ML20150B434
| ML20150B434 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1977 |
| From: | Leachman R, Regnier E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Malaro J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-4 NUDOCS 7811010325 | |
| Download: ML20150B434 (8) | |
Text
'E b)
U
(
f)
/)A
/ //
,f g,g
,/
UNITED STATES
[5 o,k e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON j
WASHINGTON, D.
C.
20555 f
JUN 211977 Th3 0 C r W Dl-e/
MEMORANDUM FOR: James Malaro, Chief, High-Level and Transuranic Waste Branch FROM:
Robert B. Leachman and Edward P. Regnier, High-Level and Transuranic Waste Branch
SUBJECT:
NEEDS FOR ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND LICENSING PROCEDURES As you requested, we are writing in more detail what we told you about our perceptions of Assessment Methodology and Licensing Procedures during our separate discussions with you on June 14.
Following are the main recommendations that are developed in this memorandum:
1.
Expertise will be required in numbers, talents, and disciplines considerably exceeding that anticipated to be in the NRC Waste Management Program plus that which might reasonably be detailed from within NRC.
2.
Expertise in pragmatic matters (mine shorings, groutings, cranes, etc.) can be expected to be obtained on short notice as specific needs arise.
3.
Expertise in matters amenable to systematic studies needs to be brought under contract (or consultantship) and start working with NRC very soon for forthcoming needs of guides (or equivalents),
licensing, and hearings.
a.
This expertise should at the outset be involved with review of ERDA programs and developing methods of confirmatory measurements.
b.
This expertise needs to be adaptable to changing directions of j
ERDA programs and to unexpected topics raised in hearings.
4.
All the above expertise is needed for technical purposes even if the experts are possibly associated with ERDA or its laboratories.
However, for procedures (particularly licensing and hearings)that follow standards development, the expertise could legalistically even be a liability unless appearances of conflict of interest are minimized.
NMSS it the central point in NRC for assuring that all necessary activities i
are done, so it is appropriate that we have included some activities I
that might be carried out by SD or RES, although they have not been identified as such.
~
7:q a y m -
O O
c-Mr. James Malaro The following analysis of the purposes of assessment methodology and licensing procedure is presented somewhat chronologically in the activities that we are likely to encounter, but ends with an overview of our best posturing to fulfill these major activities.
Criteria and Standards In the broadest generalization, standards and criteria are lexicons that assure that a common language is being used and that nothirg is overlooked.
So as not to be unduly restrictive in allowing an applicant to develop best methods, standards and criteria are generally not very specific in prescribing methods nor in specifying numerical standards of performance.
~
Reasonable numerical limits are often stated, but the later licensing procedures are usually more restrictive in requiring more stringent numerical requirements and measurement methods. Conflict of interest
(
(preparing group being both regulator and regulatee) is logically not a particularly sensitive matter in preparation or review c# standards and criteria, since these are generally not the restricting elements in assuring the public health and safety.
Consequently, it is perhaps not unreasonable to be using the same ERDA laboratories to develop standards and criteria that develop the repositories themselves. This method is expeditious for the criteria and standards, which are needed first, and provides immediately available expertise of known quality and dependability.
Guides Guides generally follow standards and criteria chronologically. They provide representative ways of fulfilling standards and in making the l
associated measurements.
By being later, they have been able to benefit from actual operating experience in many cases.
Vaste management respositories will only infrequently be brought into operation, so guides might more appropriately be based on laboratory experience and field exploration experience more than actual repository operating experience. Also, experience shows that guides do have some limited operational applications while still in the formative stage, even before becoming official. The same arguments also apply in setting quality assurance programs.
Guides are more restrictive than standards and criteria, and so to avoid conflict of interest their authors would preferably be more independent of applicants, which for high-level waste mangement is expected always to be ERDA.
License Applications and Analyses The NRC is charged with protecting the public health and safety.
For reactors, fuel cycle facilities, or waste repositories, licensing is
f g
V v
a Mr. James Malaro therefore, necessarily restrictive in nature. The NRC must require the best performance that is economically and scientifically feasible.
Also, for any of these facilities, conflict of interest needs to be particularly avoided in this more restrictive (than standards or criteria) process for protecting the public. Here we are considering all phases of the licensing procedures, from guidance on site suitability to the final operating license.
(Conflict of interest is particularly sensitive in hearings, as discussed in a later section.) No one has had experience in licensing high-level waste management repositories, so here we analyze the situation first drawing upon the considerable experience in licensing of reactors and fuel cycle facilities.
NRC has a background and continuing work in measurements of the generic nature of the problems of reactors and nuclear fuel cycle facilities (for example, general soils properties, properties of fuel cladding, etc.). Also,.to. provide, a.. base of data and experience for reviewing the siting aspects of reactor licensing, NRC conducts its own geological field measurements at representative locations.
These provide NRC a generic data base of geological characteristics.
Another point to keep in mind is that generic studies in waste mangement are essentially the same as site-specific studies, since the number of repositories will initially be so few, whereas ger.eric and site specific studies are different for reactors and fuel cycle facilities.
Therefore, both types of studies are considered for initial waste management repositories and are included in the following, sometimes without identi-fying whether generic or specific.
For the case-specific details, NRC has hundreds of in-house experts on reactors and fuel cycle facilities, many of whom have spent professional lifetimes on details. Usually, even the smallest detail in a license can be capably reviewed by an in-house NRC expert having outstanding credentials. Since these applications are from private companies or utilities, not from ERDA, NRC can additionally use ERDA laboratories for backup experts and studies with, at most, minimal conflict of interest problems.
In order to apply equivalent competency and expertise to the review of a waste repository application, it will be necessary to have extensive portions of the review conducted by outside experts who have been involved in preparatory investigations, measurements, and program monitoring.
We now consider the likely situation for NRC license review of waste management repositories. The only applicant for high-level waste will be ERDA.
The numoer of in-house technical people to review these will be of the order of magnitude of ten, none of whom will have had repository experience, since none will have been built.
Public and governmental interest will be great, perhaps intense, and the few NRC waste management I
O O
r 9
Mr. James Malaro specialists might, therefore, be heavily involved in procedural matters rather than specialization. We do not yet have a program of generic confirmatory measurements of our own started on which we can then draw for guides (or their equivalents) and for licen.ing requirements. With ERDA being the applicant, the customary use of ERDA laboratory as a backup could cause serious conflict of interest problems.
Indeed, use of other specialistswho have received principal support from ERDA might be troublesome.
Additional sources of expertise for handling waste management licenses seem to be required. The types of technical assistance needed in analyz-ing licenses cover a broad range, which for convenience is here divided into three categories: pragmatic, generalized, and detailed.
Pragmatic technical assistance is typified by persons having experience in such subjects as grouting in mining seals, shoring in mines, cranes, etc. These are generally operating experiences, rather than scientific disciplines that can systematically be studied or measured.
Such expertise can probably be hired at the time of actual need to fit the particulars of the particular need (type of mining, grouting, cranes, etc.). The available number of such experts is probably always sufficiently great that conflict of interest problems can readily be minimized.
Generalized technical assistance is typified by persons who make calcula-tional or measurement ar.alyses over ranges of various parameters (for i
example, measuring, leaching over changes of temperature and pressure),
although these might not be site specific nor the actual method finally used. This type of assistance is particularly important in formation of guides and in assuring that properly stringent application of standards are being applied in the specifics of licensing. The number of such experts not already involved in the ERDA waste management program is few and is decreasing as the ERDA program becomes more widespread.
Detailed technical assistance is for measuring case-and site-specific quantities. Examples might be measurement of distribution coefficients of radionuclide transmission through actual geological samples obtained by ERDA in its site survey work or in measuring leachability of actual waste-containing solids to be used. These might be key measurements and be highly contested. Such NRC measurements would fulfill the NRC role of providing confirmatory assessments.
(ERDA measurements might be contested on such bases as methods, accuracy, etc.).
Cooperation will be required to obtain duplicate samples from ERDA, the applicant.
Again, the number of such experts for this purpose who are not already involved in ERDA waste management program is few and is decreasing as the ERDA program becomes more widespread.
I
O O
- t v
G!
Mr. James Malaro With regard to both general and detailed technical assistance above, it should be noted that the NRC reactor licensing and inspection program has been criticized for generally only reviewing paper work.
Critics of nuclear power complain that NRC does not look at actual hardware to i
l verify that it conforms to the paperwork. To lessen this type of criticism in the repository licensing proccss, it will be desirable for NRC or NRC contractors to have hands-on participation in making important tests and measurements.
Hearings It is not unreasonable ti believe that hearings will be required in waste management licensing, just as for GESMO. The intensity of public interest and the object. ions raised might be at least as great and varied.
It is worthwhile to consider the important needs on the basis of the following excetience fmm GESMO and other hear.ings-As is proper, the qualifications of NRC representatives will be scrutinized.
Their backgrounds should be relevant, which for waste management would usually mean backgrounds in nuclear, properties of materials, or geologic subjects. Publications, previous studies, and education help establish credentials. University professors in the appropriate fields generally have good credentials.
Conflict of interest with the applicant, ERDA, should be minimized.
Ideally, the NRC representative should have no ERDA connection, but this is often a dilemma since most experience is in ERDA or its laboratories.
We need more specific guidance from OGC on what will constitute conflict of interest for waste management.
Currently, our work in ERDA laboratories has been in different administrative parts of the laboratories from the ERDA sponsored work on waste management in these same laboratories.
Many of the private contracting firms and even many of the university laboratories are working for ERDA waste management, if not for other ERDA energy projects. Some NRC work has been by private firms, but contracted through and managed by ERDA laboratories. An 0GC view of the extent of any conflict of interest would also be helpful.
Hearings often dwell on related operations that have gone wrong in past history as much as on details of the licensing under consideration.
For waste management, this could be questions of the waste storage in tanks, questions about leaks and ventings from earlier underground weapons tests, and stability of underground uranium and radium ores. To be properly prepared for such lines of investigation, NRC needs experts with the appropriate facts, preferably ERDA-independent experts.
Similarly, questions of geological upheavals, etc. can arise, for which experts with knowledge of facts will be needed.
q q
v gi s
Mr. James Malaro Another experience of hearings is to questions why entirely different approaches were not instead taken. Response is hard to prepare, since the range of alternatives is so wide.
Optimum Preoarations for the Above d
Preparations for Assessment Methodology and Licensing Procedures in the high-level waste program are intended to obtain facts, measurement methods, and expertise in a manner that is most free from conflict of interest questions as possible. Of course, a dilemma can sometimes exist in that experts have often obtained experience with the principal agency involved in relevant matters, namely ERDA.
C We first consider the nature of the persons for the expertise needed.
Emphasis on breadth of knowledge i; appropriate because proper choice of the expert will allow flovibility.in_undertak_ing modified problems, brought about either by cnanges in the ERDA program or by unexpected topics raised in hearings or licensing reviews. We believe that two general categories of expertise are involved. These differ both in the nature of thcar specializations and the advanced preparation needed by NRC in using them:
1.
Pragmatic expertise. Thesearespecialihwhoaresteepedinthe lore of a field that does not usually lend itself to systematic analysis. As discussed above, examples are most mine techniques and geographical aspects of geology.
NRC probably needs only to keep abreast of the availability of these specialists and allow sufficient lead time for contracting (or getting a consulting arrangement) with them before needed on license applications.
In fact, delay in arrangements might in some cases be beneficial in allowing selections to match emphasis in forthcoming licenses.
2.
Analytic expertise. These are people who can systematically analyze a part of the overall' problem in waste management.
(Examples are soil properties, hydrology, and properties of solids.) NRC should become associated with these experts as soon as possible and maintain a working relation with satisfactory ones.
l The manner in which NRC maintains a working relation with the latter category, namely analytical expertise, for Assessment Methodology and for Licensing Procedures is important and is now considered:
1.
Minimum use for all specializations: Experts in all analytical specializations should be continuously used through the entire sequence from assessment to hearings by analyzing ERDA documents for accuracy and completness. This is the minimum role.
- . a o
o Mr. James Malarc 2.
Additional desirable use for all specializations:
In addition, it would be desirable for experts to visit the appropriate ERDA facility involved in repository preparations in the expert's specialty. The purpose would be to better evaluate the accuracy and completness of ERDA preparations.
l 3.
Further additional desirable use for those specializing in calcula-tions and theory:
Experts in the calculational part of the ERDA preparations should obtain computer code listings to check their reasonableness and accuracy. Additionally, questionable or key parts of the code could be run in cross checks of accuracy against facts or calculations known by the NRC-retained specialist.
In still further or alternatic checks, the NRC-retained specialist could use his own existing or apeHally written code to cross check key parts of the ERDA code.
(Note tht this type of work could serve as a bue.for NRC writing of auice:. or eauivalents, on how ERDA calculational ana theoretical work neeas to be done to conform to NRC requirements.)
4.
Further additional desirable use for those specializing in experi-ments: NRC-retained specialists could make measurements on aspects that are key to the licensing decision, particularly those fields in which the principal existing measurements are limited to those made for the ERDA waste management program.
(Examples might be distribution coefficients of particular nuclei in particular soils or leaching of particular types of solids.)
In addition to providing desirable cross checks on ERDA measurements, these measurement experiences could serve as a base for several additional NRC functions:
a.
Methods to be prescribed in guides (or equivalents).
b.
Establishing a quality assurance program to be prescribed by NRC.
c.
Techniques for later inspection and enforcement.
The more that the NRC-retained sp2cialists are utilized in the above contexts, the greater the potential value to the NRC.- Continued use helps assure their availability when needed most in licensing and hearings.
Furthermore, continued use helps improve their credentials, helps them to better know the field, and diminishes any vestiges of conflict of interest from possible earlier association with ERDA or its contracts.
For these reasons, we recommend full use of the NRC-retained experts in all the above fuentions, rather than only the minimum uses in the first function or two. Minimum uses might not retain these analytic experts for use at the time needed, and furtheremore, would detract from their
&M
Mr. James Malaro proficiency.
(Note that, in contrast, the pragmatic expertise probably need not have such full retained use.)
h Robert B. Leachman High-Level and Transuranic Waste Branch
~
4644/
Edward P. Regnier High-Level and Transuranic Waste Branch 1
1
___________ _ _