ML20043E369
| ML20043E369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Carr NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| BEVILL-900327, CCS, NUDOCS 9006120361 | |
| Download: ML20043E369 (5) | |
Text
--^
%f'
'i
[}*
90009$
i "P.. BEV)LL:
When M11 the Licensing Support System (LSS) be required considering the announced 12-year delay in the nuclear waste repository?
CHAIRMAN CARR:
The Commission believes that operation of the first capture facility of the LSS is needed by 1993 to facilitate the identification and early resolution of problems that normally occur in the development of an electronic information-management system of this scope.
Demonstration of the LSS will allow future-expansion of the LSS in a cost effective manner to reflect the pace and needs of the repository program.
Such a development schedule will ensure that the LSS will be available to meet the primary objectives of the system as approved in the Comission's rulemaking which include the early technic:.1 review of high priority documents by DOE, NRC, the State of Nevada, and others before DOE's license application is received, the document discovery needs of the partici-pants in the Commission's high-level waste licensing proceeding, and the elec-tronic transmission of filings and issuances, and for review of the evidentiary record, during the adjudicatory hearing on the DOE license application.
The Department of Energy's revised repository schedule shifts the date for l
submitting its license application to the NRc from 1995 to 2001.
In recogni-tion of this, the LSS development schedule has been substantially ;ut back while still meeting the primary objectives of the system.
The oris mal LSS schedule provided for the loading of 12 million pages into the LSS database by 1993 and 20 million pages by 1995.
To achieve this, capture facilities would have been established and operated starting in FY 1990. The revised LSS loading schedule has been substantially scaled back to reflect the changes in the repository program.
For example, instead of 12 million pages to be loaded by 1993, only 0.5 million pages will now be loaded at this time, using a single I
capture facility. To assure that the LSS users gain maximum benefit from the limited database, only highest priority documents will be loaded This loading will be done consistent with the Commission's topical guidelines which are scheduled to be finalized in FY 1990/1991. Access to these high priority 8829??t!900327 en ep
- wume nc 03/27/90
documents for repository technical review would be available in mid-late 1993.
The operation of-this first capture facility of the LSS will also ensure the timely resolution of problems that normally occur in the installment and opera-tion of any new computer system of this type and size. The " lessons learned" from operating and using this first facility will be taken into account as the balance of the system is implemented.
The LSS will be expanded at a rate that reflects the pace and needs of system users and the need to electronically 5
capture about 20 million pages of documentary material between 1994 and 2001.
The revised LSS development schedule has been planned to minimize overall costs.
For example, a minimum number of additional document processing L
facilities in 1993/1994 will establish a relatively even production schedule p
for capturing the large backlog of documents that now exist, plus those that j
L will be created between now and 2001. An even production schedule will minimize the capital expenditure for production facilities.
Also, an "open architecture" design has been incorporated into the LSS to avoid concerns over technological obsolescence and to allow tried and tested new developments to be incorporated easily.
In addition, by loading the highest priority documents first, resources needed to rule on document discovery disputes will not be needed until the period immediately prececing the submission of the DOE license application.
Commissioner Curtiss has the following separate views on the timing of the Licensing Support System.
l.
L MR. CURTISS:
The LSS was originally conceived primarily as a means of providing early document discovery for potential parties to the high-level waste (HLW)
L repository licensing proceeding and, secondarily, as a tool for DOE and NRC l
technical staffs to manage the large number of technical documents that will be generated during the course of the repository program.
When the Commission approved the final rules establishinq the LSS, it antici-pated that DOE's application for the repository would be filed in 1995 and that l
l Question 18/Bev111/0LSSA 03/27/90
early loading, operation of, and access to the LSS would provide, at most, two to three years of discovery and oocument access for the parties to the reposi-tory licensing proceeding. At the time, the Commission concluded that this was g
sufficient time to undertake the necessary discovery.
In addition, the Com-mission agreed to manage and administer the LSS only if DOE would fund the
-design, procurement, operation, and maintenance of the LSS from DOE's appro-priktions.
There have been a number of developments since the adoption of the final LSS rules that,-in my judgment, point to the need for the Commission to reassess the timing of full-scale development, procurement, loaoing, operation of, end access to the LSS.
In particular, I would call the Committee's attention to the following:
First, DOE has announced substantial delays in its sr.hedule for_ licensing the i
repository.
Rather th6n filing its application in 1995 -- as the Commission anticipated when it' promulgated the rules establishing the LSS in_1989 -- DOE now plans to undertake e more deliberau site characterization process and to delay its application until about 2001. While these changes in DOE's schedule have led to some minor adjustment in the proposed. rate at which documents would be loaded into the LSS, there has bei:n no change in the proposed date of opera-tion for the LSS -- even though the st5missiun of DOE's application for a construction authorization for the repository will now be. delayed six to seven years.
In the face of these developments, I believe that consideration should be given to delaying full-Fcale development and operation of the LSS for the following reasons:
(a) Computer technology is in a constant state of change, particularly in the area of 1: formation retreival. An LSS that is fully developed and imple-mented on the basis of 1990-92 technology is not likely to reflect the state-of-the art' technology that may well be evailable in the mid to late 1990's, when the LSS will be needed.
Delaying the progrom would permit the NRC to take advontage of any such advancereents in the state-of-the-art, perhaps for less than what we would spend on such a system today.
Question 18/Bevill/0LSSA 03/27/90
(b) When the Comission promulgated the LSS rules, it expected that the LSS would go into operetion sometime around 1993 and would thereby provide about two to three years of pre-application discovery for potential parties to the repository licensing proceeding. The current proposal to initiate operation of, and grbnt access to, the LSS eight years prior to the filing of an application by DOE would, in turn, result in eight years of pre-application discovery and ten to eleven years of discovery al-together. Such an approach would also require the establishment of a Pre-Application Licensing Board (PALB) to rule on access issues and to settle discovery disputes throughout that extended discovery period. Such a formal, lengthy discovery process was never contemplated by the Comis-sion, nor do I think it is necessary in order to meet reasonable discovery needs. Additionally, I am concerned that the constitution of a PALB at such an early stage will not only require the commitment of resources to this' task, at a time when our FTEs are quite limited, but will, in ad-dition, unnecessarily formalize the pre-licensing process at a time when the emphasis should be on the kind of informal and open comunication between DOE, NRC, and the State that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act en-visioned during this phase of repository development.
-(c) Earlier cost projections for the LSS were based on DOE's original reposi-tory licensing schedule. Those projections did not account for the operation and maintenance costs for the additional six cr seven years of LSS operation that is now proposed.
In short, operation of the system six to seven years earlier than necessary will lead to six to seven years of additional operation and maintenance costs.
Second, the Comission is currently reexamining the list of topical guide-lines that define which documents are to be placed in the LSS.
Currently, the topical guidelines would require the inclusion of documents addressing topics that, in my judgment, fall outside the scope of any reasonable licensing proceeding for a geologic repository, including, among other things, documents addressing -- (i) alternatives to Yucca Mountain; (ii) alternatives to geologic disposal; and (iii) national transportation routing.
Both the NRC and DOE are statutorily foreclosed from considering i
Question 18/Bevill/0LSSA 03/27/90
1 1
4 alternatives to Yucca Mountain, as well as alternatives to geologic dis-posal. Accordingly, I. see no need to include such documents in the LSS.
Similarly, the issue of national transportation routing -- while an impor-tant issue -- is simply not relevant to the issue to be addressed in our licensing proceeding:
the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site.
For this reason, I see no need to include documents on national transportation routing in the LSS either.
Regardless of how the Comission ultimately resolves these issues, however, the Commission is currently awaiting the staff's analysis of.what topics should be included-in the topical guide.
lines.
Until we complete our action on this initiative, it would be pre-mature in say view to begin loading documents in the LSS.
Finally, DOE has not yet agreed to fund the loading, operation, and main-l tenance of the LSS.
Since the Commission expressly conditioned its l
original agreement to administer the LSS.on DOE's funding the entire system, and since the costs of loading, operating, and maintaining the system are likely to be rather large, I do not believe that the Commission should proceed with development and operation of the LSS until a clear and satisfactory resolution of the funding issue is reached, i
Question 18/Bev111/0LSSA 03/27/90
.