ML20059N627

Transcript of 901001 Meeting Re Conformity on Low Level Waste Disposal Facilities W/Requirements of 10CFR61

ML20059N627
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/09/1990
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9010170052
Download: ML20059N627 (56)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.-

6

.s a a 1

O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOR? COMMIS SION f l

Title, BRIEFING ON CONFORMITY OF'GUIDAIICE ON LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES WITH REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR PART 61 I

LOCatiOJ}l ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND I t O / Date: OCf0BER I, if9'O Paaes: 53 PAGES i 4 NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC. 001891 SFP0ptFps App ? t A W R r P f e t p r. 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, llor thwes t Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 9010'170052 901009 Pf61 PNV s .e, -. ,=m- -...w ,..----.,,-,e, -,,,_e-,-, w ....y ew., --w-.-w,

f...,.. \\ DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on October 1. 1990 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is i not part of the formal or informal record of decision of I the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the commission in-any proceeding as the result of, or e addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. 6 9 9 b NEAL R. GROSS COURT Rf#oefft$ AND TRANSCRittt$ 1333 RHoDI flLAND AVINUf, H.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600

[.c o E-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i BRIEFING ON CONFORMITY OF GUIDANCE ON 1,0W LEVEL i WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES WITH REQUIREMENTS OF [ 10 CFR PART 61 PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland ~~~ Monday, October 1, 1990 c The Commission met in open

session, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.,

Kenneth M.

Carr, Chairman, presiding.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: KENNETH M. CARR, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS, Commissioner I I NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

h-6' y ,' r v':

. +

p gjQ;, w 4., ff q 4 t ty ;.. x ,, 'W, ?

*6 A

y 1 ? n q_

y s

+ y-p 1 i .i' k N k;$]3 'l ~ ~ o p r'~e~' s, 'a. v% - . STAFF SEATED'ATcTHELCOMMISSION TABLE: -J' r p[. 7Qi g +, p g: WILLIAM C.-:PARLER,. General Counsei j P i i..,-.. @c

[

- JOHN H0YLE. L0f fice, of t he Secretary l i ' d j '.. ..s p 'b,i, 'i. JAMEStTAYLOH; Executive Director:for Operations g; - HOBERT BERNERO,~ Director, NMSS l L/O m + JOHN GREEVES,, Deput y Direct or. ' Division "of LLW -Mgt. and Decom., NMSS -.o a 8 a <0ffice of. the! General' 1 lm Counsel

DOROTHY.MICHAELS, Attorney, '

d M L._ i k.,, ' [, KATHY-SCHNEIDER;4 OffAce: of State. Programn- .I wc 4 h A I! c ,-i,y c 7,. 3' g. I L .f ,y I-i 44y.. -{ .' L e I / .1 ! k 5 + i g b 4 i ' L -t .t ,m i. g El ~ W 3a ki I a t .-g,, fr 8 ,F 4 g ,t r 2+

i

~p ? < n,q; t, s ?; .f 1 Li s m i.-i 'i, ' I ,Y l.' 4 l4- ~ .' F i f -l bh ..a -: i.

i

~ .y f

,J NEAL R.

GROSS

l f

1323ERhode' Island: Avenue, N.W. ri K ! Washington, D.C.

-20005-

. s ~~ J(202) 234-4433 f4

J .c _ qy s 4 y .n 'y ni : f 3 .p, P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1' . c. ? L, 2 '2:00 p.m. 3 CHAIRMAN CARR: Good a f t ernoon... ladies and I e,; [. L 4 gentlemen. p 5 This.nfternoon-the Commission will-be G ' briefed on ' the NRC staff's effort to evaluat e - t he - y o -r ~7. conformit y of - guidance on low level wast e - disposal [p -f 8 facilities with the requirements,of 10 CFR Part 61 -. - + g 9 Early in 1990,. members of the public= and g 10 the - Commission's Advisory Committce on Nu'elear Waste 4 te P. 11 rnised nquest ions.about the current low level waste-12 guidance. In. March of 1990, the Commission? requested 13 t he 'st af f and. the Office of the General Counsel to I 6 4. 14 review low level waste guidance to ensure 'that it -15 comports with requirements of 10 CFR part 01innd to. j 10: address 'any inconsist encies' which were noted in the 4 aa i, - 17 ' staff's; review of DOE's prototype license application- =4 18 ~ safety-analysis reports,-or PLASARs. L 19- _S+aff was also asked to develop a '20- . regulatory road map which tidentifies. applicable :. l ow 21 level waste-guidance and to identify concerns. t hat. h -22 prompt consideration are more restrict ive criteria Ip' ' 23 -than t he ~ regul at-ions themselves. t r 24-This afternoon -the NRC staf f 'will brief l-25. the Commission on the results of their review and on 's. g NEAL R. GROSS k ~. 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i

W. '. S -e e ,~ 999:(,7 v

,9 e y

t

p a. p}lK, 4 L i*- -1 -their recommendetion.for needed actions. + 2 Do any of my. fellow Commissioners have any, 3 opening comments'? I w t 4u, \\ f' "4 If not, Mr. Taylor, please proceed. d 5- ~MR. T A Y1,0R : - Good afternoon.- With me at 4 t f 6 the-table is Mr. Bernero, ihe head of the Of fice of-L ) [ 7

NMSS, and three of the leading members of a cross 8

of fice' ~ team, put together'to review the documenis-on ) 9-t his 'subjec t. I'11 now int roduce them. To'my far 1 3 l-t 10~ lef t. Kathy Schneider from State Programs;. to. my ~ t 11 immediate right,. John Greeves, the Offic'e of'NMSS, and } i .p. 12 Dorothy Michaels from the Of fice of General Counsel,. I 'Jrr 13 They're three of-the leading members of this team and i i 14-there are other members here-in the audience. o - 15 With that introduction, I'll ask John 16-Greeves to b.egin. 1 1 17J MR.- GREEVES: Okay. We have-a sett of -I ue 18 handouts that are in front of everybody.s There ' are o .y . 10 additional copies of the handouts off to the side of m 20: the-room for-those in the audience who would like to-f" 21 follow along. f 22 (Slide I'm on page 2 of the handout. A

.m 23 Basicall'y, this is Just an overview of the topics that 24 I plan to address-here this afternoon, the first of 4

25 which, as you mentioned, was the Commission request in i-y = i- - NEA1. R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 -1202) 234-4433 e

. + J.l *. 9 f o - ~ n 3 j. t I I f k/ i tN 3p' g 1 March. I'a - going-to go over a -lit tle bit of t he. 2' background on the development of the Low Level Waste 3= Amendments ~Act to show how this guidance fit in witb j e 4 that. I will go into some detail regarding the 5 approach that the ataff took io conduct this review G and we'll

finish up with' conclusions and-7s

' recommendations 'on future plans :as a result of.. t hi s. t 8-effort. p p, k n

(Slide)

Then let's move over to page 3. 10 There

were, as you mentioned, four F

l 'l ' elementa to your requost, the first of which wasLto L F 12 Jaddress this quest ion. of conformity of -t he. low': level n 7' 13 waste guidance-put out by the staff in conformance + -- 14 with Part Gl. This guidance needs to accurately 35 reflect -what is - In t he regulat ions.- And in a number 16-of cases externally, -people out in the s'tates view 17 these guidance documents as being mandatory. So, they 18 need to be looked at'very carefully'.- 19-The second area, as you mentioned, was the. 20 prototype license application safety' analysis report. ~21 1 won't say that. out each time. It's a mouthful. We 22: all refer to that.as the -ptASAR process. Basically, 23 we reviewed that and it ended up being shakedown 24 crews, which we'll discuss further. ' 25 The third item was the rond map that was .g NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 i (. (202) 234-4433

hsa f; ; ; 1 \\ % u I c -,. i t g-n- 0 t~ 4'- 1 raised by the Advisory Commitiee on Nuclear Waste and ~- 2. you asked'us to get together with'the states and talk-l' 3-some more about that and we have. 4 An'd the last. item that was included in the 5 request was the consideration.of more restrictive G criteria in case we.found something in the guidance-i '7 that did gjo beyond Part Gl. I,et 's. not. discardL i t, if r ;;; 8 it's something that really is -needed, S o,- we look .f g 9 for those. 10 Alpo, I would like to point out t hat ' t his .l 11 has had a large impact onlwhat the staff is doing in p,

j f

12 the sense that the ataff is sensitized t o. t his 1asue. n U1~ 13: and-they are implementing it in other areaa. They're 7 '14 looking at documents that ~ we're working on currently ~ 15 and they're also reviewing some of'the others that IG we've worked on in the past. It's turned out to be-a } 17 very efficient way to address.this question, i r [0 18 (Slide) Okay. I'm over on:page 4. o' p, 19-As I think all of you are' aware. -what' q i. '20 brought. a lot of this action in terms of guidanco S 21 forward was the ' 85. Amendment s Act. There were.two-G 22 sections" in 'there, Section 8(a) und 8(b) _ which i 1 the staff to do certain things, the first of 23' required 24: which was within 12 months we had to identi fy the set .i h-j j 25' of ' alternatives that were acceptable and establish i. . 6-~ NEAI, H. GROSS I g 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. .i Washington,- D.C. 20005 L _(202) 234-4433

p, . u. p. y \\ s; ~,! y wr 7 r, 3 1 procedures ;for reviewing 'such alternatives. That 2 i b 2 result ed in. the January" of '87 publication of. t he 7 L '3 standard format and content, which we'll refer to as ~ r 4-the FFLC, and the standard review pinn, which also;is' 5 .the SRP. 6 The Act alco. called for wit hin ' n-24 ' mont h' time 7 frame -for the' -staff to publish all technical i 8-information regarding these engineered niternntives,. r 9 the real, detail on these future-alternative concepts r 10 that the states were looking at. We published - t hat I ' i 11 set of documents in' January of '88.- I t. ' essen t ially c. ic. Lu 12 was revision 1 to the standard review plan. Land as p. y

• m 13 you mentioned earlier, some number of. ques t 'i ons have

L 14 been raised.

-3 4 '] 5 People had a couple of years t o work with= L 4 IG; t hese. document s. California - had a chance to get-n-e 17 . license application in and for-one Al Pasternak wrote 18. a letter to Harold Denton and raised some questions 19I about the guidance-going -beyond the requirements.- .20 Subsequent to that-time frame, we received a detail-1 -I 21 ' letter-from Bob Avant, from the Texas Low Level Waste-t = Disposal Authority,- identi fying some of the concerns; r 22 23 that he was ownre of. f [ 24 (Slide) So, wi t h-t ha t, I'd like-to go 25 over the way that we organized the review team .t o- .i NEAL R. GHOSS i 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.- 20005 0 (202) 234-4433 4 't

T' . ~. [ s i ' 'c s l l;; b

(

t g m da l' complete thisl effort. As= Jim Taylor mentioned, lt was M 2 a multi-office review approach. What we tried to do l% 3l was tske a broad look at these guidance documents. We a '4 : ' wanted to work wi t h'~ some of.t he people who;had been y:. ( ,5 authors of the document. At the same t. i m e, we wanted lt involved who=were not' authors O to get 'somo new people -. q-v '7 .of the document, ' t o ' mnke sure ~ we - had .e look at a a 8.- couple-of different anglen. 3 e, 9 So, we.obviously~ involved t he ' Of fice of c 10 NMSS, l.ow Level Waste niaf f. principally, Joe Kune-h' ti 'll was the' lead technical reviewer on that project. We cl2 were"able to get some help from the High 1,evel Waste H-13 -staff. Mi ke 111 ac'k f o rd, who is s'scismological expert,. v >.. 't 14 we asked himi t o part icipat e. OGC:was represent ed by -{ 15' . Dorothy;Michaels_and Government and public-Affairs-by 10 ' Kathy Schneider down at.the left, s 17 l t-turns cut that - some of.these other t 18, people, like Kathy Schneider, weretable to. bring some y

19 experience - working with the st.ates that the staff in 20-

-Low 13 vel Waste didn'.t quite have. We sometimes maybe e, 21 'get a'11tt1o too close to our documents._. Kathy was g' 22: quite holpful in her experience in giving guidance ~. '23 .to'the ~ state on other' matters related to NRC. So, it 24-was quite helpful to have this broad tenn loo! at this %l :. l '25'- approach. u. , y _. NEAL R. GROSS '1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-B. (202)-234-4433

mgm, y

- -- 7 n...; i r Q; s'l, , [b jO I e e i Q,9fl ,n s o %p, ' o 1: /t 9 y o y 1 1 (Slide) The : next _ thing : we-'did A t o tryn and 4; 2 dothis ef ficient ly' was we divided t ho' up' the ~ 3: Lassignments as follows. We selected' three people 4 within the group to review-the en t i re ' document.- .I'm g' ~5 sure you've seen them. 'I t 's n.ruther imposing: G document I o ~ try and get thr'ough. So, we assign ~ed to i f 7 Dorothy Michaels, Maxine - Dunkelman, iiif. my st af f) and '1 -R also-~ reviewed ' t he entire document from l front t o! !ia ck. 9 Along with t ha t', to do an efficient revi'ew, we gave 10 specifit section=nssignments ta the-rest of the.tcam. 11 predominantly in their area-of technical. discipline. ' 12., So, it ended up ' being a bit of a part-time job? for -13 folks and they were able to do their-other work. r 4 r. ' 14-As far as timing, we set up - a goal. t o-1 15. complete thesinternal review by'the staff by the-end. 10 of May-and then'we draf t ed' up our comments in a mini- ,s 17' report by the end of ; June. That put us 'in the-18 pos.ition to~be able to meet witlI the s'tates. We wrote q 19-letters to key agreement states, inviting 1them to come n ,20 in and participate in t b s process with.us. .21 n. As you can on this. slide, we contacted v f 22 Texas,- pennsylvan'in und California-and'we worked with i . 23 the regulatory ~ side of the program. For example, in-24' C a l i f or ni n : 'we invited the Bureau of Radiation cont rol s j250 to.come in' and meet with us'and go over this. process g h 1!.. NEAL H. GHOSS -1323tHhode Island. Avenue, N.W. 3 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

Q;,f 7 +, q p r a x o y m, 1 2 -). h a .cy 10 c. K? + 4;l v - p4' ,1 ; a'nd 'askedi t hem also. t o brings t he Texas' Low Level Wastei n t (, g4 2, Disposal -Authority. TheyL're the ~ones. who' had 9-. u.< }][ '? ~16 [develogied theJ epplicat ioni.in. Texas and, t hey; _ brought [ 3 -4 i L4: their-views. We had a very good meeting with them. j 5 InHPennsylvania, we-met with the Bureau of' n + 2! G. Radiation.Proteetion, Hjl1:Dornsbif's group.: 'Bi1Ifwas' O k 7L i fni.here: ' briefing you ' previously. He:brnusht l'n. wi t h r g. 8-him. Chem Nuclear.' Services, Incorporated. Mike-Ryan, L v. s t f 9.c .one o f, their Vice Presidents, participated in that. =! _r } 10 ' Bill; = also brought Westin, one of t he-consul t an t s : to 1 11 .the regulator in-Pennsylvania. Prior,to the meeting,. } 12-a citizensLgroup representat'ive in Pennsylvania calldd <u r = ( 'r--C 13 me' up -and asked. i' f she could-come sit in - on the. o ~ '1 1 14. meeting. This was Judith Johmerud. wi t h the citizens k {l5 , grotm -in Pennsylvania. I said, " Fine, I'd'be happy to 165 , have you sit-in on thermeeting," and she did. - That! ?

[_. ~

17i worked v.ery well. j } g. 18 In: the tease of' California,- it' } turns:} outu w 19- ' t ha t '.we werel unable to actually have-them come i ti ifor .x, s 2 0.- a meeting. <They~, asked: if. we could do this: by. }v nq 't 21 . conference call and .that ended up

t. o be avery i

~ 22 succes s f ul.' So, we had a separate conference call-n ~23.. with~ Department of. Health-Services, the regulatory in l L ' 24' California,-and-also.their consultant, Westin,=was on 3 7 25 .the - line for that. Then separately we had a ~1 l s,_ 11 NEAL H. GROSS l 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. 4 g!f ' Washington, D'.C. 20005 ':y: .g (202) 234-4433 1 A }y c-

f 'h '; tj ~ q i ~. g;licc y M,F j t,' h I' i

. p.

<u,o m -:e 7 g

., j II' li conference ' call with' U. Sl, E col ogy,

hef dsveloper Lin = g 2. California.- So, - wi t h ).this process, Lwe captured it he - w 4 '3 principal developers o f S t h e. s i t e s '.o h;9 For example, U_. S. : e. 4' ' Ecology :1s. also in. Nebraska: Jand. Chem Nuclear ' is 'in 3 4_ 5 '. Nort h1 Carol i na.. G (S]ide). -So,-with that, I'm o v e r _ o n.: p _a g e " '7 .7 '. .8 Another ' approach thai we.took partway-9- through_the. review, we thought it would probably'be:'a- _10 good opportunity if_ we could visit with some o fc.: t h e - 11 people' _that developed! _ t he PLASAR ~ document <Th~ey; 1 -12 struggled io put t hat - mock appl i ca t i cii together. S o -- e '" r 13 ~ we ' called up both Rogers Associates and - Ebasco and 14' invited.them in here to give us their v'iews. .We~were 15 successful-in" meeting with Rogers l and Associates;- -l G Chasco's team was not assemble' dant t ha_t - poi nt_ : i n i t i me'. 17 So, we were unnble to-meet ~ wl'th them. 4 E 18 We -took another look at. the: issue also. -19 We;took advantage of several : workshops - t h~at - t he NRC-y 20 Thas conducted with the agreement states over ab'out-the-21-last six months. In June of this_ year,. Mike-Toka:I's staff in 1ow Level Waste put.on a o n'e day workshop' ~I '. 2 3 wit h - all of.the agreement states. -We have.every six a '24 months-a meeting with the ~ agreement state regulators. l 25 So, 'that was an opportunity to hear other views _and ] j -l Ik NEAL R. GROSS l 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. g. ~+ ,.3 Washington, D.C. 20005 +

?

(202)-234-4433 S .,s l

s _ + _. j,tf; n,; >,,tw j 'y y % u -L', p4 , y; 4 o n-, w ltj 12' s s N]k.,

13 lget_some feedback =on that~.

7 o .2 'A second opport unit y that. -in-f act,- 'w a s -- ' 3 -! complet edi quit e recent1y was' t he ' Nebraska. ' workshop. m E + ' T4-September 12th and:13th,. Nebraska requested us'~to come r 4 in-dep t hl-tie $i ew :of _t he ~s t andard -

g

' 5 -- out.and give them an c t .g GL review plan _ process and-answer their ques t.J ons, w -7 Again, Mike:Tokar and his~ staff'went out there-for~a.- 4 6< 8 two. day workshop in Nebraska.

Again, that: was an' f

v 9 ' opportunity-for good back_on-this process. 10 (Slide)' l-'m' on page 8 now. ' 11-I put this slide-in.here t oi. go ' over L t he : [ m: 41 ,1 fl2} s t ruct ure of the-standard review plan. Itoth Lthe a ^ yl'3 ~ review, plan and the. standard format and ' cont en t are i e M-14-ten . chapters. They- < s tart out' with general: as sl5 i n f o rm a t i o n,- , site i n f o rm a t i on', go through design,- 4 l16 operationalLinformation, end upLwiih quality assurance .] L17 ' - and' financial - assurance.- .They're all atructured the w i

18:

same

way, as_ you see ion- 'this chart.

This-i s J 1 4

19

' cons is t en t.wi t h what we did-in NRR, in. NUREG-0800 i n-j q '20-terms of a: standard. review plan. q 21 You start :out with' the first' of which = is '22 _just defining _ area responsibilities-within thei ly '23 Commission. The second defines whatever that-J c24 technien1faron of concern.i s. The third is the actual s. c. p 9! 25 review procedures and the fourth one, which is-a key-j j 4,_ j \\i" NEAL R. GROSS I 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. l l' Washington, D.C. 20005 t (202)-234-4433 i ~

eg.,, - i.: In g L.,. 7,y n a I.[b 4I s g go -i-L13 ] o .c b E. -l-one, identi fiesl the accept ance criteriaic whateverithall M L2-particular techn-ical chapter is. 3' I'd like =to -point :out + that-th'e : Comport I' l 4 Review focused.on the regulatory requirements. That's-j ~! L 5-where we found a number of the issues - th'at you seeJon j "p p G the' paper. Also. in that acceptance cri t eria - chapt eri 'l -1 i 7 'you'll, find. regulat ory_ guidance, wh i ch1. r e f e rs } l tm a= 1 8 number,of _ t he' guidance documenta the st nf f chas. put

)

~ 9 ou t,.'and t hen : finally regulatory evaluation criteria-J

)

10 which lists'one acceptable way'of performingfwhatever. j -f i 'll th'at technica'l activity is. ?n 12 The fifth and final part of this! standard; a -13 st ruct ure -is the evaluations and findings,. which - 181 j i 34 .just 'a mini safet y evaluation. report for-that: j 15 particular topic. } 71 6 COMMISSIONER CIIRTISS: John, JuniLa point i a In-viewsof th'e way the SRP-is j o r cl ari fi ca t!io. n he re,. L 17 r 18 structured,;is it-envisioned-forethe vario'us? technical' m; ~ +f 19 chapters-that-the reviewer 'for each chapter fwould; "j O

20f pretty much belable,t.o.revie'w that chapter independent..

{

1 21 of and ^ freestanding. from any _ot her < chapt er that's: '22' .under review or what 's the connection between _ those - 23 reviews? .t 24: 'MR. GREEVES: You're touching on a n, < i s s ue'- 25 that we ran into with the states. By and large. 'u-i il 1 [ h':l NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. = Washington,.D.C. 20005 t ; <: (202) 234-4433

22% M. k,,. : v... m ;. 4 m r [pf {,h > @ j L y 4 sy ,m .f6 a ,-y 4 i f E p' -34 j b ~ '1 n p %, D j. +

p

peyiewer cought' [t o Lbe' able' to. revi ewli t ha t

chapter, m

,1 lF 2c 'although wel ldo _ reference other chapt ersL where - j a + 1> 3k appropriate, touching on an' area.I'lliget;to insterms

l y

4i sof:. ? . t h e. s t a t e s '.- A ' problem lin wri t ing one - of ' t hese 't k.1 9-

5 documents is how ' do ' you avoid 't edundancy.

The heatt o f, 7" =6 that = isL already, referenced to other, sections. S o, ' a:: ./ 7? Lt '

goal. ought to be that you can rev.iew.your c h ap t e r _ b yl-3

.t e o 8_ yourself, however recognizing-that_thepe~ a' number 'E are 9! o f, L o t h e r chapters 'that may provide CinputL to-your 10L chapter and what we've -done is. cross referenced - as, = '}

11

-much as possible. -[ t t 1 12 Is that an answer to your question? E r-13 (Slide) Okay. I'am. moving over-to page- [

-3 4 '-

9. 1 +

J15,

JustLto s' tart out here, the results of the 3.w l'6 review,. basically what Lwe have concluded is-that the' N

11 7 - s tan _dardL review : plhn. is! nott broken.- Tliere ~areisome s - o ,18 . problem ! areas which, we?will-go. over. - The 'firsti of q a c19)

these, _ Dorot hy-Michaels from OGC 'willD address 'these 1

1 b

f20 'issiles mini t he ' Comport area. J; i ' 42 1 MS. MICHAELS: Okay. For our. analysis,(wet j g' t 22' reviewed both' the standard-review. plan and thes a 1 cv - ^ format and content guide _to determine whether '23 standard p-24 or not these : documents would demonstrate compliance xc 4 4 -25 'with Part 61. + u a _. '"g-i ~ NEAL R. GROSS 1323'Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. + g* 'E -Washington,-D.C. 20005 M (202) 234-4433 i m x'

k. dl([':. ;

i.._,

pl b + .J, y g< ~ s s _. y' Ii.5 4' 5 3 p i j{ ige, ^" p -h ,l~ q 15i ,, f p/y w j Innfourm subject areas: of the SRP,: we a found-k.. A 21 . t hat-t he~ regul at ory; requi remen t:sT section 1 referenced t an m e .;s

3

Linappropriat'e - requi rementi t.o? P_ art' ~ 61!, :; tliusi ii--. wodld tie _ P 4: ou t Lof 'compis ance ' wi t h. Part ' Gl. The-fou r. subj'ec t > k c O - 5. areas. are me t eorology: and 'ellmatology, ' geology ' and

< eg. 2;-

6 .scismoNgy,1 radionuclide ~ p releases.during accidents andl o .,j

7'

-unusual-operational conditions, andEquality assurance',- n o i, a' 8 qual.11 y - con t rol. P; 9-for the 'first . item, meteorology" and= ~ 10? climatology,..in Chapter 2 of the standard review planl s 0 g

1 11 under

the regulatory. . requirements s e c t.i o n, -- .i t - 1 referenced an-inappropriate-requirement.o

I t' -

= 3 rf

13 referenced Part 50.

Well, there's nothing iniPurt Glj o .14, that: requires t he. applican t.. t o comply. wit h Part-5 0.- ' T f - 15 .Therefore, the s tandard review - plan went beyond wh a t :- ') "16 p Lis.needed to demonstrate. compliance-with-Part.:Gl. 4 17! Also lii j chap t e r -2 (.of1the standard, review-m p'1 5 y 18; plan f o r:. geology and seismology, again7 t he fregula t ory ; a 19: requirement _section-referenced Part-50' and 100. 20l ' A g a i n, : - t h e r e '_ s nothing: in Part' Gl_.that. requires : :t he L21 - applicant?to comply _with eithor PartR 50 ?or 100. So, r. . 4

22 the' standard review plan here went beyond what is-i}

23-

necessary to-demonstrate compliance with Part 61.

l 1 l 9 24: The third item was found in Chapter 6 of + J25 4 the standard review plan. That denlt with W .a 1 u t 1 e 4 m :- jl~ 'i l gg. NEAL R. GROSS j M. 71 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. t / -Washington,.D.C. 20005 j hh l y.. (202L 234-4433 j t i wa w

t. 16 . r-1 radionuclide releases during accidents and unusual 2

operational conditlons.

Here the regulatory 3 requirement section referenced Part 20. Well, Part 20' 4 only deals wit h. planned and deliberate releases 'and S expected accidents. Part 61-does indeed reference 6 Part 20, however it applies a limit on Part 20. -I t 7-applies to likely accidents. 8

Well, a careful reading of the standard 9

review plan calls for consideration of a full range of 10 accidents, thus including unlikely accidents. So, 11 again, -the standard review plan went beyond what is 12 needed to demonstrate compliance with Part 61. 13-The fourth and final point was found' i n 14 Chapter 9 of both the standard review plan and the-15 standard format and content guide.

Here, these 16 documents required the applicant to follow a quality 17 assurance program.

Well, Part 61 calls only for a 18 quality control program and what is-considered audits 19 and managerial controls.

Since the standard review 20 plan and the standard format and content guide calls 21 for a more comprehensive program than what is 22 referenced in Part 61, the standard review plan and 23' the. SF&C go beyond what is needed to demonstrate 24 compliance with Part Gl. 25 (Slide) In aridi t ion t o these four ,e NEAL R. GROSS l 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. I Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

e. q '. ;

T q .r p' 1, f 4 I-l _ g- ^ 7 t i y Uj f- 'h-4 { 4- .) - J. I' 3 p - 1,7_ ' ' wiCi

a w.

1

i.t ems f--

cotildi we. heye f t he a riex t 's1 i de,_..pl eas e r -, we : {hs - f f:) tother: less: - si gni ficant: items -seat'tered; N,' ?2

found; 2

3' _ t hroughout: botli document s tiiat-gave the implication on-4 4 4 suggestion ' thatz we had. comport :it ems. For example,y I 'S .there were ' imprecise statements where we; require:'t he. 4 lG_ =appliennt to commit t o1 NUREG-334 3. _ Al so, - t here f arez e ~7 words.that are of an obligatory" nature,_ " comply,x" I -8' " require," "must." And since-these are guidancs.1 l 9' . documen t sl and no t r.eq u i t'emen t's, these would have-to.be-Y ~ J10 - c) tiri fi ed f or: the record. < 1 ~1; Wel-1, this ends the' conclusion on coniport

12

.i.tems and John will continue with the PLASAR' -13 experience. 14: CIIAIRMAN CARR: Let me ask you, when;you ~15 ? say = "signifi can t," ' how significant were those I_think - 16 : ti n the npplications that-are -being put together o r. H 17 haveLbeen put'together?- Y 118- . M R.- GREEVES:- Are you referring to these "19 ' four' items? .3 E-' ~ 20 Cil A I RM A N :. C A R R : Yes. It:says -- you said: ] '21 .t hese. are significant and I'm t ryin g. -to. find out L.how. .j ~ -t 22 significant or what wns the significance. _j y 23 MS. MICHAELS: Well, : t he -- go ahead, s '24' MR. GREEVES: I think I can p u t. s o m e "E 125 perspective on it. -j. .1- .,j t 1 NEAL R. GROSS d% S 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. k ' Washington, D.C. 20005 U .(202) 234-4433 1 .)

my 7 ffQ 9 '- % p r,L yip M u olA r--l 18-mz i' -- 4 1= .MS. MICHAELS: -Okay. 2 MR. GREEVES: =These-were .the nio s t' -3: ,significant items that) we-covered. . We had 'an- '4 ' opportunity.to discuss t hese ' wi t h' t he states when we. 1 5-met?.with them.- Let me. give - you. an : example,- the ~ V l -G geology and seismology one.' We' brought'this~ issue up .7 ' with the three slates that.we met'withLand california: 8 t o l d - m e~ that'they didn'.t see it an t hat - big'_ a - deal. 1 9 They understoed what_ was ~ needed' and-i t -: -wasn't a 10< problem for them. I think pretty'much.the same answer [ 11 was ' delivered by Pennsylvania. However, this= -issue-y 3:- 12 was_ raised quite vigorously by Texas. S o ', i t_. depends, . ;:y Y. on whatt entity 1you're. talking aboutn .I think asmosti 'L 14' of.us'are aware, there are issues regarding_ seismology e 15-and geology in the Texas site. ~So,-that's patt.ofcwhy ~ e 'lG

they raised that.

So', it varies - depending'- on what .. i '17 site.you're talkingsabout'. 9 au ~M !18 None of-them that.'I can-recall raised: the I 19: meteorology, climatology issue.. We/ basically ~_ caughti 20-that one. None offthem complained about the' releases: -O'

21

-of radioactivity for Part 20. . Th a t _'.s o'n e 'that we-4' 22 encountered ourselves. And as far as ~the-- quality-23

assurance one, it' turns out that - all of~the states 24 are, in fact, doing. quality assurance.

They.like it. 25 We've been out giving them workshops regarding 'our r-vs j i NEAL R. GROSS i 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 y. 4 (202) 234-4433 'i Ji: U

g'.y,1yg_s , ifl

== '~ r o,- 1 v. n g y(, ,4 I 'f N Y t 04 ' l; - 19: 7.17 - guidance documents on that'and:they al11are proceedinge (.f 3; 4 L 12, very:wel1,.In(that arena. So, in.thatisense.the impact-w .isEnot that-great. F-J3 p [* 04-We.had a threshold:of what we thoughtLthe~ 55 comport - issues were here and1we wanted to honor'whatte rc .d o,- which was flag wliat were' comport" ~ G' you asked us.to 'i ' 7-L nsues.. -But l'd say.at leastlthree_of these arennot. i ~ 1 r; 8 ' things that have been troubling =to the states. 4 9 CHAIRbl AN' C ARR: 10kay. These are things we. 10 would; want.. in there anyway. It's just.a case you had-11-nothin'gcelsento ~ reference to refer.them to. g i fl 12 MR. GREEVES: That is accurate. D W ~13 CHAIRMAN CARR: 'Okay. lh l4 MR. PARLER: I 'think there's one other 15 poin t: t ha t-. 'I would ' like to make, ' at ~least : elaborate: . I'6 fon.- Even thoughithere.may not be any major-disconnect .1 ol7: ibetween the applicantsn r potential applleants'and;the o "] 8 :

regulatory-staff at this t i m e.. ;i f - yo'u" h a v e.e d i f f e r e n c e s 19-in:the' documents.such-as these.four, you may:'have'somes 20, other people that participate later-on.

.So lhatDwould . 21 - provide a fertile grounds for1 debate. So,- i fJ t he re '= s W. 22 anything like this that could be clarified, I think it-23 shouId be clarified. I.f_ - 24-CHAIRMAN CARR: I understand that, yes. q 4 25: MR. GREEVES: (Slide) With

that, I

j a-1 i y ( NEAL R. CROSS b a 1323 Rhode' Island Avenue, N.W. j Vo Washington, D.C. 20005 4 ..(202);234-4433 h m s a

4 y!y ;,, ,!c - 4 g s ..y f.; - ,w .L [$ N t x' h_>Kv 20=- h4 ^ ipk-i. L1 L ' b'elieve we'_re:up-to page-11. a[', J2y I'm - goingito describe at little bitt of the; 'h N s 3! experience with' the PLASAR ' work: that the staff? q 4 performed. F i r; s t, - I'd like. t o-point-out t h a t -- in, t w q 1 g, '5 working with DOE on.the PL AS AR review,. the Es t a f f was. j 1 bb d really~ focusing on the middle. chapters in the standard. G-d 7- ' review - plan's, Chapters. 3 t hrough ' 7. _ I t. basically" . r ) '8 addressed the design issues associated with-th~ese x 9: ' alternatives. ItJdid not' address things like~ siting, ? t 1 03 et cetera. They basically had a fict ional-si t e, so j +

A 11~

the-staff effort-was really 'on the design-related. 12; . aspects. -13 The result of that work ' by. t he s t a f f: was ,c,- 14c we idid not find any comport or inconsistencies a s _ 'a. + 15- -result or this review. However, as you might imagine, j 16 iwe did' find. a ' number of-areas shere based on I 17/ experience, since-these documents were 'put

out, i

18 Working.with ' the states,- comments' from--the states, 'l n r3

19r found a number of areas where _ we-can significantly i

s ? 20~ improve this document. It's: real1y. similar-t o our [, 21-3 experience in NRR when we first put out those standard

22 review plans years ago..

They obviously were revised j; 'q 23 -and : you improve them significantly over time. So, ,a i ,24' we've.had a couple -of years of experience with this i and California ^ has had an opportunity to get an ~" 25 a i._. NEAL H. GROSS .a.. s C 'i ' 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. g "' Washington, D.C. '20005 + A '(202) 234-4433 mw.,, a

i

Q fm ; ;c. s! .a r -e n; fr}:9, V,J i, 4= d + l 21: 4 a 1 application under= process.- -j 2 -So, -with

that, we _ will b'e able' st o -

1 3: significantly' make_ improvements as' a. resul t ' of. t hi: i 4 PLASAR experience. -i + 5-(Slide). I'm. going to move-on to page 12.. ) G' I :' d' l i k e. t o point out that the^ states are ~ 7.

using these' documents.

That's.one of the" things _that; 4 -. -q = 8l was very, clear when we met with them. California 'andL j 9 others, -including N e b r a s k a,.. a r e using these as good l 10 :- baseline documents' to help -them l'n -their review 11 process. They're hoppy - wi t h the documents as they J

12-exist. at t he. present time.for the most part.

They,

I e-13-

.-consider them:n' -good baseline' document andcit really: '14 does constitute a road map. We discussed that wl t in s 15 them. 1: 165 One : thing 'I not e.is i t 's a little tough i -a 17 for t hem : t o organize,their teams. They run'into this- ~ s 18 problem you mentioned t o ime-- a few minutes,ago about-j N 19~ compartmentalizing their reviews. It becomes tough.to-1 37 =20: make sure that all~the-consultants t hat -' you' re hiring _ q

21.

can: Jump from their sect ion' 't o another section in f a 22 t erms "of getting th'e right. input _to be able to do I f f .23-their Job and that.'s a-tough job for them to manage. .4 24' In the interaction with the states, it.was y a -25 Equite constructive to have that type of a process'of l i _I i J t NEAL R. GROSS 4 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. m" Washington, D.C. 20005 h .C (202) 234 4433 T q 'y > q, 4

M%. s1 i hp.3 A,a# w r q*,;&-;.,,.- a. 3 4 y E c:

r v?%

.A. ~ ?s (,, U'. r 22l r# 1s .g-jlk us-1i_st eningut o ' t heir _ comments, L eomplemen t ed ;our;iown ' r< g h' g4 _2f ' efforts. 'They were quite-appreciative-of: lthe? k

3

/ opportunity to s'i ti downg andi mee t--.wi t h us a n_d ;- g o - o v e r 4 -this. J +

• 5

- 1.' 11 give a few examples of some: of~the p ~' ~ t he. first: _ ofi G. commerit s that the states came-in wit h, 7t - whichs is ' t reat mert of technical flotail. As cyou L goj e,. ~

• 8 t.hrough this,: and I and I'm sure-the others_thatEwenth I) 1 f) 9

>through'its it's uneven. It's obviousl y.been i wr1 t:t en 10-byLafnumber o f. ' d i f fe ren t technical people a n d t h a ts j 1,

11 ancarea that can>significantly.be improved'.

-l 3 . -d -12 'An area thate it focused on also' wasit he. ld y:' -- i - 13' basis' of -findings. One of the things ein;-particular 'I j a cu-1 41 Californla mentioned to'us was that1they~would' prefer 15l ~ t o' hee more - of a definition of you make a - funding,; -j .I > }.7 L t ha t 's ' Lyou r,. answe r. d p, IfF what'sLthe; basis:for tliat. finding? Just don't tell met _4 So, t hat 's an area ::thnt' could, j w. F + 11 8 : receivefconsiderable improvement. ? 3:lk The bottom one of this' slide t ha t. we have' j y. w 20 in-front o fu _ u s ', which _is pe r f o rma tice assessment, l 21, virtually all. of the states are asking for- 'more 7j on the performance -assessmen t f rotit. .I J 22-information J L 4 a-j p L23 ' wou ld :li ke t o mention-that we recently had a workshop li., ' .. week and -invited. the agreement state regulators ~ 'I l l24 last V t t a l 25 in and it was quite successful as a hands-on 1' s ..g ks NEAL R. GROSS "I 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. y Washington, D.C. 20005 j "f .a (202) 234-4433

p;c N 1 ? y.( ;.p ;,; s-t' - 3 ha i4 ; 'U$ P f 1 3 e_ U-: i ,.N, h, i r w p.J,;, ; 23 :' ,c. 3,< f l1; opport uni t yi fort people f t oiworkj wit hl models. 4 -5 .: p

L 2.

In~ addi t ion : t'o? t ha t ~.overj.the past couple 1-3' of f : ye.arsJ 't liet staff has. worked with? ~ Sandia: LandRwei G ,1 4 -published five; additional'.-performance assessment-E! 4 5 documents.. So, those' wil'1 b' ob v i o us l'y : incorporatedt a f 'G- .itito the standard review plan.. processing' references. j s g y s 7, result o f. t h i s -- i n t e rac t i ons,1 we1.a l li j 'As a 8 agreed. ' talking to the. states ourselves that :t hese : h 9 F 49 revisions-incorporation' 'would result in n a' much j ~ R 10 . improved road-map of the' process for' licensing uneLofd re ,a b-11 these facilities. a L12 (Slide) I'm'on;page 13 'now. 1 L+ 13: 'I'd: 'like ~ to G. toint

outl, as I

mentiondd i u l'I '~ ^

14 e'a r l i e r,.our conclusion is - t ha t ' the at andard review -

zl5-plan is' not broken. LWe need'to make s'o m e changes, the 61 6 - first 'of : which was ment ioned sby Dorothy, the four [ 17? comport.' items. -It is inappropriate.for un' to' refer,tc j h 18 a < requirement that' is Jnot tied' to DPart G l '. So, ce .c 19 .need to address that. AsLfar as-the, conclusion un the i 4 n W 20' . ptASAR.

review, we did not e n c o u n t e r.:

Lany; H m... t 121f inconsistencies in 'that, although we can" lmake I 22I significant imnrovements. 1 , " l Yh ; 23 -The' road map, wl.at we have out there now-

r

~ (f 24' is ' serving those that have the' burden at the present' 25' t.ime of reviewing an application and those that are i } \\ l i NEAL R. GROSS -i' 1323:Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. y W 5 1 Washington, D.C. 20005 i o-(202) 234-4433 [ t

P$- r- '[ 7 'h- - f i g 5 ' 13

r. 1 e

- g j: - 1 ? +, ,.p, ,tg (g,

o 124" pie.

-1} g o i n g -- t o ; - follow can benefit from;; improvements we llT: 'l ^ 21 make with revision. ,J, ~i j< >3 ^As far: as the.more r'es t ri ct ive! cri t eria,- i i 4 ~ .y 4 t he ' one t opic that; fell i n t o i t h i s - c a t e g o r y-was ithe 4 m 15 __quali ty ;ansurance area and we feel. that t hat :.iss anE I GE Area that - should be considered -as' a, criteriaf forj s i o

k

.7s . inclusion.

.c.

/ '8 (SIide) With-that, let's go o v e r t (i Iiage

I 9

T14. ~! 10- {- As f ar as our recommendat ions -for fut ure n 1 -1

ac t i vi t ies,...what - we are-looking to

would:he to rrevise 9

f 12-what we call the. comport i t ems, t he1ones/t ha t ' don ' t/ 7y .13 . align ' with Part Gl... t hat w e '. w o u l d '- r e v i s e -.t h o s e t b y-n' y + '14 - -December,- that we'dLdo a quick review of the standard ~ -y ~ 15 review _ plan and put -out t he nex t ~ revi~si on capturing (16 sthose' items that=are o f lii ghes t ~ impo r t ance'. 17., Along twit h. t hat, t he next=ltem, we -- wou l d? 1 18' put; out a let t er - to' t he - s t ates! qui ckly,1Wi t hin(aJ f ew ' j 19 . weeks of getting feedback ' from; you folks --on ' whn't o u r. i a/ 120; process is7that-we'-are going to? revise the' documents, Q 4 21-ident i fy to - them. what the ' comport -issues are, arid f

• 22 alert them that ;we would;cbe: completing that. in ?t he '

23-December time frame. That would be our proposal, q E 4 m f24 As far' as the <;uality '-- Commissioner. s,

25 '

Curtiss, do you have a queition? 3 L,' - l 'l 9 4 NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. s . Washington,: D.C. 20005 '(202) 234-4433 i 6 V a

p;[.JGFils'* gy ;y _ ;e L 1 j '=,- g N: pa

• c s

u. 3 A.l' ?? '+ s pig, ue. a-2s;- 3 Wh l'; ~ e ~'

1c COMMISSIONER ~CURTISS

No,4gofshead.- M 2. MR.- GREEVES:= As.Lfar--- as-the-Lqualitys 3 .asatirance ' it em, : we[ recommend.t hat' t hath be, folded i nt o:: ~ J /h 4L c -- a j ? rul emaki ng : process. - and obvi ously t ha t 's l a El'o'n ger - g A ,1 -S. . term project. -We would"also look to maybe capture 101 G-few other -items-that we've been. talkin'g' -aboutl, g7 t i.7f including-the issue of t he -above-ground vaul't an'd.niso: ['

8_

any revisions. 'to part- '20 for. the.whole Lbody. g u , ht 9: equiva' lent', those criteria. We might' be. ableL 't o1 'do, >4 10-allathat-in one effort. ~,bJw

11 And-t he ~1as t. i t em on-this ' page Lwould? be v4 i,

a 12 make ;ot her -major revisions recommended by' t hei s t-af f.' g J13 ~ We had al'readyx planned.t o ' revise t he ;s t andard( t'eview 9 _.__ 14: pl an !-by the end of summer of. next year. So,;Lthnt s (' 15 would be~ 1the ~ schedule for revising.t he = rest of the L 3g, items. jir (17:: (Sllide)' "w -Il1have included: t heL 1 ast :: slide.- y 7 -18 It's!a litt1e busy. I. d i d n ' t.:-. i n t e n d t o T p u t it';up',+but w ,h '19. it's just basicallyLthereito:give a l i t t l e ' b a c k g'r o u n d - ~ '20 information.: on - the Lt.ypes rof skills we estimated were-l 6 21. needed to one of theseCreviews'backsin '87'in.our of ~ 22 our-gul' dance documents. ~ < 1 L y,;a P m -m ' W.

23 4

' Q*i ( ' S o,~ at this point,z we-would 'be happyito 1 g : 24' annwer3anyfquestions on the' paper and this'brief. >M z25-MR. BERNERO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. i J

.t 1

-j NEA'L R. GROSS li% '1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. . m.. Ll ', ,W< Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 234-4433 l J 1 + a.i )~ s,. i. /h;

p g y:

K

~ ' )' ( .h q:g [a T s J: Q- }m i' b y' l ' &.i! l n 'l -y ~ 4 u < r r p;, 6 dt),- t Y

• +

w .c, h', o., s,,' \\. - -i. i t( ,,3 n-3._ +, X1

I' d Wiks L t o -~ rein force s ome t hi n'g

: t ha t'- John saidi now-it 6

s t. -) 2-ltlint'hejs? concluded.- On--the rul emaki nd?- arena,.1 '. t hi nki .j M n 9 r ~

3;

, fyou; recognize L we-need 'a_. ' larifying Trulemaking' in: Part: c a !4s 'GlJ'"for' this issueL of :whether. or' notc at--surface Q .l M 5 ' disposal -wi_t hout soil _ over ~it-l's permissibl~e. That i s'; m 'G- . c lea rl y. t he. intent o f.. t h e regul a t ion,.. hu t t hat 's..not: 1 s.. -y .f s, ,7f

the wayLtb'e words-came.out.

Lj .have ' talked io,t he Of fi ca - <if - Research 1 8 --

I v

19 abou t' 'a rulemaking j agenda for this ;for Pert 61 t ha t. j a (101 .could - b'e. addressed. wiih. some ; priori t y, One iof L the w fil. ~ difficulties with it is we have a_ tendency withLtheset 'I M 12 Lother t hings, il.lke quality assurance.nnd.other' things-gpi 11 3 -thatt are. desireable, t ha t, '"Well,:as.long a s ' we '_ r e : a t : t .a i. 7 !14'..~

1 t, ::let 's e add this one and thnt one."-

So, we need -_ t o:. w

) '.- s e.-:15i d i's c i p l i n e :,o u rs e l v e s t'o haveL a short-term or high 3

i 16.; priority rulemaking ithatJ has.the.necessary. minimumI m y ~ al'T wi thou t ige t t ing j t oo ' m::ny amendmen t s ' on 'i t. 4 y q > i-18 Sci. you can. expect. to: s e'e _ a rule-in the' l s w '1 '9 - 'near ' fut ure,.a E proposed rule. that will1 cert-ainiy - pick _o , _upithe at surface di.sposal issue, Icwould say, would- ,y (( 21[' certainly taket care of the QA-issun"and-might carryfal

. n sT

22; few.o.ther< things'with "it.

y zg 't 23! C.HAIRMAN CARR: On that. last .pa ge, I ,_s 1. o -24: . ns s um'e L t lios'e ' le n g t hs 'of_ times are cumulative, so ~they p> ,_o'l-a d d - u.p-to a litt~1e'more.than a year? 25, .l -f' Q,, n c,_ ll: , Yb NEAL R. GROSS. d f n'," v 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. j " Washington, D.C. 20005 4 , L' (202)234-4433 so ,e y + a-

1 hk:.o, [ ? f '% % p 3i ~

1. e y

7 y. + 1 h :', + J~~~. + ~ i; l 3, ' li, .MR.1 GREEVES: iYes. You L 1ookiover 'ln: the v mv a fi G N. i f F '" 2l ri ghlt-handL columnf and - you see c t he 4181 s t af f;'woek s" over' ~ i f 3-3~- 'therei Basic' ally,t y'o u -- a d U i t up,. 'i t ? ends up s bei ryg. m. f;,. _4

8 FTE ~ and L t hat;'s '

t he guidance we-gave - the agreement-m m

c -i f .5' ' states.some= time ago irif t erms of what they should. plan l Li t 1 Gj onHdoing,or' budgeting ~for inztheir reviews.- It:seems E 17-il.ike -- 4 [=,,, 8-CHAIRMAN CARR: But the tofal timeis4 that LD . summary.on the' footnotes there I assume.- c t -.e - 10: ' COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Sixty-one weeks. ill

MR.-GREEVES

No, those^are'---yes, those- .12 .are tetal. times ~in terms o f -- l . l. 'e .. 13 " CHAIRMAN CARR: Sixty-one weeksIfrom start'. l 4 3 se p 7 13 4 to finish. .. )

15 MR.-GREEVES e?;;

when you getL to thelEIS. t 3 16' Yes.

Actually, these' c are the-length of: times t o.

51-7! conduct the' various L pleces E-l abeled t up E t op, t' h e. issue' -a %r cl8 ' of the :draf t SER, EIS,l correct.- + t- !! 9-CHAIRMAN CARR: And that's. sequential. m 20. You.'can't ed11 apse thet' any.' i g"' t J21E MR. - GREEVES: No,: I don't think-so. my [22 k7 Ba'si'cally the Amendments Act called for us to complete- .i T 3 l 5 %N 23 .thi's action within 15 months. This NUREG-1274 shows'a t Dy< 24 time chart"with the sequence in it and it calls for us-t L ', (25 to finish the SER process within that 15 month time j ma t NEAL R. GROSS T 31, [j;, 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 5 (202) 234-4433 ( ny w.

fh,h,;.pdk4 g. ~'# ? ~ w w Di('g "',' .g 7 y y mh ; ' -t eFj k w;y. A; s M_ cH. + w t g n c o V ; *m- '28 ~ -,VE i 7 q

t. w

, m s %591 ~ frame. 1 1: [hlg 4 t W

t y

,M 2; CHAIRMAN:CARR: 10lk a y. _Is-t hat ; i t ?, .f i s G, ',' -;c l 3-MR.-GREEVES: Yes. 5

s i.

( PW 4' CHAIRMAN.'CARR: . Questions,; Commissioner y '7

._s 2 ;,.

lv._ 5; -Curtiss? N 2,

6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS

'Yes, 1 do.have ~ si n ry ,1 + m t. 7; ' handful. vm, 8 'Let me.begin with what you'reiproposing.on. 4 t

- ?

9' those regulatory requirements where you'.ve been e 'O._ unnblei J "those areas that-you've identified lwhere N l p P J:11 you've been unable to track ~them back?to:nLregulatory' Ik q. y 0 12 requirement. I take 'i t what you ' re ' st. ges t i n g ; here L il 44-3 13 .and in the.SECY' paper ~1s-that in'tho~se four specific 1? . ~, f 14 arens - we :would. -. let 's put :0A aside for a minute and ~ 1, 15' focus on the'first' three.- n ,16 In those. L'hree n areas, you would reiterate j I. .17! i n ' t h e ' S R P. that-je' > really. do4.mean that what we have-1 i -18i askid for in those three ; areas is' intended: to be 1 _19 ; guidance and not a r'equirement. 1 s d 2'05 MR. GREEVES: Correct. s. i.i r 1 ( _.4 21; COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Clarify a l p.o i n t I

I s

.e /22 guess - that I'm having a i'di f fi cul t y with. Where ' we r e s_ s J23. haven't established any technical requirement _in the y x trh 24l r e gu l a t i'o n s t itself, _themselves, what is the basis' for i

t

f25, providing guidance on topics that you can't track back 4

3 Jn, y t._ 3 t ] -~. h y NEAL R. GROSS 9 yc. M 1323 Rhode Island; Avenue, N.W. Was hi n g t on, - D.'C. 20005

gCW ?!,

J(202) - 234-4433

• G.,f g;p q,

s ' w x -. : gi.; yy, ~ y g m w, m.

r

+.+ .29.1 l{ b a. .,t he i r'e g u l a t i on s ?: lI'm notf disput ingit he.T par.t i.cular:

• J ili to

=. n ,, s ( .2 technicalfmerits ofimet eorology nand shismologyiand- _tiief w [:7." 3 firs t. /t hree t hat - you ' ve..i' den t i fied, bu t !:I< l guess -. I ' ms w a ?

41 asking at quest inn ;more t hat maybe goes _ t o-t he llegal; p

5 question. What ;is ~ the basis. for s ayi n g :' t he ti 't lii s. ' l' y t G ' gui. dance ou gh t _t oJ be provided by us: where you s can'.tl 9 F back'to_a-regulatory requirement? j

7

' track.it ~ li 8 .MR.-PARLER: We have t he L va gues -- you : di d : A -3 i 9 sayJit'goes'more to legal.- I suppose'that's whyll.'m? 7 10- ' answering.-. ' You have very ' general' st andards',. Li nit hi s i s 11 case, lGl. 23 _ for t he issuance of-aclicense. I suppose-4 1 ~1'2. Mr. Greeves\\said earlier that one--of the: comments-that' s J

t, 11 3'

'they got from:the states was-to be more' specific'about t ~14 what has to be done to meet-these standards. _ e,have W 15 the'.very general. standard not-inimicalE.t o-- t he communi ) ~ 16

de fense - and securit y' and. for.the public

heal th::and j

Ll 7a safety-that we~have five crisix t hings,u areas t h a t;;are-18, . listed. a 3-19-So',-this.is a problem that is closely akin l '20 to somes:of f the prob.lems ; t hat. we ~have or regulatory 4 d ~ 4 y 21, challenges thatTwe have in the react or ' license; area, c 7;

22...

Lone of.which i s-on - appeal now.in the -Seabrook case: J, 23: about how we go about' relating.one thingJto another in 24 the emergency p1'nning-area. a 4 25 So, there is t hat basis. O b v i o u s l y,- i t.' s i

I

-

i NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island' Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 a -(202) 234-4433

i 2..

yp $,, c E' m y Mpn lQ ~ A, ,, y gr g n',wi j.@Q"+ 1 30 G (C i ~' Q' 7 J1] obvious ~totmellf-something~is:so significant"and~ therm ~ XN + g 'i s;. s om'e t h i n g - 't o. .say-about';it 'from: 'a' ! regulat oryl 4 a, F 3 standpoint, i t-should be? identified; i.n _.the t v., a< L4 _ regulations. That leads into the area of' regulations-s:n:J ~ .l1

5-

'which' prescribe -performance -objectives and G~_ ,preseriptive regulations, .something that-thet ~ 4 73 . Commission-will-hear more-ab'out, I, guess,- in;accouple x c + b . 8. of weeks. 4 9 . Bu t. my specific;_ answer to. youriques tion 10 i s ', ' i n f t h i s case at'least, _t he - general standards'that:, ~ 1-l' we --have for:the issuance o f li cense s in Pa rta G1."23.- a

12 COMMISSIONER CURTISSi Okay.

I ' g u'es s L I _' m : t q' +/- 1'3 not. troubled-from-a. technical. st andpoint7 i.f:; what e

, w n

14- .you' re - saying here is that these three areas' that; !15 we've_ identified,: the fi rst three are issues..that have-klG.

to7beroddressed-inJorder for us or an 'agreemen t..s t at e

g g ,W' W 31 7: to Lhave-a. su f fi ele'n t'ly j thorough ;and: comprehensive n

w,

what-they.- propose in-order to' meet ' 1 8 _- explanat ion.ofo i_ml.',. j. . 39 61.23.- B u t..'I. ga t he red from what youssaid that these-o4 .m i .20' are :three areas -where= -you couldn't ' track it_ b_a c k. t o 4

21 -

that general: requirement.of.61.237 y q 9q 122; .M R. GREEVES: No. I think'each of.these D 23 a reas' ~ can ' be tracked back to Gl.23 or ot her ' sect'i ons M 124 of the regulation. What you can't track back is-the l) 3p 25-speci fici t y of requiring Part 50 or Part 100. That's c( ,w d_

it-q.

i p il .c NEAL R. GROSS. Af.if 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. .. y.? Washington, D.C. 20005 W A SX (202) 234-4433 2%.{.

mL;n f-s f 4'~y J1 y

m y + i ( 31: [iN L- = g ;, [ Ll( ! t he - p' rob l em, g 4

1. 2 CHAIRMAN:CARR:

Reference.,t he different-3 ..[ -3 reg,.t ha t (; 4' .M S. MICHAELSF M e t ~e o r o l o g y L a'n d e =5' climatology, -for : example,: in cotijunct lon.- wi t h G1.23-1 6 G plus 61.12,.it's found in-the regulation. 7. COMMISSIONER C U R T I',S : .So you ' r'e : s a y i n g' t 8 -that meteorology and seismelogy/and.- - S- ,MR. GREEVES: They're-in here.. ' 10 - COMMISSIONER CllRTISS: -- issues ' that. 'are-belad'ressedt

1,1 addressed.are matters that'would have to d

h 12' L in-an. application, ' but. what you.'re proposing here'is P 13. - to emphasize that .in > referencing-the-part 50 14. requirements, and:L Pa rt 100;in-the. case.of siting,-that 4 15 you are really offering. Lthat up-as guidance,. L 16: emph'asizing-it as'guidange - ' !17 : MR. GREEVES: Correct'. +- w r l18f . COMMISSIONER CURTISS: -- and :-i f: t heytcome m;C in.with some alternative.way,--to meet'that.-- 19 20 MR. GREEVES: <Yes. That is accurate. The ,21 tie ~ back to the siting criteria thats in Part ~Gl.50 y 22_ -requires.them to avoid: areas where you have tectonic e g:, ' 23l . processes such as faulting seismicity, et cetera.t 24' Well',- t he investigation ~ process for that is w h a.t. t h e ll 5 q 25 applicant

and, in

fact,

.the reviewers need to l NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 j LF _. (202) 234-4433 %:c e ]'

19 1 uniders t and so we point to this location being'Part 50, i =2 Part 100 where an approach to doing those 3 investigations is identified. That's a good starting 4 point. S 1 think that was understood by California,- l G. for example. They said that they understood that 7-that's what our intent was. 8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS* okay. 1 9 CllAIRMAN CARR: The original writer . 10 referenced what he knew best, l l' COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Or. what was 12 available, I guess.- 13 MR. BERNERO: Yes. Yes. Absent

that, I

i 14 what else is there? We have, in the past, confronted 15 the very same issue as in - Part 72 and gone - on: to ~ -16 incorporate the Part 50/100 requirements right in Part 1.7 72, even though at the very outset of rulemaking we Y ~ 18. felt that that was more than was necessary. But' there 19; was no alternative. There-was no seismic category to m ~ 20 code, so that we ended up with that one. Most of the 21 cemments.back in those days ~were'that's something that: 22 everyone understands. It's a clear code, i 23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: I gather one of the 24 concerns that arose when this issue first come up is 5 25 that by tying it to the Part 50 requirements, u -. NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

M(RQ ;;*: " my . 4y aw ,m r. .- n, '"\\ r> gypp 1:.fL ( y b }g g[}k.yp;L)j!!y1 1 -u [ y m. ( 5 y m w. s IN ~, 33- @i w o' o

.m m. 11

~. lparticularly on4 siting'and, seismology,;thatiyoufmayIbe> RP' L w s y m,' f 123 establ-ishing aiset'of requirements for: low 11evel-waste-n 3' ' f acil i t ies1:t ha t : really'was_ developed withL reactors 9n! flib t i F 4 y }' 4) mind,imuch morecstringently-so) E m M k -5! ' TwoL q ues t -l ons.. One is>there any t hi n gi _ i n-1 I h'? \\ s ,o Q+N 6) 10 CPR Part. 40 with: mill l i cen s in g: t ha t _ add res s es - t h~i s ' $ [--l ... issue oriwas' Par't=50'the only. area-wher# that=came up? 7; ~ p w 7-rI i 81 - M R.y.:G R E E V ESi 'My understandin'g is we have: [;) 1 p.

9

some guidance ~ for seismological work in the-mill'. ? / ,f 11 0. .tailingsfarea.-- So', ' ] t 'sLnot,.i n _ t he regula t ion. ll, ,JE l111 if! Paul-Lohaus were in'lther Paul-r taudience,: maybe he could tell me. L12 w x J 3%W' 13; ' Paul...is ithere anything' in -Part: L40 :on R ;.;;_ M LJ14r ' sci smici t y: for the mill; tailings?

I' know. w e-have-j s

s.g y .J. 15?,

guidance for.' revi ewers t i n theemills' area 4 as basically' y

,c,

,ou tD of' t he -Part - 50 approach.i d

. l G '- ,,g., 'X p ' MR. LO H AUS i' I b'elieve.;there's a'-- O 17. K: m 4 + i 3 L

18(

CHAIRMAN CARR: Warit t'oMiden t i fy yoursel f, ^ e - w' D o% ' fl91 g _ Paul?: m 3 ,5'. I'm Chief.of-

204 g..,g, MR. 'LO H A US :

Paul nLohaus. y J21 the Operatihns= Branch. p ;l' recall:. speci fically in terms 'of

p 1 g

22 I don't g .ai i n 23 =th~n ~ regulation itself, but I-do believe we do have iguidance' _t hat doessaddress that' area. But it's done in 12 4 - a +25, a more -general context. It doesn't refer back i, .f-f,.; - c -d NEAL R. GROSS i . el 7 ' 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. j -7..g Wa s h i n g t'o n, 'D.C. 20005 s IX A.

(202E 234-4433 m

l ry l

.,,'E, :Y ^,&... N g, nev.,,;

y ~,

.iwe u.3 3,, _a m e j 4 s 3 ^ 4 j !g s 1 c, t h t 4 .34 [ r--. ie j <1] 7specificallyfto;Part150:or.Part '100 requirements. l n D'[ t >" . 2/ COMMISSIONER CURTISS,: There's'nothing'we- _i I n g 0., 03: icould:use-there-rather'than the Part 50 reference that U g 4 might) be 'more ak i n - t o~ wha t '~ we ' _re t alking-about here o 4 4 4 [ q<-_-. ' w'i t h'. mi il' l icens i n g? u 6 MR. LO'HAUS: .I think wh a t' I'd.like' toido j z -qq 7 _is go'back and -- 8 COMMISSIONEH.CURTISS: Okay. 7 9

MR.=, LOH AUS :

' -- ~look-at 'that and see what~ [ n \\1" 10: we'_ have ;in-that ' area and:then see if, in : f act, thatl ? W 11 1; 'would:be applicable and whatLthe_ link'wouldsbe'. 4 There =is- .at least one

12.'

MR. - MALSCH: 13 . reference to I Part 100 seismic, cr i t eria in 'Part 40, f-r a;.. x '14 'AppendixJA. a 15 CHAIRMAN ' C ARR: As: I'

remember, the realc

[

+ i El G discussion was between California,and : t hey contractor, 1 j 11 7 ? w a t. n ' t L i t, how much was applicable and how: much it ' was ~1 .18 ' going to' cost to do what the NRC; required?: ,m l'.,- .i l], 1 - 19~ MR. 'GREEVES: Yes. There was a1 multi-J:; -20' - p a r t y' dialogue in California. You've got. the 21 contractor out there and you've got1the regulator 1and jii 22' then you've got the CAL RAD-group which is-Al }lp ' 23

Pasternak's_ group that wrote the.. letter.

One is 1 4 1,d . watching the other. So, ' that's the dialogue that took 'i 25 ..pl a ce there. [/, 4

h..

t (,, j r 4, 4 a NEAL-R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. ^ nt; 5 Washington, D.C. 20005 ,e _(202) 234-4433 ,4 i ,>4 t g s'

g<; w a 'y

3 m-

{ ij }} 4 v:s !p y-4 6 3 3.:. . r. v -g y*

lf I-think-over t i m e - --

for example,. 'the l -[ the-y .2

Nebraska applientionfis, in: fact : much. larger than

'4! p t e y -3L ! California application and - people-are. learning that ! 3 if 4l ' basically i t-takes a lot-of.information.to _ support: i iz i ? '5-these applications. -All: 'the regulat_ ors we -- Eex c u s e S +.4 [- G 'me,- the _t w o regulators being. Cal-ifornia -and i.<. 'T Pennsylvania,. told us~that they didn't'think-we-asked j r, n -8 for.too much information. They liked what _ we nsked' l J 9

f o r-.

_ l n -f a c t, they were. worried about not asking fors d 10

enough, because if'you.'didn't you would put_the burden-p

~11 on their reviewers and; they'd have = t o. go back 'w i t hi 121 more rounds of' questions.

I n

13-COMMISSIONER-CURTISS:- Letime: turn-to the 1 14 fourth area th'at you've identified and that's: QA/QC- ~ ~ J 15 I gather from.what you laid ~out here in'the-SECY paper 16 -thatsthe current regulation is._ limited to QC an'dEthatt i a

17

.may have been an inadvertent dele t ion. :of QA: as 'we. ~ L' 18. unders t and'.t he - import ance o f ' t h o s e ' t'wo terms' in: the; 19' reactor 1icensing context. I 20 I guess.there I have the same question., 21 .What you're proposing to.do here is to expand. the: 7, -3 122 referenceLin Part 61 to include both'QA and 00, sort ~ f 'on. t he' same principle th$t-o we do in the reactor .i

y--

23 4 arena, that those are two-very important parts of t.he' t .I m 25-overall QA/QC program.

r P

h NEAL R. GROSS ( ,3 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. i4 J Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

g,;, ,v m. . 1,4 =

,7

.m E,4' c.5 4 4 7 w 1 ~ < - - _.,._s 77 [gM : ' ' -36< d

11 The question?thatlIshaveiinithis.s

!j p,j' Mj 2-WhereJ-- and: is E eri ses - f rom E your.; discussi on~ in ' t he. q 3i reactor contest.- _Is iti appropriate;to-teke"thejQA/QC. 's M 4: scheme for the : reactor context' which is' _ primarily; l

5-engineered features and apply'that here-in_the context h,

G' of wh't is basically a, geologic system?'

j a p ~7 MR.:DERNERO:' I won' der i f I could speak to. '3 i 8' t ha t-' because, we h a v e -it h i s problem in' react or QA', we j a.; t y. -9 have-'this problem in fuel-cycle QA and waste 1 disposal 10 jQ A.. F o r.' a l l; of. these E sys tems', and! especi all y. f or'

j it 11-

reactors, QA-should

'be, applied in a fashion' i t 12-commensurateowith the import once to' safety. it' is a y X' 13' graded approach, whether it be-for! reactors or waste. j 1, L3 4 disposal. It is indeed appropriate l for things like 3, 15

ge'ologie disposal or.the _ low level waste which is. sort f

16 of a mixture _of engineering,and near surfaceEdisposal. h e J17 ' It: can be-done-and that's whatz we - would-hope ' tof do-y 3 18-with the-regulatory, clarificat ion. I t-is: noLLsimply. t .19 QC-and~it is an appropriate-level of: quality assurance '20 with-an. appropriate: level of goality, control.. 4 21- ' COMMISSIONER CURTISS: And' you? d ' lay out-o '} - 22 the. distinction between this and. reactors in ethe. 123 proposals.to rulemaking?- "I 24' MR. BERNERO: Yes. i . 25 MR. GREEVES: It turns out that this was r v,

a

l NEAl, H. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue. N 4. nn

• Washington, D.C.

200t s -(202)'234-4433 I

u -.

y y = q ;; [,...ff,fQ 4 x -] i 9,n %y y i & pjy 4 J f J 37 .a : 7 a, le anLearly:on dialogue we hadLwith all: of,the agreement: s 2 states and we-put o'ut !a guidance document oniqualityL L (3. assurance for low. level waste disposalb It. embraced I i4 .the 18 point criteria t hat you']1. find in P a r i 5 0 ~. .i 5: However, it - was' modi fied to recognize that you. were 11

(

.'G dealing w.ith'a low level waste disposal'facil.ity. It 7-does embrace the graded approach that Bob mentJoned. zy ' ' 8

and, a s' I mentioned earlier on, people. seem t o.

be: 11 9 happy with this approach and they' re' using i t. 's t 10 COMMISSIONER. CURTISS: Okay. .I guess! I ( [g f 4 F l k 5 quest' ion:: t' h a t I 'J J E ji? 11 have. just two final questions, one l 12 rnised earlier.

~

7-~ 13' When the states go through their' module by: j 14. ~ module review of the SRP for a particular application, j ' 15' do we' have a-document that -.t el l s them -- thatotakes 1 ~ 16 Part 61 and breaks it'down into-the requit'ements that a 17 are established-in Part Gl and then t r ace s L i t: t o. t he. l 1 18s relevant. module:so;thetithe reviewers thatoare-working q . 19 in -their own little-compartment' know-ewhat the 20 connection is to the other compartments in the other 21-technical chapters in thc4SRP? [ 22 MR. GREEVES:- 'What the staff-'did', Lit's; i 23 sort - o f. that structure diagram we had back earlier. tj

24 What the' staff did in each chapter, in each. one? of 4'

. 25 these SRPs, the-first thing that they iden t i fied :- was i. NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 -1 4' (202) 234-4433 r

1 38 i if it's 1 anyplace in Part 61 where this topic 2 closure, for example, they cited anyplace in Part 61 3 where cloeure is addressed. So they gave the reader, 4 if he was going to work out of that one chapter, gave 5 him a ready reference on all the citations in Part 61. G So that was an attempt to do that. 7 The difficulty that I've seen that people R

have, our sinff,

others, is where do you get your 9

input for your chapter. And so, if you're working 10 with the closure

process, you may need to know 11 something about, you know, the seismic issue for long 12 term, what kind of erosion protection hnrriers did the 13 people up in chapter 3 provide, i

14 In scrntching my hend over this

issue, 15 what I think it really takes to pull this together is 16 strong centralized management of the review so that 17 you've got somebody sitting on -- looking at the thing 18 as an overview and coming along and talking to the guy 19 who is describing the site and talking to t he. guy who 20 is designing the clonure features and making sure that 21 there's communication between those two.

22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Yes. 1 guess what 23 I have in mind when we talked about the road map a 24 number of months ago was that you'd have a document 25 that would lay out the requirements in Part G1 that i i. NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, 11. C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

$N,a E u 4 h ,..h,, D' ;g;. l / .c 'v ~ i Q' n 39 p:: ' b I have to be met in: order to make:'the overall findingfof t 0: 1 2 adequacy. .3 Take your part icular-example on closure. L? 4-The documen t. ' would say to the reviewer,.and as you l: e 5-pointed out some of the states any not have< reviewers that.are as' sophisticated in using the SRP process.as: 'G i L ?. 7l ofhers might

have, but-thnt would 'Iny out for the L

h ,8_ individual chapter reviewer, "In order to make. the w g 7 9 finding on

closure, here are tho.

three or four 1 -10 chapters or the two or'tbree or whatever that you have ~ IA -11 .to.:go4 to ir order t'o make that overall finding." Do r,. J I <12 we have anything like that? 13 MR. GREEVES: Not that I know of. I think. .r L 2 7 .14 it 's - probably in a.few, but not all of them iri terms [ [ 15' of a rond map telling you, the reviewer, t!.o chapter j g I 16-o f.: the design, where else you have to go. I t ' s - a n' ~ o 3 17 area'that-I think we could consider in the future, [i 18 MR. BERNERO:

Yes, I was just going' to

-i y 19'

say, John, wouldn't it b e~

fair t o:.say that _each 20 chapter of the standard review plan. lays out at least 21 the minimum evaluation findings.and in theory ~~ - p, J 22 MR..GREEVES: It does for that chapter. 23 MR. BERNERO: the sum of all those is -24: the. grist for the integrated finding in light of all l m-25 of these being true, the conclusive judgment over all. .[ NEAI. R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 1 d (202) 234-4433 l 7 w

p tg _ - a. a + :-

p 40-

>6 1 that i t.'s accept able ~or not accept able. what ever t he - 1 2J case may be, is based on that. But I: don't think it's

l. '

3 anything like. what we're doing in high level waste t.; l4 where it's.really almost like an exhaustive recipe. l 5 COMMISSIONER.CURTISS: One last' final: [ G-question. In an agreement state where the appliention 7 comes in and the agreement state reviews i l,' are we i 8 involved-at n11'in the review in an agreement state or m . 9' ' what is'the NRC's role? i. .10 MR. GREEVES: On1y as. asked. l, _11 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Okay. 12 '- MR. GREEVES: California has been out 13 there working this issue and they've sent in-a couple 1 lL 14. of questions that we've responded to. They call us on 15 the phone. They talk to us, they meet with us. So, 16 it's on an upon request basis and there's 1:een a-17 limited. amount of that so far. 18 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Okay. That's all I M have, Ken. 20 CHAIRMAN CARR: Commissioner Rogers? 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just a couple, h n 22 In SECY-90-331, you raised the question of-23 whether rulemaking is necessary to set standards for 24: accidents. You're not now recommending rulemaking to 25 address the issue. Are you looking at other actions? q. i, NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 .'(202) 234-4433 a

Av:.i \\.

r] 4 y, e. y' ,-yi g 4 p 41 4 4 7' 3. How do'you stand on th'at? 2. ,MR. BERNERO: Could I spenk to that' one, J-3 John,. because.this is something that. 1 'have. been 4 ' discussing with the Office of-Resenrch. 5 The reference to accidents in the case'of G-low level waste disposal, as 'a practient matter the 7 only accident considerations of note are handling 4 8 necidents of waste insofnr as it might affect: the-9 operators'of the site, theLeersonnel actually-handling.

i i.

or accidents at'the time of roccipt, storage-10 - matcrial,

• 11 and emplacement, let 's.say, that might involve a-fire ~

12 o r. something like thnt that coul d. l pos s i bl y lend 1 to + 13 some-dose off site. For material facilities at' waste 14: generators, we use a st andard. approach - for s e t t i'n g 15 emergency preparedness that-' sets. the ability to .10 uchieve prot eet ive action guide)ine donen - $>f f s i t'c. 17 That. is 'a foreseeable

accident, n-hypothesized' 18' accident'of some realism that could enuse that kind of-19 dose off site as the possible ' basis. for emergency -

20 preparedness not ificat lon. That really nppears to'be: 21-what is needed here. '22 The reference t o Part 20 is not 'a. good 23 - one. I think-guidance and posalbly some'rulemaking to 24 clarify this point of 'the role of such, occident-w 25 hypothesis is what we need. It will be primarily ? - ', ~ NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

9 o., -m .[j, _ s.n;L ' '., L-p: 4 i f f r-- - 4 ' 6 -f C 'l ' guidance, but,it.might involve one of t hese additional

l 1

i. 2 rulemak'ings that are referred ft o, a minor-f actor, in t. 3 the.rulemaking. \\; 4 CHAIRMAN CARR: But' .in. the scantime a E 5 they've got nothing to use. P G MR. BERNERO: Right

now, t here :--.yes,_

7 'it's kind of cloudy 'what they're' supposed to use m F f R because Pnrt 20 is really a-routine and expected 1 9 activity. It's..not.the.more farfetched' accidents.- 10' COMMISSIONER ROCERS: Also in t hat same l 11

SECY, the sinff recommended anot her revision of the.

Lj 12 SRP in' Inte '91 to address issues t hat remnin af t er hA. 13, t his ;. revision presently under considerat _lon.: Do you 14 have any iden what those issues might be'in a further i 15 - review, what they might be.and whether~they're being j b 16 take enre of in this revision? i 6. >f e 17 M R.- GREEVES:- tou're referring to the 18 revision in '917 I^ 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. 20 MR. GREEVES: The bulk of those would be 21 'on'page 11, which is the P1,ASAR experience. These are .j I 22~ the bulk of the issues i hnt would be addressed in that 23 I time frame. .y 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Okay. ( ,t l 25 'MR. GREEVES: And niso, these comment s, e l NEAL R. GROSS i L 1323 Rhode Island. Avenue, N.W. 1 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 m

cu, , -.1 ( 4

F i

.;p % s t jf ,I,6 f p 43 1 and we.have a longer list of' comments from the states. l a 2 and we have some meeting notes when we met with the 3, states, would serve as ready reference material. As .m '4 we go through the revision,.to the ext.ent ' we can, we 5 want t o - capt ure the states' commen t s.- So, both: of. 1 0 those would be the source on input. a f 7' COMMISSIONER ROGERS: AlI right. Just-i 8 coming back to this road unp question again', 1 take;it ..4 9 from 'the documents that you felt ihnt the current =[ 3 10' . documen t s ' provi de n-reasonnbly good rond map. but ' 'now .j i just in the little dialogue here a few moments ago it -11 12

seemed to me that you were receptive to the idea of 4

r - 13: some. additional work in that direction. Is: that L 14 correct? i 15 MR. GREEVES:

Well, t he dialogue 'we had

-j i 16 just a minute ago was' helping an individual reviewer -l 17 understand where.else.in the.SRP itself he could find j q 18 help.in this process. It's cert ainly' an

area, I*

1 ~, 19 personally feel we enn improve'upon. I'wouldn't have. f 20~ called that the kind of road map I thought was meant i t 21 originally. 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: 'I guess originally' '{ 23 we were' thinking about the applicants and.the states. 24 MR. GREEVES: Okay. And I think that we ac 25 certainly could achieve some improvement in that area .i. NEAL R. GROSS l l, 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. j s Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 f p

6% y p ~. - y ,t Og n a, pp t,q r-1, 44 f(- ?. 1: .asd ' we can put-it as a highligh'ted item an; the ' staff i 7 OI 2-goes through this process.- They're the ones that are i -3 . lies t - t o do. t ha t s or t of thing. Asithey go back and c 4' 4-revise ~their chapter on infiltration, they're the ones F . S. who know best where they have to get-input. So that's 0-certainly a topic that we could work ~ wi t h. ns we go 7' dirough t he lohger-term' revision. F l W ft Ic ,8 ~ COMMISS10NER ROGERS: Well -- o: 9 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: My point here I ) 11 0: was rond mnp, I guensjin-the license, means. howEdo: e H" ' 1 11 y.ou get from point A to point B-L. 4 h 12 MR. GREEVES: -Yes. That's what I took the' l p er-

13 original road map'to menn.

i-h-i '14 4 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: The thought here;is ISL even though= the review is structured in a-g P y' !J 16 compartmentalized way,.I think from what yo u ' v e : s a i d, -_ j ~ g [, 17- !l detect that the decisions that are made in"'one j -t py '18; module will depend upon and perhaps ' hnve - - a bearing-t .mlhc upon. decisions that are made in other modules.- It may i 7 i jt, '20-be-that the kinds of overall decisions-that are. h 21 -reached on compliance with Part _61 need that kind o f. 'E 'r l 2 21 cross module con' sideration. p,m 23 .So, if you -- both for the benefit of the r .g t 7.- 24L applicant in preparing the application and the state: c25 or us in reviewing it, if you have a document that l 3.. i_ f i, N E A I, R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20005 g? 4 -(202)-234-4433 L,

t ,.J g.. - t m ..c: j., 3 y s e '.I -1 {g i 45- [3 11 breaks down:the'SRP'-- breaks down Part - G1 into the-i D( 2, various requirements t hat ' have to be'mei^and the SRP u 3' modules - t hat - y'ou have to gn'to,in= order to make those 4-judgments, it seems to me that.that would get J you ,1L. 1 M 5, partway.in the way of t he ' direct ion of facilitating-G. that review and answering. quest ions that I think the ( 7 states'are having about what.the connection:ir, between 8 l va ri ous :.modul es.. w i 9. MR.- GREEVES: .Within ihe SHp d ocumein t u 10 .i t sel f. lE 4 'l 1 - CHAIRMAN CARR: It seems to me thEt L jy ;-., 12' .anybody.that'.s going to undertake one of these f:. ' 13-construction efforts is going to have. some overall i w- ~ 14 supervisory guy like you're talking about ' t hat knows h 15- 'more about it than we do probably. L .-g '161 MR' GREEVES: In my individual 4 17' perspedtive,I that-is-the. key, to get experienced C g 18 - people at the upper level. who have been' _ through a-e -19. process like this and knowit and enn put it together. 4 ^ 20; Every one'of these people I've bumped into'have run 4 V y 21 intolwhat'I call the compartmental problem..They hire f' 225 a consultant <who is real gosd.at meteorology. .So, 1 J L- ,23. think we can do some of both. 24 COMMISSIONER ' CURTI'SS: I don't know ' of G-- L 25 anybody at all who's done n recent SRp review of a low

s i

k, NEAL R. 0405S 1323'Rhode Island ' venue, N.W. i Washington, D.C. 20005 -(202) 234-.4433 .h..

m, w F , y 3 + /", / g c, p~ - r. t g " s' W f~= ,1 40 y H ' ", - ' l -- level waste site and maybe that's-the problem that the 4 i t~ fg 2 states are. running up against. -We have a lot of f, /' F 3' . people-t hat hav'e done SRP reviews for reactor sites, 4 but.this is a new kind of review and the' SRP that-l' 5 we've' laid out. here, it strikes me, may pose some i L. G challenges that are beyond -- .7-CllAIRMAN CARR: California has' probably 8 done the most recent one. 9 MR. GREEVES: Yes. And California has H F. 10 brought; in a-number of consultants who've done la 11 regulatory reviews. So, they've got a big advantage .12 when lyou" pick up people like that who have-done m%-- 13 regulatory

reviews, people that did the old NRR

!! i -reviews. ,It's an experience that I think will. help 14 y 15 anybody get=through a' process like this, even though-p ll IG_ they haven't reviewed an actuni low-level waste 17 license. application. 'If they've reviewed something 18 else and applied the similar process,'I thinkLit_will 19 help them immensely. b .20 MR.- .BERNERO: But= 1 understand ~ -21 Commissioner Rogers to be going towards something;like' p 22 a little.more road map work that could.be essentially-23 the. same~ thing as Commissioner Curtiss is talking 24 about, a road map in the sense of what aro all Lthe 25 things +- perhaps we could put it right in the front [ :.. NEAL R. GROSS f 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. ' Washington, D.C.- 20005 (202)-234-4433

ym m l e- .(, ' g. r .. i - 47 t 1 of the atandard format and content.and standard review the things t hat ' you have t o ' find 2 plan. What are all r 3 ~in general and what requirements do you have' to meet 4, [ 4 ihem nnd how do=you go'tbrough this process to make n [s, 51 s 3, licensing finding a little bit ~ in'that vein than more G plunging right. int o the standard review plan and let -l 71 L some-.~ wise manager discern that they have t o. do. all' ] V. 8 that? 9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, it may-be'that e I 10' when'there are only one or tw+ of these coming up at.a. i [ ll' . time, that these experts that these-wonderful 'i 12 people. who have had experience in how to -do these i e 13- - things can meet the needs. Bu t -i f we. get-n sudden 1 14J flurry of them all.at one time, there may not'be that I 15 kind of expertise available for everybody and the road-t' . 16 . map may be a really big help _under.a circumstance such i i- < l ;. 17 as that. So, [ 18 MR, BERNERO: Yes. l F. 19-CHAIRMAN CARR: I can see the - pBRT chart ~ I -20~ with alI the feedback ~ loops. 'l'l 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: We're not trying to i . 22 create a new indust ry. here. - But.I was-just curious. 23 'Have you t alked - la tely to ACNW on your thoughts on ' 24' this road map question?- They're the ones that raised-25 it'first with us and -- how do they feel about it now? o l NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 234-4433

gr g, y-9 a f E. 4 e q.,, ',a N 2 k

r-40

[*-4

1 MR.

GREEVES: I h'aven't talked to them r 2 very recently. We got their letter and gave them our-I t 3 response and point ed 'out basically that the standard 4 review plan itself, standard format and content and a i "~ few other

NUREOs, like the licensing review-6 procedures, constitute what we; thought was an adequate 7

road map.- In talking to'the states that are chewing U 8 on this issue, they felt that it was a good road map 0 for t hem, although when you do get into the details of 10 'it, there are some challenges that I think could be l[ p 11 helped by some of the things that you've mentioned. 'l 12' COMMISSIONER ROGERS: That's all I have, t 13 Thank you. - r-t 14= CHAIRMAN CARR: -1 guess 1 got a=little [ 15-lost in what we're going to do-and when we're. going.'to -I 1 16 do it.- In your recommendat ions-page, 1 understund l 17 you're going to have item 1-done in December? 18 MR. GREEVES: That!s the proposal 'yes. 19-CHAIRMAN CARR: .And the states notified? i 20 MR. GREEVES: The states will be notified-21-in advance. = 22 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. And how are you 23 going to-go about it? What's the best way to-notify i 24 the states? [ i 25 MR. GREEVES: Write them a letter. i K L._. 1 NEAL H. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. ~ Washington. D.C. 20005 J' (202) 234-4433

en 'g , <.q. ,. w p 49 1 1 MS. SCHNEIDER: We'll write'them'a letter 2 and detail all this information. We've covered i t - 'i n - 3 meetings we've had - wit h the states. So, we'll be" L. 1 4' getting them a letter out as soon as we have some n, 4 5' information as to where we're planning on going. and-' [ G-what we've ident ified as the issues. i; _ ' .( ?* 7' CHAIRMAN CARR: 1 guess what I' m t ryi ng --t o v [', 8 ficure out is that going to cause them ~to wait. for-f. <i I '6 9 something to come out or will' it permit - them ~t o go t i .10 nhead if t hey've been waiting? K' 11 MR. BERNERO: 1.'d say the latter. i 12" MS. SCHNEIDER: Yes.-l'd say the lutter. f; <F '13 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. 1 ' ~ ' ~14 MR. BERNERO: 'They'll know it's coming.. p w 15 It'll just forecast to them-that it's coming. A 16 CHAIRMAN CARR: Oh ny. - Item 3.--include t h e-. 17 QA in Part 01. That's a rulemaking?-- ,L 18 MR. BERNERO: Yes. ,19 CHAIRMAN.CARRt-Two years?- er1'. 1-1 20 MR. BERNERO: That's

well,, nominally

- i, 21 that would be two years, but we're: looking with.the r 22 - Office of-Research to just bite this out in the most 1 23 - manageable form -- -i 24 CHAIRMAN. CARR: Is that-one of those J -25~ expedited rulemakings? n L =2 NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 'i 1" 2 ,(202) 234-4433 l! b' 1 1

c p. w.,,. i Q(. 4 L, J

p

y ou q

l 3 .p: c .t .n .a if h /= (' 1-I Y 50

b. ;.r-

> :p .s m

1

. MR. BERNERO: ' Yes,.,t o ' carryl i t 'a little r 2 abre prouptly through;the. virtue of certification'. 4 p >g 3 ~ CHAIRMAN CARR: One year and 11(months. L.O t 7 p 4 MR. TAYLOR: Notice how quiet I'm-being? fi) a 5 We're going.to work on it. -O' MR. IIERNERO: Ile 's an gu i n e. o i." a 7. CHAIRMAN CARR: And make ether revis' ions-R. n s. p l a n n e d ?-- 3 .[

• 9

,~MR. BERNERO: Yes. 10 MR. GREEVES: That is scheduled 'for- -7q jb 11-Leompletion next; summer. e y! 12- . CHAIRMAN CARR: So, summer of-next y e a r.? '

1. j.

l '3 ' MR. GREEVES: Yes. w 14 - CH AIRM AN - C ARR: All right. I understand ~- 15- .t ha t, of curiosit y,, how many 10 -' And ns al matter W f17: staff weeks did it take'to do what?we've'done alr~eady?- -- 1 8 ' MR. GREEVES:' . You - mean in terms-of the r.

19 -

comport review? 20: CHAIRMAN ~ C ARR:. The. w' hole yes, 'the? } 21 whole thing you've done so far.up to the analysis. 22-MR. GREEVES:- I've asked the computer what. s m -23# t he' numbers are and it comes out .37 FTE to do the 4 i 24.. ' comport review. I think there'r. probably a. little t V 25 more than that into it, W A NEAL R. GROSS g- +

E 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

=) Washington,'D.C. 20005 , y m L(202)-234-4433 2

t I ~ l CHAIRMAN CARR: I'd say you'd better check 2 that program. 3 MR. UREEVES: Yes. 4 CHAIRMAN CARR: I'm not sure whether 5 'they've been filing iheir time. O MR. GREEVES: My guess is it's probably on 7 the order of a half an PTE of direct time. There's 8 quite a bit of management time that's been put into 9 this also. 10 MR. BERNERO: Dut we're free. 11 CHAIRMAN CARR: When you were looking at 12 the PLASAR reviews, did you review any above-ground 13 disposal facility that wasn't covered by earth? 14 MR. GREEVES: No. 15 CHAIRMAN ChRR: Okay. Any other - 16 questions? 17 Well,: let me thank you for the informative 18 briefing about the current status of conformity.of our 19 guidance on low level waste dinposal facilities with 20 the requirements of.10 CPR Part Gl. I believe this 21 exchange of information-has been useful to the 22 Commission, the

staff, and the states which 23 participated in this review.

24 Since 1982 when the requirements for 25 shallow land disposal facilities were promulgated, the i NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

c 'e H ?f, /, v.y + y; A '- ,,4 a +.. g.,m 52

c-g r

f," t 1: technology for low level waste-disposal facility V, 2 design has J ndvanced significantly. We aust keep'in" a rg 3' , mind ihat the; guidance 't hat we ' prepare :for both: the' s 4 licensee.und the reviewer must be. clear and concise in b, m ~ 5 order.to. help alleviate confusion and misguidance. i ...'1 l i G Staff has recommended today the sinndard '-? 7 review. plan needs to be revised to-emphasize the> .[ 81 document is only guidance to Part 61. In addition, y... 9-some -flexibility needs to be provided for-in the'SRP >i 'c [ 10 ns long ns t_he applicant can explain and provide i 11 Justificati.on of the basis for the-performance of the I 1 .x. c 12 -site and tho design. 1 2

e-i-13-As a

result of the PLASAR' effort, the [ '14 staff identified weaknesses in the standard review I l b 15' -plans as well' as identification of staff: technical l '16 positions that need to beideveloped. Although re"lewa.- a 1.7 Lof this type-are resource intensive,. they're t 1 .i 18 beneficial for both. states and the NRC staff and 19. should continue-as needed.-- 4 m 20l On behal.f of all the-. Commissioners, _ j l' 2 S 21' . would like to thank the staff for.: your presentation 1 m 22-nnd for the-careful and thorough work in this review. 1 -23 As we-consider-the staff's s i 24 recommendations, I urge my fellow Commissioners to 3 25-provide their views on the matter as soon as possible.- 4,IN_ NEAL R. GROSS ..1323-Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, Li. C. 20005 1 a s(202) v 234-4433 L,

1 - n'. ,0 }c i. ,.c s '~ l'. s ,'I: , -- s a ss y >.'. d,. u .T h,ff r q k '.~4 g,. I ~~ t

gr j?

p_' r- .I b " c s. 3 7. .i u u- ,,, ~. q'., + c k hhWq n:dn. py (L C.g ' 1v '# Ii ' t,' T t,.t.i a .g, -u. c t,

3 (jle'

hj .., j ; 'tj d . r. _ t : , ;l 4 .-. t. g gj u f - 4. t

33 m.

- y + gy

cr i

'9.. qtQ/p@i% = ,. 4 N1 s'o '. t h a t. we?'may provide; early ' not i ficat's on ' it o,ithe' A,..

vN ' '

2; ' s yi t e s. ' o f any needed changes).so as ;t o'. not ' int erject -k. = f th'e licensing process. t ' E l 3 unnecessary uncertaintv in E j \\i f ,, /.,.. ^4.. 'Any' of m y. fhllow Commissioners.hnve' any j m. .s 4 -a il b)+.. V J5-

- additional comments?

g wy

n....

16-If not, we stand. adjourned.. m. a 4 'h; 7' (Whereupon, at 3:09 p.m.=, _t he. :above-meg JO:' t 8 entitled matter was concluded.) 4 q:, '- e

j. p ';, '

'f g E,, ' M, 9- .co. _[_ ~ 41 0 4 u' N ' w' ' l {, ? a, ,y

11 1

t m

12. -,

_h N., 13. - =- 4 a,

3. r.

j 'w: r 1 i

14 e

(( I \\ . 15 s[t L

m..

'{ i., ,' T 'x,. d T-11 6 ) 4 v I5 ~ t [.p u ep .- i '-,. 11'8 ~ l;c nl, s

i cll

,g ; y 3 397 q 4 m s

+

r

- ~ J v,. - n ' -. 20; e;t9 t 1 e. a .n.1 4 4 f t;) i t 1 o

M

-nn. v t a' s, ~ ~ = < r 3 z,

23, u,

W }' J , n4:_ .t i3..;. s +L: - ; it k s -f 2 25: a t c, t a .r f IS t.:ti I NEAlc H. GROSS i 3.ng;l, % 4 1. 1323_Rhode Island Avenue, N.' W. 1 y " Washington,.D.C. 20005

(202) 234-4433 f

JP, WF;inw, j: .a 7.G t 4x

4 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: TITLE OF MEETING: BRIE'FING ON CONFORMITY OF GUIDANCE ON LOW LEVEL WASTI DISPOSAL FACILITIES WITH REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR PART 61 PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING: OCTOBER 1, 1990 were transcribed'by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events. LE b o 1Ai t v Reporter's name: Peter Lynch l l i l l s I l NEAL R. GROSS COUtf Rf90ttft$ AND TRANSCRillR$ 1333 RMOD4 l$tAND AYINUf, N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600

o !\\., P ) p l l l l l i i CONFORMITY OF GUIDANCE ON LOW-LEVEL WASTE i DISPOSAL FACILITIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR PART 61 October 1, 1990 1 Presenters: John T. Greeves i Dorothy Michaels

Contact:

John T. Greeves, NHSS '492-3344 1 1 1 I 'l

] 'c', - o o 1 l f i ? t - t BRIEFING OVERVIEW 1) COMMISSION REQUEST 2) BACKGROUND ON GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT 3) STAFF APPROACH TO THE REVIEW j 4) STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS-a '4 - i 2 t 1

s. s j I j i COMMISSION REQUEST 1) COMPORT REVIEW-2) PROTOTYPE LICENSE APPLICATION SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT INCONSISTENCIES (PLASAR) 3) ROAD MAP 4) MORE RESTRICTIVE CRITERIA i k i 4 - L

j.. a. 4 i l. r f BACKGROUND o STANDARD FORMAT AND 1/87 CONTENT-GUIDE AND THE STANDARD REVIEW PLAN o REVISION 1 1/88 I o QUESTIONS RAISED .12/89 i-1

3 i t t I i APPROACH TO REVIEW e e o MULTI-OFFICE REVIEW 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS 0FFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 0FFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL AND PUBLIC i AFFAIRS t. l l l

e i r i P l APPROACH TO REVIEW (CONT.) o ASSIGNMENTS COMPLETE REVIEW BY 3 STAFF SPECIFIC SECTIONS ASSIGNED-TO OTHERS o INTERACTIONS WITH STATES TEXAS I PENNSYLVANIA CALIFORNIA l L 1 l l l-l l l ?

e.; C 0 i. l \\: 1. APPROACH TO REVIEW (CONT.) o INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS ROGERS AND ASSOCIATES AGREEMENT STATE WORKSHOPS l l i-1 '. ( r 1' '

o si e i e-- l STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 1. REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES 2. AREAS OF REVIEW 3. REVIEW PROCEDURES i 4. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS REGULATORY GUIDANCE REGULATORY EVALUATION CRITERIA 1 ' 5. EVALUATION FINDINGS L l 8-F m-w wc w-- --m-+y . m

c' 9 ,? f. l '. i I e j? COMPORT ISSUES o SIGNIFICANT ITEMS METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY (PART 50) GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY (PART 50 AND 100) RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVITY (PART 20) QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)/ QUALITY CONTROL (QC) ? < i l < l l 1 i y m

t o. a 3 O h [ i P COMPORT ISSUES (CONT.) o LESS SIGNITICANT ITEMS IMPRECISE STATEMENTS USE OF THE WORDS REQUIRE, MUST, ETC. 1 l. l

3 i i t t i .i b PLASAR EXPERIENCE o DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION o FACILITY OPERATIONS o SITE CLOSURE PLAN AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS l o SAFETY ASSESSMENT o OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION l l l l..

' g..L, \\ ' 4 STATE COMMENTS

o. TREATMENT OF TECHNICAL DETAIL o

REDUNDANCY o BASIS FOR' FINDINGS (10 CFR151.23) o-RELEVANT-SECTION IN REFERENCES o NUCLEAR POWER PLANT MENTALITY o PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT n 'i\\- I

s[g,,.': s *.- i. s CONCLUSIONS o COMPORT ITEMS o-' PLASAR o ROAD MAP 4 o MORE. RESTRICTIVE CRITERIA l i 1 I i 'I il - h 1 o

l;.;o 3, .. ai,. 'l 4 i I t i c t I RECOMMENDATIONS o CORRECT COMPORT ITEMS t o NOTIFY STATES o INCLUDE QA-IN PART 61 l -o MAKE OTHER REVISIONS AS PLANNED 8 I b j . o. g.. b i + . [ l n a

t

v.

L - Table 1 Staffing requirements for;1icense review'(in staff-weeks) ~ -g-Analyze public-sp comments and work g-with applicant on. ~ l w- ~* Issue draft additional informa-Issue final Staff SER and_EI5* tion required ** SER and EISt Total Licensing Project Manager (SER) 32 13 16 61 Licensing Project Manager (EIS) 32 13 -16 61 -Geologists 8 1-7 16 Hydrogeologists 8 1* 7 16 1 Surface Water S,d.:;;;1ogists . 11 2 10 23 Solis Engineers 8 2-5 15 Structural' Engineers 6- ~ 1 4 11 Operations / Construction Engineers 6~ 1 4 11 l Health, Physicists 14 2 8 24 l Environmental Engineers 14-2 8 24 Materials Engineers 'le 2 7 19 i Nuclear Engineers 7 1 4 12 t 1 l Seismologists 8 1 6 15 Biologists 3 1 2 6 C11astologists/ Meteorologists 4 1 3 8 i Sociologists 3 1 2 6 Quality Assurance Specialists 7-2 5 14 j Geochemists 5 1 4 to j Performance Assessment Specialists 21 5 13 39 Financial Assurance Specialists 8 1-6 15 Lauyers 5 2 3 10 t Total staff offort-(staff-weeks) 725 55 I45 4T6 -i " Length of time - 32 weeks-n* Length of time - 13 weeks tLength of time - 16 weeks .. ) I 4 ] k ---g4 u + .,,,.,.,y y,- _ _.. -__g

EdNWWWWWWfMAWdWWWW6WWWW44dygggggg ? TPAH5MITTAL TO: . Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY TO: The Public Document Room 'DATE:- ///Tl90 g, FROM:' SECY Correspondence & Records Branch gi Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting document (s). - They are being forwarded for entry on.the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or - i required. Meeting

Title:

1. s

+NM + b " t-A d/ U & $6%4d!cJ/haubwA_M L, /* p'M 6f Meeting Date: /v/// 90 Open. X C'Iosed E ', m. J ltem 0escription*: Copies Advanced DCS

• 8 to POR Cg

.l l

1. TRANSCRIPT' 1

1 75~ Y &/A_N_ { l; I Q }. I!

2. -

t j 3.. l ^ 4. [ 'h

i

, 5. 'e 6.. ~' 5 i

• POR is advanced.one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.

C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY papers. DF02 i'

..............;...................................................................................Ae.5........':!.....:

L RnnnnnnnnnnnnnMNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnni}}