ML19289E385
| ML19289E385 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/26/1978 |
| From: | Deyoung R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-WM, REF-WM-0 NUDOCS 7904170363 | |
| Download: ML19289E385 (6) | |
Text
!
0
[
4 UNITED 5TATES
['#
TJUCLEAR HEGULATORY cOMMISslON j j.
,C [ h WASHING TON. D. C. 20555
%, 's:< j' !
05j.Jj% f
....+
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank J. Miraglia, Program Support Staff, ONRR FROM:
Richard C. DeYoung, Director, DSE
SUBJECT:
f; MSS /f;RR IflTERFACE The information discussed below is provided in response to your September 6, 1978 memo.
1.
Current and Past Interfaces with NMSS a.
Environmental Projects (1)
Review of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
Jerry Jackson, who recently left NRC, was to be loaned to f; MSS to act as an EPM on WIPP, and other projects; and to enhance our interface with fiMSS.
Oliver Lynch has also been designated to assist NMSS on WIPP as the DSE EPM on the project and has attended several meetings on the subject.
Since Jackson's departure, Lynch became the EP interface.
However, the future of WIPP seems to be in limbo at this time.
(2)
Except for commenting on a draft Regulatory Guide, we have had little additional interaction with fiMSS.
b.
Geoscience Branch (1)
Review license applications and applications to modify existing uranium mills for safety of mill tailings retention systems.
(2)
Provide input and review comments on regulatory guides establishing geologic, seismologic and geotechnical engineering criteria for design, construction and operation of uranium mill tailings retention systems.
7904170363
. (3)
Review license applications and provide input for establishing pertinent criteria for (a) safety of existing Low Level Waste (LLW) disposal and special temporary facilities retaining radioactive residues; (b) safety of nuclear fuel recovery and recycling plants; and (c) independent spent fuel facilities.
(4) Participate in development of regulations, regulatory guides and branch technical positions concerning High Level Waste (HLW) and LLW.
(5)
Provide personnel as members to numerous research review panels which have been organized to oversee research carried out in support of HLW management p rograms.
(6)
Review numerous topical reports from a variety of sources which relate to earth sciences aspects of HLW management.
(7) Participate in the preliminary stages of site evaluation for several HLW sites which may be proposed as disposal sites by DOE.
(8)
Review proposals submitted by states relative to geo-technical investigations at existing LLW sites.
(9)
Review adequacy of existing temporary high level and low level waste storage areas.
(10)
Ensure consistency between the review of plutonium facilities and other reviews.
c.
Hydrology-Meteorology Branch (1)
Review mill license applications and revisions thereto.
(2)
Participate in the natural phenomena restudy of existing facilities.
(3)
Review proposed independent spent fuel facilities.
(4)
Develop hydrologic and meteorological criteria for high and low level waste facilities.
(5)
Review license applications and modification thereto for low level waste facilities.
- (6) Provide advice to agreement states upon request.
(7)
Provide assistance based on special requests (e,9, evaluation of seismically induced flood potential).
(8) Advise and coordinate with RES and OSD on various NI;SS issues and programs, (9) Advise NiISS on technical assistance contracts.
d.
Accident Analysis Branch _
(1) Provide input into t9 development of 10 CFR Part 72, (2)
Review research proposals on spent fuel storage, (3)
Review standards and guides on spent fuel storage and high level waste storage.
(4)
Review the EXXON facility.
(5)
Develop acceptable risk criteria for waste storage, (6)
Review Emergency Plans for license renewal applications, e.
Effluent Treatment Systems Branch (1)
Develop criteria for acceptable forms and quantities of solidified radwaste and the associated criteria for waste disposal methods.
(2)
Determine de minimus concentrations of radionuclides in solid wastes.
(3)
Review solid radwaste volume reduction techniques.
(4)
Review solid radwaste treatment system topical reports, (5)
Provide inputs to development of 10 CFR Part 72 ALARA effluent release criteria for "away from" reactor spent fuel storage facilities.
(6)
Participate in the establishment of criteria for extendc !
onsite storage of low-level solid waste et nuclear reactor sites.
(7)
Review low-level radioactive waste management research programs.
. (8)
Participate in the review of changes to 10 CFR Part 71.
f.
Radiological Assessment Branch (1) Provide support in the areas of internal and external dosimetry, radionuclide transpo: c in the environment, and health effects estimations.
(2)
Review technical documents prepared by NMSS staff or their consultants.
(3) Provide dose calculations for environmental impact statements or assessments using standard or revised reactor dose T,odels.
(4) Perform health effects estimations associated with the exposure of populations to radionuclides released from fuel cycle facilities.
(5) Provide support for the GESMO proceedings (presently recessed), the S-3 table update, the generic uranium mill environmental statement, and the WIPP project.
2.
Connunication Effectiveness NMSS appears to have only a limited concept of what is required a.
in the safety review areas performed by NRR.
b.
NMSS technical assignments often lack established objectives, design criteria, positions, guidance and priorities the lack of which adversely impact on the review performance and schedule.
Requests by NRR to recognize our review needs and to coordinate c.
the timely submittal and scheduling of NMSS assignments go unheeded.
There is little evidence of systematic case review management among NMSS project managers.
d.
Problems occasionally arise because we are expected to review and contribute on short notice.
There is occasionally a lack of responsiveness to needs identified e.
by NRR reviewers.
For example, questions on case reviews are sometimes ignored by NMSS. This may be due to a lack of personnel in NMSS with an appreciation of the basis for earth science require-ments.
. f.
NMSS depends on a variety of consultants for their input in the geologic and seismic areas.
These consultants are often not made aware of existing information relating to nearby nuclear facilities or f4RR and USGS positions.
g.
NMSS has provided little feedback on policy issues and fiRR inputs.
3.
Recommendations for Imoroving Conditions 1.
Hold NMSS/NRR meetings at necessary levels to permit better understanding of safety reviews and to encourage the com-pletion of needed positions and guidance.
2.
Establish NRR/DSE project management control over all work done for fiMSS.
Assign one or more EPM's who will be responsible for coordinating the review needs and schedules with appropriate Divisions of both NMSS and NRR so that priorities and the overall workload can be jointly established.
4.
Status of Coordination at Vallecitos Since about July 1978 Geosciences Branch has interacted closely with NMSS with respect to our review of the General Electric test reactor site.
We have met with NMSS personnel and their ccnsultants and briefed them on our current review findings at that si'.e.
We have provided NMSS with all relevant references and our draft testimony. We have made NMSS personnel aware of a possible linear feature which projects into the area of Building 102, a plutonium st? rage facility.
Based on our verbal recommendation to NMSS which was conveyed to the licensee, this feature is to be trenched and studied by the licensee.
We have received NMSS cons 0 tants' draft reports relating to seismic risk in the Vallecitos MJClear Center area and have discussed them with the avthors.
On August 18, 1978, General Electric Company indicated that extensive new investigation of the site area were to oe undertaken.
As a result of this action, the Geosciences Branch staff will not prepare a position for the GETR Show Cause hearing until these investigations have been reviewed.
NMSS personnel will be kept informed of all site visits to examine site geology.
. Although we agree that it may be beneficial to factor in the primarily probabilistic f1 MSS seismic approach, we are currently applying the more deterministic approach provided in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 in our GETR review.
Aithough we will continue to keep the current relationship active, it would be useful to develop a more formal arrangement for coordinating review findings for different facilities at the same site.
In addition, Hydrology-Meteorology Branch his advised fiMSS on the seismically induced flood risk at Vallecitos.
As a result f; MSS requested the licensee to drain the onsite pond.
If you require any additional information concerning this matter please contact Fred Habdon (X28,33).
l
,j Richard C.
ung, Di' rector Division of site Saf6ty and Environmental Analysis cc: R. DeYoung D. Muller V. Moore R. Vcllmer M. Ernst R. Denise W. Houston J. Collins W. Kreger R. Ballard W. Regan G. Lear B. Youngblood C. Stepp L. Hulman F. Hebdon