ML20150C538
| ML20150C538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/29/1988 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-T-0001, NUDOCS 8807120525 | |
| Download: ML20150C538 (83) | |
Text
$O l
3 3 \!A ~
UNITED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.............. . ,, g su.,,=msem===== -en===me m...mm
.m==r ADVISORY CO!G!ITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE
)
In the Mattei of: )
)
)
' FIRST GENERAL MEETING )
)
1
' <l l
i PAGES: 517 th rough 569 PLACE: Rockville, Maryland 1
June 29, 1988 ,1.,,.,,r.
DATE: '
o
. . . . . . . . . . . f.k [hk?;,})
. . . !.! . W. 3.3 n.JUW
. .o.Wn. N... . .n. .e.r.
.............c Do Not Remove rom ACRSDfB5e HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION 0 o, , ,
l 1220 L Seest, N.W., Seite ##
WGAMegl05, D.C. 20005
- eggnggggg ggggggLE T-OOO1 PNU ()$2) M
1 PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE
)' 2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
5 6
7 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the 8 proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 9 Commission's Advisory Comraittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
10 as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions 11 recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
12 No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant ?t 3
13 this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or l 14 inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
) 15 l 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
r~N Heritage Reporting Corporation d (202) 628-4888
517 i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-( .
2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 3
4 In the Matter of: )
)
5 NRC's REVIEW OF DOE's )
CONSULTATION DRAFT SITE )
6 )
7 8
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, f pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m.
14 BEFORE: .DR. DADE W. MOELLER 15 Chairman Professor of Engineering in Environmental 16 Health Associate Dean for Continuing Education 17 School of Public Health Harvard Universitv 18 Boston, Massachusetts 19 ACNW MEMBERS PRESENT:
20 DR. MARTIN J. STEINDLER Director, Chemical Technology Division 21 Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois 22 DR. CLIFFORD SMITH 23 l
24 '
y(~x N- 25
~
l Heritage Reporting Corporation me -
. , y- . -
518 I A_CRS COGNIZANT STAFF
- 2. J.S. Sidney Parry Raymond F. Fraley,' Executive Director 3 H. Stanley Schofer,- Technical Secretary Owen Merrill 4 Richard Savio 5 'NRC STAFF PRESENTERS:
6 King Stablein John Lenahan 7
8 9
10 11 12
.( 13 .
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 i
22 23
..., 24 LO 2s Heritage Reporting Corporation (seti m4 ara
I 519
-1 P,} p g } } D, 1 N_ ,G_ }
The meeting will now come to order.
h). 2 DR. MOSLLER:
3 This is a continuation of our three-day meeting, 4 the first meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
5 And we're in our final technical session which is schsduled-6 to run for the next hour.
7 And after that meeting the Committee will go.into 8 closed session to discuse new members, the selection. Those-9 of you who were at the meeting with Commissioners this morn-i 10 ing heard the Comr.issioners say that they in general had 11 approved a fourth slot for a fourth member and they are t.n-12 viting us to review candidates and come up with a nominee or 13 nominees. Say, generally like neveral nominees. That we'll y do at twc o' clock, but from one until two we're scheduled to 15 discusc the SRC's review of DOE's Consultation Draft Site gg Characterization Plan and according to the information I have, 17 the NRC staff will discuss their response to the May lith 1988 18 Memorandum from Ray Fraley, Executive Director of the Advi-19 j sory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, to Victor Stea.lo, who 20 I is the Executive Director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-21 sion. And that memo was on the NRC Staff Review of DOE's 22 CDSDP.
23 So we're happy to have you, King, and we'll go on I
. 24 from there.
k 25 DR. STABLEIN: Good afternoon. My ' me is King Heritage Reporting Corporation mn -
b,
! 520 s
1 Stablein and I'm with the High Level Operations Branch of l 2 High Level Weste Management Division, NMSS.
3 I was the Project Manager who was responsible for 4 overseeing the CDSCP staff review and I was with the staff 5 when we came and went over that review with the ACRS Sub-6 ' committee on April 28th.
7 I am here today to discuss our response to the 8 letter that we received from the ACRS. They contain comments >
9 from the Subcommittee on what we told you about relative to 10 our review on that day.
11 What you should have before you and is a.ailable for 12 the audience consists of a briefing package, a copy of our 13 cover letter to the final point papers that we sent DC4.
L4 It's a letter from Mr. Browning to Mr. Stein that I'll be re-If ferring to. It's not essential that you have that, but 16 that's available if you would like to see that. And the let-17 ter from Mr. Fraley to Mr. Stello transmitting the comments 18 of the Subcommittee.
19 I've also brought along for anybody, especially on 20 this Committee that is not familiar with it, the entire 21 package that we cent DOE on May lith and I have three of 22 those should anyone need to refer to those at any particular 23 time. I know we have a new member so I just have this avail-24 able. We will be happy to send that on you to you if you'd
\.
25 like.
j Heritage Reporting Corporation m .m
c 521 1 If everybody has the charts that they need, I am 2 going to proceed.
3 DR. SMITH: Now, we are supposed to have this?
4 The letter to Stein and the letter to Stello?
l l 5 DR. STABLEIN: Right. Those are the three pieces. l I
l 6 DR. MOELLER: Cliff, the letter to Stello is the f
l 7 report of the ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee on this L.
l 8 matter. You'll notice it transmits the Subcommittee's 9 report.
10 DR. SMITH: All right. Thank you. j 11 DR. STABLEIN: The NRC Staff Review of the CDSCP 12 for the Yucca Mountain site was comprised of.a package of
( 13 final point papers as I've held up here.
l 14 DR. MOELLER: Excuse me. Where does the name I
15 "point papers" come from? It's new to me, but I know you 16 are using it.
17 DR. STABLEIN: Yes. We defined it initially in 18 the CDSCP Review Plan, the administrative' procedures, and the 19 idea of & point paper was that in contrast to comments that 20 we've generated in the past on DOE documents which have been 21 full-blown texts where the thought is entirely worked out.
22 The point papers were attempts to abbreviate the comments 23 without losing any of the essence but allowing the staff to 24 focus more on the crucial ideas and not wordsmithing quite
'b
'- 25 to the extent they have to on a full-blown test.
Heritoge Reporting Corporation tm m
o 522 1 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. That's helpful.
2 DR. STABLEIN: And thie was experimental in a sense.
l 3 We hadn't gone this route before but it seems to have been 4 rather successful. As you have heard, the DOE found the 5 comments understandable in this format and we got favorable
) 6 responses from the state as well.
7 DR. MOELLER: Well, I found them to be very easy 8 to read and as you say, right to the point. We didn't have to 9 hunt for what you were saying.
10 DR. STABLEIN: Well, thank you for the input. We 11 are currently considering the format for the SCA and hoti we 12 should go to be as clear as possible when we do that review.
Now, the SCA will be a very voluminous
( DR. MOELLER:
13 14 document, am I correct? Your SCA.
15 DR. STABLEIN: It would not automatically be vo-16 luminous. In the extreme case where the SEP turned out to be 17 a uniformly high quality document with our current issues re-18 solved. We are not obligated to generate a huge volume and 19 my philosophy is we don't generate comments just to make 20 paper.
21 It would be anticipated that on something as signi-22 ficant as the SEP that we would have a number of comments 23 and that it would be a pretty substantial document.
24 DR. MOELLER: Cliff, in case you don't know, the f ('T^T
(,) 25 SCA is a site characterization analysis which the NRC staff Heritage Reporting Corporation l
mu i
=523 I prepares after reviewing the formal SFP. -
I 2 DR. STEINDLER: In the limit, that SCA has zero 3 pages.
4 DR. STABLEIN: Probably in the limit it would have 5 one page I guess.
6 DR. STEINDLER: A cover letter.
7 DR. STABLEIN: Right. Saying that the SEP was 8 totally satisfactory.
9 Okay. In our package of final point papers, we had -
10 five objections, 110 comments, and 52 questions. And I call 11 out those numbers because it is as a result of the large num-12 ber that actually the Subcommittee made suggested improvement, 13 a recommendation for a suggested improvement, so I'll come 14 back to that. ,
15 The participation of the ACRS in their review--I've 16 already mentioned that the staff met with the Subcommittee on 17 April 28th and presented our concerns in the different disci-18 plines and then the Subcommittee's observations were trans-19 mitted to us by a letter from Mr. Fraley to Mr. Stello dated i
20 May lith 1988.
21 The ACRS Subcommittee comments featured one sug- ,
22 gested improvement, which was to take the 110 comments, which l 23 is a lot, and hard for anyone to absorb, and to highlight
- 24 major concerns that might have gotten lost or hidden in the f
i 25 comments by grouping related comments.
l l Heritage Reporting Corporation
+
524
-1 Also its that same letter, the Subcommittee empha-C ka')3 s 2 sized six areas for NRC staff attention in the final point 3 papers and during site characterization. Six areas that the 4 staff should be especially sensitive to.
5 The Subcommittee mentioned the lack of conservatism 6 in planning DOE's site characterization program. They noted 7 that DOE's internally inconsistent and nonconservative waste 8 package design objectives. They noted inconsistencies'with 9 the EPA standard. A lack of recognition of alternative con-10 -ceptual models of site geology. A topic that we heard a lot 11 about yesterday in the Committee meeting. Potential rupture 12 of containers by fault movement. The containers could lose 13 integrity by fault activity.
14 DR. MOELLER Will we come back to that, because 15 I wondered what your response was.?
16 DR. STABLEIN: We will come back to all of these.
17 Actually the next seven charts will go through the suggested 18 improvement and these six areas.
19 And finally the potential for volcanism and related 20 phenomena.
21 I'd like to first address our incorporation of the 22 one suggested improvement which we thought was an excellent 23 idea and was captured in two different ways. In the point i
., 24 paper packaga itself we included an index to the point papers 25 objective, comments and questions by discipline. Now, when Heritoge Reporting Corporation
V, o -
525
< 1 we met with the Subcommittee'they pointed out that there were i
(7~'/
o s, 2 a lot of concerns. For example, in the area of geology.
3 And this didn't exactly stand out in the point paper package 4 without some sort of means of recognizing that concentration 5 of comments. So we included this index to give a feeling for 6 where the comments lay.
7 And then we also categorized important related 8 comments and we had four categories that we-thought were im-9 portant enough to call to DOE's attention. Consistent with 10 the suggestion of the Subcommittee. The lack of conservatism,
!! inconsistencies with 10 CFR Part 60. Inconsistencies with the 12 EPA standard. And the lack of integration across disciplines.
}~ 13 And in the letter ta Mr. Stein, which was the cover 3
(. 'Q) 14 letter to the package, you will find that there are para-15 graphs addressing each of those categories on pages 2 and 3.
16 The letter initially would have contained a discussion of our 17 major objections which the Subcommittee indicated they thought 18 was appropriate. But then after that we added starting at 19 the bottom of page 2 the paragraph addresses DOE's position 20 inconsistence with requirements in Part 60. And on page 3, 21 the first paragraph addresses inconsistencies relative to 22 the EPA standard. The next paragraph covers in some depth 4
23 the lack of conservatism with references to a number of com-
.~ 24 ments and their content.
25 And finally another key theme that there needs to be Heritoge Reporting Corporation
<= -
. ~.
a 526 I better integration in the site characterization program,
(?-)
-(_/ 2 which is the paragraph that's at the bottom of page 3 and goes 3 on to page 4.
4 These themes are also highlighted in the introduc-5 tion to the point paper package. There's a separate intro-6 duction that precedes the point papers themselves.
7 'So that is how we incorporated the suggested improve -
8 ment.
9 Now I'd like to turn to those six areas that the 10 Subcommittee wished us to be sensitive to in the point paper 11 and as we follow the DOE's site characterization program.
12 The first area was lack of conservatism. And I (l
13 will be referring again to the cover letter which touches on
)
14 most of these topics.
The lack of conservatism is covered, 15 as I mentioned before, in page 3 of the cover letter. That's 16 the central paragraph on page 3. This also has been a con-17 stant theme of ours as we reviewed the draft DA and the final 18 DA. It's contained in the comments and it's contained in 19 those cover letters as well. This is something that cannot 20 be overemphasized and we are certainly in accord with the 21 Committee's recommendation that we follow this particular 22 topic.
23 As the Subcommittee itself pointed out, this theme
.. 24 also underlies all five of our objections. It's touched k.O 25 upon in many related comments in the point paper package, and Heritage Reporting Corporation m
A
- P n e .
.I 527'
~
l another very important point is that the Committee =being mind-
'O3 AN_j 2 ful of how vague the term "lack of conservatism" can be, and '
3 how difficult to interpret, recommended that the NRC staff 4 ' attempt to provide some guidance to DOE. When we say "lack 5 of conservatism" don't just throw that out.
But try to pro-6 vide some-specific guidance. And you will find that guidance 7 provided in the recommendation section after each objection 8 or comment in the point paper package. The staff has at-9 tempted to be as specific as possible in aiding DOE to see 10 how they could be more conservative with respect to that 11 portion of the program.
12 The second of the six areas that the Subcommittee 13 asked us to be sensitive to was the waste package design ob-
' (]
14 jectives which both the staff and the Subcommittee noted'to 15 be internally inconsistent and nonconservative. 7.n particular J
16 the setting of a goal that 80 percent of cannister. will re-17 tain their radioactivity for one thousand years which the is staff found to be inconsistent with 10 CFR Pa.rt 60. This con-19 cern is highlighted again in the cover letter on page 2 as 20 part of the paragraph where we mention inconsistencies with 21 10 CFR Part 60. That's at the bottom of page 2 of the letter 22 to Mr. Stein.
23 There's also a lengthy--
24 DR. STEINDLER: Excuse me. Isn't that a fairly CO 25 strong statement? Inconsistent to the Part 60--would you Heritoge Reporting Corporation mm
528 1 agree tha; a statement really is inconsistent with your
(~
2 interpretation of what is meant by Part 60? The 80 percent 3 simply is not substantially complete.
4 DR. S.ABLEIN: That's basically what I'm saying.
5 Yes. There is a lengthy major comment in the package con-6 cerning the waste package design objectives and I have on 7 the page the technical position is currently under develop-8 ment on substantially complete containment. Perhaps Mr.
9 Lenahan er :ir. Browning might wish to change that to a rule-10 making, 11 MR. LENAHAN: Yes. This is one of the ten candi-12 dates we identified that we're preparing rulemaking packages
( 13 on.
14 When King is finished, we'll be running through 15 that very quickly if you'd like.
16 DR. MOELLER: Great. Thank you.
17 DR. STABLEIN: The third area that this Subcommittee 18 called our, attention to were the inconsistencies with the 19 EPA standard, and once again, I've mentioned that those are i
20 highlighted on page 3 of the cover letter, the first complete 21 paragraph.
22 We have numerous comments in the package on the l
l 23 proposed calculation of the EPA standard and how DOE is going 24 to set about it, some of their performance goals that don't 25 appear to be consistent with demonstrating compliance with l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation mm.
J
529 '
I the EPA standard and so forth. And again, I he.ve a technical 2 position but this may again be rulemaking on implementation 3 of EPA standard.
4 DR. MOELLER: And to comment on that, it's outside 5 the realm of the new Committee, but it's one of my pet themes 6 so to speak. And that is the subject of radiation protection 7 standards. Youarecurrentky,asastaffandasaCommission, 8 you are revising 10 CFR 20. Well, that immediately has a 9 domino effect. And I don't doubt that what--because you are 10 revising 10 CFR 20, cannot in itself force EPA to change 11 40 CFR 190. But its out of whack, you know, in terms of the 12 newer concepts. And if you look at the NRC Title 10, Title
{ 13 10, Part 100, will not be consistent with the philosophy in 14 the revised 10 CFR 20, of Appendix I, of Part 50, isn't com-15 patible. Again, I want to look at 60 and see what you say 16 in there., if at any time you. talk about organ doses and whole 17 body doses. Somebody needs to go through and do some tidying 18 up of all of these numbers.
19 And what I'm specifically saying is in 10 CFP. 20 20 you'll be using a single organ dose to whole body dose ratio 21 of about 10 to 1. If it's 5 milli REM for the @ ole body, 22 then it should not be more than 50 for a single organ. And 23 that's the kind of tidying up that's going to have to be
, 24 done.
25 I'm saying that you should be aware of it, whoever Heritage Reporting Corporation
<m m
530 I is responsible for that should be thinking.
2 DR. STABLEIN: Right, thank you.
3 The fourth area recommended for our attention was 4 the lack of recognition of alternative conceptual models of i
I 5 site geology. Again, the topic that was featured yesterday .
6 in the Committee meeting. And we have highlighted this in the cover letter on page'l.
~
7 In fact, referring to it as the, O NRC's most fundamental technical concern with the DCSCP. And 9 of course, we've already met with DOE for a week on alterna-10 tive conceptual models and the DOE told you much about their 11 plans yesterday to attempt to respond to this concern.
12 DR. SMITH: Do you feel you are coming to closure
- 13 in terms of how to approach this issue? In Other words, have 14 NRC and DOE come together on an approach that would satisfy 15 you that alternative conceptual models are being looked at?
16 DR. STABLEIN: I think substantial progress has 17 been made in this area. I'm always hestitant to say come to 18 closure at this point. It's awfully early in-- _ ,_
19 DR. SMITH: Not on a specific model, but on ar.
20 agreement of how you approach this issue.
21 DR. STABLEIN: Yes, progress has been made. They've i i
22 already indicated they are going to take steps to incorporate 23 our recommendations from that meeting into the site characte-24 rization plan. And if they do that, we will be moving--taking 25 large steps towards--
Heritage Reporting Corporation (192) 6264ae4
531 I DR. SMITH: Lecause I agree with you. It's really
)' 2 almost a fundamental--a key thing, khat's got to be resolved 3 before you know whether or not we can use that site.
4 DR. STABLEIN: I think Mr. Semanski's efforts have 5 also helped to bring this more prominently to the conscious-6 ness of DOE, You know, really made it an important part of 7 their program by his bringing an alternative hypothesis 8 rather fully developed to the forefront.
9 DR. SMITH: I gathered--yesterday was my first to meeting--
11 DR. STABLEIN: I gathered that.
12 DR. MOELLER: Now, DOE is subjecting his model and
>m 13 his conclusions to peer review and they described yesterday
()d how they are doing that. My presumption is you would step 14 15 back and wait and see what they conclude, and so forth, be-16 fore you take any action on your own. Certainly we would 17 want to wait. Why should we move in? Let's wait and see 18 what comes of DOE's examination.
19 DR. STABLEIN: They have promised to make public 20 their review comments and, of course, we will be looking 21 closely at those two. To continue to follow the progress
(
22 of this report.
23 DR. MOELLER: Do you know the members of their peer
, 24 review group? Did they tell us yesterday?
k ]'
23 DR. SMITH: They told us what organizations they Heritage Reporting Corporation om m
-- )
532 I came from. They mentioned that there was no one from NRC.
2 -D R . .%BLEIN: And it would have been inappropriate 3 for NRC to be on that committee.
4 DR. SMITH: It would have been inappropriate.
5 DR. STABLEIN: But they have about half a dozen 6 people from the labs in the USGS. About twenty-four people 7 reviewing that. And at one time I had the names in fact I 8 think. But I don't have it with me.
9 DR. MOELLER: But it sounds reasonable that they 10 are going to subject the model to a pretty intensive review.
Il DR. STABLEIN: It's reasonable and I think that 12 they are doing that in a very thoroughgoing manner and then
( 13 the comment resolution process with Mr. Semanski is apparently 14 influencing the direction of their program. They set the 15 strategy and the priorities.
16 DR. MOELLER: Well, have you, and surely you have, 17 have you had a couple of staff nembers give that work, Seman-18 ski's work, a cursory revciw and come up with some comments 19 for you?
20 DR. STABLEIN: We have never officially received 21 that document from DOE for review. Of course, we received 22 it when the state released it. We reviewed it as part of 23 our CDSCP review and factored our understanding of the docu-24 ment into our review of the CDSCP.
k.
25 DR. MOELLER: Are you at liberty to give us just Heritage Reporting Corporation (292) 6244 24 J
6 t
533 l 1 an impression?
( 2 DF, STABLEIN: I'm probably at liberty to but I 3 don't feel I'm the best person to do so. If we had our hy-4 drologist or geologist, it would be more interesting to you 5 I think.
6 MR. LENAHAN: Dr. Moeller, when we had the staff 7 look at the report, we specifically asked them to focus on 8 the technical information on which Semanski was basing his 9 model and his hypothesis, and we told them not to reach any 10 conclusions, not to spend time evaluating whether or not his 11 model was appropriate, whether it was reasonable or not.
12 We focused just on the data that he was working on.
13 DR. MOELLER: Okay. Well, we'll wait. I'm sure
(
14 we'll hear a lot more about it.
15 DR. STEINDLER: I'm not sure I got an answer to 16 what I thought was a -- question. You got a fair picture 17 I assume of the methodology that DOE seems to be employing to 18 address the issue of conservatism. If that methodology is I
19 followed, is it capable of resolving all of your concerns?
20 DR. STABLEIN: Their methodology for approaching 21 conservatism or alternative conceptual--
22 DR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. Alternativa conceptual.
23 DR. STABLEIN: It's my impression from what we 24 heard yesterday and from the meeting April 11 to the 14th, f.
M.
25 ,
that if they in fact followed what they've laid out, that it Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 624 4400
)
534 1 ih likely to lead to an adequate consideration of alternative
~s
.Aj 2 conceptual models.
3 MR. BROWNING: I think it's fair to say if the staff 4 has detected any problem of not coming to closure, the proof 5 of closure will be in the final SEP so we can't say for sure.
6 But if they do what they say they are going to do, it should 7 come to closure by that time. Otherwise I could write another 8l letter to DOE--
9 DR. SMITH: That was the thrust of my question, 10 I'm just curious about one thing. Was there a feeling on the 11 NRC's part that DOE had only, if you will, locked in on a 12 Particular model for' the mountain?
13 DR. STABLEIN: They had given us that impression
{-l/-)
%J i
y in the CDSCP.
15 DR. SMITH: I see.
16 DR. STABLEIN: They feel, at least the staff mem-17 bers that we've talked to, that they hadn't actually locked la into one but that they hadn't managed to illustrate the al-19 ternative hypotheses or alternative conceptual models such
! 20 that a person looking at that vast documend could find it, 21 so the impression we had was they were pretty well locked in 22 to one roodel and were not considering others. Their inter-23 Pretation of the situation they gave you yesterday.
s 24 DR. SMITH: I see. Thank you.
(.[ 25 DR. STAELEIN: Now, the fifth area is the one that
! Heritage Reporting Corporation mn m -
535 I Dr. Moeller was hoping that we'd get back to. This is the r
( 2 potential rupture of containers by fault movement or at least 3 loss of integrity of the containers by fault movement.
4 We have comments in the package concerning fault 5 activity and scenarios that would involve disruption of the 6 containers. The possibility of fault activity and its at-7 tendant consequences were especially emphasized in our FEA 8 Review. Final Environmental Assessment Review. In fact, 9 there it was one of our most major comments. But I think you
" 10 probably had something specific you'd like to ask about it.
11 DR. MOELLER: No. I think you are addressing it.
12 Again, Cliff, one of our consultants brought this
( 13 point up and I guess what I was thinking of, earthquake im-14 pacts, I was thinking of the immediate shaking or jolt or 15 whatever you want tc call it. And one of our consultants 16 said that as a result of earthquakes you could have rotational e l'7 forces occurring within the various layers of the repository.
18 One part rotating and the other not. And if this interfaced 19 somewhere around where the cannisters or the waste was stored 20 it could lead to disruption and problems.
l I
21 DR. SMITH: Well, that fcult that goes right 22 through--
23 DR. STABLEIN: Ghost Dance fault.
. 24 DR. SMITH: What's the name? (
k.,
25 DR. STABLEIN: Ghost Dance fault.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (m m
536 1 DR. SMITH: The activity level there was quite awhile
/~ n
'W
- 2 ago, right?
3 DR. STABLEIN: I'_m not sure of the ages. That is 4 not--as far as I know right now, there's not evidence that 5 that's a very young fault. Or that movement has been very 6 recent.
7 DR. SMITH: It's striking to see it going right 8 through.
9 DR. STABLEIN: It does make an impression when 10 you look at maps and cross sections.
11 DR. SMITH: An impression, yes.
12 l DR. MOELLER: Well, then, I didn't mention it at 13 the meeting yesterday but DOE in their drawings they show (ggg 14 the repository clearly between the two faults. And then upon 15 probing--why don't they draw it right through the fault and 14 be honest about it? i 17
DR. STABLEIN: They usually do. I have to be fair t8 to them ar.d say that when we saw that diagram yesterday the 19 Ptaff member next to me said, "Look at this. They've got l
20 that moved over." And I really think it was an anomaly and 21 ne,t -they usually show it going across, Ghost Dance on the 22 cross sections. They really--there would be little point in 23 l their attempting to hide it because it's just too obvious and 4 !
in that diagram they had labeled "repository horizon," and
,b
- U .n . ' V (.h 15 I think their effort in that box was not really to draw the cc .
yg '
+
g ; Heritage Reporting Corporation w /; I <m> sue.
e p{ > i g
537 1 repository. It was to indicate if that was the Topopah 2 Springs unit. So, yes, for sure the repository would go 3 right across that fault.
4 DR. MOELLER: Well, now, in the nuclear power 5 plant siting arena, they would define faults as capable or 6 not capable. Has this been clearly defined then as not a 7 capable fault?
8 DR. STABLEIN: They are--well, first of all, I'm 9 not sure whether they are going to go with capable or non-10 capable or that kind of terminology. But they are still 11 studying that fault to see whether it's going to be considered 12 active or not. And it's not really settled. That will be a
( 13 major part of site characterization, will be to study that 14 fault. They don't even know the extent of it. How far it is goes south. And also how deep it goes.
16 DR. MOELLER: Is there room, and it's not your pro-17 blem, but is thero room to move the repository away from the 18 fault if you find that it is active?
19 DR. STABLEIN: To answer that question gets into 20 whether they have room to expand from the primary repository 21 block and they proposed in the CDSCP several possible expan-n sion areas. If they expand into those areas, of course they 23 would have to characterize those areas.
, 24 DR. SMITH: But DOE has always known those faults k.
25 were there, right?
Heritage Reporting Corporation mum
m 538 1 DR. STABLEIN: Sure.
2 DR. SMITH: I mean even when we were looking at 3 five cycles.
4 DR. STABLEIN: Yes. They are not desirable features 5 but the question is whether they pose a fatal flaw to the 6 site.
7 DR. SMITH: Right. And in one place you have a 8 fault and in another place you have tihe Columbia River?
9 DR. STABLEIN: That's right.
10 DR. SMITH: And in another place you have the 11 Regalda Resevoir?
12 DR. STABLEIN: Right. There are no perfect sites 13 and I think they've known that from the beginning too.
(
14 The last area that the Subcommittee called to our 15 attention was the potential for volcanism in related phenomena ,
16 And, of course, Mr. Semanski in a striking aerial photo yes-17 terday showing the young cones out there highlighted this 18 concern as we.'.l. We have numerous comments in the package 19 related to volcanism. This was a major comment in our FEA 20 l review. And on top of that, we sent a letter to DOE in August 21 of 1987 about our concerns relative to volcanism. And they 22 responded acknowledging the validity of those concerns and i
23 expressing a desire to address those in the CDSCP and the
- 24 SEP. And wit.h a volcanic cone possibly as young as twenty i (.
25 thousand years out there, this is something that the staff is Heritage Reporting Corporation (282) 424 4404
L 539 I especially sensitive to, j
- fr% DR. STEINDLER: But there's really only one Js_) 2 l'..
l 3 of volcanism and that's what's the likelihood of one occurring 4 near the repository.
5 DR. STABLEIN: Well, I think it's--
6 DR. STEINDLER: You are not going to suggest they 7 stop it in some fashion. Put in an engineered safety --
8 DR. STABLEIN: Oh. Not for a volcano growing right 9 under the repository, but as the Subcommittee pointed out, 10 the potential for volcanism and related phenomena, which in-11 cludes things like hydrothermal activity.that could disrupt 12 the repository too. No, I am not suggesting.you can engineer around--if this turns out to be sitting right over a magma (V/~T 13 chamber. Eorget it for this site.
14 15 DR. MOELLER: Cliff has a question.
16 DR. SMITH: Just curious about how NRC is inter-17 facing with DOE on this whole site SEP activity. Because ,
18 it was clear from listening to them yesterday that this is a 19 massive involvement of people and I'm sure their time and 20 resources, the NRC's. I was just curious how you are or-21 ganized. Do you meet on a certain schedule so that, if you 22 will, we're moving towards this common goal as smoothly as 5 23 Possible?
.. 24 DR. SOABLEIN: If one of you would like to address
(~%'
this larger management type question. -
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation m=
_d
540
}
l DR. BROWNING: I can answer the question in terms
{^5-2 of the meetings. We are having a series of workshops but 3 I think we're still getting a repeat of our past problem.
4 While they are off trying to react to our comments, they don't 5 have a lot of' time to talk with us. And then when we get the 6 results of the reaction, we don't have a lot of time to talk 7 with them. So I think the jury is still out in terms of 8 whether we're having enough meetings to make sure the subjects 9 are coming to closure.
10 One example, one of the major comments and concerns 11 of the whole program has been in the area of quality assurance .
(
12 And I have a little better handle on that one than I do on the '
([ 13 technical issues because that one has not been coming to i
I I4 closure. And we've been telling them it is not coming to 15 closure and the GAO will shortly be telling them it's not com-16 ing to closure. So we're turning up the heat on that one 17 and we're having a meeting to try to resolve the open issues 18 that we've had with them. We need to do the same thing with 19 some of these key technical issues, one of which is poten-20 tially limiting to their production critical path which is 21 sinking a shaft. There's a key question in those comments 22 as to the location of the shaft. And we need to come to 23 closure on that. We've been scheduling and rescheduling and 24 rescheduling meetings on that. I feel like Tantalus. We 25 keep meeting and then it slips for various reasons. Primarily Heritage Reporting Corporation
< => um
- y- =.- - .
- 1. 541 m,
I because they are just not ready to address the questions.
3,- .
43 ) 2 DR. SMITH: So is this something that--well, I'm
- 3 trying to think--that Hugh will be talking to his counterpart 4 or are you going to elevate it higher because--
5 MR. BROWNING: First off, there's Hugh, and if 6 that's not effective to the EDO and if that's not effective 7 to the Commission. ,
m- 8 DR. SMITH: Because with all of the dollars and 9 manpower, you know they are on a critical time--everybody is 10 watching, the nation, for us to have two federal agencies 11 at least not doing as much as we can to move forward together.
12 It doesn't make sense.
( '} 13 DR. STABLEIN: From the technical point of view. .
14 the staff has been somewhat frustrated by our inability to 15 have as much interaction as we feel is necessary. As Mr.
16 Browning mentioned, the shaft is really a good example of 17 that.
18 MR. BROWNING: It takes two to resolve it, 19 DR. STABLEIN: It takes two to tango, huh?
20 DR. STEINDLER: Bob, you're not suggesting that 21 you haven't got their attention on the QA issue, are you, 22 for example?
23 MR. BROWNING: No. We've always had their atten-
- 24 tion. It's just the practical implementation and the reaction uD 25 to that issue that's lacking. Our sense is that they Heritogo Reporting Corporation (302) 6M 4000
_j
/
542 I have seriously underestimated the amount of effort it's going
(;, m) 2 to take to get the QA program baseline and in place across 3 this multitude of contractors and various levels. And we'll
/
4 be providing to the staff and ultimately to you a letter which 5 just recently went from Hugh to Mr. Kay laying out our sche-6 dule based on our assumptions of what it's going to take and 7 our involvement in that process using the strategy we reviewed 8 with you cf putting of the burden on them to audit their 9 program and we have observed their program and you get a 10 certain longth of time to get through the whole process. We 11 are waiting now--the next' meeting will be them coming back 12 saying,"We've taken a look at it. Here's our strategy.
(
- 13 Here's our schedule, taking into account your work planning 14 factors at NRC. Here's the new schedule.' But we've got is to baseline the schedules so that both our agency and their 16 agency and the public and everybody sees exactly what the 17 process is. And their piece of that has been missing to date.
18 DR. SMITH: Well, Jack just nientioned to me. They 19 are going through a reorganization or have been. I notico 20 when you look at it everybody is acting.
21 DR. STEINDLER: They do not now have a guy in charge ,
22 a full-time person installed in charge of QA.
23 MR. BROWNING: As of yesterday--as of yesterday I
. 24 was informed they now do.
25 DR. STEINDLER: Oh, they do?
Heritage Reporting Corporation in w w
543 1 MR. BROWNING: Yes.
2 DR. STEINDLER: I see. Okay.
3 DR. BROWNING: That was one of the issues in Hugh's 4 letter which they responded to positively.
5 DR. STEINDLER: Yes.
6 DR. SMITH: But, you know, I hate to be a cynic, 7 but if there's a change in administration, then there's 8 generally a change in key positions. There are changes all 9 over. So I'm not sure when it's going to settle down. It to may be something that we'll just have to live with.
11 DR. STABLEIN: Well, that completes what I had to 12 say about how we responded to the suggestions and comments.
13 MR. BROWNING: Could I just summarize briefly. We
(
W 14 had the meeting with you. You had excellent comments. We 15 agreed with them wholeheartedly. We think we factored every
+
16 one of them in our response.
17 The way we did it, with you laying out what you 18 thought your comments were going to be in the meeting, 19 allowed me to go back, completely independent of waiting for 20 the letter. Since we agreed with them anyway, there was no 21 sense waiting for a letter. We went back and factored them 22 into our letter so we almost issued our letter I think the 23 day after we got your letter.
24 DR. STABLEIN: Actually it was that close.
25 MR. BROWNING: So there might be a percoption among Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) HI 4M8
f-544 I some people thlt we ignored your letter because our comment
's fl~~9 's_ 2 never went out. In fact, the process worked beautifully as
,3 far as I was concerned. I was able to keep to my production 4 schedule of gotting comments back to them and time for it 5 to be useful. And even if you finally conclude you weren't 6 going to send a letter, the comments were so good I was just 7 going to factor it in anyway. ,,
8 DR. SMITH: Well, I was getting ready to ask you 9 if my index was in here. But I found it.
I's DR.'MOELLER: No, that's very good. We appreciate 11 it. Essentially total response that you gave to our letter.
12 And I think it raises a question which Mr. Fraley and I have 13 been discussing and others, and that's the following. And I
({}
14 simply wanted to probe this a little bit with you. Because 15 it's very important to us in terms of our meeting with the 16 Commission this morning and where they say they want things i
17 brought to closure. And I view this as a mini case of bring-18 ing something to closure. We wrote _you the thing is all 19 finished. There's no need to discuss it anymore. But now 20 with this, our remarks were sent to the EDO and the EDO has 21 a policy, I gather, that anytime ACRS or ACNW writes him, the 22 staff has to formally reply. And I don't like to put that 23 burden on you, but it's very helpful for us.
- f~ 24 Now, if we had written--if our remarks had been (D 25 submitted to the Chairman of the NRC rather than to Mr. Stello ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation
<=a= =
.a
l 545 I I'm not sure we would have gouten a written reply or if we 2 had of, it would have been much delayed.
3 Now, Mr. Fraley has a system for following up each 4 meeting and sending a summary t", the Chairman with each action 5 item and what we would like in way of response or how to 6 bring it to closure. But do you intend, Bcb, in the future 7 If we write a letter to the Chairman to respond the same way 8 you did for this one to Stello?
9 MR. BROWNING: I think so. As a matter of fact, 10 we did have to expend some ef fort on preparing a letter. I 11 hoLestly don't know where it is in our system. Apparently--
12 DR. MOELLE;.: Oh, we have it.
( 13 MR. BROWNING: It wasn't in the package. Did we 14 send a letter?
15 DR. MOELLER: No. We have the lette.- to Stein 16 which to me was a good response.
17 MR. FRALEY: The follow-up system goes to the EDO.
18 DR. MOELLER: Oh, okay. So the follow-up system 19 gols to the EDO.
20 MR. FRALEY: And Tom Ream masterminds it.
21 MR. BROWNING: But we did in fact generate a letter i 22 for Stello to send back to the ACRS saynig what we'd done,
, 23 where the proof of it is in the letter.
l
, 24 DR. MOELLER: In the letter to Stein. Sure.
~
25 MR. BROWNING: Although I think the oral presentation Heritage Reporting Corporation m aw
]
l I
546 I helped focus it a lot more than any letter could do. If we 2 still do need a system where we have to generate in addition 3 to the product, which is the most important thing, which is 4 the letter back to Stein, if we have to then send another i
5 letter because of the system--if it would suffice to say we :
6 agree wholeheartedly and then factored your comments into I 7 this letter and.we'd be glad to discuss it with you at the 8 next meeting. That would be a lot easier than a very lengthy 9 description--and that's how I would like to have all--
10 DR. MOELLER: Well, that would be fine with us.
11 Now, going on further.
12 DR. STEINDLER: Excuse me. Bob, the primary con-cern is really that the Commissioners understand that closure
({ 13 14 has or has not been effected. If it has been effected, then 15 a two-sentence letter or communication would be good. If 16 there are some outstanding unresolved issues, then someplace 17 they need to be highlighted, because we need to evaluate 18 whether or not to raise this up-- I think that's the primary 19 mechanism. If you can get away within your system of writing 20 a tws-line letter, be my guest.
21 MR. BROWNING: I think if you're going to be meet-22 ing every two months, this kind of session, for example, where 23 we say we think we were responsive. Here's what we did. I
., 24 think the Commission will want to know do you agree. They l ( won't want to just hear from us though.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation mm.
547 4
.g DR. STEINDLER: Oh, I understand that.
([V 2 MR. BROWNING: We were responsive so--
3 DR. STEINDLER: This morning the Commissioner said, 4 "Gee, guys, we'd like to meet with you moderately frequently."
L
-5 MR. BROWNING: If we could somehow factor it into 6 those meeting so rather than generate more pieces of paper, 7 which you've got to monitor and have systems covering them, 8 logging from in, logging them out. If we could figure out 9 some more effective way, like this. I pressume the minutes go of this meeting--or I could generate letters and we'd review 11 it with you and we think we've satisfied it, we'll discuss 12 it at the next meeting and we agree and close it out there.
(cy, 33 That would be helpful.
14 What I'd like to do is have the main effort on the 15 part of my staff resolving the comments and getting some action 16 done rather than wait for the bureaucratic letters back and 37 forth.
18 MR. FRALEY: Well, there is another--there is also g9 another letter that we send to the Chairman, which says that 20 thees are the things that we did at the meeting. You know, 21 we wrote a letter, we had a discussion, we were briefed, 22 et cetera. And here's what we plan to do at the next meeting.
23 And we could in that letter say--the ACRS won't permit this, 24 but if you wanted to, we could say we discussed this and the s/ 25 Committee was satisfied with the resolution of this matter.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
< =n ==
548 1 DR. MOELLER: Well, I think everything thct'c been ;
t '( 7' ,
s\ ) 2 said is good and I agree with it. If we sent you, which we 3 did, say, the letter on your comments on the DOE SEP. Now, 4 let's say that you had agreed to 1, 3 and 5, but you rejected 5 2, 4, and 6. And so you write us back you rejected comments 6 2, 4, and 6. At that point, I think the proper way to work
/
7 is for us to meet with you to hear you out on why you re-8 jected 2, 4 and 6. You probably have explained it in writing.
9 But we need to give you a chance and give ourselves a chance 10 to argue with you a little bit. Maybe you'll convince us.
11 MR. BROWNING: And maybe you'll convince us.
12 DR. MOELLER: Right. Maybe they'll convince us rv- 13 or maybe we'll convince them. And then though if we still
'("%N 14 do not agree, then at that point we'll do what Marty says and 15 we'll write the Chairman and we'll try to clearly state what 16 the disagreement is and try to give the pros and cons of each 17 of the sides. And then say to them to bring this thing to
- s closure, you, Commissioners, you have to make a decision.
19 Is that reasonable?
20 MR. BROWNING: It sounds reasonable to me.
21 DR. MOELLER: Okay. That's this session. Then 22 John--
23 DR. STEINULaR: Well, let me comment. As far as
.. 24 I'm concerned, I think the response to our letter has been
(~\! ('\
25 satisfactory and complete.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
<mun
549 1 DR. MOELLER: Yes, I would say so too.
. 2 For the record we need a letter from you, like you 3 said. If a longer one hadn't already been written, you know, 4 to save yourself time.
5 Okay. Are we ready to go with John Lenahan?
6 (GO TO NEXT PAGE) 7 8
9 10 11 12
( 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l-20 21 l 22 23 l
,- 24
(-
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation m ma i .1
5 l
550 l
1 :!R . LENAHAN: What I am going to be using is pages 1 2 in a briefing package we had pulled together for another pur-3 pose but we hadn't planned on going through this with you l'
ke 4 this afternoon.
5 What this deals with is rulemakings that we are 6 going to be conducting to start to resolve the issues in the 7 program.
8 If you could turn to the first page of that brief-9 ing package and I'm not going to use every page, what we have 10 done is categorize the issues in three different areas.
!! DR. STEINDLER: Could I, with the Chair's permission ,
12 could I back you up--
(' 13 MR. LENAHAN: Sure.
14 DR. STEINDLER: --and go back to comments you made.
15 You apparently have elected to make a distinction between 16 technical submission papers and rulemaking in favor of rule-17 making.
18 Can you give in 12 sentences, the rationale why
[9 that is preferred policy?
20 MR. LENAHAN: That's exactly what I was going to say 21 at this particular time.
22 The three times of issues, regulatory, technical anc L ,
23 institutional. The regulatory concerns what must be proven, 24 what did the regulation require. Technical would deal with 25 how the proof can be established, what is an adequate Heritage Reporting Corporation oen wa
o 4.y 551 1 methodology? Institutional deals with things such as
-s
(_). 2 overlapping federal agency jurisdiction.
3 What we have been doing in the past is that we have
. [h 4 been focusing on technical issues with the technical position 5 papers that were developed.
6 In general, it dealt with trying to develope an 7 acceptable methodology. What we're finding is that in.most 8 cases, you really need to know more about the site, you need 9 some of the site characterization data to determine what to methodology is that is going to be acceptable at that site 11 dealing with any of the technical issues that we have.
12 What we have decided to do, in the. interim, until DOE starts generating data and we have that available to us,
(['"]
v) 13 14 is rather focus on the regulatory concerns.
15 Based on the review of the CDSEP and a number of 16 other interactions with the Department of Energy, we have 17 identified tl.e areas where the rule isn't necessarily clear, l
18 there is ambiguous language in some case. In other cases, l 19 DOE--we feel the language is clear, but they're interpreting j:"
l 20 it quite differently than we are.
21 Rather than let that debate go to the licensing 22 hearing, we are going to go to rulemaking on a number of
'q 23 these different regulatory issues to get those cleared and 24 resolved up front.
N/ 25 MR. BROWNING: To get at the heart of your question, Heritage Reporting Corporation t e man
6-552 1 the reason we're going to rules is that the lawyers tell'us p
\_) 2 that is the only mechanism by which i is not going to come 3 here in the technical position or reg guide or any of-the
(%
N' 4 other forms would not allow it to come up again to test it -
5 We're going to start off on that basis and if we
-6 later decide we don't need to do it, we can back off, but it 7 is better to get on that rulemaking track and start it on that 8 process because we find things like when you issue a proposed 9 technical position for public comment, you people don't to necessarily pay as much attention to it as they do if they 11 know it's a rule. Because of that very reason, they know they 12 have got to their input into that stage because it won't be 13 allowed later on in the process.
- {} I 14 DR. STEINDLER
- Two comments. I certainly under-15 stand the rationale and all that that implies in the sense of 16 making it stick and not having rules come up again.
17 The second comment I have is that when you do this, id especially if you're desling in a technical or quasi numeri-
[9 cal area.
20 Particularly in the absence of a complete body of 21 information on the site which is precisely why you think
, 22 you're going to through with that.
L:s 23 You're likely to find that you can't do that, you 24 can't close the rulemaking in a sensible way because you don't
,q V have an option unless you're prepared to go and try it again 25 Heritage Reporting Corperation i
(ses) us-asse l
aA 553 1 and revise the rules, so you can argue whether you should have 2 gotten a technical decision first to see where you are and 3 then determine whether you C 4 MR. BROWNING: It's been scheduled so you don't 5 the luxury going down one path and then having to make changes .
6 DR. STEINDLER: The final issue is, and I'm a 7 little concerned, is the de;*.inction that we make here is 8 sor awhat artificial, f
9 The Commission has never, as far as I.know, re-10 quired explicit how to's and give them to the applicant, 11 The Commission, in its regulations has said, here are the 12 standards that you ought to meet fellows and we think we know
( 13 how you can do that. Early on, we can argue wehther or not 14 the Commission really knew how those standards were going is to met, but here are the standards, here is how we think you 16 can do that, but if you have a better way, you're certainly 17 free to do that, so, as far as I know, that's the regulatory 18 process that has been allowed.
19 Therefore, when you say the technical position 20 papers are concerned with how the applicant is going to carry 21 out this exercise, I'm not sure I read the technical position 22 papers the same way.
, Al 1
23
- Having said all that, let's see where you go, but ]
1 24 I have-- l 9 25 MR. BROWNING: That's why we're not going to l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation msm
f , 554 1 concentrato on those, but we're going to concentrate on the
( 2 first category which is--
3 DR. STEINDLER: I thin) you're going to have a 4 tough time keeping the technology out--
5 DR. SMITH: Yopr rulemaking will nedd to address the 6 question of what, not how.
7 MR. BROWNING: Yes.
8 MR. SMITH: What about resourcing for you folks?
9 I notice all the future rulemaking--those things take a little 10 time.
11 MR. BROWNING: That's part of the process of trying 12 to decide, now that we got these, what are the priorities, what are the practical realities of implementing it, but we
( 13 y have targeted these as the ones we're going to focus on.
15 I'm not saying, right now, that I am going to be 16 able to get them done in a certain time frame, because that 17 is part of the process that is coming which we have to get to 18 the Commission later this year.
DR. SMITH: You still th-nk that's quicker than 39 20 issuing your best technical judgment and letting DOE take 21 it and run with it and address this during the licensing.
MR. BROWNING: That's our best estiTate right now.
22 MR. LENAHAN: One of the reasons for trying to 23 l ,' 24 resolve these things up front is the three year licensing 25 period for the licensing review and the hearing that we have Heritage Reporting Corporation mn .
- l. .
e-555 g to deal with that's laid out in the waste policy amendment 2 and'it's an; attempt to try and resolve these things before you go into l
3 the hearing.
4 MR. LENAHAN: Three years sounds like a long time to 5 me. You've been following this thing all along right up, 6 issuing advice and then when we get to some point, then we got 7 step back and say, this is just the beginning of this thing.
8 DR. SMITH: ,That's the government. Now we're 9 going to take 3 years to review this.
93 DR. STEINDLER: Let me make one other point. I gg don't want to get on a hobby horse here.
12 Perhaps 5 years ago, we were debating the issue of 33 whether or not the methodology, likely to be required, on'the
{t\s.)
g4 part of DOE, to predict the future, namely models of extrapola-15 tions, was going to be subject to rulemaking in order to avoid 16 this potentially long debate as to whether or not that's a 17 legitimate to predict the future.
18 The arguments seemed very compelling at the time 19 and I, unfortunately haven't heard much about it since, that 20 the only way to keep this argument from totally blocking up 21 the licensing process, be it legally, be it in the court or how -
22 ever, was to be decide by flat, rulemaking, that by golly the 23 Commissions would accept this approach, whatever it is, as a
~ 24 methododology to predict the future.
25 Having set that aside now, then you address the Heritage Reporting Corporation o.n .-
a I
356 j 1 issue, have they done it right, et cetera, et cetera, et 2 cetera.
3 That comes unde. what I call, the technical that 4 you had here, that la how the proof can be established, yet 5 you're telling :e , if I read you right that that's not what 6 you want to bring to the regulatory process, that's not what 7 you want to bring in there. You want to talk about what has 8 been demonstrated.
9 I have a concern, that it's either a le.nguage 10 problem of else it's a conceptual thing.
11 MR. BROWNING: Can you give us an example.
12 MR. LENAHAN: Let me just, if I can go to the next
{," 13 page. I'll finish up on this page first.
W' 34 We've broken it down into these three categories 15 and as 7. mentioned, we're focusing on the what. A lot of these 16 issues cross over, they're not pure regulatory, pure technucal.
17 What we have done right now, if you go to the next 18 page is the staff of NMSS, research and OGC working together, 19 they have identified 10 candidates that we think we have the 20 information we need right now that aren't going to be heavily 21 dependent on site chacterization data to start rulemaking _
22 ac'.ivities on.
!* 23 And, the next sheet gives the examples of the various
, . 24 rulemakings.
25 MR. BROWNING: Ma3 ' ,e , ,o put this in perapective, Heritage Reporting Corporation (292) 620-4446
' l, 557 ;
l 1 we're not saying these are the only things we're going to 2 rulem2,..J.ng on . These are the things that we have identified 3 right now. Others will come and if we 've got time. For 4 example the Dewey Program Slips, if we have more time to 5 deal with some of these questions you're talking about, 6 they'll come.
7 The approach is still the same, let's get as much 8 fixed through rulemaking as we can through for the licensing, 9 that's the general approach.
10 The question is: Is it right: do we have enough 11 information to do it; is it time to narrow the flexibility 12 down because rulemaking is a two edged sword.
It removes DOEs flexibility to do what you were
(" 13 14 just saying, try another approach. We don't even begin to 15 know, in some cases, what DOEs strategy is for dealing with 16 some of these things. Hopefully those are some of the subject s 17 you folks can start getting into. What is the methodology 18 they plan to use to predict groundwater to travel time over 19 10,000 years.
20 DR. STEINDLER: That's all three of us meeting once 21 every two months?
22 MR. BROWNING: Right.
23 MR. LENAHAN: If we focus on the first one, as an
, 24 example--
25 MR. SMITH: Let me just ask you a question, If we Heritage Reporting Corporation (292) 420-4M4
N 558 1 focus on the first one, as an example, in terms--
_(). 2 DR. STEINDLER: Let me just ask you a question 3 before you go on.
4 MR. LENAHAN: In terms of oversight, that's an 5 area you could oversight. We clearly have to watch that, but 6 we don't have adeauate visibility of that right now. That's 7 one of our problem areas that we're going to be addressing, 8 whether you're here or not.
9 DR. SMITH: And these are the 10 that you have 10 identified and, of course, DOE may have 5 or 6 right now in 11 mind, they would petition us to get involved in, right?.
12 MR. BROWNING: The only one they highlighted themselves is the one they talked to you about yesterday.
([^']
ms 13 14 That's the highest one--
'15 MR. LENAHAN: In coming up with this list though, 16 we have met with DOE about this several times over the past 17 few years.
18 DR. SMITH: Oh, you have--okay, s
19 MR. LENAHAN: We're really just focusing on it 20 now, but tney have only identified 3 or 4 over that period 21 of time and they're all covered here.
22 But just to take an example, the first one on 23 "Groundwater travel time," I forget the exact quote of the
.. 24 rule, but it's something to the effect the fastest path of
%)[] 25 radionuclei travel, you got to have at least a thousand years Heritage Reporting Corporation l nm. l 1
l0 559 1 groundwater travel time. In our de'alings with DOE, it has
( 2 become clear that no one is clear, including the NRC 3 staff on exactly what the fastest path means.
4 Is it microscopic, is it macro, you know, can you 5 average over a distance that, we feel is a remilatory issue 6 that we need to clear up what the intent of tb 3 rule is.
7 We feel a little vague in that situation.
8 Something like travel time, the velocity of the 9 water. We thought that was very clear, but a number of people 10 are interpreting that in different ways and the intent 11 here would be to try to clarify better the intent of the 12 regulation.
13 Once that is done, there is another whole issu- on
(
l W 14 groundwater travel time, the particular methodology dealing 15 is what is being used to collect data, to show demonstration, 16 but all we want to focus on right now is what the reg really 17 requires.
18 The same thing is true ob substantially complete 19 containment, what is meant by "substantially complete."
20 DR. MOELLER: How many pages would it take to set l
l 21 up rulemaking on one of these items?
22 MR. LENAHAN: Some of them would--there are a good l 23 number of them on very defined areas and hopefully they,
.. 24 you know, they woudin't be as extensive as most of the
(. rulemakings we're used to.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation can m.
b 560 MR. LENAHAN: Going back to what Dr. Stern was 2 questioned on, going to rulemaking on some of these models 3 that we're going to use. If you go down the page here, the 4 bottom item there is "Implementing the EPA standards," and 5 this crcassa over from regulatory into technical, but we 6 want to start the act'vity i right now to see if there are 7 some things we can .'. gree on, it's something like scenarios, 8 the methodology for selecting the scenarios or possibly a list 9 of scenarios. If we could get t'aat to rulemaking early on, go so that isn't debated in the hearing.
11 There's a number of different of parts of these 12 standards that we are looking at.
DR. STEINDLER: I think you guys are caught between a
( 13 g4 rock and a hard place. This is 1988, you look forward to a 15 process that you think ,ou understand called the licensing 16 process and the judicial portion of it, which you want to 17 avoid, if you can possibly do it and they haven't even drilled 18 the first decent size hole out in Yucca Mountain to tell you 39 where you are. It may be worth a try, but I think it's going 20 to be real ify, unless you can avoid having to do some.of 21 those twice.
12 DR. MOELLER: Number 5, "Design basis accident dose 23 limit rulemakikng," are you going to count their petition as
- 24 that rule?
b Number 2 is one that we have seen and not appreicate d W 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation
- 561 -
I I meaning some other definition than the normal definition l
PNl yJ 2 of appreciated. ,
3 Could you elaborate these "Anticipated /unantici-4 pated..."?
5 MR. LENAHAN: I'm going to put Ron Ballard on the 6 spot here.
7 MR. BALLARD: I'm Ron Ballard, Technical Review 8 Branch. The issue of anticipated / unanticipated events 9 is one where the rule applies in anticipated and unanticipated.
l 10 events both to the conditions, so the intent is to try and--
33 first of all to define terms and where they apply.
12 The primary thing se're trying to do is demonstrate 13 that anticipated events are essentially design basis events.
{lXl '
In other words, events whre the rule has specific 34 15 designs. Now the EPA standard which we're kind of in the 16 middle of, it's a very fuzzg target right now even though 17 their own standard has been going in the first stage of l
18 processing.
39 The way we have treated both anticipated and cr.,->
- o anticipated events are 5 from the EPAs standpoint.
21 DR. MOELLER: They both do apply?
22 MR. BALLARD: They both apply.
I Okay.
I 23 DR. MOELLER:
l MR. BALLARD: That's where unanticipated events
.., 24 have to be--As it stands, as of now, anticipated events, 25 Heritoge Reporting Corporation
<munee
l 562 L
1 we have to kind of demonstrated by some rule by a technical p()
\ 2 Position just what'wo mean by an "anticipated event." We s- 3 already have a draft executive position on that.
4 The other part, we have to use this in two pieces, 5 the EPA standard portion, incorporates the unanticipated -
6 versus the more clearly defined anticipated process and 7 EPA has different words to mean the equivalent. So another 8 part of the rule is try and establish some definitions, such 9 that one can relate what ve do in our own regulatins, to the K, EPA standards, but under the assumption of this standard, 11 it will stay very similar to what they have.
12 If you recall the court threw out only one or two
.. r 3 13 narrow provisions of their standard and we're assuming that l
- (v/ 34 this -- anyway, that's the direction that we're following.
15 DR. MOELLER: Can you give me an example of an 16 unanticipated event?
MR. BALLARD: That's the hard part. An unanticipated 17 18 event--let me sta'ct from an anticipated event first. An 19 anticipated event has a time period has a combined period of I
l
! 20 time, variously defined, as in another job we had, to clearly l 21 establish what we mean by altnernative, 1.6 million, 1.8 22 million, there are various definitionu, so we have a way to l
l 23 handle that.
24 Now the unanticipated events are all others and
(.[\>1 25 all >thers would be something that could reasonably occur, Heritage Reporting Corporation
< => .u
_1
e 563 I but there is nohing evident and it could be something that
. () 2 even though there is no evidence in the vicinity, there is-3 a probability that that kind of an event could occur here 4 because it could be related to some other area--geographic 5 area in the same range, t
6 We are just getting into the definitions.
7 DR. MOELLER: So an earthquake of a certain 8 magnitude might be in one group and one of another magn'i-9 tude in another.
10 MR. BALLARD: Yes, that's possible, 11 DR. MOELLER: That's helpful.
~
12 So.of the 10, one is well under way, the DBA.
13 MR. LENAHAN: Or it's going to be submitted. On all
?~}
(}V 14 of these, we're in the process right now of scoping out 15 eactly what we want to address in the rulemaking and as we 16 indicated in the briefing this morning, we'll be going to the 17 EDO or to the Commission in July laying out the scope and 18 some proposed schedules.
19 DR. MOELLER: The Emergency Planning Criteria is for 20 the repositior, that's not to cover on site dry storage and 21 tests and things like that?
l 22 MR. LENAHAN: It would cover whatever activities 23 occur at the Yucca Mountain site, whatever they do--
24 DR. MOELLER: Okay.
L.-O 25 DR. STEINDLER: When you plan to go to the Commissic 'n Heritage Reporting Corporoflon m m.
i l7 '
l 564 1 with each one of these 10, is this an outline of a document 2 that you're going to prepare or ar.3 you going to give them 3 a detailed picture of what each one is going to contain or
[il 4 0 wha t--
5 DR. LENAHAN: Well, if you could flip two pages 6 l to the slide that says "scope".
7 This wasn't worded for the scope that goes to the 8 Commission, it was the initial task we gave the staff so the 9 branch chiefs and upper management could decide whether 10 to go to the commission with these things, but basically, it n would be the same, it would be elaborated on define purpose, 12 exactly why we want to go to rulemaking. Does the rule need to 13 be clarified, do we need to go into more detail on the find-(
W 14 ings that need to be made to demonstrate compliance?
15 I see something, pou'kn6w, probably a. couple of 16 pages on each rulemaking.
17 DR. STEINLER: I'm trying to' react to the Commissione r's 18 comments that se need to look at these issues before they 19 end up on their table and I am trying to figure out whether or 20 not the kind of scopes that you're about to put together form 21 these 10 topics are something we shojld be looking at before 22 it is brought to the Commission.
23 What's your schedule on the Commission?
24 MR. LENAHAN: Our schedule is--I think it's the 25 very end of the mont. We're planning on transmitting the Heritage Reporting Corporation (392) 624 4400 k.
. ~.
hb
'~
565 I package to the EDO discussina it with the EDO by the 15th of p( -).
- 2 July.
3 DR. STEINDLER: Our nett meeting--our bi-monthly 4 meeting is. coming every month I think the'next one is the-5 21st.
6 It would seem we need to make some kind of 7 determinat' ion whether we ought to look at what's going on.
8 That's a comment to ourselves more than anything else.
9 DR. MOELLER: This is something well along, they can 10 go ahead with it. You know, otherwise, if we expressed any 11 other view, it would simply hold it up.
12 DR. MERRILL: This is Owen l'.errill from the ACNW 13 staff. They have given us an indication that we would
()('S/
14 review the anticipated and unanticipated process in your 15 July meeting. In looking at the schedule, since we'll be 16 meeting on July 21st - 22nd, possibly you could have a dry 17 run, as it were, with the ACNW on reviewing, what you're 18 going to be presenting to the Commission.
19 That's the entire package of rulemaking, in addi-20 tion to the details of the anticipated - unanticipated 21 events.
22 DR. MOELLER: I tnink the schedule that he gave 23 us indicated they would have already done this before the 24 Commission, am I correct?
. 7_s 25 MR. LENAHAN: Yes. The exact date hasn't been Heritage Reporting Corporation uen mm
i t'
566 I set up, but I assume it would be the 3rd or 4th week in July, p/I s 2 MR. BROWNING: The Commission paper, in an J
3 inforaation paper, it really doesn't require any action 4 on it. What I would propose doing is when we lay out the 5 schedules,fie're.: going to build time in for the Advisory 6 Committee's introduction into each of these rule makings 7 on a case by case basis.
8 In addition, they may want your input on the 9 overall strategy. I don't know whether--we might try to 10 figure out some way to be able to present the overall strategy 11 and rationale more formally than we're doing here at the 12 neext meeting. YOu may want to put that on the agenda so j r 13 that we could at least say, in the meeting, that we started 14 discussions, not that we have reached any conclusions or 15 any position to give the Commission any recommendations, but 16 We're going to actively involve you in the process so you 17 would be in a position early on to give the letter with codmen ts 18 to the' Commission. _ _
19 DR. MOELLER: Again, what Marty was saying, if we i
20 do our job right, we would have at least commented on the i
21 entire list and the priorities or the squence which you 22 addressed.
23 DR. BRONNING.: I would like to get that kind of
, , 24 discussion on the agenda for the next time so that we can I (_
! explain the basis for this.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
<m> su
567-1 DR. MOELLER: John.
MR. LANAHAN. That is pretty much all I had.
i ) 2 3 DR. MOELLER: Any other questions oor comments 4 from the committee members?-
5 I gather then that that completes the--
6 DR. STEINDLER: I have one question.
7 The Waste Conference, rulemaking is the one that 8 has been going on or been in kind of limbo for the last 6 or 9 7 years.
10 MR. BROWNING: The Waste Conference rulemaking-11 was done, completed some time back but the commission 12 committed to revisit it every 5 years and the 5 years comes 13 due, I think next calendar year or so.
l
(('> s) 14 Whether it ends up being a rulenaking itself or not 15 is an open question, but to be on the safe side, we have 16 added it to the list so we're not incomplete.
17 Just as we added emergency planning to the list, 18 that's not a short--it doesn't appear to us to be a real L 19 short lead lead time item kind of concern for ourselves, 20 because there is an open reserved item in our current regula-21 tion. I said we would reserve that until later but I thought i 22 we had better have that on the list.
- 23 DR. SMITH: I was just going to ask Bob, why did 24 they do that? I remember when they started the first one f~
, (a 25 when I was here. I was just curious as to the signal it send s Heritage Reporting Corporation
<=n u
' ?
568
~
I that while--
_ (ys v 2 MR. BROWNING: I presume--
'v)' ,
3 DR. SMITH: While I have complete confidence--
4 MR. BROWNING: --that that while--
5 DR. SMITH: --that you can deal with the problem 6 but I'll revisit it in 5 years.
7 MR. BROWNING: I think they wanted to look at 8 whether--after that decision or changing "significant" with-i 9 the assumptions that have been made come to their conclusion.
10 DR. MOELLER: Dr. Parry, 11 DR. PARRY: I was sort of involved with the 12 contract with DOE as some of my former associates were y 13 basically, our understanding was that the Commission felt 14 that they wanted to observe the departmertt's progress. and the 15 por.ssible changes in the regulatory--not regulatory, the 16 legislative mandate, I think that's about right.
17 They couldn't take a permanent situation--position is so far in the future.
19 DR. MOELLER: Is that it?
20 (No response) 21 Well once again, I'll attempt to say that this 22 brings our first meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear 23 Waste to a conclusion.
24 We will, following this portion of the meeting W 25 go into closed session for perhaps a half hour or so and our Heritage Reporting Corporation o.o me.
T.h 569
'I intent and objective during that closed session is to 2 review candidates for possible membership for the fourth slot
-3 on the committee.
4 So thank you all for being here and we'll declare 5
the meeting adjourned.
6 (Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the subcommittee 7 was adjourned.)
8 9
10 11 12 13
(
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (set} 63Sdes
. I
1 CERTIFICATE 2
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Names :NRC (Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 6 (Review of DOE's Consultation Draft Site) 7 Docket Number:
8 Place: Rockville, Maryland 9 Date: June 29, 1988 2 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 11 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate record f the fore oing proceedings.
O 16 /S/ 1
/ Amk:;A 17 (Signature typed):
18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25 4
() ,
Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation .
s .
l e aro og'o,
~, UNITED STATES
! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
o, j ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
+....
May 11, 1988 Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20C55 -
Dear Mr. Stello:
SUBJECT:
NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON CONSULTATION DRAFT SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN Enclosed is a report of the ACRS Subcomittee on Waste Management relative to the NRC Staff coments on the Department of Energy's Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site. This report was provided to the ACRS during its 337th meeting, May S-7, 1988.
The ACRS members hope you will find it useful.
Sincerely, Raymond F. Fraley Executive Director
Enclosure:
Report dated May 5.1988 of the Meeting of the ACRS Subcomittee on Waste Mana,gement on April 28, 1983 l cc, w/ encl.
S. Chilk, SECY H. Thompson, HMSS R. Bernero, NMSS
( G. Lear, HMSS I J. Larkins, OCM i
M. Lopez-Otin, OCM l J. Scarborough, OCM i J. Kotra, OCM M. Federline, OCM O i-l l
Dated: May 5, 1988 REPORT OF MEETING OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE
> ON WASTE MANAGEMENT April 28, 1988 I.INTRODJCTION During a meeting on April 28, 1988, the Waste Management Subcomittee of.
the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the coments prepared by the NRC Staff based on their technical review of the Consul-
- tation Draft Site Characterization Plan (CDSCP) for the Yucca Mountain.
Nevada Site as issued by the U. S. Department of Energy -(DOE). Members of the Subcomittee participating in this meeting were Cade W. Moeller, ,
Paul G. Shewmon, and Martin J. Steindler. Attehding the meeting as consultants to the Subcomittee were J. Carson Mark and John C. Maxwell, l.isted below are the coments and/or suggestions made on this matter by l the Waste Management Subcomittee as a result of this meeting.
1 II. COMMENTS AND/OR SUGGESTIONS A. General 1
In general, the coments prepared by the NRC Staff are ccmprehensive and thorough, and they appear to cover all key points. The coments also reflect considerable time, affort, and diligence on the part of [
Ot the NRC Staff. In the cpinion of the Subcomittee, the NRC Staff is to be complimented, not only on the technical quality of their
{
review, but also on the fact that, through the approach they have chosen. the iterative practiss of their interactions with the DOE Staff is being made a part of the public record and is thus readily available for access by all interested parties.
The Waste Management Subcomittae generally agrees with the coments submitted by the NRC Staff and believes that they should be trans-mitted to DOE for resolution, including, particularly, the list of the five "Objections" to the CDSCP. As noted below, however, the Waste Management Subcomittee believes that the NRC Staff might give consideration to highlighting in their report other conearns worthy of being considered as important as the "Objections."
B, Specific .
)
In tems of specific coments, the Wa.ite Management Subcomittee offers the following:
- 1. The system currently being used to designate concerns of great-est importance, the "Objections," is that they "be of such .
1 mediate seriousness to the site charac*erization program that NRC would recomend that DOE not start work until they are satisfactorily resolved."
O We believe that it'would be useful for the NRC Staff to modify J
t _
w 0 .- -
'l
\
1 their report so as to emphasize additional concerns that are of 4 importance to the longer ranga development of the repository.- _
Examples -some oT which we believe represent fundamental flaws '
in'the approach ba ng taker by DOE, include:
- a. A basic."thenre" projected by the five ' Objections" raised by '
I the NRC Staff is a lack of conservatism on the part of the U.S. Deperbnent of Energy (DOE) in the developinent of its -
, plans for characterizing the proposed repository site.
Whereas the NRC Staff favors adopting a' conservative ap-proach, which could then be relaxet if further analyses justified it, the DOE appears to prefer to begin with a nonconservative approach and then to tighten up the require-ments at a later tina, if necessary. While the Waste Management Subcomittee understands that the DOE approach reflects to some degree the urgency seen by that Agency in
, moving ahead with plans for the repository (and their .
emphasis that the project be conducted in a cost-effective manner), it is quite possible that the development and implementation of a more conservative approach at this stage in the process will save time and money in the long run. To assist ir. this effort, the NRC Staff might consider provid-ing specific guidance to the DOE Staff relative to the O- degree of conservatism that they would consider acceptable l for those items where this difference is in question.
1
- b. In its efforts to meet the requirements regarding waste re-leases, the DOE Staff has proposed three design objectives for the wasta package. On examination, the NRC Staff has discovered that the requirements for the pre-closure phase for the repository are less stringent than those for the post-closure phase.
.This has led to design objectives that are both internally inconsistent and nonconservative. This i: a serious defi-ciency in the CDSCP, and it shobid be emphasized in the NRC Staff review. To the extent that these deficiencies repre-sent differences of opinion on the part of the NRC and DOE staffs, such differences should be clarified and clearly enunciated,
- c. A third imporu nt area of concern is illustrated by the posit, ions or approaches taken by DOE that appear not to comply either with the Standards for a high-level waste repository, Os promulgated by the'U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, or with the regulations promulgated by the NRC to assure compliance with the EPA Standards. Again, we believe that these examples of apparent noncompliance may
'O epresent a fundamental weakness in the DOE approach.
1
- d. A fourth area of importance relates to premature acceptance of a geologic model for the Yucca Mountain site, a complex area characterized by geologically recent volcanic activity and faulting. Based on our interpretation of the NRC Staff review, we believe that certain portions of the data on geology, as presented in the CDSCP, are technically inade-quate. This, again, appears to reveal a deficiency. The NRC Staff has noted DOE's inability or unwillingness to consider alternative explanations or mechanisms for selected phenomena, when such alternatives remain clearly within the scope of the data. This inflexibility could seriously hamper application of demonstrably sound technical judgmerit.
- e. Discussions with the NRC Staff and Waste,Subcom.ittea consultants revealed that movement along some of the faults near the proposed repository, and the weight of the rock overhead, could result in shifts (lateral, vertical or -
rotational) that might cause the host rock to shear and thereby place stresses on the waste canisters. This, in turn, could lead to the loss of their integrity. This is a matter that should be given attention.
- f. Another concern may include the matter of volcanism. ,The presence of a nearby volcanic cone, apparenti active within geologically recent time, as well as hot springs, may signal the need to evaluate the potential for thermal instabilities at the repository site. This concern should be addressed and resolved by DOE, to the satisfaction of the NRC Staff.
III. SUGGESTED IMPROVENENTS REGARDING NRC COMMENTS One way that the NRC Staff might modify their review of the CDSCP to emphasize the additional concerns c,ted above would be to group the current list of "Coments" into several categories, depending on their importance and the type of ' problems they reflect. One possible ap-l proach, for example, would bs to group the "Coments" into those that l reflect a nonconservative approach on the part of the DOE Staff, those that reflect apparent nonconfomance with EPA standards or NRC regu-lations, and those that reflect approaches to geological matters that are technically inadequate.
IV. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
- 1. It should be noted that the coments given above are preliminary and are based on an incomplete review by the Subcomittee of the CDSCP as well as the areas of concern expressed by the NRC Staff. As time pemits, we plan to conduct more in-depth reviews of selected
(' portions of the CDSCP. Specific areas that have been selected for more detailed analysis include "Perforvance Allocation" and "Per-fomance Assessment."
I
r I
l
- 2. In our review of the work of the NRC Staff in evaluating several DOE repository related programs, we were impressed by several aspects of the Staff's approach that we believe are worthy of special mention.
One is their concerted effort to examine the CDSCP at this time in sufficient detail to try to assure that all questions of importance are raised at this early stage in the review process.
Another is their effort to require DOE both to implement an accept-able QA program and to develop an inhouse means for its review and audit. With this program-in place, the primary' function of the NRC Staff in the QA area will be +1 review and critique the DOE auditing procedures. If the DOE QA program and auditing procedures pass NRC scrutiny, this shoulci provide reasonable assurance that the DOE QA program is adequate. The burden for assuring that the procedures are followed will then rest with the DOE Staff, not with the NRC.
O O
l O O O .
i
_ .+
1 4 i
! ~'
NRC BRIEFING TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE l
SUBJECT:
NRC STAFF RESPONSE'TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE-0N REACTOR. SAFEGUARDS COMMENTS ON THE NRC STAFF REVIEW 0F THE DOE CONSULTATION DRAFT' SITE CHAl'ACTERIZATION PLAN (CDSCP) FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA SITE' DATE: JUNE 29, 1988 1
PRESENTER: DR. KING STABLEIN PRESENTER'S TITLE /0RGANIZATION: PROJECT MANAGER HLOB/DHLWM/NMSS PRESENTER'S TELEPHONE NUMBER: (301)-492-0446 l
W--
- . s o O D='
I u
i i
j ,:
! NRC STAFF REVIEW 0F THE CDSCP FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA SITE
! O FINAL POINT PAPERS ISSUED MAY 11, 1988
--5 OBJECTIONS i
--110 COMMENTS
! --52 QUESTIONS 4
i I
i u
' f i
'E
. - - . , , , -, --, ,- ,, ,re-- - . , , + - - -
~
i _ . _ .
p o O O .
i l
a i
i PARTICIPATION OF ACRS IN NRC CDSCP REVIEW o NRC STAFF BRIEFING 0F ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT--
APRIL 28, 1988 o FRALEY LETTER TO STELLO (EDO) WITH SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS ON NRC STAFF REVIEW--MAY 11, 1988 4 , 7 - , -
, . - . 1
- o O O
- ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS 1
o ONE SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT
--HIGHLIGHT MAJOR CONCERNS IN COMMENTS BY GROUPING RELATED COMMENTS o SIX AREAS FOR NRC STAFF ATTENTION IN FINAL POINT PAPERS AND DURING SITE CHARACTERIZATION
--LACK OF CONSERVATISM
--INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT AND NONCONSERVATIVE WASTE PACKAGE DESIGN OBJECTIVES
--INCONSISTENCIES WITH EPA STANDARD
--LACK OF RECOGNITION OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF SITE GEOLOGY
--RUPTURE OF CONTAINERS BY FAULT MOVEMENT
--POTENTIAL FOR VOLCANISM AND RELATED PHENOMENA A- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
L
+
NRC STAFF INCORP_0 RATION OF ACRS SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT o INDEX TO POINT PAPERS BY DISCIP'_INE i o IMPORTANT RELATED COMMENTS CATEGORIZED
--LACK OF CONSERVATISM ,
--INCONSISTENCIES WITH 10 CFR PART 60
--INCONSISTENCIES WITH EPA STANDARD
--LACK OF INTEGRATION ACRCSS DISCIPLINES e
.s L
2 m --
O O .
O c
NRC STAFF ATTENTION TO LACK OF CONSERVATISM ,
o HIGHLIGHTED IN COVER LETTER o THEME UNDERLIES ALL FIVE OBJECTIONS o MANY RELATED COMMENTS o STAFF GUIDANCE IN POINT PAPERS IN FORM 0F RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO HOW SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM CAN BE MODIFIED TO ACHIEVE A GREATER DEGREE OF CONSERVATISM N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o -o :o:
i .
- t i 'i i
i NRC STAFF ATTENTION TO INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT AND NONCONSERVATIVE WASTE PACKAGE DESIGN OBJECTIVES -
l 0 HIGHLIGHTED IN COVER LETTER
! O LENGTHY MAJOR COMMENT IN PACKAGE
! o l TECHNICAL POSITION CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT l
i i
~_ _ .-
l~ o o .
o :' ' .
l l
i
, NRC STAFF ATTENTION TO INCONSISTENCIES WITH EPA STANDARD :
i i o HIGHLIGHTED IN COVER LETTER i o NUMEROUS COMMENTS IN PACKAGE
- o TECHNICAL POSITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF
- EPA STANDARD UNDER DEVELOPMENT k
t
. F
,,e -- < w -
w- 1 --vs -
m- --o
. o. O O z
h NRC STAFF ATTENTION TO LACK OF RECOGNITION OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL.
MODELS OF SITE GE0 LOGY o HIGHLIGHTED IN COVER LETTER o IDENTIFIED AS MOST FUNDAMENTAL TECHNICAL OBJECTION
~
l 0 -
O O . :
~
l . .
i i
MC STAFF ATTENTION TO RUPTURE OF CONTAINERS BY FAULT MOVEMENT i
o MAJOR COMMENTS IN PACKAGE 4 o POSSIBILITY OF FAULT ACTIVITY-AND ATTENDANT CONSEQUENCES EMPHASIZED IN FEA REVIEW k
4 t
b -
,#,, y _ .- -- -
u .- - _ _ _
O O .
-O =
NRC STAFF ATTENTION TO POTENTIAL FOR VOLCANISM AND RELATED PHENOMENA o NUMEROUS COMMENTS IN PACKAGE .
O MAJOR CO.T.ENT IN FEA REVIEW !
O LETTER T0. DOE ON VOLCANISM AUGUST 13, 1987 hb I
w ,_ . .. . - - , . . . - . .. . .. - - . . .-_-
- ., >^
o O O FUTURE ROLEMAKINGS WITHIN THE HIGH-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 14, 1988 e
e
. o O O .
4
! CATEGORIES OF ISSUES l
. REGULATORY - CONCERN WIAT MUST BE PROVEN i TECHNICAL - CONCERN HOW PROOF CAN BE ESTABLISHED
~
INSTITUTIONAL - CONCERN POSSIBILITY OF OVERLAPPING FEDERAL AGENCY JURISDICTIONS OR REGULATIONS, DEFINITION OF RESPECTIVE ROLES 6
G w - - . - - - , . , - _
7 - ,-
- e . r i
- O O O ,
BACKGROUND: letSS, RESEARCH ANC OGC STAFF HAVE IDENTFIED I
TO DATE TEN CANDIDATES FOR RULEMAKINGS.
PURPOSE: LAYOUT THE ACTIVITIES THAT NEED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED TO SCOPE OUT AND DEVELOP A SCHEDULE FOR EACH RtlLEMAKING.
r i
4 t ..
-n O Os U FUTURE RULEMAKINGS AND TASK LEADERS GROUNDWATER TRAVEL TIME RULEMAKING (F. ROSS)
ANTICIPATED / UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS RULEMAKING (J. TRAPP)
DEFINITION OF "SUBSTANTIALLY C0HPLETE CONTAINMENT" RULEMAKING (C. PETERSON)
DISTURBED ZONE RULEMAKING (T. VERMA)
DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT DOSE LIMIT RULEMAKING (R. NEEL)
EMERGENCY PLANNING CRITERIA RULEMAKING (W. WALKER) .
WASTE CONFIDENCE (R. MACDOUGALL)
CONFORM PART 60 TO EPA STANDARD (D. FEHRINGER)
CRITERIA FOR CONTAINMENT OF "GREATER THAN CLASS C" LOW-LEVEL WASTE IF IT GOES INTO REPOSITGRY (C. PETERSON)
IMPLEMENTING THE EPA STD. (D. FEHRINGER) h
o O O SCHEDULE
- LEADS DEVELOP SCOPE, MILESTONES AND JUNE 24, 1988 TIMEFRAMES FOR RULEMAKINGS
- JUNE 27, 1988 BRIEF BRANCH CHIEFS ON SCOPE AND TIMEFRAMES FOR RULEMAKINGS
- JUNE 29, 1988 BRANCH CHIEFS AGREE ON PRIORITIZATION OF RULEMAKINGS
- JULY 01, 1988 DEVELOP SCHEDULE FOR RULEMAKINGS BRIEF THOMPSON ON SCHEDULE Jflt.Y11,1988
- JULY 15, 1988 TRANSMIT TO EDO
- ____ ___ __ 4
o O O .
SCOPE t
DEFINE PURPOSE OF RULEMAKING AND REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY TO /.
BE RESOLVED
- CLARIFICATION, RULE AS WRITTEN MAY BE UNCLEAR NEED TO LAYOUT FINDINGS THAT NEED TO BE MADE; DETERMINE WHAT MUST BE PROVEN TO DEMDNSTRATE COMPLIANCE DEFINE WHAT ACTIVITIES NEED TO BE CONDUCTED TO RESOLVE THESE UNCERTAINTIES CONSIDER ANY LINKAGE WITH OTHER RULEMAKINGS OR OTHER ACTIVITIES CONSIDER PART 60 RULEMAKING RECORD; SACKGROUND AND INTENT OF RULE w
o 0 -
O TINING AND MILESTONES FOR RULEMAKINGS WHEN WILL RULEMAKING BE NEEDED IN REPOSITORY PROGRAM?
LOOK AT BROAD AND DETAILED SCHEDULES TO DETERMINE WHEN UNCERTAINTY NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED (BASED ON CURRENT SCHEDULES AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CDSCP)
- LAYOUT MILESTONES, TIMEFRAMES AND RESOURCES NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE REGULATORY POSITION AND TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT INPUTS FROM OTHER GROUPS.
i l
o O O l
l i
l Rulemaking Timeline i
I i
l l
' Publish Publish EDO Approval Proposed Final Rule Process Rule I I 6 Months to 2 Years
O O O PRODUCT SCOPE - ONE PAGE WRITEUP THAT DESCRIBES THE FOLLOWING:
- PURPOSE OF RULEMAKING
- REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY TO BE RESOLVED
- LINKAGE WITH ANY OTHER RULEWXINGS OR ACTIVITIES
~
- SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION FORM PART 60 RULEMAKING RECORD PERTINENT TO THE RULEMAKING TINEFRAME IN WHICH RULEMAKING IS NEEDED
- RESOURCES TO DEVELOP REGULATORY POSITION AND TECHNICAL BASIS FOR PROPOSED RULE MILESTONES AND TIMEFRAMES COMPLETE ATTACHED SHEET
6 e
O ,=
- n
$=..&
g $e g*R c x?
e v Rs
.aut. . .
w e
m W O$I e 8
e a
5 m
2 .
a 5
e 5
2 & m
- g .w s - 3 Oea -
5 et e
t 5 E
o O O .
FUTURE RULEMAKIES, TASK LEADERS AND PPSAS NUpBERS L60056 GROUNDWATER TRAVEL TIME RULEMAKING (F. ROSS)
! L60057 ANTICIPATED / UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS RULEMAKING (J. TRAPP)
L60058 DEFINITION OF "SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE CONTAINMENT" RULEMAKING (C. PETERSON)
L60059 DISTURBED ZONE RULEMAKING (T. VERMA)
L60060 DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT DOSE LIMIT RULEMAKING (R. NEEL)
L60061 EMERGENCY PLANNING CRITERIA RULEMAKING (W. WALKER)
L60062 WASTE CONFIDENCE (R. MACDOUGALL)
L60063 CONFORM PART 60 TO EPA STANDARD (D. FEHRINGER)
~
L60064 CRITERIA FOR CONTAIMENT OF "GREATER THAN CLASS C" LOW-LEVEL WASTE IF IT GOES INTO REPOSITORY (C. PETERSON)
L60065 IMPLEMENTING THE EPA STD. (D. FEHRINGER)
m.,m.---.---.._,--,.m.- ,
.___.-.-..____m__....-.___..._.-
i
- j. -t t .
nA . _
j ' ,I i
.} .
h f.
4, -
i i
1 s t
h# f' t' e i t
i I e- !
I 1
7 t
b i
f t' !
t' i 1
6 6
I 4
L I
T f
f o
t i
I 6
h 3
F b
b r
l 4 .
Y 9
P I
l t
?
I I
i .
I
.i
?
i s
)
) -s--
>