ML20058M921
| ML20058M921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/03/1990 |
| From: | Moeller D NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-R-0038, NACNUCLE-R-38, NUDOCS 9008130126 | |
| Download: ML20058M921 (3) | |
Text
- - -
c;.
j
- (, ;,,y *
.a n-L; g ; (.
- 1 l;
ja nt
>g V
- UNITED STATES:
ACNWR-0038-
- 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE h
[N g.
. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20M6 4
4...+
- Augus.c 3, 1990 Mr. Robert M. Bernero, Director
- Office of Nuclear Material Safety.
-i and= Safeguards.
j U.S.? Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-t Washington,.D.C. 20555 i
Dear Mr. Bernero:
~
SUBJECT:
NRC STAFF'S' APPROACH FOR DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTIES IN IMPLEMENTING THE EPA HLW STANDARD l
During the 22nd meeting.of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, 1
July 30-31, 1990, we met with the NRC staff to review and comment on the. subject draft. SECY paper (Reference 1).
This draft was prepared by the staff in response to a request by the Commission for a: "... summary on the staff 's current approach T.c wealing with uncertainties / methodologies in implementing the-EPA probabilistic standard so as tolavoid (as] many of the controversial aspects as possible."
We'believe, for the reasons given below, that the. staff's approach is not adequate.
de include,in this letter specific comments on the dcAft paper and also provide our comments on other aspects of the staff's role in implementing the EPA Standards.
1.
The draf t paper describes two parts to the. finding 'of!
compliance with the EPA Standards.
One part deals with the standard of performance and the other with confidence that the standard of performance has been. met.
The staff has
' failed, however, to provide an adequate approach for_ dealing with residual uncertainties' that will be encountered. in completing this finding.
Much of the paper concerns methods.
for reducing and-managing uncertainties related to 10 CFR Part 60 and the potential activities of DOE, but the staff appears to have neglected to develop an adequate approach for dealing with uncertainties inherent in 40 CF.R Part 191.
2.
The paper acknowledges, albeit in conditional terms, the need p
for expert judgment, but provides no insight on how the staff will apply this judgment or develop an approach for selecting from among conflicting but apparently equally supported opinions.
We believe that expert judgment will be required o09lbo\\h QQf y
a
.j 7 '.
(
Mr. Robert M. Bernero 2
August 3, 1990 f
regardless of the-specific form of the final EPA Standards, and thus, the approach to the use of expert judgment in a_
robust manner is crucial to the quality _ of' the licensing determinations.
The transcript of the 22nd ACNW meeting contains the details of our discussion with the staff concerning conflicting expert opinions...our conclusion is that.it may not be appropriate to treat ~ discrepancies in expert opinions by using weighted.
averages unless this process has been-carefully-analyzed and the limitations of its application to both technology and-licensing matters are well defined.
3.
The staff has included strategies in the paper such as rule-makings to 10 CFR Part 60 to rdduce uncertainties.
While it is possible to narrow the technical and regulatory topics so that only fully determinable variables remain to be considered in the licensing process, we believe this tactic-is neither likely to be. successful nor is it appropriate.
The description offered by the staff does not allow insight-into the scope or the schedule that the staff strategy would call for, in.part because existing rulemaking. topics are not in an advanced stage of development. -The status and description of rulemaking previously proposed to support the conclusion that the EPA Standards are workable are cast into question as is the ability to bring uncertainties into concert with the use of the HLW.probabilistic standards.,
1 4.
We were unable to discern the relationship between the draft paper and the content of the related strategy document' prepared by the FRC staff (Reference 2).
We' concluded that an integrated overall strategy and a strategy for. devising L
methods for demonstrating compliance with.the EPA Standards are necessary and we urge the staff to develop such an integrated approach for delineation of methods that would
' demonstrate such compliance.
Such an integrated strategy L
should also address the connection between those activities L
to be-' carried out by DOE in response to uncertainties related L
to 10 CFR Part 60 and the NRC staff activities related.to l
demonstration, by DOE, of compliance with 40 CFR Part 191.
i 5.
~The current reevaluation of the EPA Standards, which may F
include a reformulation of its probabilistic requirements, mandates a
reexamination of assumptions about its implementability that were made a number of years ago.
This requires prompt attention to the development of a coherent J
' strategy for dealing with the various uncertainties that arise L
in performance assessment.
The staff should be urged to l'
undertake such a development without delay.
P
'L
.k.
I,! w I
7
'-,0 3..-
^
7
'~';
t W
!Mr. Robert M.: Bernero 3
. August 3, 1990 We conclude'that the draft paper should be modifind'by-the staff
- to ' include a.. coherent strategy - outline that : explicitly-addresses
- the implementation of the: EPA Standards andEconsideration of.the
. associated -uncertainties.-
The modifications; should include
- i l exposition of the bases on which the strategies, are dt.veloped, their application-to regulatory and' technical uncertaintias, and a - mcre deliberate discussion of how expert judgment would be l
.. applied, evaluated and justified.
j Sincerely, t
h-Dade W. Moeller Chairman a
References:
7 L
1 ;.-
Staff's Approach for Dealing With
' Uncertainties in l
Implementing the EPA HLW. Standards (WITS 8900236), draft SECY paper, undated.
2.
SECY-90-207,.Firstt Update of the Regulatory Strategy and Schedules for the High-Iavel Waste Repository Program, dated-June 7, 1990.
IX.
j ec:
M. Federline, OCM/KC f
M. Weber,-_OCM/KC b
S. Bilhorn,- OCM/KR.
- i L
J.-Kotra, OCM/JC 0;.-
K. Dragonette,-OCM/JC R.JMacDougall, OCM/FR R
H. Thompson, EDO R'. Browning, NMSS A. Eiss,'NMSS L
D. Fehringer, NMSS 9
I. S 4
5 l'
l l
[-
f l'
w m
-