexafluoride form, gaseous 

17 form in canisters, that material has to be -- that's 

18 essentially being stored. But it has to be stored 

19 safely, and it has different requirements associated 

20 with storage and the safety assessment of that 

21 material while it's sitting there in storage. 

22 So when it moves to disposal then, 

23 that's where this kicks in for commercial disposal, 

24 in facilities licensed by the NRC or one of our 

25 Agreement States. That's when this comes into play.
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 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So my final 

2 question, since this is totally -- I'm just a 

3 reactor person, so I don't understand any of this. 

4 Is the front end depleted uranium regulations 

5 consistent with the disposal regulations? 

6 In other words, to just my simple mind, 

7 I would think the chance of having something as a 

8 release to concern the public would be a lot more 

9 when I have UF6. So I assume the regulations there 

10 are different or restrictive than these? These seem 

11 relatively restrictive for a relatively inert 

12 substance, but I could be wrong.

13 MR. ESH: Right, and I can't speak to 

14 what those requirements are under storage at this 

15 time.

16 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: I would think 

17 staff would want to make sure that I'm not 

18 regulating the apples and oranges and I'm making the 

19 oranges super-safe and the apples are not so.

20 MR. COMFORT: Well again, you're 

21 evaluating two different things. I mean like for 

22 the onsite storage, you know, you're generally 

23 looking that it's going to be actively assessed, you 

24 know. You're going to have controls on it and all. 

25 A lot of these regulations are that the 
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 site at some point is going to be, you know, let go, 

2 then it's going to be free release. Or not free but 

3 released, and you want to make sure that when 

4 somebody somewhere down the road comes by, they're 

5 not going to be impacted. For the storage scenario, 

6 I mean the expectation is that somebody's going to 

7 be actively monitoring and making sure there's 

8 protections on top of --

9 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: And that's the 

10 physical difference of my first question. Okay 

11 fine, thank you.

12 MR. ESH: So the safety case is to 

13 describe all safety-relevant aspects of the disposal 

14 site, the design of the facility, things like 

15 managerial control measures and regulatory controls, 

16 to inform this overall decision of whether to grant 

17 the license or not.

18 It's the same type of information that 

19 is in the current 10 C.F.R. Part 61, and that's to 

20 be submitted as part of the license application on 

21 Section 61.10 and 61.16. We expect that the safety 

22 case will be updated over time, but the safety case 

23 also may be somewhat static. It depends on whether 

24 the information associated with the performance of 

25 the facility changes over time, and how maybe 
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 unforeseen things may have been appropriately 

2 anticipated at the time of licensing or not. 

3 So next slide, Gary. So the first, one 

4 of the two main components of the safety case is the 

5 defense-in-depth, and this was also added at the 

6 direction of the Commission. It's also in our mind 

7 it was implicit in the existing Part 61, and now 

8 it's being made explicit. So all the pieces of Part 

9 61 fit together in some ways that I'll explain, to 

10 provide you defense-in-depth.

11 The defense-in-depth requirements, 

12 because there was this opposition to the terminology 

13 of analyses, are listed here in the bottom three 

14 bullets. It's to identify the protections 

15 commensurate with the risk, describe the 

16 capabilities of the defense-in-depth protections and 

17 then provide a basis for those defense-in-depth 

18 protections.

19 We didn't want to add a new definition 

20 for defense-in-depth and low level waste disposal 

21 because it is a concept that's used in many other 

22 regulatory programs, especially in the reactor area 

23 that you're very familiar with. 

24 But there are some differences, so in 

25 the waste disposal problem, especially as you go out 
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 in time, you're relying on passive performance of 

2 the system and not active management. This goes to 

3 your question just about these storage versus 

4 disposal.

5 So there's a difference between passive 

6 versus active and what you may do to achieve 

7 protection in public health and safety. 

8 Next slide, Gary. So during operations, 

9 you have the opportunity to use active safety 

10 systems, and that may include personnel doing 

11 things, measuring things and maintaining things. 

12 You still also will have passive safety systems 

13 commensurate with the hazard and complexity of 

14 activities during operations.

15 When you move to post closure, which is 

16 the time when you've done operating, done receiving 

17 all your waste and then you move through your 

18 institutional control period, the disposal site is a 

19 passive system, and you're only relying then on the 

20 natural site characteristics and the engineered 

21 features.

22 So that's a bit different from the 

23 defense-in-depth perspective, and some of the 

24 comments that we received were associated with well 

25 does this mean that I have to have multiple barriers 
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 of the same type. So in a reactor, you might have a 

2 pump and a backup pump. Well, in a waste disposal 

3 system, you have engineered cover, you have a 

4 drainage layer in it. Does that mean I need two 

5 drainage layers? 

6 So we had to explain that no, you're 

7 looking at the redundancy or the resiliency of the 

8 functionality of the system, not necessarily the 

9 specific components. This affords you considerable 

10 flexibility about how you're going about 

11 demonstrating your defense-in-depth protections.

12 Now each layer that you're using in this 

13 argument about defense-in-depth should be a layer a 

14 defense and make a definitive contribution to 

15 isolation of the waste. But that isn't to say that

16 everything has to be credited as a layer of defense. 

17 You may choose which features of your system you 

18 want to bring forward into your defense-in-depth 

19 arguments. Next slide, please. 

20 MR. GROSSMAN: Hey Dave, this is Chris 

21 Grossman from the NRC staff. If I can interject 

22 here.

23 MR. ESH: Sure.

24 MR. GROSSMAN: To go back to some of the 

25 members' earlier questions about the tie between 
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 defense-in-depth and the analyses, if you go back to 

2 your previous slide that showed the graph. In the 

3 guidance, while the rule may not show as direct of a 

4 tie as we'd like. 

5 In the guidance, when we talk about 

6 providing a technical basis, a lot of the guidance 

7 focuses on drawing from insights from the analyses 

8 to develop that basis, and making sure that they're 

9 consistent.

10 So for instance we might use what we 

11 term a barrier analysis and performance assessment, 

12 where you look at the capabilities of the barriers 

13 and how they contribute to the performance of the 

14 system, and you would use that information then to 

15 perform your defense-in-depth projections.

16 MR. ESH: Thank you, Chris. So the next 

17 area that I'll discuss is the analysis time frames. 

18 I believe I have 13 slides or so on this, and 

19 hopefully we can give you a clear picture of what 

20 we're doing and why. 

21 Throughout this process, the rulemaking 

22 process, from the beginning there's been significant 

23 interest in this topic. We received significant 

24 comments reflecting some diverse opinions, and we've 

25 devoted significant effort to the formulation of 
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 this final position that we're discussing here 

2 today.

3 The subcommittee desired more 

4 information on this topic, so that's why I'm giving 

5 you some more material to walk through here, and 

6 provide more of the basis for what we're doing. If 

7 you're -- if you're going to rely on the technical 

8 analyses-based approach, then our opinion is you 

9 need to analyze your system to the best of your 

10 ability, and you should bring to bearing on your 

11 decision the full weight of information that you 

12 can.

13 There's no reason to limit the 

14 information, especially if you can clearly explain 

15 and discuss the uncertainties associated with it 

16 and the caveats associated with the information. 

17 The uncertain information is better than no 

18 information at all in our opinion.

19 So in the area of time frames here on 

20 this slide, the existing language in Part 61 is that 

21 the compliance period is not defined for either 

22 61.41 or 44. That's what Gary mentioned in his 

23 talk. For intruder, the inadvertent intruder 

24 protection, the language is the inadvertent intruder 

25 should be protected at any time under 61.42.
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 So I mean you can interpret that a lot 

2 of different ways, and it has been interpreted 

3 different ways, but the language is at any time. So 

4 I could see that some people may truncate that 

5 interpretation, but the language is there in the 

6 existing regulation. 

7 What we're attempting to do in the 

8 proposed final rule is we have a compliance period 

9 of 1,000 years that the site does not contain 

10 significant quantities of long-lived waste, and 

11 otherwise it's going to be 10,000 years.

12 Then the performance period, which is 

13 this probably quantitative calculations that are 

14 interpreted very qualitatively, occurs after the 

15 compliance period and the standard is just to 

16 minimize the exposures to the extent reasonably 

17 achievable. As Gary indicated, that was in the 

18 proposed rule package and the Commission left it 

19 untouched in their direction to us that came back.

20 So we once again preserved that. The 

21 difference here in this proposed final rule is that 

22 as Gary indicated, we had that three-phased approach 

23 with a goal and the goal was above the public dose 

24 limit, and there was a lot of confusion, 

25 misinterpretation and a lot of stakeholders said 
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 this complexity really isn't warranted. You don't 

2 need to do this.

3 And so we were trying to, even then but 

4 especially now, balance this idea that low level 

5 waste in some ways, much of it can be contained and 

6 it is short-lived, and so what is your obligation to 

7 do anything burdensome or over the long term if you 

8 can manage that short-lived activity?

9 But low level waste also has a component 

10 that's long-lived, and in the case of depleted 

11 uranium it's a very big fraction that's long-lived. 

12 So what do you do with that? This approach is 

13 attempting to tailor your analyses to the type of 

14 waste that you're dealing with, so that you don't 

15 have the burden of longer analyses associated with 

16 the long-lived waste, but you do have it when you do 

17 have long-lived waste.

18 We think that is a risk-informed way to 

19 look at these very different waste forms that you 

20 may be dealing with. Now go back please Gary. The 

21 existing slides or the existing approaches in the 

22 regulation, because it's not defined has led to 

23 broad variances in how that's been interpreted.

24 So the compliance periods that have been 

25 used in our four Agreement States have ranged to 500 
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 years to 50,000 years. Then in addition, in the 

2 area of intruder protection, two of the Agreement 

3 States analyzed intruders in their licensing 

4 analysis, even though it's not required by the 

5 existing regulation, and another one is in the 

6 process of doing that now an one of them did not.

7 So the existing status of what goes on 

8 in low level waste is described by those bullets and 

9 then my language. Now it has been a very tortuous 

10 path to get from existing to proposed final. We're 

11 prepared to discuss that with you if you like, but 

12 it also is a bit of a tortured path. So you know, 

13 if you'd like to we will, but I don't know if it's 

14 going to be useful to you to judge the merits of the 

15 proposed final approach.

16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: David, if you skip the 

17 torture, could you just explain with -- give us 

18 examples from the compliance states how this last 

19 line has been interpreted, or you expect it to be 

20 interpreted minimize exposures to the extent 

21 reasonably achievable?

22 MR. ESH: Oh, for the performance 

23 period, yes. So that would be -- this would be a 

24 new requirement. So we don't have any basis yet to 

25 how that might be interpreted in our Agreement 
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 States. Now what I would indicate is that that is 

2 intended to only apply when you have significant 

3 quantities of the long-lived isotopes.

4 So it might be a very limited number of 

5 Agreement States that are going to be doing that 

6 interpretation. But we do have in our, the guidance 

7 document --

8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Wait a minute. Didn't 

9 you share with us, we have like four Agreement 

10 States, three of which used 10,000 years?

11 MR. ESH: What we have is we have four 

12 Agreement States, and under the existing rule, so at 

13 the top part of this slide. Originally, one of them 

14 used 500 years, one of them used 2,000, one of them 

15 used 10,000 years but then looked longer in their 

16 environmental analyses, and one of them used 50,000, 

17 okay.

18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay. I didn't get it 

19 quite right, but --

20 MR. ESH: Right.

21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So what would your 

22 expectation be going forward with this?

23 MR. ESH: Going forward under this 

24 proposed final approach, if a site came into NRC, we 

25 would use 1,000 years for the compliance if they do 
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 not have significant quantities of long-lived 

2 isotopes, and we would use 10,000 years otherwise 

3 combined with the performance period.

4 The Agreement States are all -- or I 

5 mean the four existing states are all under 

6 Agreement States, and with the compatibility being C 

7 in the draft final regulation, that they would be 

8 free to use this or be more restrictive. So the 

9 ones that used say 2,000 for their compliance period 

10 could still use 2,000.

11 If they had significant quantities of 

12 long-lived waste though, they would be -- they would 

13 need to increase that to 10,000. The one that used 

14 10,000 and 50,000 could still use their 10,000 and 

15 50,000 for all waste even -- okay.

16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I'm with you that far 

17 I think explicitly. My question is how, what's your 

18 expectation on how the last line is going to be 

19 interpreted?

20 (Off mic comment.)

21 MR. ESH: On the proposed final down 

22 here, for the performance.

23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Analyzed exposures to 

24 the extent reasonably achieved. How is that going 

25 to be defined? Are you going to -- does the 
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 guidance have a standard suggestion?

2 MR. ESH: I mean this -- this is the 

3 standard. The guidance has an interpretation of 

4 that standard. It's an interpretation that the staff 

5 would find acceptable for somebody to do when 

6 they're in this situation. I mean the --

7 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Could you show that, 

8 what you would do as staff for this implementation, 

9 your suggested guidance?

10 MR. ESH: Right. Priya, do you want to 

11 look up where that is in the guidance?

12 MS. YADAV: Sorry, that's really loud. 

13 This is Priya Yadav with the NRC. It's actually in 

14 Section 6.3. So Section 6 covers the performance 

15 period. The whole section covers the performance 

16 period analyses. So if you look at 6.3.1.1.3, I know 

17 a lot of you have the CDs that we gave out maybe a 

18 couple of weeks ago?

19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I don't have it with 

20 me, no.

21 MS. YADAV: Well that just -- that just 

22 is where we talk about how we envision this being 

23 interpreted.

24 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: I think all 

25 Walt's asking, I think, is this an empirical 
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 example that's acceptance? 

2 MR. ESH: Okay. So what we intended for 

3 this is that for that post-10,000 year period, when 

4 you have significant quantities of long-lived waste, 

5 you're probably going to be doing quantitative 

6 calculations of what you expect to happen in the 

7 system. You're going to then qualitatively 

8 interpret that as to whether you've minimized 

9 exposures, and part of that might be like 

10 traditional barrier analyses.

11 What are my barriers that are 

12 contributing to mitigating those longer-term 

13 impacts? If I, for instance, looked at a different 

14 engineered cover or a different waste form, how

15 would that change my projection of how I think the 

16 system is going to behave? It's a standard similar 

17 to our ALARA standard that applies under our current 

18 regulation, except for ALARA, you have to have a 

19 dose limit, and there was not a lot of support for

20 dose limits for the very long time periods.

21 So we developed this standard that is 

22 conceptually similar, I don't know if you're 

23 familiar with ALARA.

24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: In theory I am.

25 MR. ESH: So the ALARA standard is 
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 basically a -- I would call it in layman's terms a 

2 combined technical analyses, not necessarily an 

3 optimization of lowering your doses, but a cost4 benefit analyses of your doses and what you might 

5 do, the things you might be able to do to reduce 

6 those and is it reasonable to take those actions. 

7 So in simple terms that's what it would look like.

8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So but you said it 

9 well. That's what I expected. So how in 

10 implementation does that play out with the Agreement 

11 States? Is it likely that then the license, the 

12 licensee will have to do detailed analyses that go 

13 way beyond performance period, where you're more in 

14 a compliance. You'll do a calculation, demonstrate 

15 to us that the exposure is less than the 

16 requirement?

17 But here, it just suggests somewhat 

18 open-ended. What is a cost-benefit analysis going 

19 to look like here in terms of costs or how many 

20 millirem so to speak?

21 MR. ESH: Right. Well I think -- well 

22 the challenge in waste disposal when you get out to 

23 very long times is what or what or even if you do 

24 with discounting, okay? So in NRC space, whenever 

25 we look at rules and rulemaking, we'll apply 
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 discounting to look at whether it's reasonable to 

2 implement something.

3 In waste space, because of the long time 

4 frames involved, if you apply discounting at any 

5 sort of manageable rate, you say I shouldn't do 

6 anything with any impacts beyond a very short period 

7 of time, and that's really not in alignment with the 

8 principles of what people try to do in waste 

9 management. I think it's an artifact of trying to 

10 extrapolate this approach with discount rates, the 

11 very long periods of time.

12 So but the cost-benefit, and we talk 

13 about this hopefully in Section 6-3 of the guidance 

14 document, if I remember, is more like I tried to 

15 explain earlier. It could be quantitative, but it 

16 could also be qualitative. What are my options for 

17 doing things to change these impacts in a positive 

18 way from what I estimate with my system? 

19 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: But I think --

20 that I figured you'd have to do. But then they'd 

21 have to compare it to something to say I've done 

22 enough. And so I'm still struggling to what the 

23 something is, or an example of what you think the 

24 something is that's acceptable. I'm looking for 

25 some measure.
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 MR. McKENNEY: They can either use --

2 this is Chris McKenney again from the Performance 

3 Assessment Branch. We have an example on page 615 

4 of using, still running out the dose model to try to 

5 do elevations but not actually using the dose limit 

6 to show the relative magnitude of that, which is one 

7 area we've used in the area of waste and stone 

8 reprocessing, when we've been reviewing long-term 

9 analyses related to that with the Department of 

10 Energy, to evaluate how system behave past 10,000 

11 years.

12 Other areas that have been discussed, 

13 especially in the international field of using stuff 

14 like natural fluxes for those type of things, of how 

15 things are relative to the natural functions in the 

16 area, so that you can compare to those. 

17 Instead of dose rates, you can compare 

18 it to other subsystem performance and relative 

19 changes compared to in your system. So you could do 

20 it on rates of change and look at that, on how 

21 stabilized your system has become. Those are the 

22 other modes to say here, my system is stabilized 

23 out. This is what I'm doing. 

24 What is my rate of release over time, 

25 because when you get out to really long time 
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 periods, there are not only -- there's some spikes 

2 in the data also that are caused by this modeling 

3 artifacts, like the fact that you've got all these 

4 individual packages that are in your system, and if 

5 you actually assign probabilities of failure then 

6 they'll almost all fail at once, and then all of the 

7 sudden you'll have this big spike of data, and 

8 you're on -- but that's just modeling but --

9 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So let me just 

10 ask my question. Let me give you an example and you 

11 tell me if I was the licensee, you'd be telling me 

12 to go pound sand. So if I prove that at 10,000 

13 years I can meet the 25 millirem, but at a million 

14 years I predict, due to wear and tear and just it 

15 goes away, it's 250 millirem at a million years and 

16 I tell you that I don't want to do anything more 

17 than that, because I'm going to spend more than 

18 $5,000 a person rem averted, is that good enough?

19 MR. ESH: Right. I think something like 

20 that would be good enough, yeah. I don't --

21 MR. McKENNEY: That would be good 

22 enough.

23 MR. ESH: We don't have a -- and that's 

24 the point is after the 10,000 year period, we don't 

25 have dose limit associated with it. The standard is 
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 here and it's subjective, and it's going to be 

2 subjectively interpreted, but it's similar to ALARA. 

3 The ALARA standard is also subjective and it's 

4 interpretive. 

5 Now ALARA is reducing below the limit 

6 that you're applying, because you do have a limit to 

7 compare with and to go down further. This 

8 performance standard at the longer time, you don't 

9 have a dose limit and it may be larger and you may 

10 be able to make a suitable argument to why you've 

11 achieved -- why you've achieved as much as you can 

12 achieve with your disposal system.

13 So the fact that the doses may be, and 

14 this is one thing that we couldn't really address in 

15 this rulemaking, but it bears stating again at 

16 least, you know, this fear of radiation and how we 

17 regulate it. If you think about what people do in 

18 their everyday lives with respect to radiation, and 

19 then how they react in -- how they act in reaction 

20 to a dose standard in the waste regulations, those 

21 two things in many cases can be substantially 

22 different.

23 So I don't know people that live in 

24 North Carolina and say I'm not moving to Colorado 

25 because I'm going to get two or three hundred more 
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 millirem by changing states. But you know, there's 

2 a big concern about potentially 25 millirem from the 

3 waste disposal system. So I mean that's a problem 

4 that we could not resolve in this regulation. 

5 But for the very long time frames, I 

6 think that sort of discussion with the stakeholders, 

7 where that facility is located is appropriate and 

8 can be used as the basis for whether you've achieved 

9 this minimum exposures to the extent reasonably 

10 achievable.

11 MEMBER REMPE: In the example, you

12 compare it with -- you had a larger millirem per 

13 year at 30,000 years and you're having in the 

14 example the licensee includes a comparison with 

15 natural occurring radionuclides from the disposal 

16 facility. So if they're -- if they were better than 

17 background, you'd say oh sure, go ahead probably.

18 But then it gets a little more fuzzy 

19 about if they did an analysis of barriers because 

20 there's no cost-benefit that you've said is 

21 acceptable. So you just kind of have fuzzy guidance 

22 at this time is where they're at.

23 MR. ESH: Well, I don't think we should 

24 focus on trying to put too much precision on this 

25 sort of calculation or on this sort of requirement. 
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 I think it's a good principle to have, and I think 

2 it's an effective or it may be an effective means to 

3 understand your system and make good decisions about 

4 the design of your system.

5 But in order to try to argue that it's 

6 precisely providing some public human health and 

7 safety benefit at longer times, then it gets kind of 

8 the wrong way. The wrong way I look at it, you 

9 know, I don't know. We can --

10 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Just one 

11 clarification. But the performance period beyond 

12 10,000 years was a direction by the Commission?

13 MR. ESH: Yeah. The performance period 

14 was in the proposed regulation, and it was retained 

15 by the Commission whenever they gave our direction 

16 back on it. So it was in the proposed regulation, 

17 and they didn't say get rid of the performance 

18 period.

19 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Let me ask, if you 

20 -- oh, go ahead.

21 MEMBER CHU: You know, I was reading the 

22 past letters from this committee that was before me, 

23 and one of the letters, I can't remember from 

24 exactly when, one of the recommendations from this 

25 committee was why have a fixed time frame, okay? 
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 Why not do it case-by-case? When you think about

2 it, you only have four sites. 

3 You know, it can be a reasonable 

4 recommendation, you know, because you only have four 

5 sites. It's not that you have 80, you know, that 

6 you have to impose some kind of a big rule and 

7 because eventually it's almost like you're going to 

8 be doing a case by case, right? I just want to make 

9 that comment, you know.

10 MR. ESH: Yeah, let me get the slides.

11 MEMBER POWERS: It seems more that the 

12 compliance period and performance period ought to be 

13 a product of the performance assessment. I mean 

14 that's the way you ought to look at them and it's 

15 the NRC's responsibility to find the criteria that 

16 you use for saying okay, my particular site I have a 

17 compliance period of 250 years and a performance 

18 period of 30,000 years.

19 MR. ESH: Right, right. Let me get 

20 through a few of these slides, and I think we'll 

21 hopefully cover both of your --

22 MR. COMFORT: I just want to bring one 

23 comment. You had a question of did the Commission 

24 direct us? Yes, in their SRM to CRMWDM-1102, they 

25 specifically said use a two-tiered approach with 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 compliance period covering reasonably foreseeable 

2 future and a longer period of performance. 

3 So that was -- that's the way we 

4 interpreted that to come out is what they were 

5 looking for, something that you can have a

6 quantitative limit and then you've going to have 

7 some further period after that.

8 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So if I might 

9 just expand. So they were open to a qualitative 

10 factors beyond the time period?

11 MR. COMFORT: Right. They specifically 

12 said -- well, they said a longer period of 

13 performance, but that's where we took it as 

14 qualitative.

15 MEMBER STETKAR: If I read the SRM to 

16 SECY-13-0075, number eight in there specifically 

17 says "The Commission has approved the staff's 

18 proposal for applicants to provide a qualitative 

19 analysis covering a performance period of 10,000 

20 years or more after site closure to evaluate the 

21 ability of the disposal system to mitigate long term 

22 risks associated with the disposal of long-lived low 

23 level radioactive waste."

24 So that's pretty clear guidance from the 

25 Commission on that, but it's -- it specifically says 
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 "provide a qualitative analysis."

2 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay.

3 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: But let me change 

4 the topic a little bit. If you make a good design 

5 that satisfies the one to 10,000 year perfectly and 

6 you have a good disposal site, under which 

7 circumstance will you have you a bad one at year 

8 10,001? I mean if you do the work for the first 

9 10,000 years, it's also going to work for 

10 afterwards, right?

11 MR. ESH: Right. It should, yes.

12 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Okay. So if you're 

13 going to complain about this and nobody's going to 

14 fail. 

15 MR. ESH: We don't -- I think it would 

16 be rare that you would have a facility that had 

17 significant quantities of long-lived waste that you 

18 could demonstrate that it meets the criteria for 

19 10,000 years, and then you run into this enormous 

20 problem after 10,000 years.

21 About the only way you do that is if you 

22 say you used an engineered barrier design like a 

23 canister, stainless steel canisters or something 

24 that have discrete failure, and they're good for a 

25 certain period of time and then they fail. Maybe 
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 you run into it in something like that. But 

2 otherwise it should be -- it should not be very 

3 likely.

4 But to follow on with Dr. Chu's point, 

5 you know, the ACRS or the ACNW discussed this issue 

6 back even in the mid-90's of the time frame. 

7 There's a lot of letters. There's a lot of good 

8 information in there. 

9 We read all of those and tried to come 

10 up with something that would work with the main 

11 principles of it, and I think this framework has all 

12 those main principles, but there are some ways that 

13 it deviates, and that's what I hope to talk through 

14 here. You can go to the next slide, Gary.

15 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: How about -- no, 

16 going back to the point. I mean if this performance 

17 period of 10,000 years precludes you from using a 

18 sacrificial barrier, then you know it will only last 

19 for 10,000 years. That is a good requirement.

20 MR. ESH: Right.

21 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I mean you should 

22 not design your thickness that you know it will fail 

23 10,001. 

24 MR. ESH: Right. We would agree with 

25 that.
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 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: So I --

2 MR. ESH: So this slide is out of the 

3 guidance document or slightly modified from the 

4 guidance document. But this basically summarizes 

5 the time frames that are used in Part 61 or required 

6 in Part 61. 

7 Most of these are not changed in this 

8 rulemaking. They're existing in Part 61, and the 

9 area where it is changed is the two, the second one 

10 down and in the third one down, the compliance 

11 period and the performance period.

12 That is new material in this rulemaking 

13 in this regulation, and that was done because we 

14 had fairly extensive stakeholder interactions early 

15 in this process, and this was one area where the 

16 stakeholders were in agreement, that they wanted the 

17 compliance period or the analyses time frames 

18 defined in the regulation.

19 Of course, they could not agree as to 

20 what they should be, but they wanted them defined. 

21 So that's how -- why we are where we are now. Most 

22 of the time frames in the existing -- are in the 

23 existing regs besides their compliance and 

24 performance period. Overall though, there was some 

25 significant confusion even to this date about the 
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 time frames.

2 So there's language in 61.7 that's 

3 reflected here on the slide 61.7(a)(2), where it 

4 says the site characteristics should be considered 

5 for a 500 year time frame or the indefinite future. 

6 That was interpreted by some stakeholders, and even 

7 it's reflected in their comments on the rulemaking 

8 package, that Part 61 was using a 500 year 

9 compliance period.

10 Part 61 was never using a 500 year 

11 compliance period. The 500 years comes into play 

12 mainly with the Class C intruder barrier with 

13 respect, or the intruder barrier with respect to 

14 Class C waste. It had nothing to do with 61.41. So 

15 that's a misconception that I wanted to make clear 

16 here.

17 And then the other point is that much 

18 too much focus is being placed on the technical 

19 analyses, especially the dose assessments. When the 

20 dose assessments are products of computer modeling 

21 and yes, we're in a modern age and we can do so much 

22 more than we used to be able to do.

23 But there's still the output of computer 

24 models. The computer models are not making the 

25 licensing decisions. It's the regulators, licensees 
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 and other stakeholders that are taking that input to 

2 make the decisions. 

3 So NRC has always felt that these 

4 performance assessments are not projections of a 

5 future radiological impact to a person. They're a 

6 regulatory tool to make a regulatory decision, and 

7 that may be splitting hairs, but it's a very 

8 important distinction in what we're doing and why 

9 we're doing it. 

10 So next slide, please Gary. So in the 

11 development of the technical basis for the approach 

12 for time frames we did a lot of things. We did a 

13 white paper that I think Derek distributed to you 

14 that went through a lot of these considerations. We 

15 looked at waste characteristics. 

16 If you look at the top figure here, 

17 which is pretty small but it's in that paper I 

18 believe, depleted uranium, the trigger for this 

19 rulemaking was quite a bit different than commercial 

20 low level waste.

21 The commercial low level waste has a lot 

22 of short-lived activity that by 1,000 years it has 

23 decayed. But one of the important points though is 

24 that even though the commercial low level waste 

25 curve drops down, what's remaining there after 1,000 
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 years is not riskless. That long-lived activity, 

2 even with normal commercial low level waste can pose 

3 risk, depending on the site-specific design and the 

4 characteristics of the disposal site.

5 But I'm going to walk you through these 

6 various factors here that we have on the slide, at 

7 least most of them. Next slide, please.

8 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Hold on. Can you 

9 keep that? That increase in risk is because of 

10 radon accumulation?

11 MR. ESH: Yes. It's for all the data 

12 products, but it's for radon.

13 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Oh yeah radon.

14 MR. ESH: It's radium-226, lead-210 and 

15 all the daughters in the decay chain.

16 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: The decay of the 

17 radon numbers?

18 MR. ESH: Right.

19 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: But has anybody 

20 considered letting it leak? Letting it leak out of 

21 the containers, the same way that it does in a mine. 

22 In a mine it has been leaking all the time.

23 MR. ESH: In the analysis for the 

24 disposal of say the depleted uranium, yes of course 

25 you would look at releases of material, which may 
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 occur --

2 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Controlled leaks of 

3 radon. You just vent --

4 MR. ESH: Oh venting? No. Yeah, right. 

5 I don't know. It depends. If somebody designed 

6 their system to vent, yeah. Then of course --

7 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: You keep it under -

8 - you have a stack. You put it down there and 

9 that's what radon does. It goes out.

10 MR. ESH: Right, right, right.

11 MEMBER REMPE: I was curious about this 

12 white paper, which I appreciated getting a copy of. 

13 But like this composites on the lower right was I 

14 guess a composite based on the earlier Figure 3, 

15 which had no axis on the different plots. 

16 But it said the staff used their 

17 experience with waste disposal systems to generate 

18 Figure 3, which I guess was the basis for Figure 4. 

19 Some of the information in both of those figures is 

20 pretty precise.

21 There's no code. It's just somebody 

22 drawing a line? I mean what was the basis for these 

23 things?

24 MR. ESH: Yeah. I have to admit that 

25 I'm the authored of the squiggly line figure and so 
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 --

2 (Laughter.)

3 MEMBER REMPE: It's not a really precise 

4 drawing.

5 MR. ESH: I was trying to communicate 

6 how uncertainties can change over time, and how they 

7 may change differently based on different parts of 

8 the system that you're looking at. So the 

9 uncertainties associated with engineered components, 

10 and this is focused for near-surface disposal, low 

11 level waste facility type designs, might be quite a 

12 bit different than the uncertainties associated with 

13 the natural system, for instance.

14 Or especially the big one is the green 

15 line on here, the societal technology activities 

16 component. So what's going on with people and what 

17 are they doing? If you think about how people were 

18 living 200 years ago, it's a lot different than what 

19 we do today. So what are people going to be doing 

20 200 years from now? Well, that's a good guess. 

21 But I would submit that the 

22 uncertainties associated with the human aspect of 

23 the problem are much larger than the harder science 

24 aspects of the problem, and that's all this figure 

25 was really attempting to communicate. 
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 MEMBER REMPE: So no calculations; just 

2 your --

3 MR. ESH: Well I mean --

4 MEMBER REMPE: Shouldn't it be on there?

5 MR. ESH: Well, I've worked on many 

6 performance assessments that have dose curves 

7 produced in them, that --

8 MEMBER REMPE: Look similar and --

9 MR. ESH: --that have components of this 

10 going on. So when you break them down and analyze 

11 them and you look at the contributions of NGO 

12 barriers and natural barriers and things like that, 

13 you'll see this type of behavior. So in a 

14 performance assessment so when we do a probabilistic 

15 performance assessment, we'll generate what we call 

16 a horsetail plot now, which has all the 

17 realizations, all the dose histories.

18 What you'll see many times is that the 

19 uncertainty early is larger than the uncertainty at 

20 later times, and that's because the uncertainty or 

21 variability about when engineered barriers may fail, 

22 especially the discrete ones, can cause big impacts 

23 for the high specific activity radionuclides of the 

24 -- in the system.

25 Whereas when you move out to later 
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 times, eventually your knowledge and basis for how 

2 the engineered systems are going to behave gets very 

3 limited, and whether it's accurate or not, most of 

4 the analysts do not take credit for the very long5 term engineered performance, which I think is fair. 

6 That's what I would do if I was analyzing the 

7 problem.

8 So what you see is the horsetail plot 

9 sometimes will pinch down at later times because 

10 that engineered component is dropping out. So 

11 that's the -- this is a crude figure and it was just 

12 designed to be a communication tool, okay. But it 

13 is based on our experience and on our -- a lot of 

14 different projects so --

15 MR. WIDMEYER: Hey Dave. Could you 

16 explain the pedigree of the white paper? What was 

17 it used for? You kept calling it white paper and 

18 people are asking me, you know, what is it.

19 MR. ESH: Yeah.

20 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Derek, identify yourself 

21 for the record.

22 MR. WIDMEYER: I'm Derek Widmeyer of the 

23 ACRS staff. Thank you very much.

24 MR. ESH: So that was a paper that we 

25 developed to kind of look at what are all the 
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 factors that make go into this decision and what 

2 should we do with the analysis time frames. 

3 So that's the pedigree of it. It just 

4 supplied -- basically it was a consolidation of 

5 information to the staff internal to NRC, to kind of 

6 look at what factors should we consider and how 

7 should we consider them in developing a position on 

8 analysis time frames.

9 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: So what is the 

10 message you're trying to communicate with that plot?

11 MR. ESH: The bottom figure?

12 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yeah.

13 MR. ESH: The bottom figure was used to 

14 communicate that the -- you have different sources 

15 of uncertainty and the influence of those 

16 uncertainties can be different as you go out in time 

17 in the system. At some point, you have to 

18 acknowledge that the natural system uncertainties 

19 are going to get very large, you know. When you get 

20 out a million years you're talking about like 

21 mountain formation and all sorts of things like 

22 that.

23 So it is reasonable to be trying to 

24 consider those impacts in your decision-making 

25 process? I would say no, not when you get out 
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 there. The one challenge in the performance 

2 assessment field is the green line though, because 

3 the green line occurs early and in our opinion if 

4 you truly tried to incorporate it, it would be a big 

5 impact.

6 So like what's the likelihood that we 

7 cure cancer in the next 200 years. I can't answer 

8 that, but if you did it would totally change what 

9 you're doing with radioactive waste, wouldn't it? 

10 So those sorts of impacts I think are not really 

11 amenable to quantification, and what we've done, NRC 

12 and the performance assessment community is say 

13 don't speculate on the societal component of the 

14 problem, that you really can't get a firm answer on.

15 You should use cautious and reasonable 

16 assumptions about society and what people are doing 

17 and what they may need to do today, in order to do 

18 these radiological regulatory analyses. But it 

19 wouldn't be very productive to speculate, overly 

20 speculate on that component.

21 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: So once the red 

22 line and the blue line cross then you don't care 

23 anymore? Is that the basis for 10,000 years?

24 MR. ESH: Well, not necessarily. I'll 

25 go through that where that more comes from. But it 
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 is a factor in the decision-making process. So at 

2 some point in time at long times, and that depends -

3 - see, that's the other challenge though. That 

4 depends completely on your site.

5 So if you go to like the Atacama Desert 

6 in Chile, that's been very stable for a very long 

7 time. There's a whole variety of meteorites there 

8 that have been there for anywhere from thousands of 

9 years to millions of years, and because they're all 

10 present, you can say okay, that gives me an 

11 indication that this environment has been stable for 

12 a very long time.

13 But say if you moved to location in 

14 western New York on the glacial material deposited 

15 by the last glaciers, those areas are actively 

16 eroding and, you know, the stability of that site 

17 and the time frame that you might use might be quite 

18 a bit different than when look at the other one.

19 So let me try to get through some of 

20 these, and then hopefully that will answer a lot of 

21 your questions. So in the domestic part of it, this 

22 question came up in the subcommittee, well what's 

23 done? Well, this was in that paper and then we 

24 thought it would be just good to put it in your 

25 slides here for you, that you can see what's been 
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 done in various programs. 

2 And what's been done is a lot of 

3 different things. As you move down the diagram, I 

4 would say you're in the table. You're kind of 

5 progressing towards more difficult waste to handle. 

6 But not necessarily so. I mean you could argue that 

7 chemical waste that's dealt with under EPA and RCRA 

8 is every bit as difficult to manage as the 

9 radioactive waste that's done.

10 They made this deliberate decision to 

11 tackle the problem in the way that they did, which 

12 is basically they look at 30 years for the material. 

13 But it's basically a perpetual control management 

14 solution. 

15 So every 30 years, they'll look at the 

16 RCRA disposal facilities and decide do we still need 

17 to control the facility? Is it still operating 

18 appropriately, and they just iterate until 

19 necessary. But it's an open-ended process. 

20 For uranium mill tailings, the 

21 compliance period, the standard is 200 years, but 

22 there's a goal up to 1,000. That was really a 

23 remediation problem though. It's not really a 

24 disposal problem. So the reason why those 

25 regulations came into develop is that there were a 
191

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 lot of mill tailings that management problems 

2 associated with them throughout the country.

3 It was a very expensive problem. Some 

4 of the entities that have generated those materials 

5 were maybe no longer in business or had limited 

6 resources. So they had to take that into account, 

7 NRC had to take that into account when those 

8 regulations were developed. 

9 The ones that I'll point out here that 

10 are probably of most interest to the committee, the 

11 DOE Order 435.1 that requires 1,000 years compliance 

12 period, and then in low level waste disposal that's 

13 in brackets, and I put red there, guidance, because 

14 the brackets were for guidance.

15 There isn't a number associated with it 

16 in the current regulation, and that's what we're 

17 attempting to do in this rulemaking. So this is 

18 reflecting what's on the books now, not what will be 

19 on the books in the future, which would be 

20 1,000/10,000 if the rulemaking went forward.

21 For waste determinations, what the 

22 Department of Energy does, that's the WIR there, 

23 Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, DOE applies DOE 

24 Order 435.1, but NRC is involved by statute for 

25 Idaho and South Carolina facilities. So in those 
192

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 cases, the law says that DOE is to use NRC's 

2 performance objectives for 10 C.F.R. Part 61. 

3 So when NRC and those two states is 

4 obligated to consult with the DOE and then perform 

5 monitoring activities, we apply our requirements at 

6 those locations.

7 So you know, if DOE is making waste 

8 determinations at other facilities, then they'll use 

9 their criteria or whatever's determined by their 

10 stakeholder. So for instance, at Hanford DOE may 

11 apply Order 435.1, but the other stakeholders at 

12 Hanford require them to do longer analysis. That's 

13 state of Washington.

14 So there is some ability to control the 

15 analyses, but not complete. Let's go to the next 

16 slide.

17 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Just so I 

18 understand.

19 MR. ESH: Yeah.

20 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So we're only 

21 talking about -- the rule is only going to apply to 

22 the one that is identified with guidance; is that 

23 correct?

24 MR. ESH: Yes. That will be changing 

25 from undefined right now, only described in guidance 
193

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 it will be defined in the regulation. 

2 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: And you're yet 

3 to explain to us what is sufficiently large enough 

4 quantity to fit that?

5 MR. ESH: Right. Hopefully we'll get to 

6 that. This is an example. One area that we had a 

7 lot of interest in, even I think the committee in 

8 some of their letters discussed this, is why not use 

9 the mill tailings requirements for depleted uranium? 

10 They're both uranium, but that's about as far as the 

11 comparison goes.

12 So down at the bottom here it says "Mill 

13 tailings, Falls City, Texas. I calculated that, 

14 because at the mill tailings sites, the ones that 

15 are closed, they'll put a nice plaque there that 

16 gives many times the volume and the total curies of 

17 radium in the site. So you can just take the volume 

18 and calculate the concentration.

19 So for mill tailings, you're talking 

20 about, you know, 100 to 200 picocuries per gram for 

21 most mill tailings in the U.S., somewhere in that 

22 ballpark. For this depleted uranium, it starts off 

23 well but then eventually gets very high, and this 

24 was something we discussed in the subcommittee. 

25 If you were to use say 1,000 year 
194

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 for depleted uranium disposal, 

2 you're only getting about roughly 1/1000th of this 

3 ingrowth phenomena. If you move to 10,000 years, 

4 you're getting 1/10th. 

5 So yes, we are missing 90 percent of 

6 what's going on with depleted uranium disposal in 

7 the compliance period. But that performance period 

8 with the subjective criteria associated with it, we 

9 hope is the ability to look at the safety or make 

10 considerations with this other 90 percent that 

11 eventually might grow into the material.

12 Now this is not to imply that the mill 

13 tailings requirements are not appropriate. They're 

14 appropriate for that problem. But that material is 

15 much more dilute than this material that you're 

16 talking about, the concentrated depleted uranium. 

17 And those regulations were developed to address a 

18 problem, which was essentially a remediation 

19 problem.

20 The problem we're dealing with here is a 

21 disposal problem, and that's an important 

22 distinction to make. There's a few other backup 

23 slides related to uranium and uranium in the 

24 environment that we can talk about if we have time. 

25 Next slide.
195

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 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: The guidance 

2 doesn't -- we're talking time frame. The guidance 

3 doesn't talk about form of what's disposed?

4 MR. ESH: Yeah, well in a way because I 

5 think in the guidance we may discuss that the 

6 hexafluoride form is inappropriate for near surface 

7 disposal. So an oxide form, an oxide form is much 

8 more appropriate. Sandia did an analysis in 1992 

9 and they found really massive impacts associated 

10 with disposal of it in the fluoride form, and those 

11 -- you don't -- the solubility of uranium is a lot 

12 lower in the oxide -- depending on the oxide and 

13 oxide form.

14 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So except for 

15 excluding certain forms, you're not including an 

16 allowable form?

17 MR. ESH: Right. We did not specify a 

18 particular form it must be. The other point 

19 associated with the depleted uranium is that 

20 material, depending what's done with it, may end up 

21 being essentially a powder. It has a very high 

22 surface area to volume ratio. That's bad from a 

23 waste disposal standpoint, both in terms of radon 

24 release to the environment and in terms of release 

25 to the groundwater.
196

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 want low specific surface area to 

2 volume ratio to limit risk. So we don't have 

3 specific requirements associated with depleted 

4 uranium, but ultimately this performance-based 

5 approach using technical analyses should determine 

6 what form you need to put that depleted uranium in, 

7 in order to meet the criteria. We can hit the 

8 button here. It's going to --

9 So this is a different example but a 

10 similar problem. This is from a Department of 

11 Energy report associated with the Hanford site, and 

12 I thought this was a good example because it 

13 elucidates the problem associated -- a problem 

14 associated with the performance assessments in the 

15 analysis time frames.

16 So what you have here is somebody wanted 

17 to know how do I need to design my waste forms? 

18 What do I need my release rate to be, and they 

19 looked at two different standards. So a 25 millirem 

20 at 1,000 years and 25 millirem at 10,000 years. 

21 Well in order to achieve the standard at 1,000 

22 years, they could have roughly 70,000 parts per 

23 million per year released of the technetium, whereas 

24 if they're trying to achieve 25 millirem at 10,000 

25 years, that reduces to about 150.
197

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 it's roughly a four to five hundred 

2 factor, reduction factor going from outside the 

3 1,000 year window to the 10,000 year window. And 

4 this is because the Hanford site is very dry and has 

5 a very thick unsaturated zone. So it can take a 

6 long time for the contamination to move through the 

7 unsaturated zone until it hits the aquifer.

8 Now that's a good thing. You do want 

9 long delays to create impacts for the public. But 

10 also it's a risk deferral, not necessarily a risk 

11 mitigation. What we're trying to achieve here, 

12 especially for these longer-lived wastes, is that 

13 people are making good decisions to achieve risk 

14 mitigation and not just risk deferral, and not just 

15 shifting of the risk in time, but the risks are 

16 actually reduced.

17 They explained it in words there in B 

18 better than I could explain, so I just left it in 

19 the slide and you can read it. But we agree with 

20 this example. This is a good example. It applies 

21 to a lot of the arid sites. It can also apply to 

22 humid sites, which are using engineered barriers. 

23 So this is the example Jose talked about earlier 

24 with, well you wouldn't want somebody designing the 

25 facility for 10,000 years and in 10,001 then it 
198

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 fails.

2 You wouldn't want somebody designing an 

3 engineered barrier that can give you 1,000 years of 

4 protection that just pushes the risk out, so that 

5 after 1,000 years you see this big impact. These 

6 requirements that we have are intending to prevent 

7 that sort of situation.

8 Now could somebody push it out past 

9 10,000 and then see a big impact after 10,000? I 

10 guess that's true in theory. But that other 

11 criteria is meant to allow a stakeholder and 

12 especially Agreement State regulators to look at 

13 that information and make a decision about those 

14 really long term doses, if you had a situation like 

15 that.

16 So the other point related to this is 

17 think about this. If you designed your facility for 

18 the first case at 1,000 years and you were achieving 

19 something close to 25 millirem, you would never want 

20 to do that. You'd want some margin of safety. Well 

21 that would mean that facility, if you designed it in 

22 that way, could produce something on the order of 10 

23 rem in the 10,000 year -- between the 1,000 and the 

24 10,000 year time frame.

25 I don't think that's good design, and I 
199

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 don't think if the criteria would result in people 

2 doing those sorts of things, it's the type of 

3 criteria that we would want. 

4 Next slide, please. So internationally, 

5 we considered what people do in this area, and this 

6 was difficult. It's hard to find this information. 

7 A lot of this information in some form or another is 

8 in the joint convention reports. But there's also 

9 information scattered throughout various documents, 

10 some of it in other languages that some of us may or 

11 may not have been fluent in.

12 But the summary of it is contained on 

13 this slide, and that is that most countries either 

14 do not allow near surface disposal of long-lived 

15 waste, or they place limits on it. Some countries 

16 put all their waste in deep geology, whether it's 

17 short-lived, long-lived, whatever. They say we're 

18 not going to mess with near surface uncertainty; 

19 we're just going to put it deep.

20 Others, many of them determine some sort 

21 of limits that are placed and then they say okay, 

22 the short-lived stuff is good for near surface. The 

23 long-lived stuff we're going to put in some other 

24 facility, intermediate level waste facility, deep 

25 geologic, i.e., something like a high level waste 
200

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 facility. 

2 In most cases these limits are not 

3 determined by site-specific analyses, but rather 

4 they're set by the regulators and/or lawmakers. So 

5 they come from some other mechanism rather than the 

6 site-specific analyses. 

7 In this rulemaking, what we're hoping to 

8 achieve if the rule goes forward, is that somebody 

9 does the proper site-specific technical analyses to 

10 determine these limits based on their specific site. 

11 The last point here, even though many countries do 

12 place limits on say even the long-lived alpha, they 

13 still will assess, do some sort of assessment of 

14 what they consider to be peak hazard. 

15 It might be a radiological ghost, it 

16 might be flux limit, it might something else. But 

17 they do some sort of assessment to look at well over 

18 the very long time, what do I think is going to 

19 happen with this radioactive waste.

20 Next slide, please. An important 

21 distinction between some of the international 

22 communities and our programs in the U.S. is that 

23 they have, in my opinion, a better waste 

24 classification system and this creates some 

25 advantages. They classify waste on both activity 
201

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 half life, and what that allows them to do is 

2 what I just talked about, design their facilities 

3 for their particular waste.

4 Whereas low level waste in the U.S. is a 

5 mixture of long-lived and short-lived. So you have 

6 this difficulty in designing requirements and/or 

7 designing systems to manage that waste. The last 

8 three points here are all specific to depleted 

9 uranium. It's just if you look at large quantities 

10 of depleted uranium from an IAEA perspective and 

11 some other international groups, they've -- I can't 

12 say for certain, but it looks to me like they would 

13 at least put it in intermediate, as an intermediate 

14 level waste disposal facility, or possibly even 

15 deeper.

16 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Doug, when you have -- I 

17 know you've had a whole long history of meetings 

18 with people. Was there any feeling that for future 

19 sites, reclassification would make a lot of sense, 

20 so that we don't get into these kind of problems?

21 MR. ESH: There are some people that 

22 have -- yeah. There are some people that agree that 

23 changing the classification system would have some 

24 advantages. A lot of the engineers that I know feel 

25 that it would have a lot of advantages. A lot of 
202

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 policymakers or that type of group realize the 

2 challenges associated with that.

3 So our, excuse me, waste classification 

4 system affects a lot of things, and it's in laws 

5 that you would have to have Congress rewrite. It's 

6 in the way our compact system is set up and, you 

7 know, the receipt and acceptance of waste. It's in 

8 some state laws. It affects a lot of things.

9 So if you're -- if you're trying to have 

10 minimal impact from your regulatory activity, 

11 changing the waste classification approach and 

12 system would have many impacts, many practical 

13 impacts and things that would need to be worked on 

14 and changed in order to achieve that. Technically, 

15 I believe it would be a very good idea. 

16 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Let me say it 

17 another way. If you were going to operate a new 

18 site, you could operate within our current 

19 classification. But you could do the kind of things 

20 you were talking about with your own site and divide 

21 the short and the long-lived and store them 

22 differently and live within the current rules, but 

23 make it a lot easier for yourself, I would think.

24 MR. ESH: Right. With this -- with this 

25 approach in the regulation, as you'll see you can 
203

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 develop waste acceptance criteria based on your 

2 site-specific analysis. So that is essentially a 

3 site-specific waste classification system, if you 

4 will. We have not, for the reasons I just 

5 described, removed or eliminated the existing waste 

6 classification system because it's used by so many 

7 people for a lot of reasons.

8 But we did want to start progressing 

9 towards this idea that the more modern way of doing 

10 it, and this is what the Department of Energy does,

11 is they analyze their system and based on the 

12 analysis of the system it determines what waste can 

13 go in there. There isn't some analysis done by the 

14 regulator. They're self-regulating, but in our case 

15 it's an NRC and our Agreement State licensees. NRC 

16 did analyses to develop the waste classification 

17 system in Table 1 and Table 2 of 61.55. 

18 So next slide, please Gary. So here's 

19 an example from comments. One thing we ran into is 

20 that some people provided information that may have 

21 been somewhat limited and didn't give the whole 

22 picture of what we think is portrayed. So if you 

23 hit the button again, Gary.

24 So this is the full language associated 

25 with the site ICRP guidance. So you heard this at 
204

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 end of the subcommittee meeting by some of the 

2 commenters. I think it's designed, at least the top 

3 part of it, to give the impression that we're being 

4 inconsistent with ICRP guidance.

5 I would argue we're not being 

6 inconsistent with ICRP guidance. I'd say if you 

7 read the full text here, what we're attempting to do 

8 in this rulemaking is consistent with ICRP guidance. 

9 This wasn't my attempt to set a record for the most 

10 words on a slide in an ACRS briefing, but I may have 

11 done that.

12 MEMBER POWERS: You're not even close.

13 MR. ESH: Okay.

14 (Laughter.)

15 MR. ESH: So they are not saying, they 

16 being ICRP here, do not calculate these doses and do 

17 not use them for regulatory analysis. That's not 

18 what they're saying at all, at least my 

19 interpretation of it. You can of course make your 

20 own interpretation. They're saying though you need 

21 to be careful how you talk about this information 

22 and not portray it as something it's not. 

23 Those are two different things. They're 

24 not saying the information is useless. They're 

25 saying use is cautiously, and that's -- and this 
205

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 analysis and this approach to rulemaking, 

2 that's what we're attempting to do, because remember 

3 our standard, overall standard for when you're 

4 making a decision is reasonable assurance, and that 

5 is a subjective decision-making criteria for how you 

6 view all these things.

7 At one of the previous subcommittee 

8 briefings, I had figures that had output of 

9 performance assessment models, and I tried to get 

10 examples out. You might have curves that are way 

11 below the limit, and I could still say when I do my 

12 regulatory review now, I'm not granting you this 

13 application because you have all these problems with 

14 your analysis and so on and so forth.

15 Likewise, you may have analyses that are 

16 probabilistic analyses where a number of the results 

17 go above the limit, and I could say this is 

18 acceptable because I can explain to the stakeholders 

19 where all the conservatisms are in your analyses and 

20 why I believe the results demonstrate, make a safety 

21 demonstration. 

22 So next slide please Gary. So here's a 

23 couple more giving comments on time frames. One, 

24 this top one is basically trying to say that low 

25 level waste is benign. After 1,000 years, you can 
206

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 just forget about it, and the bottom part was this 

2 idea that by using a long compliance period, i.e. 

3 say 10,000 years for significant quantities of long4 lived waste, you're not going to be able to license 

5 anything.

6 So hit the button, Gary. So the first 

7 one here, this statement is generally true for 

8 61.42, which is protection of the intruder. That 

9 just shows that the intruder protection performance 

10 objective and waste classification system works as 

11 it should. But it's generally not true for 61.41. 

12 The risks associated with 61.41, which 

13 is like release, leaching from the facility and 

14 transport through groundwater, those are driven by 

15 phenomena and processes that aren't really amenable 

16 to reducing to a single concentration to put in the 

17 limit.

18 So I can't say if iodine is one curie 

19 per cubic meter that that's safe. It depends on the 

20 site. It's extremely dependent on the site. One 

21 curie per cubic meter might be completely safe at 

22 Site A and be greatly above the performance 

23 objective at Site B. So for 61.41, you have all 

24 that's needed in Part 61 to do technical analysis, 

25 to determine whether you're meeting the criteria or 
207

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.

2 All four of our existing agreement, the 

3 existing sites are in Agreement States, and all four 

4 of the facilities in the Agreement States have 

5 already been licensed, one in the process of being 

6 reviewed. So I don't want to mischaracterize Utah. 

7 Utah originally used a 500 year analyses, but they 

8 issued rules to deal with concentrated depleted 

9 uranium or concentrated uranium more generally, 

10 where they require a 10,000 year analyses and then 

11 look beyond.

12 It's almost identical to what we have in 

13 our proposed rule here. But at the time, right now 

14 in terms of licensing basis, they have used a 500 

15 year compliance period. But the other facilities, 

16 as I discussed earlier, used 2,000, 10,000 and 

17 50,000 and they've all been licensed. So I don't --

18 I don't think this argument that if you look at 

19 longer times, you're going to not be able to license 

20 things is valid, because the real experience shows 

21 that they've already been licensed using analyses 

22 like this.

23 In addition to that, we have experience 

24 in the area of waste incidental through processing. 

25 So that's basically the clean up of the tanks 
208

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 containing material from the weapons program, to put 

2 it generally. The material in those tanks and in 

3 many cases can be -- or at least in some cases can 

4 be less than say a lower classes of low level waste.

5 In some cases it may be more or at least 

6 comparable. They can contain significant amounts of 

7 long-lived radioactivity. In Idaho and in Savannah 

8 River, the Department of Energy has already made 

9 waste determination decisions where they've 

10 submitted analyses over those time frames to the NRC 

11 that we've reviewed and made technical evaluation 

12 reports documenting our findings.

13 So I don't think even in that area these 

14 long or longer compliance periods would be an 

15 impediment to making any decisions. 

16 Now say if you decided well, all right 

17 Dave. You're rambling on and I don't agree with 

18 you. I think you should only use 1,000 year 

19 compliance data. What is that going to impact? 

20 Well right now, there is very little support in our 

21 rulemaking, I mean really maybe only one stakeholder 

22 or possibly two, that agreed with the Compatibility 

23 B designation for the significant components of the 

24 rule, such as the compliance period definition.

25 Almost everybody agreed with making it 
209

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 Compatibility C, which affords flexibility to the 

2 Agreement States. So what that means, and the 

3 Agreement States communicated to us in this 

4 rulemaking process is we would like to preserve our 

5 current approaches. So my guess is that if this 

6 rule goes forward and even if NRC were to reduce the 

7 compliance to 1,000 years, those facilities in the 

8 Agreement States are still going to use the criteria 

9 they already use. It's not going to impact them 

10 whatsoever.

11 In the incidental waste space, by the 

12 time this rulemaking is done, Idaho is going to be 

13 finished, and it will have been finished using the 

14 analyses of 10,000 years. Savannah River would be 

15 well underway, but I don't even know if you would 

16 characterize it as half finished, because they have 

17 a lot more tanks, and Hanford, as I had indicated 

18 earlier, the requirements for the Hanford cleanup 

19 are determined by the other stakeholders, not just 

20 the Department of Energy, and they ask for a longer 

21 analyses whenever they make those decisions. 

22 So I don't know what you would achieve

23 by, you know, say for instance reducing the 

24 compliance period to 1,000 years. Also, I don't 

25 think it would lead to effective decision-making for 
210

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 you're managing the long-lived activity, 

2 especially in the case of say depleted uranium, 

3 which was our direction that we were given for even 

4 doing this activity.

5 Next slide, please. So this figure was 

6 presented to the -- either the full Committee or the 

7 subcommittee before, and I thought it was a good 

8 figure to revisit because it's addressing the top 

9 bullet on the previous slide, which is that the low 

10 level waste is inherently riskless once you get to 

11 1,000 years.

12 Low level waste in the U.S. contains a 

13 lot of different isotopes. Yes, a lot of the 

14 activity is short-lived, such as the strontium, 

15 cesium and tritium and cobalt-60. But there are a 

16 variety of isotopes that are very long-lived, and 

17 many of those are at levels such that you do need 

18 performance of the system to get them down to values 

19 that you would meet the performance criteria.

20 Out on the far right-hand side of this 

21 figure, of course, is uranium and thorium, and those 

22 kind of really stand out, because as you go in the 

23 direction of the arrow here, that's increasing 

24 challenge. If it's longer-lived and you have more 

25 of it, it's harder to manage. 
211

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 this proposal from industry to 

2 dispose of large quantities of depleted uranium, 

3 it's even many orders of magnitude above what these 

4 other figures represent here. So it's really 

5 stressing the system and the regulatory requirements 

6 to address this material.

7 Next slide, please. A few other 

8 comments that we got were that uncertainty makes the 

9 results meaningless, and then also that don't apply 

10 the burdensome requirements for long-lived waste to 

11 traditional waste. So the first one, this is 

12 something I tried to stress and I'll continue to 

13 stress, and NRC will always stress is that these 

14 performance assessments are not predictions of the 

15 future.

16 They're regulatory analysis that are 

17 used for regulatory decision-making. I don't 

18 believe that uncertainty is a suitable basis in and 

19 to itself to reduce safety arguments. If that's the 

20 only thing that you're really relying on, then that 

21 doesn't really make sense. It doesn't resonate with 

22 me. I think that that argument could be made by any 

23 licensee in any NRC regulated activity.

24 So say you're interested in plant life 

25 extension, and you're looking at some coupled 
212

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 process related to stress corrosion cracking of 

2 piping. I can imagine a licensee could come in and 

3 say hey, this is so uncertain I'm not going to do 

4 anything with it. That's essentially what the 

5 argument that was put forth here with the waste 

6 disposal is at some point in time it's so uncertain 

7 I just -- I shouldn't even consider it.

8 And I think based on what we know today, 

9 you should bring the full value of the information, 

10 even if it is uncertain into play whenever you're 

11 making your decisions about these facilities. 

12 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Let me agree with 

13 you on the record on that, because what this 

14 calculation do, it is not the prediction of what 

15 will really happen in the year 10,016. But they're 

16 showing that there's at least one path that could 

17 happen that leads to success. 

18 MR. ESH: Right.

19 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Whereas if you run 

20 the calculations, you cannot find a path that leads 

21 to success, then just say well that one is a bad 

22 one.

23 MR. ESH: Right.

24 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: But if you can at 

25 least find one path, you can have more confidence. 
213

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 you're not predicting what would happen in the 

2 year 12,000.

3 MR. ESH: We're not. These performance 

4 assessments should not be viewed as predicting what 

5 exactly is going to happen and what exactly is going 

6 to be the radiological impacts to somebody. It's a 

7 tool to make the regulatory decision today using 

8 information to the best of your ability. 

9 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: You should frame it 

10 on this part. At least it is a path that leads to 

11 success.

12 MR. ESH: Right.

13 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: To give you 

14 confidence that you're totally succeeding.

15 MR. ESH: So I was really baffled by 

16 certain commenters that have taken this tact, 

17 especially there's some that their businesses are 

18 based on doing performance assessments, and then 

19 you're going to turn around and say uncertainty 

20 makes the results meaningless. Well, why you are 

21 even doing that? What's your business model here, 

22 and it's kind of baffling to me, but anyway.

23 The other thing here at the bottom was 

24 don't apply the burdensome requirements for long25 lived waste on traditional waste. Now we do not 
214

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 believe the requirements are burdensome. That's the 

2 first part, but we understood this comment and so we 

3 made the change in this proposed final to try to 

4 bifurcate it, so that somebody could make something 

5 because some people do view their requirements as 

6 burdensome.

7 Somebody could make a decision to use 

8 the shorter compliance period for "traditional 

9 waste," and use the longer compliance period for 

10 when they truly have the problem that creates more 

11 long term risk. So that's something we agreed with, 

12 and that's what's reflected in the proposed final 

13 rule.

14 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So just to 

15 clarify, because I think Dana asked something and 

16 then Margaret asked it. Are we really talking less 

17 than a handful of sites that are going to be 

18 affected by the 10,000 year rule?

19 MR. ESH: Yeah. So I'm going to get 

20 through talking about significant quantities here, 

21 and then let's ask it again if I don't address it, 

22 so -- so here, the significant quantities, how do 

23 you determine if you have significant quantities? 

24 Well, what we advocate is that you start simple and 

25 if necessary introduce complexity.
215

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're going to do screening based on 

2 inventory. That's the simplest thing. You know the 

3 inventory or should know the inventory. You can 

4 look at how much long-lived radioactivity you have 

5 and compare that, and the -- compare that to we have 

6 information in the guidance document for 61.41 and 

7 61.42.

8 The problem is for 61.41, as I discussed 

9 earlier, the concentration that you may need to use 

10 on a generic basis to assure safety for 61.41 might 

11 be significantly different for Site A compared to 

12 Site B. So it's really hard. It's a high 

13 dimensional problem that you're trying to reduce 

14 into a single dimension, and it's very difficult.

15 I don't think it's necessarily risk16 informed to even do that. But some sites may have 

17 very limited inventory, and so they would be done 

18 here if they just do this comparison of inventory 

19 and say look, here's my inventory. It's limited, 

20 boom. I'm going to use the 1,000 year compliance 

21 period. I don't have to consider the other, the 

22 longer compliance period or the performance period.

23 But as I indicated, in some cases you 

24 may have situations where that inventory comparison 

25 is not good enough, and then you have to move to 
216

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 maybe a simple five dose assessment. In that case, 

2 it would be basically a PA light, which you could 

3 use as a basis to determine whether you need to do a 

4 more substantial performance assessment based on 

5 your projected risk from your PA light. 

6 That is an important component of 

7 performance assessment and it is generally an 

8 iterative analysis. So this iterative concept 

9 within determining significant quantities is very 

10 much in line with overall how we view performance 

11 assessment. Then ultimately you may get into a 

12 complicated analysis, to try to determine if you 

13 have significant quantities.

14 But generally I think if you get into 

15 that situation, you should just do the longer 

16 analyses. If you have to spend a lot of effort on 

17 trying to justify you don't need to do the analyses, 

18 just do the analyses and support them. That seems 

19 like the practical approach to me.

20 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Dave, these 

21 are kind of straightforward. Is there any 

22 particular criteria on blended waste, or do you just 

23 use these same criteria?

24 MR. ESH: Yeah. On blended waste, it 

25 wouldn't be different. It would still be based on 
217

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 much of that -- of the different isotopes you 

2 have, yeah so -- next slide, please Gary.

3 MEMBER REMPE: So before you leave that 

4 slide, at the end of the subcommittee meeting, one 

5 of the members of the public said something about 

6 why do we have to treat, and I thought they said 

7 radon as part of the dose assessment. Typically, 

8 it's treated as a FLEX, and could you -- are you 

9 still planning to clarify that point later? I just 

10 haven't gotten to it.

11 MR. ESH: Yes, yes.

12 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, sorry. 

13 MR. ESH: I have two slides on it.

14 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. I thought I looked 

15 through your package and I didn't -- okay.

16 MR. ESH: Okay. 

17 MEMBER CHU: Dave, you know, another 

18 topic the committee is very interested in is the 

19 grandfathering of sites. So later on I would like

20 you to --

21 MR. ESH: I have two slides on that too. 

22 So I'll start moving faster. 

23 MEMBER CHU: Okay.

24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: May I interrupt? 

25 Margaret, are you going to ask for a break or -- do 
218

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 an objection to a break? No, this is yours 

2 to run. I think we'll take a break at this time. 

3 MR. ESH: Okay.

4 (Off mic comment.)

5 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Then you stay Charlie. 

6 We'll be recessed for a break. Come back at 4:25.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

8 went off the record at 4:08 p.m. and resumed at 4:27 

9 p.m.) 

10 MR. ESH: So this is definition for what 

11 long lived means. You need that as part of this 

12 approach. And we wanted this definition to be 

13 generic so that if, for instance, agreement state 

14 chose to do a different approach with their analysis 

15 timeframes, they understand conceptually how it was 

16 supposed to work. 

17 Because we were trying to account for 

18 the long lived parents with the long lived progeny 

19 and the radiation physics associated with the waste. 

20 And we think this definition does that. Next slide 

21 please.

22 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: If you're using the 

23 phrase UF6, for example, it doesn't have any 

24 radionuclide. This is the case in two of the other 

25 daughters. How do you apply that? There is 
219

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 radioactivity of product.

2 MR. ESH: Well I have a table here that 

3 I'll show you, I think next slide. So this is from 

4 the guidance. So the determination of long lived 

5 includes both long lived parents and, say, long 

6 lived progeny.

7 And say, for instance promethium-147, it 

8 only has a 2.62 or 52 or 62 half life. So it's not 

9 long lived from the parent perspective. But it can 

10 decay into samarium-147 which has a 100 billion year 

11 half life, I guess.

12 So you would want to consider how much 

13 samarium you have in your facility. Or how much 

14 promethium because it decays into the samarium. Now 

15 that's not a great example because those things 

16 generally aren't present in the low level waste 

17 inventories.

18 So we took it a step further. And have 

19 this column in the table that identifies the 

20 particular isotopes that generally you would expect 

21 to see in a low level waste inventory. This gives 

22 some guidance to licensees and agreement state 

23 regulators when trying to look at this situation of 

24 how much long lived inventory they have. And 

25 therefore, what sort of compliance period should 
220

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 use.

2 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: But as a rule 

3 of thumb, if there's depleted uranium it's long 

4 lived.

5 MR. ESH: Yes. The depleted uranium, 

6 the uranium isotopes are long lived. And then they 

7 decay into some other things that are also long 

8 lived according to this definition.

9 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: And what I'm 

10 trying to understand, by making a general do you 

11 pick up something that would have been missed by 

12 uranium and not uranium?

13 MR. ESH: Yes. So say like neptunium14 237, that's long lived. So if a site had a waste 

15 stream that was loaded with neptunium-237, you would 

16 want them to be doing a longer term analysis just 

17 like you would if they had a lot of depleted 

18 uranium.

19 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: But from a 

20 practical nature that doesn't occur yet, it just 

21 might.

22 MR. ESH: From a practical standpoint, 

23 most of the low level waste facilities, I believe, 

24 have somewhat limited amounts of most of the long 

25 lived activity outside of uranium. 
221

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 important to understand that all of 

2 the existing sites have taken depleted uranium 

3 already -- outside of Texas, they're newly operating 

4 and they haven't taken any yet. But they've 

5 licensed the facility to take it. 

6 The other operating facilities, I think 

7 it might be South Carolina might have disposed of 

8 around 7,000 metric tons. Utah has disposed of 

9 around 50,000 metric tons. And Washington, I 

10 believe, has disposed of 14,000 metric tons. But 

11 I'll check my numbers here in a few slides.

12 So that table is in guidance. And this 

13 example is from guidance or something similar to it 

14 of how somebody can go about determining, if you're 

15 just looking at the inventory, do I have significant 

16 quantities or not? And the guidance steps through 

17 this in more detail than I think is deserving right 

18 now. But if you have questions about it, I think we 

19 can revisit it.

20 That's the end of the timeframes 

21 material that I had. I'm thinking that we can 

22 certainly take comments now. I should try to get 

23 through most of the other material. And then if you 

24 want to talk about things related to timeframes, we 

25 can jump back at it.
222

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 MEMBER SKILLMAN: So David, back on 

2 Slide 20 the title is quantities. But you jump on 

3 21 to the definition of long lived. Where is the 

4 yard stick for quantity?

5 MR. ESH: So what I tried to convey is 

6 the quantity is going to be very much site 

7 dependent, what is significant. And so, the 

8 guidance document outlines the approach of how to 

9 determine if you have significant quantities. 

10 In there is a table that you can use 

11 with respect to 61.42 to determine if you have 

12 significant quantities. There's also a table with 

13 respect to 61.44 that you can determine to compare 

14 your waste to and do some calculations and use the 

15 sum of fractions. That's how you go about doing it.

16 MEMBER SKILLMAN: I understand now. 

17 Thanks.

18 MR. ESH: So in the U.S. who would 

19 perform these technical analyses we're talking 

20 about? Well it would be the four operating sites 

21 that are shown here, the U.S. Ecology site in 

22 Hanford and the Energy Solutions sites in Clive, 

23 Utah and Barnwell, South Carolina. And then the 

24 Waste Control Specialist in Andrews, Texas.

25 There's some additional information on 
223

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 side of this figure about the types of the waste 

2 they can take and the compact restrictions they 

3 have. Next slide please.

4 So this is in the area of the 

5 grandfathering type discussion, I think. Who will 

6 perform these technical analyses? As the draft 

7 final requirements are set forth right now, these 

8 requirements apply to all facilities that will 

9 operate after the regulations go into effect. 

10 That does not mean that the requirements 

11 are going to apply to closed facilities. So there 

12 are some facilities that were closed in the U.S. 

13 The Beatty facility, the other ones were closed 

14 prior to the promulgation of Part 61 or around the 

15 time of it. So these requirements wouldn't apply to 

16 those closed facilities, only the ones that want to 

17 continue to operate. 

18 We did have commenters express the idea 

19 that you should not apply the requirements to 

20 facilities that are only taking waste similar to 

21 what they have taken in the past. The issue with 

22 that that we ran into is that the waste that has 

23 been taken in the past not only must be, the waste 

24 must be similar to what has been taken in the past, 

25 but the waste that has been taken in the past must 
224

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 similar to what was analyzed in development of 

2 Part 61.

3 So if an existing facility may have 

4 taken waste that differs from what was analyzed in 

5 Part 61, that's the reason why these requirements 

6 are being put forth. If the waste classification 

7 tables were totally generic that could handle any 

8 type of waste, then we wouldn't need this rule 

9 making.

10 So this rule making is needed to address 

11 situations where wastes are in some ways different. 

12 And we didn't have a belief that there was a public 

13 health and safety basis provided to justify 

14 applying it to only new waste, for instance. Or to 

15 apply it to a portion of a facility. 

16 Because the requirements and the public 

17 dose limits are based on consideration of all waste 

18 and all pathways. We thought it would be very messy 

19 to try to separate out old waste from new waste. 

20 And then why would you even do that?

21 So if your requirement is to meet say 25 

22 millirem from, say, your uranium, why would you say 

23 well the uranium I disposed of up until 2016 I'm 

24 going to leave out of the dose calculation but the 

25 new uranium I'm going to show meets 25?
225

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 think that all of your uranium --

2 maybe I should have used a different isotope or 

3 element. If all of it contributes to your potential 

4 public health and safety impact, then all of it 

5 should be included in the analysis if you want to 

6 continue to operate.

7 But now with that said, there may be 

8 situations where you could consider waste that is in 

9 some portion of the facility and doesn't combine or 

10 contribute to the impacts in another portion of a 

11 facility. Then it would be appropriate to look at 

12 the differences between how those wastes contribute 

13 to a potential receptor. And the new waste might be 

14 a bigger impact than the old waste for instance.

15 So in many cases for these waste 

16 disposal facilities, the impacts are likely to 

17 combine. Because usually you don't have complicated 

18 hydrogeology with different directions of the rate 

19 of nuclides flowing. But you usually have a plume 

20 that will go in one direction. 

21 So all the source term of the facility 

22 is going to contribute to that plume. How would you 

23 separate out which portion is contributing to what 

24 in the plume? It didn't make sense to use from a 

25 regulatory perspective or even from a technical 
226

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 perspective to try to do those sorts of separations.

2 And as indicated to the subcommittee, 

3 and I'll reiterate here, there are no backfit 

4 provisions in 10 CFR Part 61. So that's coming at 

5 it from the legal perspective. That represents my 

6 extent of understanding about backfit. So if you 

7 have questions about it, I will call on someone to 

8 answer them. MEMBER CHU: I think we 

9 mentioned the last time, it sounds like you suspect 

10 quite a bit of long lived stuff in the existing 

11 three. Because Texas is different, you know, it's 

12 new. Those three, is that the reason?

13 MR. ESH: Well the existing sites, for 

14 the most part, the waste that has been received 

15 looks and smells like traditional low level waste in 

16 that it's dominated by the short lived activity, it 

17 does have some long lived isotopes. But generally 

18 those long lived isotopes are in limited 

19 concentrations -- either they're dilute and there's 

20 a lot of it or they might be more concentrated but 

21 there's limited amounts of it. Or it might be in a 

22 form that makes it limited from a dispersibility 

23 standpoint.

24 And that's where this approach comes 

25 into play determining the significant quantities. 
227

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 may well be able to make arguments that none of 

2 those existing facilities as of yet have significant 

3 quantities of long lived waste. 

4 But it depends on their inventories if 

5 you're doing an inventory comparison approach. If 

6 you're doing the next step in the process which is 

7 to try to look at how much do I have that could, 

8 from a screening analysis, contribute to potential 

9 impacts? That requires you to have all the site 

10 specific information that the licensees and the 

11 agreement state regulators in those states would 

12 have.

13 So we don't, I'm not trying to prejudge 

14 how that may turn out. But overall, I would expect 

15 that it is a limited set of circumstances where you 

16 would determine that a site has significant 

17 quantities. That should be the exception and not 

18 the rule.

19 MEMBER CHU: So you expect most of the 

20 three only have to do a 1,000 year performance 

21 assessment?

22 MR. ESH: Right. And the compliance 

23 periods though, so what's put in this regulation, I 

24 would say those are the minimum values that you 

25 should be using. And so, as I indicated earlier, 
228

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 agreement states in almost all cases already use 

2 values that are above what we would say are the 

3 minimum values you should use.

4 So even if the agreement state, say in 

5 Texas, determined I don't have significant 

6 quantities, they are in all likelihood still going 

7 to apply their standard which is usually using 1,000 

8 years or peak dose, whichever is more.

9 MEMBER CHU: Do you expect any of the 

10 four will not be able to comply with the new rule?

11 MR. ESH: Well the demonstration of 

12 compliance with the -- let's step back a second 

13 first. The performance objective in 61.42 and 61.41 

14 have always been there from the promulgation of Part 

15 61. 61.41 has always required an analysis of the 

16 impacts of the waste that you dispose. It's silent 

17 on the compliance period. But it's always required 

18 a technical analysis to demonstrate unique 

19 compliance.

20 61.42 has always required that you 

21 protect the inadvertent intruder. And it says for 

22 all times. So both of those have been in place 

23 since 1982. And they remain in place now. 

24 MEMBER CHU: But there's no 500 

25 millirem?
229

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. ESH: There's no 500 millirem for 

2 the 61.42 performance objective. But the 61.42 

3 performance objective was developed for certain 

4 types of waste. It is was assumed that the waste 

5 were going to be within this certain envelope.

6 So if you took waste that was outside of 

7 that envelope, then what have you done to show that 

8 you've met the 61.42 performance objective? In at 

9 least two of the cases in our agreement states, 

10 they've done the intruder analysis anyway. Or in 

11 three cases are in the process of doing the intruder 

12 analysis. I think only in one case did they not do 

13 the intruder analysis even though they may have 

14 taken waste that was outside the envelope.

15 So how do you handle that situation? 

16 You know, that's where we felt there wasn't a public 

17 health and safety basis to say you should treat them 

18 differently because they didn't do the analysis when 

19 they took waste that was outside the envelope 

20 potentially.

21 MEMBER CHU: You know, the intruder 

22 scenario, my understanding is really the depth of 

23 burial, right?

24 MR. ESH: Right.

25 MEMBER CHU: So suppose one of the four 
230

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 sites have buried some depleted uranium way back 

2 close to the surface. So if you do the scenario of 

3 the intruder analysis, you have to dig up certain, 

4 you know, for your construction scenario. I think 

5 it's probably going to maybe it's going to violate 

6 under millimer.

7 See we're just trying to figure out what 

8 is the next step? What are the remedial actions 

9 available to them? You know, because --

10 MR. ESH: Right. And I understand that. 

11 And so we tried to think of if that situation did 

12 occur, what should somebody do? That is spelled out 

13 in Section 9.5, I believe, of your guidance 

14 document.

15 So we looked at if somebody was in that 

16 situation, what would we want them to do? Well the 

17 last thing you would want somebody to do is to dig 

18 it up. That is the last thing you would want 

19 somebody to do.

20 You would want them to first start with, 

21 do you have conservatisms in your calculation that 

22 you could look at and maybe reduce that would still 

23 allow you to demonstrate that you can meet the 

24 criteria? Because in many cases, these calculations 

25 can have some conservatisms in them because they are 
231

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 model rich and data poor.

2 So one way that people mitigate the 

3 issue of not having much data is they'll choose to 

4 be conservative. And that's appropriate from a 

5 regulatory standpoint. We're okay with people being 

6 conservative if they don't have much information. 

7 It's one way to mitigate that uncertainty or to 

8 mitigate the impact of that lack of information.

9 Secondly then, if you're in a situation 

10 where a facility is having a difficulty in meeting 

11 the criteria, that isn't any different with respect 

12 to this new rulemaking than it would be with an 

13 operating facility without the rulemaking.

14 We have defined approached for people to 

15 look at what they would want to do and what they 

16 could possibly do including cost benefit analyses, 

17 consideration of impact to workers. You know, you 

18 basically go through those analyses and say what is 

19 it could I reasonably expect to do? 

20 And it would depend on well, do you 

21 believe you are going to be way above the standard? 

22 Or are you going to be close to the standard? You 

23 know, it's not unforseen in these waste disposal 

24 systems that what the engineers think whenever the 

25 facility was initially developed turns out to not be 
232

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 true.

2 And a good operator will ensure that 

3 they have proper margin in their facility so they 

4 don't get themselves into that situation. But it 

5 isn't necessarily always the case. And especially 

6 over a long operating timeframe of 30 to 50 years, 

7 you know, our understanding of how all these things 

8 work could change significantly in some areas. And 

9 those impacts may be significant to what was done 30 

10 or 50 years prior.

11 So that's kind of in a general sense 

12 what we would expect to happen. You'd have to look 

13 at the Section 9.5 of the guidance that walks 

14 through what we would want people to consider if 

15 they're in that situation.

16 MS. YADAV: Just a quick correction 

17 Dave, it's actually 9.3. It's called mitigation.

18 MR. ESH: Oh sorry.

19 MS. YADAV: I just see Dr. Chu writing 

20 it down. It's 9.3.

21 MR. ESH: Thank you.

22 MS. YADAV: Dave is just saying 9.5. 

23 It's actually Section 9.3. 

24 MR. ESH: Too much to remember. Do we 

25 want to talk about this further or move on? All 
233

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 right. Next slide please.

2 The performance assessment, here's the 

3 definition that we have. We feel it's pretty 

4 consistent with our definition in high level waste 

5 because performance assessment is not different from 

6 one to the other. It's an analysis technique that 

7 you're using. You're developing the scope of the 

8 analysis. You're trying to evaluate potential 

9 radiological doses to make a regulatory decision. 

10 And you want people to consider uncertainties in the 

11 analysis.

12 Now it is important to consider that 

13 the, we want evaluation of realism if possible. But 

14 as I just talked about, in some cases people may 

15 elect to use some conservatism. But there is kind 

16 of a misconception that the regulator wants 

17 everything to be conservative and be overly 

18 conservative. 

19 We don't want that at all. If you can 

20 come in with a great scientifically justifiable 

21 analysis supported by a lot of information, that's 

22 what we would want to see. 

23 But what you run into is that, in many 

24 cases the information supporting the performance 

25 assessment is sparse. There may be limited support 
234

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 some of the models or conceptual models. 

2 In those cases then, people may elect to 

3 use conservatism. But that can be difficult to do 

4 in a complex model. So we don't even really like 

5 that. If possible, we really want to see people 

6 have adequate information if at all possible. Next 

7 slide please.

8 Here's a picture of what performance 

9 assessment is in more generic terms. Performance 

10 assessment is not a new topic. This is a renaming 

11 of technical analysis in the existing regulation.

12 And we do have some new requirements 

13 under 61.13 related to scope, uncertainty, and model 

14 support. But those things, we believe, are also 

15 implicit that are now made explicit. Those are 

16 parts of any modern performance assessment. And if 

17 I was reviewing a performance assessment and they 

18 didn't do well on those items, I would reject it.

19 So those requirements should not be 

20 onerous to meet considering it is part of what is 

21 done in the performance assessment process. There 

22 is a requirement to update the performance 

23 assessment at closure. And we did modify the siting 

24 characteristics to be consistent with the disposal 

25 of long lived waste.
235

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 to give an example, in 61.50 

2 there's requirements associated hydrologic 

3 performance of the site such as the site cannot be 

4 located in 100 year flood plain. Well if you're 

5 looking at a 10,000 year analysis, how difficult 

6 would that be to justify that the site is never 

7 going to be in a 100 year flood plain? That might 

8 be onerous.

9 And so, what we've done is those 

10 requirements associated with hydrologic 

11 characteristics, they are required to either be 

12 present or absent for the first 500 years. Because 

13 we thought that was practical that somebody could 

14 demonstrate it.

15 But after 500 years then, you get to use 

16 a more risk informed performance based approach of 

17 how do those things, if they are present, impact the 

18 performance objective? So we thought that was a 

19 reasonable way to handle these siting 

20 characteristics that are part of the existing 

21 regulation.

22 The little figure at the bottom there, 

23 the performance assessment is not different than 

24 many other technical analyses. You start with data, 

25 you develop a conceptual model. That gets converted 
236

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 into a numerical model. And then you can calculate 

2 some results and you iterate, if possible, until you 

3 demonstrate that you meet the criteria. 

4 It is very much a learning process 

5 though. It's about understanding what's going on 

6 with your site. Next slide please.

7 So why would you do site specific 

8 analyses instead of just NRC doing an analysis and 

9 developing something similar to the waste 

10 classification tables? Well here's a good example 

11 why.

12 On the left are retardation coefficients 

13 assumed in the technical analysis under which 10 CFR 

14 Part 61 was developed. And it gives you an idea, 

15 they were trying to assess different sites. They 

16 being NRC, being me of course.

17 And they selected point values, 

18 deterministic point values to do the analysis. Well 

19 on the right here are some data from this Sheppard 

20 and Thibault reference which was a general 

21 compendium of distribution coefficients developed 

22 for different soil types.

23 And what you is, say, look at the 

24 uranium value. The minimum is two mil and the 

25 maximum is 21,000 geometric mean. The GM there is 
237

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 70. That's quite a bit of variance compared to even 

2 the variance that was considered in the basic 

3 analysis.

4 Now this could have a big impact for a 

5 particular analysis. If the retardation or the 

6 distribution coefficient is two, the uranium might 

7 be mobile enough to basically get to the receptor in 

8 a, you know, reasonably short period of time. 

9 Whereas if it's 21,000, it might not get there in 

10 hundreds of thousands of years depending on the site 

11 hydrology.

12 So from a regulator standpoint, if we're 

13 trying to develop criteria, what do we choose here 

14 to do our analysis? Do we choose 2 or do we choose 

15 21,000 or do we choose 70? Do we choose the whole 

16 range? 

17 You know, you basically get this very 

18 complicated result that you have to try to distill 

19 down into a single point. And I think it's not 

20 being fair to the reality of the problem which is 

21 many of these things are highly variable and site 

22 specific. Next slide please.

23 The performance assessment guidance, 

24 these figures are from it. It's to communicate 

25 basically what a performance assessment is all 
238

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 about. You start with a real system, the pictures 

2 on the left at the top.

3 And then you develop a conceptual model 

4 of your site including maybe conceptual models of 

5 individual components. So the performance 

6 assessment is really models within a model. It's a 

7 whole combination of different models that feed 

8 together to produce a common result.

9 One thing that we do stress though is 

10 that in many cases licensees may use abstracted 

11 hydrologic models and abstracted models in general. 

12 This is a simplification of a more complex model 

13 that you may be able to justify adequately 

14 represents your system that you can use to estimate 

15 performance.

16 So a performance assessment has lots of 

17 both depth and breadth. But it also depends on the 

18 complexity of your problem, what you should be doing 

19 with your performance assessment.

20 And the regulators need appropriate 

21 expertise to review these things. They can be 

22 pretty large and in some cases pretty complicated. 

23 So if something came to NRC, I believe 

24 we definitely have expertise among all the great 

25 people I work with. And the agreement states, I 
239

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 believe they also have expertise. But in some cases 

2 they may be more limited. Because they can't just 

3 have staff sitting around waiting for performance 

4 assessments to come in and then periodically working 

5 on them.

6 So in those cases, they may have to hire 

7 contractors. Or they also are available to work 

8 with the NRC. We do technical assistance requests 

9 to provide support to our agreement states. Next 

10 slide please.

11 Okay. Now onto radon finally. So this 

12 was a question at the end of the subcommittee 

13 meeting. Or a comment that was made, what are you 

14 doing with radon and why?

15 The Department of Energy stated that 

16 they felt radon, we should be using a flux limit for 

17 radon. And they are accurate indicating that some 

18 regulations do have radon flux limits.

19 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: What is a flux 

20 limit?

21 MR. ESH: 20 picocuries per meter 

22 squared seconds. So amount per unit area per unit 

23 time. So some regulations specify a flux limit. 

24 Others specify include it in the dose calculation.

25 EPA under 40 CFR 61 has a whole bunch of 
240

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 cases for radon. Some of them listed here 

2 at the top for DOE, for phosphogypsym stacks, 

3 uranium mill tailings disposal, they apply a radon 

4 flux limit.

5 In other cases within 40 CFR 61, they 

6 say include the radon as part of the public doses at 

7 10 millirem per year. The examples given here are 

8 for uranium mines and non NRC federal facilities.

9 So what would say with respect to radon 

10 is we really can't in this rulemaking resolve the 

11 different treatments of radon that's done in 

12 different regulatory environments.

13 But what we can ensure is that what we 

14 do within Part 61 and within the NRC in general is 

15 internally consistent. So that's on the next slide.

16 So currently in Part 61, only limited 

17 amounts or small quantities of uranium were 

18 considered. And therefore, uranium was not an issue 

19 and there was no comment on the issue.

20 When this issue came up about disposing 

21 of potentially large quantities of depleted uranium 

22 or other uranium bearing waste, the existing 

23 guidance that was put forth in the year 2000 was to 

24 include radon in the dose assessment. There wasn't 

25 a reason to not include it in the dose assessment.
241

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 part of the reason for that is under 

2 Part 61 we have two different types of receptors for 

3 the two different performance objectives. You may 

4 have a offsite receptor that's at the site boundary 

5 and that's evaluated under 61.41. And then we have 

6 this intruder, i.e. unexpected accident type 

7 scenario that could be located on the site at some 

8 time in the future.

9 The flux limits that you would apply for 

10 the intruder, for instance if they constructed a 

11 home and had a basement, would be a lot different 

12 than the flux limits that you would want to apply 

13 for somebody at the boundary that's say standing at 

14 the site boundary.

15 So what value would you calculate? And 

16 would you calculate a different value for the 

17 intruder compared to the offsite receptor? And one 

18 would be overly restrictive. The other would be 

19 overly permissive.

20 So there was a practical aspect to 

21 applying a flux limit within 10 CFR Part 61. In 

22 addition to that, our public dose limit under 10 CFR 

23 Part 13.01 includes all pathways and all 

24 radionuclides.

25 So we would have to change 10 CFR Part 
242

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 20 to specify don't include radon in that for a low 

2 level waste facility in some manner. I don't know 

3 how exactly that would work if we were to apply a 

4 flux limit under Part 61.

5 Under 10 CFR Part 40, the offsite 

6 public, you do include radon for the offsite public. 

7 You don't include the -- you include a radon flux 

8 limit for the cover on a mill tailings facility. 

9 Because those facilities have perpetual control. 

10 There's no intruder assessed because the 

11 government is supplying money or it's provided 

12 upfront and the Office of Legacy Management manages 

13 it. They provide continual control to ensure that 

14 you aren't going to have the intruder scenario for 

15 as long as you need to for those types of materials.

16 So it's materially different than this 

17 waste disposal problem with the institutional 

18 control period. And the fund is only established to 

19 achieve the post closure operations and maintenance 

20 and the institutional controls. You don't have a 

21 continual funding mechanism from Congress, for 

22 instance, to do perpetual control at low level waste 

23 sites which you do for the uranium mill tailing 

24 disposal facilities.

25 In addition, 10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E 
243

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 decommissioning under restricted release, we 

2 don't include or we do include radon there for 

3 restricted release. We do not include it for 

4 unrestricted release. 

5 But the commission, in the statement of 

6 considerations, explained that. That's because when 

7 you're unrestricted release, you're looking at 

8 uranium and thorium, radium, and the other materials 

9 that are accessible in the environment. 

10 And so, the criteria that you calculate 

11 to how much you can leave in the environment is 

12 going to be more limiting than what you get from a 

13 release of radon to the environment. And therefore, 

14 you don't need to evaluate radon in 10 CFR Part 20 

15 unrestricted release.

16 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: That last part 

17 I didn't, you said it quickly. Can you say it again 

18 please?

19 MR. ESH: All right. So in 

20 decommissioning, there's two ways you can go in 

21 decommissioning. You can do unrestricted release 

22 which means, you know, you have contamination at a 

23 facility. You know, something that processed rare 

24 earths in the past or a closed reactor or whatever 

25 the situation might be. You have some sort of 
244

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 radioactivity in the environment.

2 And you go in and in decommissioning 

3 space you do a dose assessment to determine how much 

4 of that radioactivity you can leave in the 

5 environment. And we have screening values and new 

6 regs and tables that you can use. 

7 Or you can do a dose calculation. 

8 Basically it's like the calculation that was done 

9 for 10 CFR Part 61, the waste classification tables. 

10 But you're doing it for a contaminated site.

11 So you determine how much you can leave 

12 there. You don't need to include radon there 

13 because that material is in the environment and it 

14 gets represented in the dose calculation in the 

15 ingestion of soil and the growing of plants and the 

16 ingestion of water and all the other pathways that 

17 you do in the calculation.

18 Those concentrations, because of the 

19 dose conversion factors that you need to limit the 

20 uranium and radium and thorium and all those things 

21 to in the unrestricted release calculation, are 

22 effectively limiting enough that you don't need to 

23 include the radon that you can get from those 

24 materials. So that's the general logic of why you 

25 don't include radon in unrestricted release.
245

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 restricted release you may have 

2 situations where that activity that's in the 

3 environment is not readily accessible to the 

4 receptors that are potentially there. And you 

5 provide perpetual controls to if they do get on the 

6 site.

7 So in that case, you can have a 

8 situation where the quantities of the uranium, 

9 thorium, radium, et cetera, that you're going to 

10 leave at the site might be much larger than under 

11 the unrestricted release calculation. 

12 And therefore, the consideration of 

13 radon is more important and can be more significant. 

14 So that's why it's done differently in those two 

15 parts of 10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E. Chris, do you 

16 have anything to add on that?

17 MR. MCKENNEY: The only other thing from 

18 the commission was was the high uncertainties for 

19 trying to figure out what type of buildings and 

20 other things that would multiply the radon dose. 

21 What way would be so speculative for the small 

22 amount of dose that you would be allowed when you're 

23 talking about a small fraction of the 25 millirem 

24 when you account for the fact of how much of the 

25 uranium and radium and everything else would be in 
246

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 unrestricted case. 

2 All those things would be -- since you 

3 were already limiting it by the radium and the 

4 uranium and thorium, that it was not necessary to 

5 calculate the radon dose in that case.

6 MR. ESH: So in summary, radon is a 

7 complicated picture here obviously when you look at 

8 all of this. So to make this approach of including 

9 it in the dose assessment is most straightforward. 

10 It shouldn't apply for most of our low level waste 

11 facilities if they aren't taking the significant 

12 quantities of the uranium bearing waste.

13 And also, it's really not a large 

14 consideration at a humid site. Because at the humid 

15 site, the radon and it's daughter products have 

16 short half lives. But they don't make it out of the 

17 system when the site is humid. The transport rate 

18 is strongly influenced by the saturation state of 

19 the system.

20 In arid sites the radon can transport 

21 much more readily through the subsurface. And it 

22 gets out into the, either the home or the 

23 environment much more easily.

24 MEMBER REMPE: So coming from a place 

25 where we used to worry about high radon days because 
247

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 would get on your polyester clothes.

2 MR. ESH: Couldn't get out of the 

3 facility sometimes if you wear a wool coat.

4 MEMBER REMPE: But I just am wondering 

5 are you missing something because it's more 

6 appropriate to do a flux limit because of the 

7 characteristics of the radon? I understand your 

8 consistency argument. And it would be difficult to 

9 do this. 

10 This is more a theory question. But is 

11 that why the EPA went that way on some of their 

12 requirements, is that they thought it was a more 

13 suitable way of characterizing it or anything?

14 MR. ESH: I don't know the rationale for 

15 why EPA chose to do it certain ways for some types 

16 of situations and the other way for other types of 

17 situations. But I'm sure they had a rationale for 

18 it. 

19 Just like the NRC picture may look a bit 

20 muddied. But when you actually dig into it, I don't 

21 think it is all that muddied. I think it's fairly 

22 consistent what they're trying to achieve.

23 In situations where like, say in the 

24 uranium mill tailings where you have a mechanism to 

25 ensure perpetual control and limit access to the 
248

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 material, then a flux limit is appropriate. 

2 But you're still including radon at the site 

3 boundary of those facilities in the dose assessment. 

4 That makes sense to me. Why wouldn't you do that?

5 In the situation for the waste disposal 

6 facility, you are taking a disposal action. Now one 

7 of the challenges is that, of course, radon is 

8 ubiquitous in our environments and in our homes and 

9 everything else.

10 So you'd say well, are you providing a 

11 requirement that's much more stringent for the radon 

12 from waste than you would for radon from natural? 

13 And I don't think that is the case because for the 

14 onsite receptor, we are using a 500 millirem dose 

15 limit for the intruder receptor.

16 And the average person gets about 250 

17 millirem from radon in their home. Now that can 

18 vary widely depending on how much radon they have in 

19 their home. The variance in radon concentrations 

20 can be like 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. So the 

21 average person gets about 250 millirem. But there 

22 are rare circumstances where people can get much 

23 more nationwide.

24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Does that include the 

25 places that make you vent your basements if you have 
249

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? Seriously, I just sold a house in Virginia last 

2 year. And they measure that stuff. And if it's a 

3 little high, then you've got to put a fan system in 

4 and pump it out.

5 MR. ESH: And that's very locality 

6 specific. So EPA have guidelines if you're above 

7 four picocuries per liter in your home, then you 

8 should install a system. But it's not a 

9 requirement.

10 And that makes sense because depending 

11 on the estimates that you see, it's somewhere 

12 between 6 and 15 percent of the homes are above four 

13 picocuries per liter. So what's the dollar value of 

14 that if you're requiring 6 to 15 percent of the 

15 homes to install a radon mitigation system? That's 

16 an enormous amount of money.

17 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: You're 

18 switching units on me. So what's that dose 4 to 6 

19 picocuries --

20 MR. ESH: Four picocuries per liter, so 

21 I think it's about on the order of 4 to 800 millirem 

22 is around that.

23 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Per year?

24 MR. ESH: Per year. Right, if you live 

25 in that concentration. That's the point, if you 
250

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 live in that concentration. And the flux in the 

2 natural environment is around 1 to 2 picocuries per 

3 meter squared seconds. 

4 So if you have a 20 picocuries per meter 

5 squared seconds, that's about ten times the value 

6 that you expect from natural sources. What does 

7 that mean for a dose calculation and a dose 

8 assessment? It would depend on the specific 

9 circumstance and the receptors and everything.

10 But it would be, in my opinion, quite a 

11 bit larger than what you see from natural impacts.

12 MEMBER CHU: But David, isn't this what 

13 DOE's concern was last time when they came to the 

14 public comment?

15 MR. ESH: Well their concern is that you 

16 should be using the flux limit. But what I'm saying 

17 --

18 MEMBER CHU: But I think their point was 

19 you include the radon in your dose. And then 

20 because depleted uranium you're going to have quite 

21 a bit of radon coming off. So make the 25 millirem 

22 very restrictive because a lot of it's going to be 

23 taken up by radon.

24 MR. ESH: Okay. So this topic we didn't 

25 hear from pretty much any other stakeholders on. It
251

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 was only DOE and DOE employees that made this 

2 comment about the radon. So it was a limited set of 

3 commenters.

4 But if I understand their point is they 

5 believe that you should be using a flux limit for 

6 the evaluation of radon in these disposal 

7 facilities. You should not be including it in the 

8 dose assessment.

9 The flux limit, I would say, creates 

10 challenges with these different receptors, number 

11 one, in the low level waste analysis. And it's a 

12 lot more permissive than if you include it with the 

13 dose assessment. So if you took it to its end, you 

14 take that flux and actually convert that flux into a 

15 dose for your receptor scenarios, it ends up in 

16 doses that would be a lot more than the current 

17 performance objectives.

18 You know, I think it's going to apply in 

19 limited circumstances under Part 61. And the fact 

20 that you have this intruder performance objective 

21 which is quite a bit larger than the public dose 

22 limit -- I mean, if you're getting 25 millirem 

23 offsite from radon from a disposal facility, you 

24 probably have something pretty bad going on with 

25 your disposal facility. That should be a difficult 
252

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 number to generate.

2 Now whether you could generate 500 

3 millirem onsite -- the big thing with depleted 

4 uranium or uranium bearing waste, the solution to 

5 mitigating radon is very simple, depth. You only 

6 have to increase the depth. And it's a very non7 linear function of depth what the radon flux rate 

8 is. 

9 You can look at our reg guide 3.64 which 

10 is used to develop covers for uranium mill tailings. 

11 And you can look at that and see how strong that 

12 non-linear relationship with depth and also moisture 

13 is for the radon flux rate.

14 So I understand there's some concern 

15 from DOE's standpoint about including it. But the 

16 engineering solution to mitigate that concern is so 

17 simple. I mean, why would you not do that?

18 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: So radon has a four 

19 day half life. So roughly how many meters of earth 

20 do you need to have a four day delay?

21 MR. ESH: So for wet material it might 

22 be on the order of inches to feet. For dry material 

23 you could be talking five meters, ten meters, et 

24 cetera.

25 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: It's not 1,000 
253

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 meters? We're talking five meters?

2 MR. ESH: Right. You're talking like --

3 for the concentrated depleted uranium, if you get 20 

4 meters of desert soil, it basically takes the radon 

5 away.

6 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: There is more than 

7 12 days of delay?

8 MR. ESH: Right. It's a complicated 

9 phenomenon because it is affected by discrete 

10 pathways just like it is in your home. You know, 

11 you have joints around your sump pump or, you know, 

12 other fractures in your concrete or all that sort of 

13 thing. That's where it comes in through mostly.

14 The diffusion rate through concrete and 

15 those sorts of things is generally so slow that not 

16 a lot makes it through those types of materials. 

17 Yes, you can seal materials if you needed to. Next 

18 slide please.

19 So inadvertent intruder assessment is 

20 similar to the performance assessment. This first 

21 item except receptor scenarios, I don't think that's 

22 particularly correct. I was reducing some materials 

23 in the slides. And that's not accurate because you 

24 do consider receptor scenarios in the performance 

25 assessment as well as the intruder assessment.
254

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 differences come on that the 

2 inadvertent intruder is somebody that unknowingly 

3 accesses the site and engages in normal or 

4 reasonably foreseeable activities. And so it's an 

5 onsite exposure.

6 We use a 500 millirem or would use a 500 

7 millirem dose limit if the proposed final rule goes 

8 forward. It's precluded during the institutional 

9 control period of up to 100 years.

10 So this is not an anticipated scenario. 

11 It is more of an accidental occurrence. And I think 

12 David Coker put it well in one of our early meetings 

13 that the inadvertent intruder assessment can be 

14 viewed as a form of defense in depth. 

15 And where he was going with that was, 

16 and I agree with it, is that the inadvertent 

17 intruder assessment provides some restrictions on 

18 the type of material that you can put in your 

19 facility.

20 Now as I talked about earlier, it may be 

21 less restrictive than your 61.41 calculations 

22 depending on your site. It also may be more 

23 restrictive. But it is another part of the 

24 calculation to ensuring what you're putting in the 

25 near surface is appropriate.
255

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 61.42 performance objective requires 

2 assessment now instead of just relying on the 

3 tables. The tables were based on assumptions about 

4 particular types of waste that may and in fact are 

5 no longer valid. And the tables also, I would 

6 argue, are not site specific and they are not risk 

7 informed.

8 So the tables had to use particular 

9 point estimates for particular sites. And so, they 

10 may have used parameters appropriate for a humid 

11 site to do the analyses when then you're applying 

12 those tables in an arid site. And those changes to 

13 the data and the calculations can have a big impact.

14 Now this issue about the tables and the 

15 analysis and what we're requiring, it's not a new 

16 issue. It was documented earlier in NRC documents 

17 especially in NUREG-1573, our guidance on 

18 performance assessments for low level waste. 

19 There's a footnote 7 in there that describes this 

20 issue.

21 So you know, if somebody has this issue, 

22 they've had 16 years to take some action on. And it 

23 shouldn't be that NRC's rulemaking now is causing a 

24 problem for them.

25 MEMBER POWERS: When I look at this 
256

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 issue, I come along and I say this is equivalent of 

2 an accident. You get an intruder in there. And you 

3 have a half millirem dose limit on this. So 

4 I'd say what's the rate? Well we assume there's an 

5 intruder over 1,000 years so it's like 10-3 per year. 

6 So I come up with an expected dose of half a 

7 millirem. 

8 If I look at 10CFR Part 100 and I say 

9 here I have an accident. I have a dose limit of 25 

10 rem at the site boundary. And what are accidents 

11 that would release something to the site boundary is 

12 like 10-4 per year. So I come up with an expected 

13 dose of 2-1/2 millirem. 

14 In other words, five times higher than 

15 what you've selected here. I don't understand why 

16 are those aren't consistent.

17 MR. ESH: Right. I think there's a 

18 conceptual issue that maybe I need to explain here. 

19 The inadvertent intruder is not expected but can't 

20 be eliminated with all certainty.

21 MEMBER POWERS: You don't expect severe 

22 accidents either.

23 MR. ESH: Right. But the fact that you 

24 analyze an intruder for say 1,000 years or 10,000 

25 years doesn't mean that the probability of the 
257

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 intrusion happening is 1e-3 or 1e-4. 

2 What it's saying is the integrated 

3 probability over that timeframe of an intrusion 

4 occurring is, in this case because you're using 500 

5 millirem and our dose limit for the offsite receptor 

6 is 25, it's saying that probability is around five 

7 percent, that integrated probability of an intrusion 

8 occurring over these long timeframes.

9 MEMBER POWERS: My analysis assumes it's 

10 one.

11 MR. ESH: Assumes it's one? Right. 

12 Okay.

13 MEMBER POWERS: Yes. Because I mean, 

14 you have to take care of the -- so you're sure that 

15 it's going to occur once in a thousand years. 

16 Sounds very plausible.

17 MR. ESH: I understand.

18 MEMBER POWERS: But once I stipulate 

19 that intruders can occur, having once in a thousand 

20 years does not seem to be an unwarranted assumption.

21 MR. ESH: So I think the difference is 

22 that the protection standard for the inadvertent 

23 intruder is the annual 500 millirem in a year to an 

24 individual. And so that individual in that 

25 particular year for the inadvertent intrusion does 
258

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 have a 1e-3 frequency associated with it.

2 You're not weighting the dose calculated 

3 by a frequency of occurrence in this type of 

4 evaluation.

5 MEMBER POWERS: You almost reproduced my 

6 point. There doesn't seem to be a consistency here.

7 MR. MCKENNEY: One other thing they have 

8 different between like, for active facilities and a 

9 passive facility for a long term waste disposal 

10 facility is the fact that in waste disposal for 

11 like, the purpose of an inadvertent intrusion 

12 calculation is the fact that the reason you have an 

13 upper threshold is the fact that you don't want 

14 incidents to occur that would require active 

15 measures to have to take place.

16 Because you're assuming that, one of the 

17 assumptions is that you cannot rely on the fact that 

18 radiation protection authorities are aware of the 

19 site at the time and are aware of the incident 

20 occurring to be able to take the measures that are 

21 prudent to reduce the doses.

22 So therefore, you may not be willing to 

23 have as high of individual exposures that you would 

24 be potentially to be calculated under what we would 

25 be under an active situation where you can also rely 
259

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 active measures to also be put into place to 

2 reduce those controls.

3 MEMBER POWERS: But haven't you already 

4 taken that into account to get to your assumption 

5 that there will be an inadvertent intruder? Haven't 

6 you already counted for that?

7 MR. MCKENNEY: What?

8 MEMBER POWERS: That the authorities are 

9 not aware that this is here.

10 MR. MCKENNEY: Right. But that's also 

11 why I don't want to have a five rem dose. I don't 

12 want to put a five rem dose out there, put a 

13 concentration out in space.

14 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Can you say 

15 what you said again? I didn't understand. What did 

16 you mean? What kind of dose?

17 MR. MCKENNEY: A five rem dose.

18 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Oh, five rem.

19 MR. MCKENNEY: So if you're saying that 

20 I'm too low of a dose compared to 100 is the fact 

21 that if I raise my dose limit here to be 

22 corresponding, then that would become, that I'd be 

23 allowing a much higher individual dose limit to 

24 somebody when I don't have any radiation protection 

25 controls to have active measures come in and 
260

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 actually reduce those controls.

2 Whereas when we have an active facility, 

3 those people can come in and we can take protective 

4 measures.

5 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: But if I just 

6 use your analogy then, we don't require any 

7 protective measures or any sort of protective action 

8 until two rem. So wouldn't two rem, at the very 

9 least, be an appropriate consistent value?

10 MR. MCKENNEY: In international space, 

11 yes. There's international guidance, there has been 

12 discussions between 500 and 2 rem as being the 

13 possibilities of making selections in that type of 

14 field.

15 MR. ESH: So if we could go to the next 

16 slide please. So the dose limit of 500 millirem or 

17 5 millisieverts, it's higher than 10 CFR Part 41 and 

18 it's higher than the NRC public dose limit.

19 But as you're getting at there, well why 

20 isn't it 2 rem? 500 millirem is what was used to 

21 develop the waste classification tables in Part 61. 

22 So if you set the intruder dose limit at something 

23 higher, say for other isotopes, you're regulating 

24 some isotopes to 500 millirem and you're regulating 

25 some of them to 2 rem.
261

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 you'd have to redo the waste 

2 classification tables to make it consistent, in my 

3 opinion. And we had asked the commission if they 

4 wanted us to redo the waste classification system 

5 early in this rulemaking process. And they said no, 

6 don't redo the waste classification system. Delay 

7 that until after this rulemaking is done and then 

8 we'll consider it. 

9 But that doesn't mean they're going to 

10 do it. They're just going to consider it at that 

11 time whether it makes sense to redo the waste 

12 classification system.

13 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: But just so 

14 that I'm clear, without taking any protective action 

15 2 rem would seem consistent with what would happen 

16 in a reactor facility.

17 MR. ESH: Yes.

18 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: For example.

19 MR. MCKENNEY: Yes. That is much more 

20 consistent with the upper bound of that of that 

21 range, yes.

22 MR. ESH: I don't know which came first. 

23 You know, but the 500 millirem was not pulled out of 

24 the air. It was evaluated when the initial 

25 rulemaking in the early 1980's was completed. And 
262

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 a series of public meetings where they 

2 talked about institutional control periods and dose 

3 limits and all these sorts of things. And that was 

4 the output of that rulemaking process. 

5 So I'm just giving you some color of 

6 where it comes from. It doesn't answer your 

7 question about well should it be 2 or should it be 

8 500. But I'm explaining why it is the 500.

9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Dave, can I ask a 

10 variant on these questions? Is this going to wind 

11 up being for the four sites that exist? The 

12 dominant, or the most costly is a different way to 

13 put it, part of this rule set.

14 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: I asked that 

15 in a similar way earlier.

16 MR. ESH: So technically limiting from a 

17 meeting the criteria standpoint is different than 

18 how much it costs, for instance. So the intruder 

19 calculations from a cost and effort standpoint are 

20 way less resources than the performance assessment 

21 calculations for 61.41.

22 For 61.41 they are in many cases 

23 complicated combinations of models with hydrology 

24 and geochemistry and everything else going on. The 

25 intruder calculations are very stylized calculations 
263

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 you can do in a spreadsheet almost.

2 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I didn't care how much 

3 effort went into the calculation. I was more 

4 interested in what happens when you actually design 

5 and build the repository, excuse me, the waste site. 

6 Does that become a dominant concern in closing the 

7 site, for example?

8 MR. ESH: And that's what I attempted to 

9 answer earlier is that it depends on the site and 

10 the waste whether 61.41 is going to cause you 

11 greater restrictions or whether 61.42 is going to 

12 cause you greater restrictions. 

13 It also depends on the isotopes. So 

14 maybe plutonium is going to be limited by your 

15 intruder calculation because it's very immobile in 

16 the environment. And so, it doesn't cause risk 

17 impacts from 61.41 type calculations. But it will 

18 in the intruder calculations.

19 So it'll even be isotope and element 

20 specific which one is more limiting for which 

21 performance objective.

22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: But generally you're 

23 not expecting large plutonium disposal in these 

24 kinds of sites, I would guess. So of the more 

25 common components of waste that are being put in 
264

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 these sites --

2 MR. ESH: So if you look at the --

3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Is intruder analysis 

4 going to be a bigger factor in the design and 

5 construction and hence cost than the other?

6 MR. ESH: Yes. For many of the isotopes 

7 that are causing dose in the performance 

8 assessments, there are greater restrictions 

9 associated with 61.41 than there are with 61.42. 

10 And you can see that in the tables that are in the 

11 guidance document. 

12 The concentrations that are in the 

13 tables with respect to 61.42 are much higher than 

14 what you would need from a generic standpoint to say 

15 things are going to be okay from a 61.41 standpoint.

16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So here's a different 

17 take on this. To the extent that this inadvertent 

18 intruder part of the new rule would dominate things, 

19 is it practical to consider marking the site 

20 accordingly? 

21 I think pragmatically that's what the 

22 states will do anyway. And it's not impractical in 

23 engineering terms to mark something for 1,000 years. 

24 We have pyramids that are much older than that. I'm 

25 not suggesting building a pyramid on top of the 
265

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.

2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Of course we've had 

3 towns disappear in 300 or 400 years as well.

4 MR. ESH: So we have some material in 

5 the guidance document associated with markers. And 

6 yes, markers are required under Part 61 to have at a 

7 facility.

8 The issue becomes the long term 

9 durability or effectiveness of those markers. And 

10 there was an interesting example from, I think it 

11 was a site in the southwest that they did maybe a 

12 small weapons test. It's in the guidance document.

13 But they put a marker up to provide 

14 people information about the location of this. And 

15 that marker has moved a number of meters over the 

16 years because cows use it as a scratching post. So 

17 there are other examples of these markers that --

18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: For the record, I was 

19 considering much more substantial structure. As a 

20 hiker I can tell you that usually the geodetic 

21 survey markers on mountain tops disappear on a 

22 regular basis.

23 MR. ESH: And that's the other issue, is 

24 theft, vandalism, all the other things that 

25 teenagers and some other people like to do. That 
266

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 comes into play when you're dealing with markers. 

2 And there have been studies of markers 

3 of, you know, how do you develop them to make them 

4 durable and not attractive and warn people, what 

5 languages you use, symbols, all those sorts of 

6 things.

7 So that is a consideration. But the 

8 effectiveness of the markers to deter an intrusion 

9 event is limited over long periods of time. We just 

10 don't have the experience base for it totally.

11 Now we did look at land disturbance 

12 values in trying to evaluate is it reasonable to use 

13 a 500 millirem dose with its effective implied 

14 probability of there's going to be a five percent 

15 chance that the intruder accesses the material at 

16 any time over the compliance period.

17 So this was done with GIS. We looked at 

18 the disturbances in the U.S. And we got roughly 2-

19 1/2 percent of the land area has been disturbed to a 

20 depth greater than one meter over the course, I 

21 believe it was over the last ten years. Roughly one 

22 percent of the land area has been disturbed greater 

23 than three meters over the last ten years.

24 So what you're talking about is 

25 integrating those sorts of numbers over 1,000 years 
267

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 or over 10,000 years. The other thing you can look 

2 at is, say, drilling in Texas for instance. Well 

3 200 years ago the number of oil wells drilled in 

4 Texas was zero. In 1860 it was one. Today there's 

5 like about 190,000 wells in Texas. And over the 

6 course of the history of Texas there's been about 

7 1.5 million oil wells drilled in Texas.

8 If you take the area of Texas and 

9 compare it to the area of its disposal facility and 

10 the number of wells that have been drilled, you end 

11 up with roughly a two percent chance that a well 

12 would be put through the disposal facility. 

13 And that's based on history to date. If 

14 population increases and energy usage increases, the 

15 frequency of well drilling is going to increase. 

16 That probability would go up. And you're talking 

17 about integrating it over a much longer period of 

18 time.

19 So you know, five percent 500 millirem 

20 dose limit, I think is a fairly reasonable number 

21 considering what you're dealing with. You are 

22 talking about something that is really difficult to 

23 quantify. And you really shouldn't go beyond like 

24 this sort of level of analysis with it, in my 

25 opinion.
268

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 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Could I ask a 

2 question just for my understanding? To have a dose 

3 limit like that for an intruder, is there some 

4 assumption about the length of time that the 

5 intruder is there?

6 MR. ESH: So in NRC space, we look at it 

7 as an accident, an unexpected scenario albeit an 

8 accident. But if it occurs past the institutional 

9 control periods, so 100 years from now, there's no 

10 limitation on the time it's going to happen. 

11 Because there's nobody there, besides 

12 their knowledge of that they might dig into 

13 something metal and say I found some metal here or I 

14 hit a waste container, there's not going to be an 

15 entity to come and tell them you've made this 

16 mistake.

17 VICE CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So they start 

18 living there?

19 MR. ESH: They could potentially live 

20 there. But that's part of the inadvertent intruder 

21 --

22 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Is that a permanent 

23 dose limit? Or is that a limit per year?

24 MR. ESH: It's an annual dose limit, 

25 yes.
269

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 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: And so the 

2 assumption is the intruder lives there?

3 MR. ESH: They could potentially. If we 

4 go to the next slide, we look at normal activity 

5 such as dwelling construction, agricultural, 

6 drilling for water. There may be locations where 

7 those things are not reasonable.

8 You know, one of the existing sites is 

9 in a very remote location. The water is not 

10 potable. You generally can't use it even for 

11 agriculture. So the intruder scenarios that you 

12 would look at in that site might be quite different 

13 than the ones you would look at generically.

14 And that's why in this proposed rule you 

15 can consider reasonably foreseeable activities 

16 consistent with the activities in the vicinity of 

17 the site when the assessment is developed.

18 So you can bring in more realism to what 

19 you think are the intruder scenarios. I just 

20 caution people as I think that's a slippery slope. 

21 Because any time you've dealt with stakeholders, 

22 they can be very imaginative and come up scenarios 

23 that maybe you don't envision but that they think 

24 are very reasonable. And give basis like my uncle 

25 does that, you know, he lives close to there and 
270

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's what he does. So you're telling me that's 

2 impossible?

3 So you've got to be careful of dealing 

4 with receptors. Sorry, go ahead. He's okay. So 

5 next slide please.

6 So what do these activities look like? 

7 Well this is the agriculture, dwelling construction, 

8 and drilling for water. Those are the types of 

9 scenarios that were looked at when the regulation 

10 was developed.

11 And we still think if you want to be 

12 reasonably conservative or more than reasonably 

13 conservative and not deal with speculation about the 

14 receptor scenarios, then this is probably the way to 

15 go. If you can demonstrate you can meet the 

16 criteria using these sorts of scenarios, then why 

17 would you try to use other scenarios? That seems 

18 like you're asking for punishment that you don't 

19 want to receive. Next slide please.

20 So we do have the guidance on site 

21 specific scenarios. This was developed by Chris 

22 Grossman. It's in Chapter 4 of our guidance 

23 document. 

24 We do believe it's appropriate to 

25 constrain exposure scenarios for the normal or the 
271

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 reasonable foreseeable activities based on 

2 consideration of physical information such as, you 

3 know, the waste is too deep. You can't put a house 

4 foundation into it. Or the water is not potable so 

5 you can eliminate the groundwater pathway.

6 You can also consider cultural 

7 information but that's much softer as we talked 

8 about with the uncertainties and the societal 

9 component. It's more difficult to argue that over 

10 the longer timeframes.

11 MEMBER RAY: Can I interrupt for just a 

12 second? You may this comment about not potable a 

13 couple of times. I just have to observe that we 

14 just recently went through an operating license 

15 review in which it used deep well injection for 

16 liquid radwaste.

17 And in that case the staff did assume 

18 drilling inadvertent intrusion into non-potable 

19 water. So it seems a little inconsistent here to 

20 say you don't need to consider here and we did 

21 consider it there. I don't have any other comment 

22 than that. We did consider it in that case.

23 MR. ESH: I mean, that's a good comment. 

24 And I don't want to confuse you. Here I'm talking 

25 about, say, elimination of the drinking water 
272

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 pathway because the water is not potable. But not 

2 the fact that somebody might try to drill.

3 So somebody might still try to drill and 

4 get impacted from the drill cuttings and everything 

5 that goes in the drilling scenario. But if the 

6 water is not potable, then we don't say we're going 

7 to assume they drink it anyway when it's at like, 

8 you know, a couple hundred thousand milligrams per 

9 liter chloride, for instance. So just so we're 

10 clear, that's what I'm talking about here. Next 

11 slide please.

12 So site stability is another component 

13 under the 61.44 performance objective. It is a 

14 cornerstone of disposal according to the regulation. 

15 And that's because a lot of the problems in early 

16 facilities were associated with stability.

17 The site stability is required for the 

18 compliance period but it may be performance based. 

19 So we had this comment from people saying why do you 

20 even have this? And the answer is because of the 

21 problems that were experienced by facilities and 

22 because we also have a requirement that the facility 

23 must be capable of being modeled and analyzed. 

24 That's an existing requirement in the regulation. 

25 In some circumstances, if you have a 
273

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 unstable site, say from a geomorphological 

2 standpoint or otherwise, it may make it prohibitive 

3 to model that facility, for instance.

4 And in those cases, we do see cases 

5 where, you know, engineers can calculate anything. 

6 But does the number mean anything? So engineers I'm 

7 sure, even in the most unstable site, can generate 

8 some numbers.

9 But the agreement state regulator may in 

10 some instances say, fine you calculate that under 

11 these scenarios the doses are going to be very 

12 small. But this is such a speculative uncertain 

13 scenario that I'm still going to say this does not 

14 meet the stability performance objective. And 

15 therefore, is not an action you should take.

16 So that's why it's a stand alone 

17 performance objective. The guidance talks about 

18 design and model based approaches. So there are 

19 models out there, Child and Siberia for instance, 

20 that can be used for these for these long term 

21 geomorphological calculations.

22 And we also, NRC has existing guidance 

23 on using designed based approaches such as used in 

24 uranium mill tailings. I worked with our two 

25 experts that developed that guidance. One of them 
274

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 retired and one is now mostly retired, I would 

2 say, to ask them the question of well you developed 

3 to apply for uranium mill tailings for 200 to a goal 

4 of 1,000 years, how would you extend that to apply 

5 for beyond 1,000 years up to 10,000 years?

6 And so, you start considering the 

7 mineralogy of the rocks a lot more. But in either 

8 of the design based approaches, whether it's for a 

9 shorter timeframe or a longer timeframe, it's still 

10 based on the PMP and the PMF. So the probable 

11 maximum precipitation and the probable maximum 

12 flood.

13 And if you ever have an opportunity in 

14 your life to go see one of those facilities, I 

15 encourage you to do so. They've very impressive, 

16 these facilities and these rock covers that are 

17 designed from them. It's hard to imagine how they 

18 would go anywhere based on looking at them. Next 

19 slide please.

20 This is just some information from the 

21 guidance that we do have that you should consider 

22 the scale of your problem. And that's going to be 

23 determined by primarily your waste. If your waste 

24 is simpler, shorter lived, then you look narrow in, 

25 make sure you don't have subsidence in the facility, 
275

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 sort of thing.

2 If you have longer lived waste, then you 

3 have to consider what's going on around the facility 

4 in addition to maybe what you've done in 

5 geomechanical design of your facility and your 

6 trenches.

7 On the right is kind of the evaluation 

8 process. It's similar to the performance 

9 assessment. It's just tailored to site stability. 

10 And there's a lot of additional information on site 

11 stability provided in our NUREG-2175. That's in 

12 Chapter 5.

13 So waste acceptance requirements are 

14 provided in the regulation. So that was the end of 

15 kind of the technical analyses. It feeds into the 

16 waste acceptance requirements. Or it can feed into 

17 them. 

18 The waste acceptance requirements are 

19 basically how to determine if the actual waste that 

20 you have received is in line with the analyses. And 

21 the three components are the characterization, the 

22 criteria, and the certification. Next slide please.

23 So the waste acceptance criteria have 

24 components such as the allowable limits on 

25 radioactivity, the waste form characteristics, and 
276

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 container specifications and restrictions and 

2 prohibitions.

3 These things are very important to low 

4 level waste disposal and all waste disposal. When 

5 you have problems in these modern facilities, it's 

6 usually associated with something going on 

7 associated with the waste. It's usually not 

8 associated with something going on external to the 

9 facility and external to the waste. Next slide 

10 please.

11 Our waste acceptance approach in this 

12 proposed or draft final regulation has considerable 

13 flexibility to the licensees. Because they can 

14 develop site specific waste acceptance criteria. 

15 They can also use the 61.55 limits that are in the 

16 regulation. Or they can do a combination of both to 

17 develop their waste acceptance criteria.

18 But either way the licensees must 

19 demonstrate that the criteria will demonstrate the 

20 performance objectives are met. Next slide please.

21 NUREG-2175 the guidance document, it 

22 provides a lot of information that we hope is 

23 helpful and can ensure some consistency for all 

24 these activities that are going to be undertaken 

25 within the agreement states.
277

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 tried not to just have all text and 

2 pages and pages of information to put you to sleep. 

3 But it does have a considerable amount of text as 

4 well as other things like flow charts and tables. 

5 It does provide guidelines for what the 

6 licensees or applicants should include. And what 

7 regulators should review for each of the types of 

8 analyses. There are suggested references, screening 

9 tools, and case studies.

10 Priya Yadav who is here and you heard 

11 from earlier, she was our Project Manager on this. 

12 And has hopefully helped us get out a very high 

13 quality document. This document, of course, you 

14 were provided. And it's also available on the link 

15 provided at the bottom of this slide. And I think 

16 that's it.

17 MEMBER CHU: Thank you. We have DOE.

18 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yes. Mr. Tonke from DOE 

19 wanted five minutes. Is he in the room? It's your 

20 turn.

21 MR. TONKE: Thank you. I'm Douglas 

22 Tonke. I'm the Waste Disposal Office Director with 

23 the Department of Energy's Environmental Management 

24 Program.

25 I think most of you are familiar with 
278

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 DOE and we've talked about us today. So I won't go 

2 into what we're about. But we self regulate our low 

3 level waste program. And are doing a lot of 

4 performance assessments and composite analysis.

5 We not only do them for our own 

6 facilities but we have a policy that allows us to 

7 use several of the facilities but that Dr. Esh 

8 showed on the chart, some of the commercial 

9 facilities particularly in Clive and in Texas.

10 We're also touched by the fact that it 

11 went into the one chart we are, NRC reviews for our 

12 high-level waste tank closures and applies the staff 

13 guidance. So this is very applicable to us for 

14 that.

15 So consequently we've had significant 

16 interest. We've provided letters. I appreciate the 

17 committee allowing me to talk at the subcommittee 

18 meeting and a few minutes here, just to continue to 

19 push some of our points.

20 Last week the NAS hosted a low level 

21 waste workshop. I attended it and was frankly 

22 surprised by the amount of discussion there that the 

23 participants had on this particular rule. So 

24 there's a lot of interest out there. And I think 

25 they view it as being a bit complex.
279

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 do appreciate Dr. Esh and the 

2 additional slides he added today to address some of 

3 our comments. And the fact that the full committee, 

4 a lot of the questioning went along the points that 

5 we've been making.

6 I boil it down at this point into sort 

7 of two areas. The first one is the compliance 

8 period. I think I can say that the Department is in 

9 line with the 1,000 year. And we've been in line. 

10 And we've noted that the Commission directed at one 

11 point the 1,000 year compliance period.

12 This committee pointed out about the 

13 significant uncertainties in the performance 

14 analysis beyond that roll in for millenia, et 

15 cetera. 

16 Our folks believe that the time of 

17 compliance should also consider intergenerational 

18 equities and allocation of resources. You know, 

19 these are equal to or just as important as PA 

20 projections. And maximizes the benefits to the 

21 government. Or to future generations from today's 

22 resources.

23 Dr. Esh's chart showed that there are 

24 other programs using the 1,000 year at most 

25 requirements. And we saw those on the chart. Some 
280

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 of the programs that had higher levels in the 10,000 

2 range were siting a pile of OH facilities, et 

3 cetera. 

4 So we appreciated see those. And as he 

5 pointed out, mill tailings are being, the standard 

6 being applied there is 1,000 or at least 200 years.

7 So in light of that, you know, we'd 

8 prefer to see the annual dose limit to 1,000 years. 

9 We do long term performance assessment and 

10 calculations. But we see it going, you know, we do 

11 it long term. But our compliance period is 1,000 

12 years.

13 The other area I'll bring up is radon. 

14 And I think there were excellent questions there 

15 about radon. So I don't think I need to really go 

16 into it. I think our issue is the contribution of 

17 the radon when it's combined into the small factor.

18 We do separate radon calculations 

19 against the flux limits on the side. So it's, you 

20 know, within 25 millirem limit proposed. And out 

21 there a ways it's sort of uncertain at this point 

22 how that will all play out.

23 So to establish more restrictive 

24 limitations in the context of an extended 

25 performance assessment entails significant and 
281

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 irreducible uncertainties that we don't think would 

2 be particularly unwarranted.

3 And likewise, we echo the comments about 

4 the comparison to the, you know, the other agencies 

5 and the indoor air for radon alike.

6 Finally I'll point out that the draft 

7 that DOE -- although we do inadvertent intruder 

8 analysis, we do not apply a dose limit to those. We 

9 appreciate the discussions you had. 

10 One thing to consider is, I think it was 

11 brought by the gentleman about plutonium, the 

12 guidelines are applied to our high level waste tanks 

13 which do have plutonium in them.

14 So I'll stop there. We just had a few 

15 days to look at the guidance. But thank you again 

16 for the opportunity to sort of reiterate our views. 

17 We appreciate it. Thank you.

18 MEMBER CHU: Thank you. Anybody on the 

19 line public?

20 CHAIRMAN BLEY: The way it's working 

21 now, ask for comments from the phone line. And see 

22 if anyone -- does anybody on the phone line care to 

23 make a comment?

24 MS. GRAY: This is Erica Gray from 

25 Richmond, Virginia. Can you hear me?
282

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 CHAIRMAN BLEY: We can. Please go 

2 ahead.

3 MS. GRAY: So I guess when you're saying 

4 comments, am I allowed to ask any questions at all?

5 CHAIRMAN BLEY: No. We don't have an 

6 interaction. This is just an information gathering 

7 session for the committee. So we invite people to 

8 make comments, about five minutes if you have that 

9 many. And that's all at this point.

10 MS. GRAY: Okay. So when I do have 

11 questions, who do I ask them to?

12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: You can send questions 

13 to the NRC staff.

14 MS. GRAY: Which staff? The ACRS or 

15 who?

16 CHAIRMAN BLEY: No, the Nuclear 

17 Regulatory Commission staff.

18 MS. GRAY: There's got to be somebody in 

19 particular that's managing that's in oversight of 

20 this particular waste issue. Is there not?

21 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Derek, do you have 

22 anybody we can point this person to?

23 MR. WIDMAYER: Well I would say Gary at 

24 this point in time.

25 MR. COMFORT: Yes, you can send them to 
283

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 me, Gary Comfort. I'm at gary.comfort@nrc.gov. So 

2 G-A-R-Y.C-O-M-F-O-R-T@nrc.gov.

3 MS. GRAY: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN BLEY: And for the ACRS Derek 

5 Widmeyer is our staff lead for this Part 61 work. 

6 So you could address a letter to him too.

7 MS. GRAY: I'm sorry. Who was the 

8 second person?

9 MR. WIDMAYER: It's Derek Widmayer. My 

10 email is derek.widmayer@nrc.gov.

11 MS. GRAY: Okay. Well I guess the one 

12 comment I guess I would have to say that it is 

13 really quite startling to hear about how big this 

14 problem has gotten. And I will obviously have to 

15 write and ask questions.

16 Because you know, this idea of depleted 

17 uranium -- and obviously it looks like it's going to 

18 be classified as low level waste. But it could 

19 actually peak in one or two million years. It'll 

20 actually go past A to a C value as it goes for 

21 waste. So this is going to increase.

22 So it'll very interesting to find out 

23 how, with just these four sites, these four 

24 agreement states have agreed to take on something 

25 like 100 million tons and counting. If I understood 
284

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 correctly, that was only counting for the depleted 

2 uranium.

3 So I'd be very curious to find out, you 

4 know, how much low level waste we've already 

5 created. And how much we create annually. I'm 

6 extremely disturbed. We obviously have a huge 

7 problem. 

8 But it sounds like we also need to look 

9 at how we can possibly stop making more of this 

10 waste. But since I can't ask any questions, I will 

11 be writing to the two fellows you all gave me names 

12 for. Thank you very much.

13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you. Is there 

14 anybody else on the line who would like to make a 

15 comment please? Anyone in the meeting room? Okay. 

16 Margaret are we finished? Okay. Thank you.

17 Thanks for the presentations. We will 

18 be getting together and trying to write a letter. I 

19 know you have interest in what we might say on the 

20 guidance. We'll have to discuss that among 

21 ourselves.

22 But it was a heroic effort today to get 

23 us through a lot of that that we didn't talk about 

24 before. And we appreciate it. And I think on the 

25 other side though -- I don't know until we talk to 
285

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 each other how many people have had a chance to 

2 really study that small document you sent. Thank 

3 you.

4 We are at almost 6:00. I know we have -

5 - I do. Thank you. At this point we're going to go 

6 off the record.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

8 went off the record at 5:48 p.m.) 

9

10

11

12

13
Meeting with Full Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards

November 3, 2016

North Anna Unit 3 COLA
Agenda

2

 North Anna Unit 3 (NA3) site

 NA3 licensing history

 COLA changes

 Conclusions
North Anna Site Location

3

Richmond
North Anna Site with Unit 3

4
NA3 Plan View

5
6

 ESP

– ESP Application submitted September 2003

– EIS issued December 2006

– ESP issued November 2007

 COLA (as ESBWR)

– COLA submitted November 2007

– ACRS Subcommittee meetings June, July, August 2009

– ACRS Full Committee meeting October 2009

– ACRS Letter October 2009

– Supplemental EIS issued February 2010

– ACRS Subcommittee meeting October 2016

 Technology Changes

– Changed to APWR technology May 2010

– Reverted to ESBWR technology April 2013

NA3 History
7

 Standardized content with ESBWR DCD and 

R-COLA (Fermi 3) through design-centered working 

group approach

 Relied, as much as possible, on site-specific COLA 

content from previously reviewed NA3 ESBWR 

COLA

Most COLA content is consistent with information 

previously reviewed by ACRS 

Approach to Post-2009 COLA Changes
8

 Evaluation of Potential Accidents

– Accident categories considered included:

 Explosions

 Flammable vapor clouds—delayed ignition

– Analysis demonstrated that blast effects would 

not exceed peak overpressure of 1 psi at any 

safety-related structure with exception of storage 

and transport of liquid hydrogen

Hazardous Chemicals Analyses 

(Section 2.2)
9

Liquid Hydrogen

 Storage of liquid hydrogen - two 6,000 gallon capacity tanks

– Actual distances from tanks to nearest safety-related 

structures exceed the calculated minimum safe distance

– Therefore, storage of liquid hydrogen would not adversely 

affect safe operation or shutdown of NA3 (including the 

Radwaste Building)

 Transport of liquid hydrogen - 13,000 gallon capacity truck

– Probabilistic analysis concluded probability of an accident 

involving delivery truck is less than 10-6 per year, which is 

acceptable per NRC guidance

No design-basis events were identified with respect 

to storage or transport of chemicals

Hazardous Chemicals Analyses 

(Section 2.2)
Local Intense Precipitation (Sec. 2.4.2)

10

 Maximum inundation flood levels resulting from local probable 

maximum precipitation (PMP) are bounded by DCD site 

parameter value of 0.3 m (1 ft) below plant grade

 Sheet flow analysis:

– Flow directions for runoff from roof tops are stipulated in FSAR

– Transitory sheet flow depths at 3 locations are above floor 

elevations at entrances to safety-related buildings

 FSAR commits to place curbs at these entrances, or raise their 

thresholds, to prevent water from entering these buildings

Site grading and structure configuration precludes 

flooding of safety-related buildings during a local 

intense precipitation event
Accidental Releases of Liquid Effluents 

(Sec. 2.4.13)

11

 Design includes mitigating features to preclude 

accidental release of liquid effluents

 Nevertheless, per SRP 11.2, analysis of accidental 

releases of liquid effluents into environment was 

performed

 Condensate Storage Tank (CST) was assumed to 

be source of release, based on ranking of tanks

An accidental release of liquid from CST to 

environment would result in radionuclide 

concentrations and dose well below 10CFR20 limits
Radwaste Discharge Piping Departure 

(Sections 11.2 & 12.3)

12

 NA3 operational goal is zero liquid release plant - Liquid 

Waste Management System (LWMS) designed to recycle 

all processed water

 FSAR 11.2 - Liquid radioactive releases will be 

discharged using the liquid radwaste effluent discharge 

pipeline to the discharge canal and not into the circulating 

water system’s cooling tower blowdown line

 FSAR 12.3 - LWMS discharge line will be run 

underground in guard pipe or is accessible via trench or 

tunnel

Dedicated discharge pipeline complies with 10 CFR 

20.1406 to minimize, to the extent practicable, 

contamination of facility and environment
RG 1.221, Design-Basis Hurricane 

Winds and Hurricane Missiles

 Seismic Category (SC) I structures will be designed to withstand 

loads due to DCD tornado wind speed and missile spectrum

– DCD wind and missile demands bound NA3 site-specific 

tornado and hurricane wind and missile demands

 SC II structures and structures housing Regulatory Treatment of 

Non-Safety Systems (RTNSS) structures, systems, and 

components will be designed to withstand DCD and RG 1.221 

hurricane wind and missile demands

SC I structures meet DCD wind speed and missile 

criteria. SC II structures and structures housing 

RTNSS SSCs will meet DCD and NA3 RG 1.221 

hurricane wind and missile criteria

13
Drivers of Seismic Revisions

14

Seismic-related FSAR sections revised to 

address events/guidance changes:

– August 23, 2011 Mineral, VA earthquake

– New Central and Eastern United States-Seismic 

Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) (NUREG2115)

– Updated Ground Motion Model (GMM)

– NUREG 0800, SRP 2.5.2 (Rev. 5), SRP 3.7.1 

(Rev.4) , and SRP 3.7.2 (Rev. 4) & DC-COL-ISG017
Vibratory Ground Motion Methodology

15

Since 2009, every element

has been updated
Vibratory Ground Motion Methodology

16

 Updated seismic sources using CEUS SSC and 

updated seismicity, including 2011 Mineral earthquake 

 Revised probabilistic seismic hazards analysis (PSHA), 

using updated CEUS SSC and EPRI 2013 GMM

 Developed new site-specific response spectra using 

revised PSHA 

 Developed new Ground Motion Response Spectra 

(GMRS) and foundation input response spectra (FIRS); 

redefined using new site-specific response spectra and 

new DC/COL-ISG-017 guidance

 Identified certified seismic design response spectra 

(CSDRS) exceedances
Foundation Input Response Spectra

17

FSAR Figure 2.0-201 FSAR Figure 2.0-202

Comparison of Vertical CSDRS with Unit 3 FIRS for 

RB/FB and CB

Comparison of Horizontal CSDRS with Unit 3 FIRS for 

RB/FB and CB

FIRS for Reactor Building/Fuel Building (RB/FB) & 

Control Building (CB)

CSDRS exceedances identified
Seismic Analysis & SC I Structures

18

 Developed seismic design parameters site-specific soilstructure interaction (SSI) input soil profiles and ground 

motions

 Performed site-specific SSI and structure-soil-structure 

interaction (SSSI) analyses to evaluate SC I RB/FB, CB, 

and Fire Water Service Complex (FWSC) structures for 

site-specific ground motion and soil properties

 Used results of SSI and SSSI analyses to determine sitespecific seismic demands

 Performed site-specific analyses of structures and 

components using site-specific seismic demands

 Methodology and mathematical models for site-specific 

analyses were consistent with approved ESBWR DCD 

methodology
Seismic Analysis & SC I Structures

19

Results:

 No changes to DCD concrete member properties (e.g., slab 

or wall thicknesses)

 Minor local changes to shear ties and reinforcement in 

RB/FB exterior walls, size of CB girder, and rebar and 

shear ties in FWSC shear keys and basemat

 Slightly increased support saddle bolt size for Passive 

Containment Cooling System (PCCS) Condenser

 Slightly increased anchor bolt size and corner base plate 

welds for fuel storage racks in the buffer pool

Seismic and structural analyses and resulting design 

enhancements demonstrate capability of structures, 

systems, and components
Conclusions

 Dominion implemented design-centered 

review approach to maximize standardization

 Site-specific topics have been evaluated

 North Anna site is adequate to support 

construction and operation of NA3

20
Acronym List

21

Acronym Acronym

APWR Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor LWMS Liquid Waste Management System

CB Control Building MOD Motor Operated Disconnect

CEUSSSCCentral and Eastern United States 

Seismic Source Characterization

NA3 North Anna Unit 3

COLA Combined License Application PCCS Passive Containment Cooling System

CSDRS Certified Seismic Design Response 

Spectra

PMP Probable Maximum Precipitation

CST Condensate Storage Tank PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Analysis

DCD Design Control Document RB/FB Reactor Building/Fuel Building

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute R-COLA Reference-Combined License Application

ESP Early Site Permit RG NRC Regulatory Guide

FIRS Foundation Input Response Spectra RTNSS Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report SC Seismic Category 

FWSC Fire Water Service Complex SSCs Structures, Systems, and Components

GMM Ground Motion Model SRP Standard Review Plan

GMRS Ground Motion Response Spectra SSI Soil-Structure Interaction

ISG Interim Staff Guidance SSSI Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction
Presentation to the ACRS

Full Committee

Staff Review of 

North Anna 3 ESBWR 

Combined License Application

November 3, 2016
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 2

 September 25, 2003, North Anna ESP submittal

 November 26, 2007, North Anna 3 ESBWR R-COL Application

 June 28, 2010, Dominion revised its application to the US-APWR

 March 9, 2011 - NRC staff issued the ESBWR DCD FSER. 

 August 23, 2011, Mineral Virginia Earthquake

 April 25, 2013, Dominion reverted back to the ESBWR

 August 30, 2013, submitted S-COL RAI reconciliation from Fermi R-COL after May, 2010, through May 31, 2013

 June 24, 2014, Dominion revised application that incorporated by reference the ESBWR DCD, Revision 10

 August 16, 2014 - ESBWR DCD Final rule was issued.

 October 22, 2014, Dominion submitted its Seismic Closure Plan (SCP).

 June 22, 2016, Dominion submitted Revision 9 FSAR incorporating FSAR markups from RAI responses 

North Anna 3 Application Summary
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 3

 Staff SER Phase 2 Confirmatory Items - Incorporated in FSAR, Revision 6, July 2013 

(40 Items) Based on DCD Revision 9.

 Staff SER Phase 2 Open Items - Closed by incorporation of approved RAI response In 

the North Anna 3 FSAR, Revision 8, June 2014 (71 Items) Based on DCD Revision 10.

 Staff SER Phase 4 Completed-9/16 –DCD Revision 10 Staff SER (NUREG-1966)

 Staff SER Phase 4 Confirmatory Items - Staff confirmation in progress in FSAR, 

Revision 9, June 2016 (34 Items) - Phase 6 FSER 

 Tier 1 [Fukushima] recommendations SECY-11-0137, as modified in SECY-12-0025 -

Applicable to North Anna 3 COL review SER Chapter 20 

 ACRS Phase 2 Letter - October 23, 2009, ACRS Letter to EDO Phase 2 SER 

(ML092890370)

North Anna 3 Post Phase 2 COLA Review Summary
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 4

 Site Specific Non-Seismic Information:

 Meteorology and Hydrology

 Industrial Accidents 

 Ground Water Accident Release 

 Hurricane Missiles

 Site Specific Seismic Information:

 Site Ground Motion

 Seismic Structures

 Fuel Pool Racks

 Fuel & Control Rods

North Anna 3 Site-Specific Review Focus 
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 5

 2.3.4 - Short-Term (Accidental) Diffusion Estimates:

 EAB & LPZ accident χ/Q values incorporated from ESP SSAR

 COL FSAR presented Control Room χ/Q values

 ESBWR Control Room and offsite χ/Q values conservatively bound the NAPS 

site-specific values

 2.3.5 - Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates:

 NAPS ESP VAR 2.0-1

 Updated analysis to incorporate use of both ground-level and mixed-mode 

releases

 ESBWR routine release offsite χ/Q and D/Q values conservatively bound the 

NAPS COL site-specific values

 Conclusions:

 All regulatory requirements have been satisfied

 No “Open Items”

Section 2.3 - Meteorology
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 6

 Staff accepted ESP Variance 2.4-4 to raise the normal pool elevation of Lake Anna by 

three inches (from 249.14 ft to 249.39 ft NAVD88)

 Staff’s confirmatory analysis and review conclusions:

 PMF on Lake Anna increases by 0.03 ft with the rise in the normal lake elevation 

‒ Staff accepted ESP Variance 2.4-5

 The Lake Anna PMF elevation remains well below the DCD site parameter 

elevation of 1 ft below design plant grade

 The staff concluded that the LIP flood would remain below the ESBWR DCD site 

parameter for maximum flood level

 The staff concluded that under the LIP sheet-flow depths, certain critical doors to 

safety-related buildings would require flood protection confirmed in FSAR.

 The staff confirmed that the ultimate heat sink does not require an external source 

of safety-related make-up water, and that there are no safety-related issues 

associated with the intake, the discharge, or low Lake Anna water levels

Section 2.4.3 - Lake Anna Probable Maximum Flood
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 7

 Evaluation of potential accidents:

 The staff reviewed whether the applicant addressed the additional site specific 

evaluations of potential accidents. Staff also performed independent 

confirmatory calculations in confirming the applicant’s conclusions that the 

potential impacts due to potential accidents from these additional sources 

addressed would not impact adversely the safe operation and safe shutdown of 

the North Anna 3. 

 Based on the review of the applicant provided information, responses to the RAIs, 

staff evaluations and staff’s independent confirmatory analyses.

 The staff found the applicant’s conclusions to be acceptable as the evaluations are 

in accordance with the guidance provided in NUREG-0800 Section 2.2.3, and meet 

regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 100.20(b).

Section 2.2 - Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and 

Military Facilities
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 8

 Applicant described features to preclude radioactive releases into potential liquid 

pathways to satisfy ESP Permit Condition 3.E(3), but nonetheless analyzed an accidental 

release to groundwater from the condensate storage tank

 The staff confirmed that the shortest and most plausible pathway was to the Unit 3 

intake channel. The staff concluded that:

 Applicants analysis was appropriately conservative 

 Maximum radionuclide concentrations were below 

limits

 Radionuclide concentrations would be further 

diluted in Lake Anna before reaching the exclusion 

area boundary

Section 2.4.13 - Accidental Release of Radioactive

Liquid Effluent in ground and Surface Waters
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 9

 Staff evaluated Exemption 5 (NAPS DEP 19A-1):

 The staff finds that Exemption 5 and NAPS DEP 19A-1 appropriately considered 

hurricane missiles from RG 1.221

 The design requirements added by the departure ensure RTNSS structures will be 

designed to the most limiting hurricane missile

Chapter 19 Departures - Staff Conclusion
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 10

 The applicant’s assessment for potential surface expression from the Mineral 

earthquake was sufficient and appropriate and reveals no measureable surface 

rupture based on:

 A suite of geologic maps in consideration with earthquake aftershocks 

 Detailed topographic maps derived from LiDAR data 

 Specific field reconnaissance to determine presence or absence of surface 

rupture or displacement of numerous river profiles and the South Anna river 

terrace profile

 Surface deformation at the North Anna 3 site is negligible:

 Fault ‘a’ was previously found to be a geologically old structure (ESP SER)

 Post Mineral VA earthquake field reconnaissance and examination of high 

resolution topographic maps reveal no rupture or deformation associated 

with fault ‘a’

Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.3 – Seismology Conclusions
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 11

 New and significant information:

 Occurrence of August 23, 2011 Mineral Earthquake

 Publication of the Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source 

Characterization (CEUS-SSC; NUREG 2115)

 Publication of the new Ground Motion Models (EPRI, 2013)

 Availability of additional site-specific geophysical information

 Mineral, Virginia Earthquake:

 August 23, 2011 

‒ M5.8 earthquake approximately 11 mi (18 km) from NAPS Site

‒ Located in Central Virginia Seismic Zone (i.e., known region of elevated 

seismicity, and small to moderate earthquake) ‒ Exceeded SSE for currently operating Unit 1 (post-earthquake 

evaluations found no damage to plant SSCs)

 Prompted staff to request reassessment of ESP PSHA 

‒ Using CEUS-SSC (NUREG-2115)

Section 2.5.2 - Vibratory Ground Motion
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 12

 The applicant adequately addressed new and significant information related to 

the Mineral, Virginia earthquake, the CEUS-SSC model, and additional pertaining 

subsurface geologic condition 

 The site-specific GMRS adequately represents the seismic hazard at the North 

Anna 3 site and meets the relevant regulatory requirements provided in 10 CFR 

Parts 52 and 10 CFR 100.23

 The site specific vibratory ground motion meets the ESBWR DCD design criteria

Section 2.5.2 - Conclusions
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 13

 Background:

 The site-specific foundation input response spectra (FIRS) exceed the DCD 

certified seismic design response spectra (CSDRS)

 The seismic inputs include both the CSDRS and site-specific FIRS for 

evaluation of RB/FB, CB, and FWSC

 The applicant performed site-specific seismic analyses and design evaluations 

to demonstrate the adequacy of the ESBWR standard design at the NA3 site

 Review Scope:

 The Review of seismic analyses and design evaluations of RB/FB, CB, FWSC, 

RCCV including PCCS Condenser, CIS, New and Spent Fuel Storage Racks

 Review of applicable Tier 1 and Tier 2 information in the FSAR (NAPS DEP 3.7-

1, COL Part 7 Departure Report), technical reports, RAI responses, and 

supporting calculations (during audits)

 Confirmatory analyses of the seismic input motions, strain-compatible soil 

profiles, and SSI effect on FWSC

 Review of V&V of seismic analysis codes for NA3 application

Sections 3.7, 3.8 Departures - Background & Scope
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 14

 Results of Staff Review:

 Staff issued 29 RAIs based on review of FSAR Rev. 7 and Rev. 8 

 In response to RAIs, the applicant modified its approach to performing certain 

aspects of the seismic analysis and developed a Seismic Closure Plan (SCP)

 The applicant performed 18 SSI analysis cases for each of the RB/FB, CB, and 

FWSC, and 17 SSSI cases, for a total of 71 cases to establish the seismic 

demand at NA3 

 Staff conducted review in two phases with two on-site audits: (a) Phase 1 site- specific seismic demand, and (b) Phase 2 for reviewing the structural 

evaluation of the standard design for NA3 seismic demand

 The FSAR Appendix 3G shows that the standard design is adequate to resist 

the site-specific seismic demand except in a few cases. 

 The design changes include: modifying the arrangement of some steel 

reinforcements and shear ties, the size of a steel girder, weld size, and 

anchor bolt sizes. No changes to the thickness of the concrete walls and slabs 

were needed 

Sections 3.7, 3.8 Departures - Staff Review Results
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 15

 Conclusions:

 As documented in Chapter 3 of the FSER, the staff confirmed that the site-specific 

seismic design methodology for SSCs is acceptable. At the NA3 site, with the 

identified changes, the ESBWR standard design is adequate to meet the sitespecific seismic demand

 The site-specific ISRS that exceed the standard design ISRS, are used along with 

the standard design ISRS for seismic design and qualification of equipment and 

components 

 The staff has reviewed the NA3 COL application and the relevant information in 

the ESBWR DCD incorporated by reference and concludes that sufficient 

information has been provided to satisfy the NRC regulations and guidance

Sections 3.7, 3.8 Departures - Conclusions
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 16

 Staff evaluated the Fuel Storage Rack (FSR) departure and determined that:

 Standard design of spent FSRs in the spent fuel pool is adequate

 For the spent FSRs in the buffer pool deep pit, changes in the size of the anchor 

bolts and welds were necessary

 For the new FSR in the buffer pool, changes in the size of the anchor bolts were 

necessary

Fuel Storage Rack Departure - Evaluation

Chapter 4 Departures - Reactor Design

 Staff evaluated the Seismic Departure on the Fuel and Control Rod Design:

 Staff confirmed that the methodology used to determine site-specific fuel 

accelerations was consistent with methods approved in the DCD

 Staff confirmed that the methodology for combining loads was consistent with the 

DCD methodology and regulatory guidance

 Staff assessed applicant’s evaluation and agrees that the fuel and control rod 

capacities are sufficient to bound the site-specific exceedances, and as-built values will 

be confirmed by ITAAC
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 17

 Staff has completed a through review of the North Anna 3 COLA

 Staff has addressed all Confirmatory Items / Open Items from Phase 2 SER.

 Published Phase 4 AFSE represents the Staff Final Safety Review findings of the 

North Anna 3 ESBWR COLA. 

 The Phase 6 FSER (December 2016) completes the Administrative final preparation 

for NUREG Publication of the staff NA3 COL SER.

 Staff looks forward to the Committee letter following its review of the Staff AFSE. 

 Turnover to ACRS Subcommittee Chairman

Staff Conclusion
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 18

Backup Slides
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 19

 ACRS – Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

 ATWS – Anticipated Transient Without Scram

 BNL – Brookhaven National Laboratory

 CB – Control Building

 CCF – Common Cause Failure

 CEUS SSC - Central and Eastern United States 

Seismic Source Characterization 

 CIS – Containment Internal Structures

 COL – Combined License

 CSDRS – Certified Seismic Design Response Spectrum

 DBA – Design Basis Accident

 DCD – Design Control Document

 DPS – Diverse Protection System

 EPRI- Electric Power Research Institute

 ESBWR – Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor

 ESF – Engineered Safety Feature

 FB – Fuel Building

 FIRS – Foundation Input Response Spectrum

 FSAR – Final Safety Analysis Report

 FWSC – Fire Water Service Complex

 GDC – General Design Criteria

 GMRS- ground motion response spectrum

 I&C – Instrument and Control

 I/O – Input and Output

 ICP – Independent Control Platform

List of Abbreviations Used

 IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

 ISRS – In-Structure Response Spectra

 LTR – Licensing Technical Report

 N-DCIS – Non-Safety-Related Distributed Control and 

Information System

 NA3 – North Anna Unit 3

 NMS – Neutron Monitoring System

 NRC – US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 OBE- Operating Basis Earthquake Ground Motion

 PCCS – Passive Containment Cooling System

 PSHA- Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

 Q-DCIS – Safety-Related Distributed Control and 

Information System

 QA – Quality Assurance

 RAI – Request for Additional Information

 RB – Reactor Building

 RCCV – Reinforced Concrete Containment Vessel

 SCP – Seismic Closure Plan

 SRP – Standard Review Plan

 SSC – Structure, Systems, and Components

 SSE- Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion

 SSI – Soil Structure Interaction

 SSSI – Structure Soil Structure Interaction

 V&V – Verification and Validation
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 20

North Anna 3 GMRS and CSDRS

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.1 1 10 100

Spectral Acceleration, g

Frequency, Hz

COLA's GMRS, El. 224

ft

ESP GMRS, El. 250 ft
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 21

Confirmatory Site Response Analysis

Shear-wave velocity profiles for the RB/FB and CB 

buildings used for site response calculations (from 

FSAR Figure 2.5.2-259)

The staff performed an independent site 

response analysis and confirmed applicant’s 

site amplification and GMRS calculations

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0.1 1 10 100

Amplification Factor

Frequency (Hz)

Dominion

NRC
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 22

 Chopawamsic fault:

 Remapped by Burton et al, 2014

 Structurally below the aftershock sequence

 Harris Creek and Roundabout Farm faults:

 Newly identified by Burton et al, 2014

 Trenches in soil/ saprolite reveal no quarterly deformation

 Longbranch fault:

 Structurally higher than aftershock sequence

 Fault ‘a’:

 No alignment of aftershock data with this fault

 Field reconnaissance and LiDAR data confirm no reactivation of fault

 Previous ESP SER concluded fault is certainly older than 1 Ma.

Section 2.5.1 - Geologic Mapping and Faults
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 23

Fault ‘a’ Near North Anna 3 Site

From NAPS FSAR Figure 2.5.1-214
North Anna 3 COLA Review

ACRS November 3, 2016 24

Geologic Field Reconnaissance Program: Epicentral Area, LiDAR Survey 

Extent, Routes, and Waypoints

From NAPS FSAR Figure 2.5.1-204
Overview of Major Technical Elements of 

10 CFR Part 61

David Esh, PhD

Senior Risk Analyst

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Presented to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, November 3, 2016
Outline

• Part 61 Overview

• Safety Case

• Defense-in-Depth (DID)

• Analysis Timeframes 

– Technical Basis

– Significant Quantities

• Technical Analyses

– Performance Assessment

– Intruder Assessment

– Site Stability

• Waste Acceptance Requirements

2
Part 61 Overview

• Safety case and defense-in-depth protections.

• Site-specific technical analyses (performance assessment, 

intruder assessment, site-stability).

• Time of compliance considering waste characteristics.

• Site-specific intruder receptors.

• Waste acceptance criteria may be developed based on the 

results of the technical analyses.

• Modern dose methodologies.

• Consideration of uncertainty.

• Model support.

• Site characteristics consider waste characteristics and are 

risk-informed, performance-based. 3
Safety Case

• Added at direction of Commission. Defined as combination of DID 

and technical analyses.

• Plain language description of the arguments and evidence to 

demonstrate the safety of a land disposal facility.

• Describes all safety relevant aspects of the disposal site, the 

design of the facility, and the managerial control measures and 

regulatory controls to inform the decision whether to grant a 

license.

• Includes the same type of information that the original 10 CFR 

Part 61 required to be submitted as part of a license application

(i.e., 10 CFR 61.10 – 10 CFR 61.16).

• The safety case will be updated over time as new information is 

gained during the various phases of the facility’s development and 

operation. 

4
Defense-in-Depth

• The use of multiple, independent, and, where possible, 

redundant layers of defense so that no single layer, no 

matter how robust, is exclusively relied upon.

5

Note: Lifecycle timeframes not to scale

IMPLICIT

EXPLICIT

• Identify defense-in-depth 

protections commensurate with 

risks.

• Describe capabilities of defense- in-depth protections.

• Provide a technical basis for 

capabilities of defense-in-depth 

protections.
Defense-in-Depth for LLW Disposal

• Operations

– Provide for active and passive safety systems 

commensurate with the hazard and complexity of the 

activities.

• Post-Closure

– Disposal site is a passive system, relying on both 

natural site characteristics and engineered features.

– Each layer of defense must make a definite 

contribution to the isolation of the waste.

6
Timeframes

7

• Throughout the process, significant interest in the 

analyses timeframes.

• Significant comments received reflecting diverse 

opinions.

• Staff devoted significant effort to the formulation of the 

final position.
Timeframes

8

Existing: 

Compliance period not defined for §61.41 and §61.44. 

Inadvertent intruder protected at any time (§61.42). 

Proposed Final: 

Compliance period is 1,000 years if a site does not contain 

significant quantities of long-lived waste, otherwise 10,000 

years. 

Performance period for > 10,000 years only applies if longer 

compliance period used. Standard is to minimize 

exposures to the extent reasonably achievable.
Timeframes

9

Waste specific
Timeframes – Technical Basis

10 10

• Waste characteristics

• Domestic experience

• International experience

• Uncertainties

• Policy

• ACRS interactions

“White paper” – ML111030586
Timeframes – Domestic

11 10

Guidance

LL = long-lived, SL = short-lived, VSL = very short-lived
Why not use mill tailings 

requirements for DU disposal?

12

Mill Tailings - Falls City TX ~ 180 pCi/g
Timeframes – Example

13

PNNL-14280
Timeframes – International

14

• Most countries either do not allow near surface 

disposal of long-lived (LL) waste or place limits on 

how much can be disposed.

• Most countries place explicit limits on LL-α.

• Limits are not determined by site-specific analyses 

but are set by regulators/lawmakers.

• Analyses timeframes are set within this context.

• Many countries assess peak hazard.
Timeframes – International

15

• Many countries classify waste on both activity AND 

half-life, which creates many advantages.

• IAEA waste classification system does not provide 

numbers but DU is comparable to intermediate 

level waste (ILW).

• ILW requires deeper disposal.

• OECD-NEA – Based on ethical considerations, 

long-lived waste requires deep geologic disposal.
Timeframes – Comments

16

from ICRP 103 - “[D]ose estimates should not be regarded as measures of health 

detriment beyond times of several hundred years into the future.” Rather they 

represent indicators of the protection afforded by the disposal system. The 

commission [ICRP] has given specific guidance for disposal of long lived solid 

radioactive waste in publication 81 and this guidance remains valid.”

“Nevertheless, the Commission [ICRP] recognizes a basic principle that 

individuals and populations in the future should be afforded at least the same 

level of protection from the action of disposing of radioactive waste today as is the 

current generation. This implies use of the current quantitative dose and risk 

criteria derived from considering associated health detriment. Therefore, 

protection of future generations should be achieved by applying these dose or 

risk criteria to the estimated future doses or risks in appropriately defined critical 

groups. These estimates should not be regarded as measures of health 

detriment beyond times of around several hundreds of years into the future. In 

the case of these longer time periods, they represent indicators of the protection 

afforded by the disposal system.”
Timeframes – Comments

17

• “...research results indicated that after 1,000 years, LLRW 

generated during the course of the normal operation of a 

nuclear plant poses little risk to the public”

• Long compliance period will prohibit future licensing

─ Generally true for §61.42 but not true for §61.41. 

LLW may result in significant impacts for longer 

timeframes.

─ Existing facilities licensed (or in process of being 

reviewed) with longer than 1,000 year compliance 

period.
Timeframes

18
Timeframes – Comments

19

• Uncertainty makes results meaningless

• Don’t apply burdensome requirements for long-lived waste 

on traditional waste

─ Proposed final approach will assign analyses timeframes 

based on the waste.

─ Performance assessments are not predictions of the 

future. Uncertainty is generally not a suitable basis to 

reduce safety requirements. 
Significant Quantities

20

How does one determine if they have significant 

quantities? 

– Start simple and if necessary introduce more complexity

1. Perform screening based on inventory

2. Perform screening based on simplified dose 

assessment

3. Site-specific analysis (case-by-case)
Long-lived Radionuclides

21

• Long-lived radionuclide means radionuclides: 

– Where more than 10 percent of the initial activity of the 

radionuclide remains after 1,000 years

– Where the peak activity from progeny occurs after 1,000 

years; or 

– Where more than 10 percent of the peak activity of the 

radionuclide (including progeny) within 1,000 years remains 

after 1,000 years
Significant Quantities - Guidance

22

Table 6-1 Long-lived Isotopes Potentially Present in LLW Performance Assessment Inventories 
Significant Quantities - Example

23

Example A licensee wishes to dispose of waste at a disposal site that does not have a 

potable groundwater pathway or any credible mechanisms for release other than from 

disturbance by inadvertent intruders. The total volume of disposal cells for existing waste is 

400,000 m3. The inventory of waste located in the facility is comprised of: 50,000 m3 of C-14 

containing waste at 0.2 Ci/m3, 200,000 m3 of waste containing C-14 at 0.1 Ci/m3 and I-129 at 

0.002 Ci/m3, and 50,000 m3 of Tc-99 containing waste at 0.01 Ci/m3. The uncontaminated fill 

and material used to construct the cells represents 100,000 m3.

Conclusion: The licensee uses the Class A waste concentrations to calculate the volumeaveraged sum-of-fractions (SOF) per the following equation. This equation is used to 

calculate the SOF for n waste streams containing m isotopes. V is the volume, C is the 

concentration on a volumetric basis, and CA is the Class A waste limit for the particular 

isotope.

Because the SOF is less than 1, a 1,000-year compliance period can be used and 

performance period analyses are not required.
24

Who will perform these Technical Analyses? 

Commercial LLRW Sites in U.S. 

US Ecology,

Hanford, WA

EnergySolutions, 

Clive, Utah

EnergySolutions, 

Barnwell SC

Waste Control 

Specialists,

Andrews, TX

Facility Waste Compact 

Restrictions

Richland, WA A, B, C 11 Western states 

in 2 LLW 

Compacts only

Clive, UT A only None, all US 

generators OK 

(Compacts must 

approve)

Barnwell, SC A, B, C SC, NJ, CT only 

(Atlantic 

Compact)

Andrews Cty,

Texas

A, B, C Texas and VT 

(Texas Compact), 

Others with 

Compact 

approval

Operating facility

5
25

Who will perform these Technical Analyses? 

Commercial LLRW Sites in U.S. 

• Requirements apply to all facilities that will operate after the 

regulations go into effect.

• Requirements do not apply retroactively to closed facilities.

• No public health and safety basis was provided to justify 

limiting the applicability of the requirements to “new” waste.

• Compliance with public dose limit based on consideration of 

all waste and all pathways.

• There are no backfit provisions for 10 CFR Part 61.
Performance Assessment

26

Performance assessment is an analysis used to 

demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 61.41(a) and (b) that 

identifies the features, events, and processes that could 

affect the disposal site performance; and estimates the 

potential dose as a result of releases caused by all significant 

features, events, and processes including the uncertainties.
Performance Assessment

27

• Performance assessment is not a new topic 

– renaming of technical analyses

• New requirements in §61.13:

 Scope (features, events, and processes)

 Uncertainty and variability

 Model support

• Requirement to update the performance 

assessment at closure

• Modified siting characteristics consistent 

with disposal of long-lived waste

IMPLICIT

EXPLICIT
28

Low-Level Waste –

Site-Specific Technical Data

MI Sheppard and DH Thibault provides a 

compendium of distribution coefficients (Kd’s)

Health Physics, Vol. 59, No. 4 pp. 471-482 

(October) 1990

θ

ρb d

f

K R =1+

min max GM

Sr 1 1400 90

Tc 1 3 1

Cs 2600 280000 21000

U 2 21000 70

Pu 500 30000 5000

Calculated retardation coefficients

ρb=1.6 g/cm3

θ= 0.35
Performance Assessment -

Guidance

29
Performance Assessment -

Radon

30

• Some regulations have radon flux limits whereas 

others include radon in dose limits.

• EPA - 40 CFR 61 in some cases provides radon flux 

limits (DOE, phosphogypsum stacks, uranium mill 

tailings disposal) and in others provides standards to 

include radon as part of public dose limits @ 10 

mrem/yr (uranium mines, non-NRC federal facilities).

• Can’t resolve the different treatments of radon in 

regulations in this rulemaking, but can ensure 

treatment is internally consistent within Part 61 and 

within NRC in general.
Performance Assessment -

Radon

31

• Current Part 61 considered only small quantities of 

uranium, therefore radon was not an issue.

• Existing guidance – include radon (NUREG-1573).

• The receptors for different performance objectives 

(offsite vs. intruder) create practical challenges for 

application of flux limits.

• NRC public dose limit (10 CFR Part 20.1301) includes 

all pathways and all radionuclides. 

• 10 CFR Part 40 (offsite public) and 10 CFR Part 20 

subpart E (restricted release) include radon.
Inadvertent Intrusion Assessment

• Similar to performance assessment, except:

– Receptor scenarios

– Onsite exposures

– 500 mrem/yr limit

– Precluded during institutional control period (i.e., 100 yrs)

32
Inadvertent Intruder

• Dose limit (500 mrem/5 mSv) higher than §61.41 and 

higher than NRC public dose limit (10 CFR Part 20)

• Intruders unlikely albeit possible

• Staff evaluated current national land disturbance (Esh 

and Gross, 2014)

– 2.5% of land area 

disturbed > 1 m

33
Inadvertent Intruder Receptor -

Guidance

• Normal Activities

– Dwelling Construction

– Agriculture

– Drilling for Water

• Reasonably Foreseeable Activities

– Consistent with activities in vicinity of site when 

assessment developed

34
Normal Activities

35

Dwelling Construction

Agriculture

Drilling for Water
Site-specific Scenarios -

Guidance

• Constrain exposure pathways for normal or 

reasonably foreseeable activities based on:

– Physical information

• Waste characteristics and disposal practices

• Disposal site characteristics

– Cultural information (e.g. land use)

• Provide comparison of results from site-specific 

scenarios to generic scenarios.

36
Site Stability

37

• Consideration of site stability is an important part 

of the safety strategy.

• Site stability is required for the compliance 

period but may be performance-based.

• Guidance describes design-based and modelbased approaches.
Site Stability - Guidance

38
Waste Acceptance Requirements

• Licensees must review 

their waste acceptance 

program at least annually

• Ensures that the program 

continues to be adequate 

and is being implemented 

in a way that continues to 

protect public health and 

safety

39
Waste Acceptance Criteria

• Allowable Limits on Radioactivity

• Wasteform Characteristics and 

Container Specifications

• Restrictions and Prohibitions

40
Waste Acceptance

• Flexibility to develop site-specific waste 

acceptance criteria.

• Use §61.55 limits, results of technical analyses, 

or combination of both to develop criteria.

• Either way, licensees must demonstrate that 

criteria will demonstrate that performance 

objectives will be met.

41
NUREG-2175

• NUREG-2175 (Guidance for Conducting Technical Analyses 

for 10 CFR Part 61) provides:

─ Flowcharts, NRC staff recommendations, and examples 

for how licensees can develop high-quality technical 

analyses

─ Guidelines for what licensees or applicants should include 

and what regulators should review for each type of 

analysis

─ Suggested references, screening tools, and case studies

• DRAFT final version made publically available in ADAMS and 

on the public website

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/potential- rulemaking/uw-streams.html

42
Backup

43
Depleted Uranium :

Source Comparison

• Uranium mill tailings contain:

– 0.004 to 0.02 weight percent U3O8, 

– 26 to 400 pCi/g 226Ra, 

– 70 to 600 pCi/g 230Th

• DU contains: 

– 99.9 weight percent uranium oxide 

– Greater than 300,000 pCi/g 226Ra and 230Th (one million 

years after disposal)

– Time to exceed upper range of mill tailings concentrations 

is approximately 1400 years for 226Ra and 500 years 

for 230Th
Uranium in the Environment

• Uranium in surface soils ~ 

1 to 5 ppm

• Mean atmospheric radon 

is ~ 0.25 pCi/L

• Indoor average radon 

levels ~ 1.5 to 4.2 pCi/L

• Natural radon flux levels ~ 

1 to 2 pCi/m2-s

• Radon contributes roughly 

70% of the average annual 

dose in the United States 

(~250 mrem/yr)
10 CFR Part 61

“Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal”

Final Rule

Gary Comfort

Senior Project Manager

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Presented to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

November 3, 2016
Discussion Topics

• Background

– Purpose

– Commission Direction

– Past ACRS Interactions

• Proposed Rule Comments

• Draft Final Rule 

• Technical Elements

• Path Forward

2
Purpose of Rule

Problem: Ensuring safe disposal of new 

waste streams not analyzed as part of 

original 10 CFR Part 61 regulation

• Depleted uranium (DU)

• Blended wastes

• Future waste streams

3
Commission Direction

• SRM-SECY-08-0147

– Rulemaking for site-specific analysis of DU disposal

• SRM-SECY-10-0043

– Incorporate blending into rulemaking

• SRM-COMWDM-11-0002/COMGEA-11-0002

– Use two-tired approach with compliance period covering 

reasonably foreseeable future and longer period of 

performance

• SECY-13-0075 and SRM

– Latest rule language ACRS reviewed

– Commission directed significant changes 

– ACRS encouraged to provide independent review 

4
Commission Direction

5

Comparison of Draft Rule in SECY-13-0075

and Published Draft Rule

SECY-13 -0075

Analysis Time Frames (2 – tier)

Performance Assessment

Waste Acceptance Criteria

Updated ICRP Dosimetry Modeling

Compatibility Category C

Intruder Assessment

Publication

Analysis Timeframes (3 – tier)

Performance Assessment

Intruder Assessment

Explicit Description of Safety Case

Defense In Depth (DID) Analysis

Site Stability Analysis

Waste Acceptance Criteria

Updated ICRP Dosimetry Modeling

Compatibility Category B

= Minor change resulting from SRM Direction = Major change resulting from SRM Direction
ACRS Letter Reports –

Key Issues

• Risk-informed based on site-specific, realistic 

performance assessments with consideration for 

uncertainties

– Realistic assumptions for release and fate and transport of 

DU

– Realistic likelihood of intrusion

– Range of site-specific conditions

• Use timeframes determined on a case-by-case sitespecific basis rather than defining specific fixed 

period of performance

6
ACRS Letter Reports –

Key Issues

• Compliance with performance objectives after 

institutional control period should be evaluated 

considering features, events, and processes for 

a given site for a period commensurate with the 

site-specific risk

• Protection of inadvertent intruder

– Large uncertainties associated with human intrusion 

scenarios will not help decision making

– Durability and stability should be sufficient

• Previously disposed wastes should not be 

subject to additional compliance evaluations

7
Rule status

• Proposed rule

– SRM-SECY-013-0075 issued February 12, 2014

– Published for comment on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 

16081) 

– 120 day comment; reopened August 27 –

September 21, 2015

• Draft final rule

– Submitted to Commission September 15, 2016 as 

SECY-16-0106

8
Public Comments on 

Proposed Rule

• Received 2,401 comment letters (2,300 form)

– Extensive public outreach

– Six workshops and webinar

• Represented:

– Individuals 

– Public interest groups

– Native American Tribal Governments

– Industry groups

– Licensees

– State and federal agencies

• Over 800 comments binned and responded to

9
Examples of 

Public Comments

• 3-Tier System

– More complicated than necessary

– 500 mrem dose goal reduces public health and safety

– RESPONSE: Changed to new, simplified approach

• Compatibility Category

– Reduced current health and safety provided by some 

States

– Most commenters recommended “C”

– RESPONSE: Changed compliance period definition 

and 61.58 to “C”

10
Examples of 

Public Comments (Cont)

• Grandfathering

– 61.1(a) should allow existing sites to grandfather

– Already disposed of wastes should not need to be 

addressed

– RESPONSE: Staff concluded that grandfathering not 

appropriate and removed confusing language in 61.1(a)

• Backfit

– Backfit analysis should be done because of impact on 

other licensees

– RESPONSE: No backfit in Part 61; NRC doesn’t address 

passed along costs

11
Draft Final Rule 

Major Changes

The rule 

• Requires a site specific analysis

• Provides a 1,000 or 10,000 year compliance period for 

protection of the general public

• Adds a new technical analysis for the protection of inadvertent 

intruders 

• Adds a new post-10,000-year performance period analysis 

• Adds a new requirement to update the technical analyses at 

site closure

• Adds a new requirement to identify defense-in-depth (DID) 

protections

12
Draft Final Rule Language –

• 61.12 Specific Technical Information 

- New DID requirement added as 61.12(o) 

- Requires identification of DID protections, 

including a description of the capability of 

each DID protection relied upon to maintain 

safety and a basis for the capability of each 

DID protection

- Not an analysis

13
Draft Final Rule Language –

• 61.13 Technical Analyses

(a) Requires performance assessment for compliance period that:

• Considers features, events, and processes that represent a range of 

phenomena with both beneficial and adverse effects on performance

• Considers the likelihood of disruptive or other unlikely features, events, or 

processes

• Provides a technical basis for models used 

• Evaluates contaminant transport pathways and processes in environmental 

media (e.g., air, soil, groundwater, surface water) 

• Accounts for uncertainties and variability in the projected behavior of the 

disposal site and general environment and in the demographics and 

behaviors of human receptors

• Identifies and differentiates between the roles performed by the natural 

disposal site characteristics and design features in limiting releases of 

radioactivity to the general population

14
Draft Final Rule Language –

• 61.13 Technical Analyses (cont)

(b) Requires inadvertent intruder assessment for compliance period 

that

• Assumes inadvertent intruder occupies the disposal site and engages in 

normal activities and other reasonably foreseeable pursuits that are 

consistent with the activities and pursuits occurring in and around the site at 

the time of development of the inadvertent intruder assessment.

• Is updated prior to closure to reflect any significant changes to the activities 

and pursuits occurring in and around the site.

• Identifies barriers to inadvertent intrusion that inhibit contact with the waste 

or limit exposure and provides a basis for the time period over which 

barriers are effective.

• Accounts for uncertainties and variability in the projected behavior of the 

disposal site and general environment.

15
Draft Final Rule Language –

• 61.13 Technical Analyses (cont)

(e) Performance period analysis

• Only required if 10,000-year compliance period used 

• Assess how disposal site limits the potential long-term 

radiological impacts during the performance period, consistent 

with available data and current scientific understanding. 

• Must identify and describe features of the design and site 

characteristics relied on

16
Draft Final Rule Language –

• 61.41 Protection of the general population from 

releases of radioactivity 

(a) Compliance period

• Limits annual dose to 0.25 milliSieverts (25 millirems) to any 

member of the public

• Demonstrated through analyses that meet the requirements 

specified in § 61.13(a).

(b) Performance period

• Must minimize releases of radioactivity to the general environment 

to the extent reasonably achievable

• Demonstrated through analyses that meet the requirements 

specified in § 61.13(e).

17
Draft Final Rule Language –

• 61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent 

intrusion.

(a) Compliance period

• Limits annual dose to 5 milliSieverts (500 millirems) to any 

inadvertent intruder

• Demonstrated through analyses that meet the requirements 

specified in § 61.13(b).

(b) Performance period

• Must minimize exposures to any inadvertent intruder to the extent 

reasonably achievable 

• Demonstrated through analyses that meet the requirements 

specified in § 61.13(e).

18
Path Forward

• Commission review, including ACRS input

• If approved for publication

– Incorporate Commission directed changes

– Send to OMB for review (~90 days)

– Send to Federal Register for publication

• Effective date: 1 year from publication

• License updates due next renewal or within 5 

years of effective date

• Agreement States have 3 years from publication 

to implement compatible regulations

19
QUESTIONS?

?????

20
BACKUP SLIDE

21
Timeframe changes

22
Draft Final Rule Language –

Definitions (61.2)

• Compliance period 

– Site closure to 1,000 years if no significant quantities 

of long-lived radionuclides. 

– Site closure to 10,000 years otherwise

• Performance period 

– timeframe established to evaluate the performance of 

the disposal site after the compliance period

23
Draft Final Rule Language –

Definitions (61.2)

• Defense-in-depth

– Use of multiple independent and, where possible, 

redundant layers of defense such that no single layer, 

no matter how robust, is exclusively relied upon

– Includes, but is not limited to, the use of siting, waste 

forms and radionuclide content, engineered features, 

and natural geologic features of the disposal site to 

enhance the resiliency of the land disposal facility 

24
Draft Final Rule Language –

Definitions (61.2)

• Inadvertent intruder assessment is an analysis that:

– Assumes inadvertent intruder occupies site and 

engages in normal activities and other reasonably 

foreseeable pursuits that are realistic and consistent 

with expected activities in and around the disposal 

site at the time of the assessment

– Examines capabilities of intruder barriers to inhibit 

contact with the waste or limit exposure to radiation 

from the disposal unit

– Estimates inadvertent intruder’s potential annual dose 

considering uncertainties.

25
Draft Final Rule Language –

Definitions (61.2)

• Long-lived radionuclide means radionuclides: 

– Where more than 10 percent of the initial activity of the 

radionuclide remains after 1,000 years

– Where the peak activity from progeny occurs after 1,000 

years; or 

– Where more than 10 percent of the peak activity of the 

radionuclide (including progeny) within 1,000 years 

remains after 1,000 years

26
Draft Final Rule Language –

Definitions (61.2)

• Performance assessment 

– analysis to demonstrate compliance with the 

performance objectives

– identifies the features, events, and processes that 

could affect the disposal site performance

– estimates the potential dose as a result of releases 

caused by all significant features, events, and 

processes including the uncertainties

27
Draft Final Rule Language –

Definitions (61.2)

• Safety case 

– Collection of information that demonstrates the 

assessment of the safety of a land disposal facility

– Includes technical analyses, defense-in-depth, and 

supporting evidence and reasoning 

– Also includes description of the safety relevant 

aspects of the disposal site, the design of the facility, 

and the managerial control measures and regulatory 

controls.

28
Draft Final Rule Language –

• 61.58 Alternative requirements for waste 

classification and characteristics.

– Specifies waste acceptance criteria

– Requires waste certification

– Requires annual review of content and implementation 

of the waste acceptance criteria, waste characterization 

methods, and certification program

29