ML20154C927
| ML20154C927 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8805180378 | |
| Download: ML20154C927 (75) | |
Text
. _ - ___
s s
a f
4 UNITED STATES.OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
1
Title:
BRIEFING ON NRC POINT PAPERS FOR DOE CONSULTATION DRAFT OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN Location:
ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND l
Date:
WEDNCSDAY, MAY 4, 1988 l(
Pages:
1-59
\\
i hh PDR PT9.7 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 1 3treet, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 s
(202) 293-3950
I DISCLAIMER i
.This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting
~
t of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 4, 1988 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been rev'iewed, corrected or edited, and it may '
contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general L
informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is
-not part of the-formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any t
statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
I i
i-i f
I l
t l'
-s 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON NRC POINT PAPERS FOR DOE CONSULTATION 5
DRAFT OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION 6
PLAN FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN 7
8 PUBLIC MEETING 9
10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 One White Flint North l
12 "*
~
Rockville, Maryland 13 14 WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1988 15 16 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 2:00 p.m., the Honorable LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman of 18 the commission, presiding.
19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 21 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission I
22 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission 23 KENNETH ROGdRS, Member of the commission 24 I
25 1
o 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
f t
2 3
S.
Chilk 4
V. Stello I
5 H. Thompson i
6 R.
Ballard 7
W.
Parler I
8 B.J. Youngblood f
9 B. Browning 10 t
i t
11 12 13 8
14 i
15 16 I
17 18
[
19 20 21 i
22 l
i 23 t
1 24 1
25 I
r
_ _ _ _ _ _... - -.- _ __..~._.__
j 3
1 PROCEEDINGS
)
2 (2:00 p.m.)
)
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
4 This afternoon, the Commission will be briefed by the Office of 5
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards on NRC's review of the 6
Department of Energy's consultation draft site characterization 7
plans for the Yucca Mountain site.
8 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended in 1987, i
9 requires the Department of Energy to develop a site 10 characterization plan for a high level waste repository.
11 The consultation draft is a precursor to the 12 "-
statutory pl'hn and is intended for review and comment by NRC 13 and the State of Nevada as a way of addressing site 14 characterization issues early on.
15 The Department of Energy issued their consultation 16 draft site characterization plan in January 1988, and it is my 17 understanding that the NRC staff has met twice with DOE f
18 regarding NRC concerns about the plan.
i 19 Today, the staff will outline those items in the plan 20 which they feel DOE should address in the statutory plan.
It's 21 my understanding that the staff will formally transmit these i
i l
22 point papers to DOE after this meeting.
23 The Commission would also be interested in a summary 24 of current DOE plans to address the staff concerns.
This is an 25 information briefing and no formal Commission action is j
i l
h
4 1
anticipated.
2 commissioner Roberts will not be with us this 3
afternoon.
Do any of my fellow commissioners have any opening 4
comments to make?
t 5
(No response.)
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
If not, Mr. Stello, would you 7
proceed, please.
8 MR. STELLO:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple 9
of quick points that I wanted to make.
You have already 10 characterized the purpose of the meeting is to brief you on the 11 comments.
~
12 ~
For those here, the comments are on the consultation 13 draft site characterization plan which you can see at the end 14 of the table is in excess of a foot cf documents, and that's, 15 of course, backed up by literally file cabinets of additional 16 information.
17 We had a meeting with the Waste Management 18 Subcommittee, the new advisory committee on nuclear waste, to 19 acquaint them with the things that we think we're going to need j
20 some work on, and they agreed to look at the comments.
21 They have, in fact, looked at them and they were 22 generally pleased and found that the staff's review was, in f
23 fact, comprehensive and thorough, and concurred in the staff's 24 comments.
25 The last point I want to make is one of the key 4
5 1
issues we're concerned about is to make sure that we get.
2 resolved the QA program issues before site characterization 1
3 starts, because that's very important since it will generate 4
data and information that will be used in making decisions, at 5
quite some time distant in the future, so that's pretty 6
important to get that straightened out.
i 7
I think we're making progress in that area as well, 8
but we're not there yet, but we are on our way.
As a side 9
point, we have been having some discussion with the State of 10 Nevada who is cbviously getting very involved in this issue, l
11 and they have approached us in looking at a QA program for the
~
12 work that thay, too, will do, and I think that's probably very 13 important since they have a considerable amount of money, and 14 we'll be talking $nout that this afternoon.
15 And we'll generate a lot of information which, again, 16 will be relied on and used in the process.
So, I think that, 17 too, is important.
18 With that, I'll ask Hugh Thompson to introduce the 19 others at the table and jump right into the briefing.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
21 MR. THOMPSON:
Thank you, Mr. Stello.
Mr. Chairman 22 and Commissioners, as you know, Bob Browning, who is the 23 Division Director for the high level waste program, is here 24 today; and, Joe Youngblood, who is the Chief, Branch Chief, of 25 the projects, who is the individual who is responsible for the
g.,
/
/
6 coordinatianoftheeffortandhavingtherevie,bconducted, 1
willbedoingthebriefingforthecommission]iboday.
2 3
A couple of points that I wanted to highlight, and I 4
thought were very~important in the staff's review, is, first
,/
5 off, that the review was done within' the budget that the
~
Commissionhad[givenustodothesitecharacterizationfrdraft 6
7 site characterization plan review.
f 8
We've taken about six FTEs.
They involved a 9
multiple-disciplinary team with some contractor support, but it 10 was a very aggressive on our part to be able to meet in the t
11 '
timeframe that had been established in getting~, initial comments 12 out on the program review, interfacing with thp states and with 13 the DOE and the various workshops, and has been a very, I 14 think, successful review in my opinion.
I 15 One of the key areas that we did is that we did a two 16 week' acceptance review to make sure that the document that we 17 were planning this time and effort on was one that had been 18 adequately prepared by DOE in order for us to do that.
/
19 In the review, we did find that there'had been 20
' sections and informr, tion that was not available for us to do 21 our review.
22 That if it had been the formal submittal, that we 23 would have not been able to find it acceptable to start a 24 review.
25 Just, information was missing, and we pointed this o
-. ~ _ _, _ _ _
__.--_.m.
~ _ - ~
O y
'J 1
out to DOE and I think they recognized that when they do come 2
in with the site characterization plan, they intend to have all 3
the type of information that ws need.
4 Secondly, we did our initial review and provided the 5
comments, staff comments, to DOE about six weeks after we 6
started the effort.
7 We have found that those comments through the 8
workshops have not made significant changes.
So any interface 9
that we had with ACRS -- so pending any guidance that we get 10 from the commission, I think we will be ready to finalize our 11 comments to DOE in a couple of weeks.
12 ~
So',' with that, Joe, if you coul'd start the detailed 13 briefing today.
14 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
The first slide is bacically the 15 cover slide introducing the fact that we're briefing on the 16 point papers today on the consultation draft site 17 characterization plan for Yucca Mountain on Nye County Nevada.
18
.(Slide.)
19 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:' I have three or four photographs 20 that I would like to show before we go on to the main briefing 21 slides.
22 (Slide.)
23 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
This shows the view from the south.
24 The site is around approximately 100 miles northwest of Los 25 Vegas. 'And this shows the Nevada test site there.
_ _ - ~
\\
8 1
This ridge running along'the'r.e is Yucca Mountain.
I 2
will have a view from the north, looking south, in the next 3
slide, but that's where the site is located.
4 Here's Crater Flats and some of these are the 5
volcanic combs in that area that are estimated to be around 6
20,000 years old.
Some of this land over in this area is 7
controlled by Nellis Air Force Base and the Burcau of Land 8
Management.
9 And the other area in there covering about this area 10 is the Nevada test site, 11 (Slide.]
12 ~
MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
The next slide which is a view from 13 the opy ste direction.
As you.see down the middle of the 14 slide, the ridge there is Yucca Mountain; to the right is 15 Solitario Canyon; I believe in the far background, it may be 16 just off the slide there now, but you can see the combs in the 17 background there.
18 I, guess you can see it.
Yes, the little comb back 19 there.
'To the left of the site, of the ridge, is where the 20 site actually will be located, and I presume the area is about 21 on the test site there, it runs in an area along about there, I l
22 believe.
Maybe somewhat further north than that.
23 Now, the direction that the arrow is pointing will be l
1 24 the direction that next picture will be focusing on.
You'll be 25 looking into the ridge from that direction, and.this is an l
l
9 1
artist's conception of the repository.
2 (Slide.]
3 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
In the lower center of the picture, 4
this is the central storage and handling area that would be 5
used for handling of waste and processing materials, and so 6
forth.
7 It shows a ramp that would be used to transport waste 8
from the handling area into_the repository.. There's a ramp 9
that runs in this direction, that hauls all of the tough 10 material removed from the repository, excavated, and stacked 11 over in this area.
12 ~
Th'e upper left hand corner here shows actually the 13 underground repository area.
There are four shafts that enter 14 the area there.
I'm not for sure we can see all four of them.
15 There's one, of course, right there.
There's a shaft 16 right at this location which you can't see very well.
17 And then there are two shafts over the far left, even 18 further than I can -- I guess I could turn the arrow around 19 here somewhere and point to it from that direction.
20 There are two shafts together right there, the next 21 slide will show focus righ.t in that area that I'm at right now.
22 (Slide.)
23 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
This is another artist's conception 24 of a cutaway of the area.
That would be exploratory shaft one, 25 and exploratory shaft two.
Exploratory shaft two goes down to
10 1
the repository area.
2 of course, up above are the head-in facilities for 3
handling the material and equipment and man and so forth that 4
would be utilized during the exploratory stage of the shafts.
5 Exploratory shaft one is projected -- was originally 6
projected to go through this area in here which contains the 7
Calico Hills unit which is a natural barrier to the saturated 8
zone below the repository, which is down in this area.
9 Of course, this is the repository area here up above 10 in the tuft, which is an unsaturated zone.
I do have an 11 exhibit that shows some rocks that are typical of the tuft 12...
area.
13 (Slide.)
14 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
The cylindrical' core is the typical 15 method of obt.aining subsurface rock samples.
The core is a 16 segment of the welded tuft which was removed from the site, and 17 the rock or repository is in the welded tuft area.
18 Samples such as these core samples are used to 19 identify' the rock composition, porosity, permeability, moisture 20 content, and faulting at depth.
21 The rock sample is a piece of welded tuft that is 22 found frequently around the site area.
It shows the typical 23 secondary deposits in the premises and the cracked areas on the 24 side there.
25 Wayne, if you'd turn that up.
Yes, see, you can see
11 1
some of the deposits there that -- mineral deposits from 2
solutions that flow through these fissures.
3 Also, I have a small sample here of tuft that I can 4
pass around the table if people woul'd like to see it.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Can you pass'those two 6
around?
7 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Yes, we ca' pass those.
We can pull 8
those out and pass them around right now.
9 MR. BROWNING:
I think as Mr. Youngblcod gets into 10 th'e description of our comments, one of the key things that 11 useful to keep in mind is the initial exploratory work, namely
~
~
12 sinking two shafts, getting down to depth, and looking at 13 what's going on down at depth, and looking, as you go down, 14 will end up being part of.the repository.
15 Therefore, it's extremely important that before it's 16 done, it be very, very carefully thought out as to how it's 17 being done, how you can learn from it, so that you don't le inadvertantly louse up the site as part of your characterizing 19 the site.
20 And you don't inadvertantly preclude your ability to 21 get important data because of the way you sunk those shafts and 22 the way you got down there to start looking.
23 It's a unique kind of thing.
It's not a typical mining operation.
It's beginning -- the actual facility that's 24 i
25 going to have to last for 10,000 years, and which we and DOE
12 1
will have to make performance predictions over extr'emely long 2
periods of time.
It's very important to keep that in mind.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What exactly is the 4
geological origin of this?
I know it's volcanic, but is it 5
essentially volcanic dust and ash that's been metamorphosed 6
partially?
7 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
That is welded tuft there.
- Yes, 8
that's the ash that's been welded.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Welded and then 10 metamorphosed, right?
11 MR. BROWNING:
Because of heat and pressure.
12 '
MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Yes.
All of those shafts have,-I 13 believe, a 12 foot diameter opening on them.
I don't know if 14 some of them will be larger than that or not on the ramp, but 15 generally, it's a 12 foot opening on all of those shafts and 16 ramps.
17 (Slide.)
18 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
The first slide that I have is a l
19 basic outline of the discussion.
I plan to give the purpose of i
20 the content of the site characterization plan and a chronology 21 of our review of the CDSCP, a brief discussion of the point paper, and the objections that were raised with regard to the 22 23 point paper, and then I'll finish up by talking about some of 24 the hear term site characterization activities and the SCP.
25 (Slide.)
l l
l
13 1
MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
The second slice, as I indicat.ed, 2
discusses the purpose which is basically for DOE to present the 3
program to evaluate the suitability of a site for a geological 4
repository and support the license application.
5 The contents include the plans for site 6
characterization activities and a description of waste farming 7
packaging, and the conceptual design of the repository.
8 The level of detail in the site characterization plan 9
briefly discusses the investigations plan.
Further details 10 with regard to the investigations are incorporated in separate 11 documentation in their state plans.
12 ~
And even more detailed information beyond the study 13 plans will be incorporated and their test procedures, which are 14 even provided separately from the study plans.
l 15 The CDSCP itself was not required by NEPA -- NWPA, j
16 not NEPA, and 10 CRF 60.
It was issued by DOE to get an early 17 input from NRC and the state of Nevada in order for them to 18 consider our comments in the development of the statutory SCP.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
What's the level of the state 20 participation in the review of the site characterization plan 21 so-far?
22 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
The state attended the first two 23 workshops that were held.
The third workshop, they fairly well 24 participated in that workshop.
Their position has been that l
25 they don't believe that they could do a good review of the site 1
1
14 1
characterization plan without having the study plans, which go 2
into far greater detail.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But they're being kept informed of --
4 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
They are being kept informed, yes.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
-- of all the actions going on.
6 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
8 MR. THOMPSON:
But I think Joe's comment was in the 9
last workshop, they did participate at a level of -- in more 10 detail than they did on the earlier ones, which I think was a 11 good sign, at least to me.
~
12 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
They had quite a few people that 13 were familiar with the alternative models concept that we 14 discussed.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Very good.
16 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
They did participate in that.
The 17 fact is, that was one of our better technical exchange meetings 18 that we had with DOE and I understand the state was quite happy 19 with the technical exchange that was held during that meeting 20 also.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
22 (Slide.)
23 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
The next slide briefly discusses the 24 chronology of the staff review.
DOE did issue the CDSCP, in 25 January of
'88.
Ei did perform the acceptance review which Mr.
15 1
Thompson mentioned.
2 There were a couple'of items missing from it that the 3
staff believes they could not produce a site characterization 4
analysis within a six months timeframe if that information were 5
missing from the statutory SCP.
6 DOE has provided that information to us in the 7
meantime..
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
They provided the information on the 9
objections and c.omments you had?
10 MR. YOU'.fGBLOOD :
No, no.
They've not done all of 11 that, yet.
Th9 conceptual design review information was not
~
~'
12 with the document when we received it, and performance analysis 13 was not in the document when we received it.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
They committed to --
15 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
They,'ve already -- they furnished 16 them to us now, but --
17 MR. THOMPSON:
We did an acceptance review which 18 says, do you have the information available for us to do our 19 review.
We have gotten th'at information now, such that we 20 completed our review.
21 We still have, and we'll talk about, some of our 22 concerns, objections, and questions, which is a different thing 23
-- will be addressed in the next slide.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
25 MR..YOUNGBLOOD:
As we indicated, there were a series
e g.
16
~
1 of workshops that were presented.
The first workshop was of a 2
preliminary session.
l 3
DOE gave an explanation of the CDSCP to the staff in 4
the state of Nevada.
Of course, after we issued our draft 5
comments in early March, we had planned another workshop which 6
was held the week of March the 21st.
7 This was basically to discuss the overall point 8
papers and assure ourselves that DOE and NRC had a better 9
understanding of our concerns.
10 A workshop was held in April to discuss the 11 alternative conceptual models.
That was held in Las Vegas, of
~
12 "-
course.
13 The state did participate in that.
They had quite a 14 few of their people there that had thoughts about alternative 15 conceptual models.
16 Mr. Shemansky presented his conceptual model of the 17 site one afternoon during this workshop.
As a result of these 18 workshops, there have been a number of technical meetings that 19 have been proposed to be held over the next several months.
20 They.have not at this time been scheduled.
We did 21 meet with the ACRS Subcommittee, or the ACMW Committee, on the 22 28th of April.
23 I believe they concurred in the comments that we 24 gave.
They did request that our cover letter include a
~
25 categorization or subcategories of some of the comments since
17 1
that.
2 There were about 108 comments, and they weren't 3
broken out neatly into discrete packages.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It's my understanding that the ACRS 5
Subcommittee, or the New Waste Committee,.I'm not sure which 6
onn, maybe both, raised some concerns on the plan.
7 Is that what you're talking about?
8 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
No, sir.
They just suggested --
9 they had no problem with the concerns and the comments that we 10 made, but they just recommended that the 108 comments, that we 11 break those down into categories so that you could determine 12 which of them involved QA, which of involved lack of 13 conservatism.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You're looking at those comments, 15 though, I presume.
16 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You'll be able to address them --
18 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
We can handle that easily enough in 19 our cover letter.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
I think it's important that 21 you have a close relationship with the ACRS, the New Waste 22 Committee in particular, and be sure that they're informed on 23 everything you're doing, and give them an opportunity to 24 comment.
25 I think that's pretty important that you do that.
e 18 1
MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
I think they've been very helpful to 2
us.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
4 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
We've had a pretty good working 5
relationship with them.
6 (Slide.)
MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
The next slide is the detail of the point papers.
Actually, our concerns were broken into three levels, and, as I discuss this, you may understand more where 10 the ACRS Subcommittee was coming from.
11 Ou'r concerns are broken into -- I hesitate to call
~
~
12 them three levels, because they're not necessarily levels.
The 13 first group, we called objections.
14 And the definition of the objection was that the 15 staff would recommend that DOE not start work prior to 16 resolution.
17 If there were any potential adverse effects on the l
18 repository performance, significant and irreversible or 19 unmitigatable effects on the characterization that would 20 physically preclude obtaining information necessary,for 21 licensing, or if there were fundamental inadequacies in the 22 quality assurance program.
23 The comments were defined to be concerns that would 24 result in a significant adverse effect on the licensing if not 25 resolved, which would not cause irreplaceable damage if site
19 1
characterization started before the resolution.
2 And, of course, the questions were associated mostly 3
with missing information, or inconsistencies, or ambiguities in 4
the information.
5 Actually, the final point papers as we generally have 6
all of those completed at this time, we don't have the overall 7
cover letter completed on it.
We don't really have any 8
significant changes from the draft point papers which we 9
trynsmitted on March the 7th.
10 MR. THOMPSON:
I think objections were things that 11 are near term, things that need to be addressed before they
~'
12 ~
start'the site characterization activities.
13 Comments, though, they may be just as important in 14 the long term, don't have the timeliness for resolution, then 15 we have more time to address those.
16 And that's the area that ACRS wanted us to make sure 17 we identified those comments that were significant with respect 18 to the licensing and regulatory considerations, which would be 19 just as important in the long term, so that's the issue I think i
20 we're addressing with the ACRS.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Has DOE expressed a willingness to 22 respond to your objections, your comments, your concerns?
23 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Yes, sir.
24 MR. THOMPSON:
They have felt that the workshops, the l
l 25 efforts we've done, the interactions we had, have been very
~
20 1
useful to them.
Certainly my discussions with Ed Ka'y have led 2
me to believe that they are prepared to work with them and to 3
address these concerns.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
In your comments, and perhaps ACRS 5
made the same comment, I'm not sure, but on prioritization, 6
have you made an attempt to prioritize your comments?
7 It sounds like, perhaps, you've got objections that 8
are in one category, and then your comments, another.
Have you 9
tried to prioritize the comments?
10 MR. THOMPSON:
Well, I think, Joe, you might'want to 11 address it.
My sense is the objections are the top priority
~
12 because they have the timeliness of that.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
How about the others?
What do you 14 have, 108 of them, or so?
15 MR. THOMPSON:
108 on the comments are the ones that 16 we're now categorizing such --
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
And prioritir.ing them, too?
l l
18 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
We're rather reluctant to prioritize 19 them because it depends upon their resolution as to whether 20 they turn out to be more significant or less significant, 21 although.we will characterize, as the next slide indicates, it 22 lists the five objections.
23 (Slide.)
24 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
And the 108 or so comments that we 25 have, they cut across all of the technical areas.
Three of 1__._
21 1
those comments address DOE positions that appear to be 2
inconsistent with the regulatory requirements.
3 These positions may result in DOE not having the 4
information needed at the time of the licensing application.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But is that being -- your work in 6
that, is that being resolved?
7 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Yes.
Those are -- we're working 8
with them to resolve --
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right.
10 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
But we also highlighted them in our 11 initial letter.
We will continue to highlight them in this
~
12 letter.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Okay.
14 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
And we'll break out some other 15 categories in the letter, too.
But those three that fit in 16 that category were substantially complete containment, lack of 17 information on the performance confirmation program, and in 18 situ testing to evaluate seals..
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Has DOE ever run a program, 20 at least in recent years, that requires the kind of careful 21 attention to quality assurance that this thing is going to 22 require, both as to documentation and organization, other 23 aspects.
24 In other words, we have seen TBA stumble badly when 25 they had a regulation in front of them, and knew very well, or
22 1
should have know, what was required.
2 Does DOE have experience in setting up that kind of a 3
detailed quality assurance program?
That's my question.
4 I imagine'there are certain areas of the defense 5
program where there might, but I am not sure how good the 6
cross-talk is there.
i MR. THOMPSON:
Well, I don't know if we've got any 8
familiarity with the DOE programs.
Certainly in our 9
interaction, DOE has made lots of commitments to set up a 10 program.
They did set up a small part of the testing for the 11 iodine up at the Hanford site that I think we had reviewed and
~
12 ~
felt was acce'ptable, but something on the magnitude o'f this 13 whole program I don't believe they have that type of 14 experienc.e, and that's why we have a fairly strong commitment i
15 that they need to address the QA program.
16 DOE recently reorganized, and maybe when Ed Kay comes 17 to speak to the Commission later on, I think this month, that 18 may be something you would like to explore with him, because 19 have recognized their needs to focus on the QA program both at 20 headquarters, at the field and at their contractors.
They have 21 a number of contractors in various areas that we are looking at 22 and they recognize that there is a lot of work to be done in 23 that area.
So it is one that we are participating in the 24 audits programs, so that we can provide them as much of our 25 learning from the reactor side as we can, but it is going to be e
<w.
23 1
a challenge I think for DOE to do this, and we keep emphasizing 2
that.
3 I know Mr. Stello, when he went out and met with 4
officials out there, emphasized it.
I have emphasized it when 5
we've been out there and we are doing everything we can because 6
of that issue, but it's not that easy to do and this is a new 7
area for us.
3 MR. STELLO:
I think the big problem is it's new.
9 It's not the usual way for constructing a building and device.
10 All the theologies of how do you construct and make sure you 11 are collecting, going about getting the data -- but I think 12 ~
everyone understands how important it is.
I think it will take 13 some time but it will come.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let's proceed, please.
15 (Slide.)
16 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Slide No. 6 indicates that the first 17 objection is associated with the performance allocation process 18 and CDSCP does not directly address the investigations that 19 would be needed to charactdrize the site with respect to the 20 full range of alternative' conceptual models and the associated 21 boundary conditions that are consistent with the existing data.
22 An important consequence is that without identifying 23 all of the potentially significant investigations, it cannot be 24 determined whether conducting an investigation would interfere 25 with -- possibly to the' point of precluding the conducting of
9 24 1
another investigation needed to obta'in the information for 2
licensing.
3 In addition, the program may favor providing data 4
that confirmed a preferred model and the boundary conditions, 5
rather than the data needed to determine what the preferred 6
model and boundary conditions should be.
7 As I indicated, we did have a good exchange at the 8
workshop in April and a discussion of the alternative 9
conceptual models, and the staff recommended that DOE include a 10 series of tables within the SCP that is integrated across the 11 various disciplines that focus on the performance objectives of
'~
12 10 CFR 60.
This discipline approach would give added 13 confidence that the appropriate investigations were being made de 14 and considered appropriately and prioritized.
15 (Slide.)
16 The next objection is associated basically with the 17 quality assurance program.
The CDSCP references a number of QA 18 plans and procedures for DOE and its prime contractors, many of 19 which are undergoing potentially significant revisions or which 20 have outstanding staff or review comments or which have not 21 undergone staff review.
l 22 Based on the staff reviews to date, they do not fully l
23 comply with the NRC's QA criteria.
Obviously, the data 24 collected by such procedures might be suspect and difficult to l-l 25 use in the licensing process.
DOE plans to meet with us later
25 1
on this month to discuss their plans for submitting their QA 2
programs to us.
We only have had one of their programs 3
submitted to us formally.
We will need a program by two of the 4
offices -- DOE offices -- plus programs for each of their prime 5
contractors.
There are about six or seven of the prime 6
contractors that we will need programs from.
7 As I indicated, they plan to meet with us some time 8
during this month to discuss their schedule for submitting 9
those plans to us and to discuss the staff's outstanding 10 comments.
11 In order to complete the acceptance of the QA 12 program, DOE will have to perform quite a numbar of audits of 13 their own, as well as the staff will have to perform some 14 audits to have confidence that the program is being 15 appropriately implemented.
16 (Slide.]
17 The next three objections -- I will start with 18 Objection 3.
All three of these are associated with the 19 exploratory shaft.
The first one is associated with the depth 4
20 of the exploratory shaft No.
1, which has been proposed to be 21 approximately 400 feet below the proposed repository horizon 22 into the Zeolitic zone of the Calico Hills unit, and DOE hasn't 23 established the basis or the need for these tests that would 24 require drifting after it pierces through the calico Hills 25 barrier.
e 26 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Would require what, did you 2
say?
3 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Piercing through the Calico --
4 drifting?
Horizontal tunneling.
After they go below the 5
Calico Hills barrier, then if they go in a horizontal 6
direction, that is drifting.
7 MR. THOMPSON:
Just a mining term.
Nothing special.
8 (Laughter.)
9 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
DOE notified us I believe yesterday 10 informally that at this point in time they had performed a 11 review of penetrating the Calico Hills barrier and their 12 position at this point in time is that they will not penetrate 13 that barrier.
They are going to look at alternative methods, 14 exploring that area with bore holes and various other 15 techniques.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
01y is it such a source of 17 concern if you punch a hole?
I don't even know what diameter 18 particularly --
19
' MR. BROWNING:
Twenty feet in diameter.
This 20 particular one would be 12 feet.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But you can't do what you 22 need to do with bore holes much smaller than that?
23 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
This is why they are reconsidering 24 it and saying thr.t their presently proposed position is that 25 they will not go through that barrier.
27 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But even if they punch a hole 2
in the barrier, 20 feet I've got to admit becomes a bigger 3
engineering problem, but suppose they punch a hole in the
.4 barrier three feet in diameter.
I guess it would give me some 5
concern to think that the integrity of the entire project might 6
rest on your having or not having such a hole and apparently on 7
your ability to seal or not seal it adequately if you did punch 8
a hole like that.
Now why is that such an engineering problem?
9 MR. BROWNING:
It may not be.
We just asked the 10 question why are they doing it.
It wasn't clearly explained in 11 the draft SCP as to what the purpose of sinking such a large
~
~'
12 diameter hole through what at this stage is perceived to be a 13 very important barrier to radionuclide migration.
I mean on 14 the one hand they are making the case that the groundwater, if 15 groundwater does get into the repository and does leach 16 radionuclides out, then you would be counting on this Calico 17 Hills tough layer to retard the radionuclides before they get 18 to the groundwater.
Once it gets to groundwater, it moves very 19 rapidly.
l l
20 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Relatively.
21 MR. BROWNING:
Relatively, but well within 1000 22 years, okay?
We have a requirement that the pre-emplacement 23 groundwater travel time be less than a thousand years -- or l
24 greater than 1000 years, rather, and the present conceptual 25 understanding of the site says that that groundwater moves
28 1
rather rapidly.
I also saw a picture, and the present 2
conceptual idea is that the groundwater moves towards that 3
desert area, so you have to take the whole thing in the total 4
perspective.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But as a matter of principle, 6
I understand what you're saying, but why is it such a delicate 7
process?
That is what troubles me a little bit.
Is it such a 8
delicate process?
Supposedly you can't punch a three foot or 9
six foot or perhaps, even a 12 foot diameter shaft and rely on 10 standard engineering techniques to close it up after you have 11 done that, if you find that you need to do it.
Otherwise you 12 are in a bit of.a Catch-22.
You can't poke a hole to 13 characterize it or you can't learn what you need to without 14 doing that, and if you do it somehow you have compromised the 15 project.
16 MR. BROWNING:
But if there is a way to understand it 17 without punching a large diameter hole, at least at this stage 18 of the understanding of the site it would be prudent to think 19 very carefully about that before you go do it.
That's all I l
20 was saying.
l i
21 22 They may very well conclude and we may agree that you 23 have to do that.
That is part of the resolution process.
The 24 resolution process is now underway.
It doesn't necessarily 25 mean that they will or they won't.
All we've got is tentative i
l
29 1
word.
They have looked at that one and it looks now they are 2
questioning themselves whether they really want to do that or 3
not.
4 COMMISSIONER CARR:
They have got a lot more 5
experience in drilling holes in this area than we have.
Where 6
do we get our expertise to attend a design review meeting and 7
make proper comments.
8 MR. BROWNING:
We do have in-house experts in this 9
area.
10 COMMISSIONER CARR:
That have gone out there and 11 drilled tunnels in Yucca Plats?
12 MR. BROWNING:
Not at Yucca Flats but'at the WHPPS 13 site, for example.
We have both in-house expertise and could 14 contract out for some technical support.
15 COMMISSIONER CARR:
The mining guys say it is a piece 16 of cake, there's no problem with drilling these holes.
17 MR. BROWNING:
That is because they are thinking in 18 terms of normal mining and drilling.
They do not stop to think 19 about what is going to happen over the next 10,000 years.
That 20' is out of their frame of reference and it may or may not be impo' tant.
21 r
22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
How many experts have you got 23 that will do the design review?
It says we are going to 24 participate in the design review.
Are we going to contract 25 that or are we going to do it in-house?
30 1
MR. BROWNING:
No, we'll have at least one in-house 2
expert, if not two go plus some outside contractual support.
3 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
When they have their design review 4
meetings, we are ordinarily observers at the design review 5
meeting.
In this case, we wanted to tell the designers what 6
our concerns were just so that they would be aware of them and 7
take them into consideration.
8 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, I'm a little bit concerned 9
that we are going to be participants in this, so automatically 10 we are going to bless it.
I mean, we are participants in the 11 review of the design, so when it gets here --
12 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Actually, we will not concur --
13 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Not license something we 14 participated in the design of, 1 guess, is what I am worried 15 about.
16 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
We want to make some comments and 17 ask them to justify their position.
We haven't told them not 18 to go through Calico Hills.
We've asked them to please justify 19 to us what their position is with regard to going through 20 Calico Hills.
i 21 MR. STELLO:
Let me see if I can help straighten it 22 out.
There is no qucation that the people know how to dig a 23 hole in the ground.
That is not a problem.
It is, do you 24 really need to dig that hole that big, and if you do, are you 25 sure that's the right way to go about it?
And second, if you
31 1
are going to do it, are really confident that you know how to 2
seal that back up and that that seal will in fact last for 3
10,000 years?
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL:
That is the question I asked.
~
5 MR. STELLO:
That is the real heart of the matter.
6 COMMISSIONER CARR:
What I worry about is their 7
expertise in recognizing whether their answer is accurate or 8
not.
9 MR. STELLO:
I think that is an issue for them and 10 for us, their experts as well as ours.
That is getting close 11 to, almost on this side of imponderable, a very, very difficult 12 ~
judgment cali'when you are asking -- if you did, in fact, sink 13 that shaft, can you, in fact, devise a seal that will last for 14 10,000 years.
We need to answer that question.
They do.
We 15 do -- but them first.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let's proceed.
17 (Slide.)
18 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Objection No. 4 is also associated 19 with the shaft.
The CDSCP does not include adequate and 20 consistent conceptual design information on the proposed 21 exploratory shaft facility.
22 This does not allow the evaluation of the potential 23 interference of proposed investigations with each other, and 24 with the interference of construction operations in the two 25 shafts and long. drifts with these investigations.
i
32 1
As indicated, the staff will be attending their 2
design review meeting and will be making a short presentation 3
at that design review meeting just to explain what our concerns 4
are so that they can respond to our' concerns and justify 5
whatever positions they want to take.
6 There will also be a meeting in June to talk about 7
all of the over-all exploratory shaft details with regard to 8
all of our comments associated with those.
9
[ Slide.]
10 The last objection that we have listed is the 11 location of the ' exploratory shaf ts 1 and 2.
The CDSCP does not 12 adequately consider the potent'ial adverse impacts resulting 13 from the proposed location of these two shafts, as well as 14 other shafts from ramp portals which are in the area, that may 15 be susceptible to surface water infiltration.
16 I have a photograph which, hopefully, we can tell 17 more or less what we're talking about with regard to the 18 location of the exploratory shafts.
19 (Slide.)
l 20 This is Coyote Wash, looking northwest toward Yucca 21 Mountain.
The wash runs right up this roadway, the low point 22 of the wash.
Explotatory shafts 1 and 2 are located right in 23 this area, right at the neck of the wash, at the bottom of the l
24 wash, which certainly is in the worst possible position with l-l 25 regard to flooding and the inundation of the shaft.
33 1
This was discussed with DOE, and in April of 1987 DOE 2
says:
Well, yeah, we can move that shaft around.
It'll be up 3
to about the same depth along about here, if we move it around 4
the edge of the ridge there.
5 And we said:
That's perfectly okay with us.
Please 6
give us how you justify that with probable maximum flood, and 7
.is there apt to be any inundation during site exploration.
8 Obviously, in 10,000 years this area may change somewhat.
9 They have not completed that analysis at this point 10 in time.
We are still talking with them about it, and DOE is 11 contemplating:
Well, the drainage divide is over in this area.
12 If there's no real difficulty with it, we'll talk with our 13 mining engineers and nee if, hey, we can move the shafts around 14 there.
Then there's no problem with margin of error with 15 regard to calculations of probable maximum floods and whether 16 it might inundate the shafts.
l 17 COMMISSIONER CARR:
How much water are you worried 18' about getting into the shaft?
This is going to be a fluid 19 drilling, I assume.
20 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
No, sir.
21 COMMISSIONER CARR:- Dry all the time?
22 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
There will be some liquid in there, 23 but it's going to be drill and blast, basically, to keep the 24 liquid down, because this is going through an unsaturated zone.
25 And if you put large amounts of water in it you won't be able d
+
34 to test the materials that need to be done.
1 2
MR. BROWNING:
This is another example.
It's not 3
just sinking a shaft to get down there.
It's sinking a shaft 4
tha,t you've got to study the geography and the layers as you go 5
down.
6 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
It's mapped as they go down.
7 MR. BROWNING:
They have selected a technique which it 8
d0esn't --
I mean, it does have water.
9' COMMISSIONER CARR:
It's bound to.
~
10 MR. BROWNING:
They use water to keep the dust down, 11 j,and that kind of thing.
It's not like, for example, the 22 ~
approachthekweregoingtouseattheHanfordsite.
It's 13 different fror that.
g 14 COMMI5SIONER CARR:
But it's going'to use some water.
15 MR. EROWNING:
Yes.
And my impression is that this 16 is the kind of example where, yes, you take somebody who knows j
how to sink shafts from mining operations.
They normally would 17 l
18 put it'in a wash.
It's easier to get to.
19
'But it doesn't take into account the long-term 20 concern.
You can engineer around to make sure water doesn't 21 get in while you're operating the mine.
But the question is 22 what happens over this 10,000 year timeframe, where the 23 engineering things disintegrato, and over a long period of time 24 you would just as soon have it located, I think, in such a way l
l 25 where you minimize that potential.
l 1
l 1
o 35 1
On the other hand, they may do analyses which show 2
it's all right.
3 COMMISSIONER CARR I worry about 10,000 years.
That 4
wash may well shift on you.
5 MR. BROWNING:
That's true, also.
And' erosion is one 6
of the considerations that you have to take into account, and 7
you have to deal with it.
8 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
They projected it could be up to 10 9
meters of the road.
10 MR. BROWNING:
It's something that's never been done 11 before, so you can't just go use conventional mining appro,ches
~
~
12 without havin'g carefully thought about what the implicati 13 are for the licensing hearing that's going to be related to do 14 we know how to predict how this thing is going to last for 15 10,000 years.
You've got to start thinking about that now.
16 COMMISSIONER CARR:
That's why I'm worried.
17 MR. BROWNING:
That's why we're worrying about it 18 now.
19 (Slide.)
20 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Slide 11 is a brief summary of the 21 SCP and near-term site characterization milestone.
DOE plans 22 to submit the statutory SCP in Canuary 1989.
After that has 23 been issued, they will receive public comments and hold l
24 hearings on the SCP.
l l
25 We are committed to give our comments on the shaft
(
.+6Jfy
--w----
--y
+
y w
+
-rv-
36 1
within 90 days of the issuance of the SCP, which would be 2
approximately April of 1989.
DOE would start the shaft after 3
considering the NRC comments, and this would be approximately 4
about 6 months later, as they are scheduling it at this point 5
in time.
6 Also, the issuance of our site characterization 7
analysis would be due at that same time in July of 1989.
8 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Do you see any problems in 9
meeting those 90 days and 6 months dates?
10 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
It depends upon the completeness of 11 what is presented to us.
If they respond thoroughly to our
~
12 comments and adequately, that will' make a difference.
13 Certainly, it's pushing the staff.
14 MR. THOMPSON:
I guess I would say the QA program is 15 the real key in being able to meet these dates, because DOE 16 wants to start some of the site characterization, the head 17 works, you know, for the exploratory shaft in, I believe, in a 18 January timeframe.
19 So, they're going to need to submit the QA program, 20 at least as it relates to those aspects, very soon in order to 21 provide enough time to interact and interchange --
22 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
I guess the head end facilities i
23 probably wouldn't involve much QA, but the sinking of the j
24 shafts themselves would.
25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I guess what I'm really asking, l
37 1
is this complete enough that you can have most of this work, 2
done by January '89?
Or, are you going to start when you see 3
the final SCP?
4 MR. BROWNING:
The resolution of the comments we've 5
raised can go on in parallel with this, and has to in order to 6
make sure these dates can be met.
7 COMMISSIONER CARR:
So you don't expect the SCP in 8
January '89 to be a surprise, then.
9 MR. BROWNING:
We certainly hope not.
If it is, 10 there's a problem.
11 MR. THOMPSON:
But that's the purpose of the
~
12 workshops that we've been having ongoing and to maintain a 13 dialogue with them, is to have a plan to address these so that 14 we don't have surprises.
That's the intent that we have over 15 the next 6 months or so, to certainly make sure they understand 16 the comments in sufficient detail and have resolution of those 17 and ut;derstand what our concerns are.
So that, when January 18
'89 comes, then there's a high probability that we'll be able l
19 to do our review in the timeframe that's needed.
l 20 COMMISSIONER CARR:
My understanding was that it took 21 us how long to review the draft?
l 22 MR. THOMPSON:
Six weeks.
23 COMMISSIONER CARR:
And you'didn't review the whole 1
24 set of books probably.
25 MR. BROWNING:
Well, not in the same degree of f
38 1
detail.
But by picking and choosing what we thought was 2
important, we were able to do a comprehensive coverage of this.
3 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Okay.
Let the record show --
4 MR. BROWNING:
I think it's fair to say that in the 5
pre-licensing process we've had underway, as we've been 6
reporting to you on a quarterly basis, the whole approach is to 7
raise issues early and try to make sure they're getting 8
resolved.
My perception is that we've been a lot better 9
collectively at raising issues than we've been at getting them 10 resolved.
11 And this is now a real test period to see whether 12 collectively --
DOE's got to do a major part of that.
We can 13 only raise the issue.
We can't resolve it.
But we can work 14 cooperatively and try to make sure they are getting resolved on 15 a tight timeframe.
16 I think that the major uncertainty is, are they going 17 to be able to do the things they've got to do to meet the dates 18 that they've set for themselves to start this effort.
To date, 19 our review time has not been limiting to them.
20 MR. THOMPSON:
The alternative conceptual models 21 might be as big a challenge for DOE as any of the other 22 comments with resp 0ct to getting that in place by January of 23
'89.
I think that's the approach they've had before.
They 24 knew they had to have a QA program.
They knew they had to 25 address some of the shaft issues.
4
~ _ -- -
39 1
- This conceptual models, they probably haven't been 2
focused on that issue, although I think we have clearly 3
indicated in earlier comments that they were taking a very 4
nonconservative approach, or a very optimistic interpretation 5
of the data, when other interpretations may be just as valid.
6 And so, I think that may be, if anything, as difficult.
7 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
I believe in the environmental 8
assessment that was issued two years ago or a year and a half 9
ago, we broached this subject with them at that time also.
10 MR. THOMPSON:
Well, are there any issues that you I
11
'think are going to be very difficult to meet the January j
12 "'
timeframe? ~~
I 13 MR. BALLARD:
I am Ron Ballard.
And the only primary 14 issue I see that we have to resolve is the exploratory shaft l
19 location right away, because they want to start that so soon.
l 16 But, other than that and the objections which we've l
l 17 already identified, which they are apparently working on, I 18 don't see any major problems.
The shaft is the big one right i
l 19 now.
i l
20 MR. BROWNING:
I think we're hoping that the l
l 21 narrowing down from 3 sites in parallel to 1 site will allow i
l 22 both DOE and us to focus our efforts to try to get this thing l
23 resolved.
It certainly is going to help.
It is not going to f
i l
24 hurt, what Congress did in narrowing it down to 1 site.
-25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Let's proceed.
i 1
,--wm---we
-p-e-r
,,,----,y.-
-, e sew
.v- - -, -,.-
,ww-,
..,ee------,.+-w-m---ms-e--m+ww---,--w-
-.r--,---e,----r-e------e
40 l
,(Slide.)
~
2 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
In summary, the staff issued the 3
draft point papers.
We've held workshops with DOE.
They.have 4
indicated that they understand our concerns, and they plan to 5
respond to them.
And we plan to issue the point paper as soon 6
as possible, and start working with DOE to resolve these 7
concerns.
8 They do plan ~a meeting with us in July to express to 9
us how they plan to respond to our concerns.
That's basically 10 my presentation.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Any questions from my fellow 12 Commissioners?
Commissioner Bernthal?
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
This is a sort of an 14 irrelevance, but as a matter of curiosity, what's happening 15 with our -- how did the letters go, FFRDC, or'something like?
16 I trust you know what I'm talking about?
17 MR. THOMPSON:
We're moving along quite well, in 18 fact.
I believe Commissioner Rogers and I will be down later 19 this month.
We'll brief the commission on the status of the 20 center.
21 It's up, it's running.
As far as I know, you were 22 just down recently.
Maybe I'll let Bob respond to the 23 specifics on it, but I think it's working well so far.
24 MR. BROWNING:
You may or may not have seen it, but 25 we did send out a summary report as to what the status of the
o 0
41 1
center was, I think, a month or so ago.
2 Basically, they're on track, consistent with the 3
contractual requirements we have placed with them.
What we're 4
trying to do now is to further accelerate the rate at which we 5
picked up the center and free ourselves of some of the other 6
technical assistance support we've had in other areas.
7 The dilemma is to he able to respond to these tight 8
turn around times for DOE's site characterization reports.
9 While they're getting up to speed, dictates hanging on to some 10 of our existing technical assistance support in parallel.
11 But we're in the process right now of reviewing 12 reports from the various project managers for the individual 13 pieces of work the center is doing for us now, in order to 14 arrive at a fee determination.
15 So, I hesitate to tell you exactly what their grade 16 is, because we're still in the process of giving them a grade.
17 But they are on track with regard to contractual requirements 18 basically, 19 CCMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I don't know where I came up j
20 with those letters.
They obviously bear no resemblance --
21 COMMISSIONER CARR:
That's right.
It's a federally 22 funded research and development center.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I couldn't remember the first 24 two.
25 MR. BROWNING:
We refer to it as the Center for
o 42 1
Nuclear Waste Analysis.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
I also understand that 3
you are looking at the work that the State of Nevada is doing 4
independently, and are working with them, and apparently, we 5
are going to tap into the waste fund to support our review of 6
Nevada's programs.
7 Could you elaborate a little bit on what we're doing 8
there?
9 MR. BROWNING:
Well, we haven't actually dona 10 anything yet.
The State of Nevada has approached us with a 11 desire to have us look at the quality assurance program that they're putt [ng place for their technical review of DOE's 12 13 program.
14 And'we;re currently thinking that to the extent we 15 can, that might be a useful thing to do.
And, clearly, our 16 interpretation is we would be able to fund that out of the --
17 Well, first of all we've got to get our budget approved, and 18 then the book'.eeping between the Treasury Department and the 19 DOE fund is a completely separate matter.
20 But with regard to their technical program, we 21 haven't exactly -- sorted out exactly how we're going to do 22 that yet, and we probably will end up presenting some 23 information in that regard in the paper to you when we've l
24 thought it out.
l 25 MR. STELLO:
I think it's fairly clear, they're going
e 43 1
to develop data.
We have to be as confident in the data they 2
develop as DOE is because that's all going to be used weighing 3
finally a decision to go forward.
4 So, since they are going to develop, and they've been 5
funded independen'tly to develop data, I think there's little 6
question we're going to have to evaluate it.
7 And I think you have to start right at the beginning 8
just as we are with DOE to have a carefully implemented QA 9
program, so we'ce not questioning whether the data itsalf is 10 valid because it was somehow --
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Are they going to have 12 sufficient funding?
I don't know where they're getting their 13 funding.
14 MR. STELLO:
It's a lot money.
We're talking --
15 what's the funding going to get up to about?
l 16 MR. BROWNING:
I think they're going to request like 17
$23 million.
l 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I see.
I didn't realize that 19 issue had been resolved to that degree of funding.
20 MR. BROWNING:
6.6 this year, I think, is their 21 request for a half year.
22 MR. THOMPSON:
There is a request in for that 23 funding.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So, obviously, then, your 25 judgment is they'll be able to bring on board some fairly l
44 1
capable talent.
2 MR. BROWNING:
They have been bringing on board some 3
fairly capable --
4 MR. STELlo:
They have been collecting and generating 5
data from the site themselves, independent data.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I trust that this does not 7
involve physical activities at the site?
8 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It does?
Who is overseeing 10 that?
11 MR. STELLO:
It's a DOE site.
They're going to have 12 to be responsible that anything that goes on there is okay with 13 them.
14 MR. PARLER:
Mr. Browning, as I understood his 15 remarks earlier, was very concerned that the things that we 16 would be looking at, that DOE planned to do, would not, in my l
17 own words, not his which were much more professional and 1
18 technical, would not mess up the site.
19 So, it doesn't matter how the site is messed up.
It l
20 would seem to me that we would have a concern about it.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You've got it.
That's the l
22 question.
l 23 MR. BROWNING:
DOE has the first order of concern.
I 24 mean, they've got to make sure the tests fit in their thing.
25 So, I think the thinking is, first of all, DOE has got to prove
45 1
what they're doing, approve, access to the site, so there are 2
certain controls DOE has to exercise.
3 But once DOE is satisfied, we do have to take a look 4
at it all.
So particularly if it involves punching holes in 5
the site.
6 Non-destructive testing would not be the same order 7
of concern as drilling the holes.
8 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Along that'same line, let me ask 9
a question there.
Are we going to do independent testing to 10 confirm DOE's testing, or are we going to have an on-site 11 inspector like we do at other construction sites to watch them?
12 MR. THOMPSON:
We will definitely have on-site 13 representatives during the key phase -- well, we'll have an on-14 site rep at all times, permanent, out there.
15 We would also have special individuals who will audit 16 the programs at key periods during the activities out there to 17 ensure that we --
18 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Somebody like an instruction l
19 resident.
20 MR. THOMPSON:
That's correct.
And we will be likely l
l 21 looking at our needs to have full coverage out there during the 22 site activities.
23 MR. BROWNING:
Bat we do not plan to do individual 24 drilling of holes, et cetera.
We'll'look at their program 25 enough to have confidence we're getting good results.
46' 1
MR. STELLO:
We don't intend to be a third source of 2
independent data.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Commissioner Bernthal, 4
anything else?
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, let me get back for one 6
instance to the FFRDC.
We did have a budget problem.
Do we 7
still have a budget problem, continuing budget problem?
8 And, at one point, I understood that that center was 9
going to be impacted significantly.
I take it that that has 10 not materialized and that, in fact, we've met our commitments 11 and the contractual obligation that we undertook there.
12 "'
MRT THOMPSON:' The potential impact dealt with some 13 of the research funding activities and Mr. Beckjord and I net 14 to look at those, that support activity, and the budget 15 process, the funding for the center'was restored.
16 We were not able to accelerate it, which we attempted 17 to do at one time, so that there was no acceleration of funding 18 to the center.
19 But it was fully funded for the level the Commission 20 had committed to.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Carr?
22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I have some questions.
If this 23 is all they had given us, if the draft were their final, how 24 near finished would they be?
25 I mean, how far would we be from approving it?
Are
~
47 1
they 80 percent through with their work with the draft, or are 2
'they 50 percent through?
3 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
I would guess maybe -- we don't know 4
how much information they have that they didn't put in the 5
report.
They may be more than 80 or 90 percent through if they 6
have a lot of information that they haven't shown us in the 7
past, and I think they do.
8 COMMISSIONER CARR:
So, you're going to have to 9
review more feet of documents then --
10 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
Well, they do have to respond to the 11 160 or so items that we have.
I'm sure they don't fully 12 embrace every one of those 100 percent.
13 But we generally have an understanding of and some of 14 it may be just a formality and the discipline of going through 15 and addressing the issues.
16 They may have most all of the information in-house at 17 this present time, sir, but it's real difficult.
I think they 18 can make it within the timeframe that they are talking about, 19 unless they have to go to press within the next 60 days to 20' issue it in January.
21 Then that would pinch them a little bit to make a 22 schedule.
23 MR. BROWNING:
I think the objection about the 24 alternative conceptual models is so all persuasive throughout 25 this whole document.
48 1
,That one comment probably has the highest level of 2
impact on --
3 COMMISSIONER CARR:
More than the quality assurance 4
problem?
5 MR. BROWNING:
The quality assurance is not so much
'6 changing the document, per se, as to making sure that the plans 7
and procedures they have to implement this document are in 8
place.
j 9
COMMISSIONER CARR:
But I would assume that quality 10 assurance is part of the plan, then?
11
'MR. BROWNING:
Yes.
I t
12 N5t'. THOMPSON:
I think it's one part of the plan.
I
~
~
13 mean, there arm various data throughout the various sections l
14 that may.be impacted by alternative conceptual models.
l 15 MR. YOUNGBLOOD:
It's possible that they won't have l
16 to add many more investigations that they already have once l
17 they go through the review.
They may well have most all of the i
18 investigations they need.
i 19 It's just that we can't detect that from our review I
i 20 of the SCP, and they really can't explain it to us either l
l 21 without a disciplined review across each of the elegies that 22 they're working on, i
23 COMMISSIONER CARR:
A long time ago, when this first i
24 came up, I remember we talked about whether we were going to j
i 25 take profsssionals.and train them in QA or we were going to b
t
o 49 1
take QA's and train them in digging holes.
2 Which did we decide to do for our quality checks?
3 MR. BROWNING:
What we're doing now is sending two.
4 One a technical expert, and one a QA expert.
5 MR. THOMPSON:
But I think we are trying to make sure 6
that we have the. technical people who understand the QA, go 7
with the QA folks.
8 MR. BROWNING:
So, there is some cross pollination 9
and we are training our technical people to be on the lookout 10 for quality assurance kinds of concerns.
11 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Okay.
And what part is EPA going 12 to play in tilis with'their final high level waste -- are they
~
13 going to be holding everybody up, or are they going to meet 14 their deadlines and -- do we have a feel for that?
15 MR. BROWNING:
My impression is that the site 16 characterization effort need not be held up because of the EoA 17 final standard situation.
18 However, it's my understanding the state of Nevada is 19 going to use that as a legal action if they haven't already.
20 And I just don't know the current status of that.
21 MR. THOMPSON:
I guess we kind of look at it as data 22 is data.
The site is going to be the site whether the EPA, you 23 know, modifies the standard or reverifies its current standard.
'24 What may impact is the acceptability, but for 25 purposes of the site characterization activities, I think that
50 1
can go forward now because we want to just make sure the data 2
and information is properly obtained.
3 And then its evaluation and the significance of that 4
data would maybe somewhat impact it by any change in the EPA 5
regulations.
6 MR. STELLO:
I had asked that same question, and they 7
said they were fairly comfortable that all their reasonable i
8 expectations that might come out of that, it was not going to 9
create a big problem for them.
You notice I use the word 10 "reasonable."
That means if something extreme comes out --
11 COMMISSIONER CARR It's reasonoble in the eyes of
~
~
12 the beholder,' right?
13 MR. STELLO:
I think they had more in mind a
14 re.asonable band of what the standard might look like.
15 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Okay.
I have only one more 16 question.
How much research do we have to support our own work 17 in this?
Have we got a research program that is ongoing, other 18 than what they are doing at the FFRDC?
Have we got an in-house 19 research problem?
20 MR. THOMPSON:
We have identified our research needs 21 primarily with respect to some of the methodologies that we 22 would want to use to independently check the sites and from our 23 licensing viewpoint.
I think some of those things are lon'ger 24 term, and we entered into an agreement with Australia on the 25 Alligator River Project with the international aspect with
51 1
modelling activities of groundwater flow and site.
So we have 2
a number of activities that our research office is pursuing.
3 We are trying to integrate those to the extent we can.
4 COMMISSIONER CARR I just want to make sure that 5
they are going to' meet the timeframe, I guess, is what I am 6
asking.
Is the finish date on the research going to support 7
what we are trying to get done?
8 MR. BROWNING:
So far it looks like it will, yes.
9 MR. STELLO:
But again, that is a very important 10 question and a very significant issue, because some of that 11 information is the kind of information that you'd like to have 12 finished so you can get the methodology developed and have a 13 rulemaking and have that issue resolved through a ruler-Ng 14 process.
The rulemaking process takes time, so if you start 15 trying to do a lot of that by rulemaking, you are really 16 pushing real hard getting the methodology out and resolved and 17 to devise a rule to describe an acceptable way to characterize 18 that kind of stuff.
19 There are problems in that area.
I don't want to 20 minimize them.
It will be difficult.
21 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I guess my main worry is I don't 22 want this thing finished out there and sitting on us waiting to 23 license it.
You know, you make this big hole in the ground and 1
24 nobody can use it.
l 25 MR. STELLO:
Well, I don't know that that's the l
1
52 1
problem.
It is that the licensing process is difficult by 2
itself.
You can't get some of these issues where you can get, 3
you know -- how do you do this calculation broken out and get a 4
methodology developed and go to rulemaking and get it resolved 5
so you don't have to have all of those contests in the hearing 6
room itself.
If you do, you know, it could just go on for an 7
awfully long time.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I think the question to is --
9 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Do we know why we have got to get 10 our arms around it in order to be able to license it?
That is 11 the question.
12 CHk'IRMAN ZECH:
Right and the research that can
~
13 support that.
First of all, we have got to know what we've got 14 to get our arms around, but second of all, we have got to have 15 the confidence technically, scientifically, with all the 16 engineering expertise to go with it and all the research that 17 goes with it, do we have the confidence that we are making the 18 right decision?
So I think that is what Commissioner Carr is 19 asking.
Are we doing -- are you satisfied that we are doing 20 enough research to back up the decisions that it looks like are 21 in front of us.
22 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
Now will that be done in the time 23 frame --
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We know we are asking you a tough 25 question because we are in a difficult new field, a new, unique
53 1
experience, but the point is we should do as much as we can in 2
my judgment to foresee the research we need, and if we don't 3
foresee it, we don't foresee it.
But we should try to foresee 4
all that we can so that we are doing the research now that we 5
know will be necessary to allow us to make confident decisions.
6 MR. STELLO:
And that is what we are trying to do.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
And the FFRDC is one thing and I 8
think the question really is -- and you pointed out that the 9
Australian research program, but are there other research 10 programs going on that will complement FFRDC and the other 11 things you have, and the answer is yes.
All right?
Thank you.
12 "~
Commissioner Carr, anything else?
Commissioner Rogers?
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Where does DOE stand on 14 finalizing its managing assignments for OCRWM?
How many people 15 are acting and how many people are really firmly in place, so 16 that it is possible to resolve questions with somebody that's l
17 in authority over there.
18 MR. THOMPSON:
Ben Rusche's replacement obviously is 19 in an acting position and as far as I know, DOE anticipates l
20 that probably will remajn in an acting position, at least until 21 the next Administration.
Likewise, they have had difficulty in i
22 recruiting and filling the new QA office position here at l
23 headquarters.
That position is newly established.
They went l
24 through a reorganization, I guess it was effective about a 25 month ago and I think that's another. key position that is
54 1
difficult for them to fill..
It is a key one in order to 2
address one of our major objections, and those are the two that i
3 I am aware of.
4 Bob, do you know of any others?
I think the site 5
folks are pretty well identified.
The licensing --
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, the org chart that they 7
sent dated April '88 had everybody acting -- another one of the 8
key sections underneath the Director, and yet I got a letter 9
as I am sure the rest of the Commissioners did from DOE 10 designating who those people -- what the responsibility of 11 those people is and not describing them as acting, but 12 "~
describing s6me'others as acting.
13 I was not clear on whether the acting has been 14 removed from that second tier completely and all those people 15 are now in place or not, because of this question if 16 everybody's acting, is the situation somewhat fluid and no one 17 is really ready to make a tough decision if there is a 18 significant disagreement between DOE and NRC on some of these 19 matters.
20 MR. THOMPSON:
Ed Kay is prepared to make the 21 decisions.
At least on our discussions with him, he is 22 assuming that responsibility although he is in an acting 23 position.
I guess I would recommend the commission take this 24 up a bit with DOE, certainly.
In their discussions with us, 25 the key individual, who happens to be in an acting position, 4
---n-
55 1
not filled, is the quality assurance man, and that is where I 2
'think they have their biggest difficulty right now, in having 3
someone in the position of responsibility able to address in an 4
effective way concerns that we have with that knowledge about 5
the programmatic implications of those commitments.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, that person is acting.
7 MR. THOMPSON:
That person is acting and I think he 8
is probably acting on a part-time basis.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
There is a key slot that is 10 really not pinned down.
What about the office of Facilities, 11 Siting and Development, Mr. Cale?
Is he firmly in place now?
12 MR. THOMPSON:
As far as I know, he is.
I haven't 13 had this specific discussion with Commissioner Kay, but I am 14 not aware of any problem with his making commitments for the 15 DQE program.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It's just that with some of the l
17 significant areas of possible contention between NRC and DOE, I l
18 am a little concerned that if everybody is acting, nobody is 19 ready to really sit down and thrash things out, that it is l
l 20 going to be somebody else's responsibility.
21 MR. BROWNING:
We haven't noticed any reluctance on 22 their part to address the issues.
We haven't really noticed a 23 problem in that regard.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Fine.
25 MR. THOMPSON:
Again, I would say the QA is the key
56 1
individual,and the key position that I am concerned about.
2 MR. BROWNING:
I wonder if before we could adjourn I 3
could ask the person in the control room to put up the picture 4
of the Nevada team so I could address directly Commissioner 5
Carr's question.
6 That is the FTE that we had working on this and now 7
that ve are all in the same building, I'll encourage you, if 8
you are down on my floor I would like you to come around and 9
meet some of the experts.
10 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I'll look forward to it.
11 MR. BROWNING:
There's a real FTE.
12 COkMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
They all look like people to
~
13 me..
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Okay, fine.
Any other questions from 15 my fellow Commissioners?
16 COMMISSIONER CARR:
You mean working on those eight 17 volumes?
18 MR. BROWNING:
Right.
On the follow-up of the issues 19 that we have now raised.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, let me on behalf of the 21 Commission, thank you for the fine briefing this afternoon.
I 22 would like to know too that those people you put up there, Bob, 23 as well as others I'm sure are part of the High Level Waste 24 Division and those who are helping did an excellent job in 25 reviewing the consultation draft site characterization plan
57 j
1 from DOE and also in preparing the point papers.
2 I would encourage the staff to continue the technical 3
exchanges with DOE and continue to look at those five key 4
objectives that you've discussed with us here today, as well as 5
look at the comments and to see if perhaps you can't prioritize j
l 6
those.
I think that might be of assistance to DOE, at least I
7 you should be working together with them on that, it seems to 8
me and that might give us some area of priority as we look at 1
l 9
those number of comments you have.
l 10 It might help if you get new comments as you continue 11 the review program and you might find out in the prioritizing 12 project that there is two or three others that you want to lift 13 up a little higher than you have.
All I am saying is I think 14 priority is important to look at -- I know they are all 15 important, don't get me wrong, but you may find in that package 16 of 108, I believe it is, you may find several that should be j
17 elevated in importance.
i 18 Lastly, I'd like to say that I think it is important
)
19 that the staff continue to work with the state of Nevada that l
20 you indicated that you have been working with them here, and j
1 21 keeping them informed as we go along.
Of course, I think it is i
22 important that you continue to keep the commission informed as l
23 we get into this extremely important new field really, for us, 24 a new field that is so important to the whole nuclear industry.
l 25 So we will need briefings in the future from time to time on l
\\
58 1
this and I hope you will arrange for that and not wait for us 2
to call a briefing if you think.there is something coming up 3
that is of great importance, because we want it to be brought 4
to our attention right away if, in your judgment, it should be.
5 Are there any other questions from my fellow 6
Commissioners?
Mr. Rogers?
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I am just a little 8
concerned that we are aware of any sticky issues that aren't 9
getting resolved on any of these matters, particularly well 10 before the June hearing that is going to be held by Senator 11 Breaux and those people on the statut of this.
I think we oughttoknohwherethingsstandwellbeforethatsothat 12 13 anything that might get resolved through the efforts of the 14 Commission or Commissioners could be brought to bear on any is sticky issues.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I support that fully and I presume i
17 you'll do that, but June is like tomorrow, really, and so I 18 would just suggest that you be alert to anything that might 19 come up in the next few weeks that should be brought to the i
20 Commission and bring it to us, and I think that's what 21 Commissioner Rogers is saying, and I support that fully.
l 22 Are there any other comments from my fellow 23 Commissioners?
24 (No response.)
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much for an excellent 1
i
1 c
i 59
.I
't i
1 briefing.
We stand adjourned.
.l J.
2 (Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m.,
the meeting was adjourned.)
J g
4 4
5
_6 L
y 8
e i
i 9
l 10 l
t j
11 i
.)
12 i
r 13 l
i 14 i
15 l
t 16 l
17 18 l
1 19 i
1 20 i
1 r
21 l
l i
i 22 I
I j
23 r
i i
l 24 I
l l
25 l
r
.,. - _ = -, - -. ~ -
... _ - =.. _ _ _,. _ _ _... _ _. _ _ _ _.. _.. _.. _... -
1 3
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE l
3 j
4 This is to certify that the attached events of a f
i 5
meeting of the U.S. ??Jclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 i
3 7
TITLE OF MLETING:
NRC Point Papers 8
PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MIETING:
May 4, 1988 1
4 10 e
t' 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original i
12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
[ /'
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by
~
14 as or under the direction of the court reporting company, and t
l 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
l p}
17
/
h4N--
d 18 19 20
.i 21 L
i 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
l 23 i
24 l
25 i
l
-.L
o i
u 1
s 1
OMMISSION BRIEFING ON THE
'NRC POINT PA?ERS FOR THE_ DOE CONSULTATION DRATT SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN NYE COUNTY, NEVADA
~-
MAY 4, 1988 4
CONTACT:
B. J. Youngblood X23387 e
t
]
i x
l i
h a.
4 k
p 1
t PRESENTATION OUTLINE SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN (SCP)
CONSULTATION DRAFT SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN (CDSCP) REVIEW CHRONOLOGY NR5 POINT PAPERS
~
OBJECTIONS SCP AND NEAR-TERM SITE CHARACTERIZATION MILESTONES l.
l I
I
~r-
- --+ --,
?;
SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN PURPOSE CONTENTS PLAN FOR ACTIVITIES
_, DESCRIPTION OF WASTE FORM & PACKAGE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF REPOSITORY CDSCP NOT REQUIRED BY NWPA OR 10 CFR 60 EARLY INPUT BY NRC AND STATE L
l I
O l
l
= --.
CDSCP REVIEW CHRONOLOGY NRC'S REVIEW PLAN - 12/21/87 DOE ISSUED CDSCP - 01/08/88 NRC'S ACCEPTANCE REVIEW ISSUED -
01/26/88 NRC.'S DRAFT POINT PAPERS ISSUED -
03/07/88 NRC'S DRAFT TO COMMISSION - 03/17/88 COMMISSIONER ASSISTANTS BRIEFED -
03/28/88 SERIES OF WORKSHOPS ON POINT PAPERS
. ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE - 04/28/88 BRIEFING OF COMMISSION - 05/04/88 FINAL CONCERNS ISSUED - MAY 1988 i
3-l 6
4
--m- -
---r r.-r,--
w-g
.w,--,,
,---e--er--
r
,_w
,r-
,- +
4 NRC-POINT PAPERS NRC'S DRAFT POINT PAPERS OBJECTIONS (5) l
' COMMENTS (108)
QUESTIONS (48)
NRC'S FINAL POINT PAPERS NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 4-f I
i i
e e
4 4
l
[
,.,4.
.e.-.
,,.-..e.,,.,
.-,.s
,,,,.n.-,,,.~.-,.,.-,r-_
_.,.,,..,,n.,w.a.
n
.y
m s:
+,
c' i -
1 OBJECTIONS 1.
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODELS 2.
QUALIFICATION OF QA PROGRAMS 3.
DEPTH OF FIRST SHAFT 4.
SHAFT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN INFORMATION 5.
LOCATION OF SHAFTS e
i s
l '
4 OBJECTION 1:
NEED TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODELS SICN77ICANCE:
INVESTIGATIONS FOCUSED ON PRhFERRED MODEL MAY BE INSUFFICIENT ACTION:
WORKSHOP IN NEVADA (APRIL 11).
DOE NEEDS TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE MODELS IN DEVELOPMENT OF SCP..
O S
OBJECTION 2:
NEED QUALIFIED QA PROGRAM SIGNIFICANCE:
DATA COLLECTED MAY NOT BE USABLE IN LICENSING ACTION:
DOE SUBMIT QA PLANS TO NRC FOR APPROVAL.
DOE AND NRC AUDITS.
6 9
9 8
e
- e OBJECTION 3:
DEPTH OF FIRST SHAFT SIGNIFICANCE:
SHAFT PENETRATES IMPOR-TANT BARRIER BETWEEN REPOSITORY AND WATER TABLE.
?ENETRATION MAY COMPROMISE WASTE ISOLATION CAPABILITY.
ACTIONY ~NRC.TO PARTICIPATE IN DESIGN
~
REVIEW MEETING.
DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH PENETRATION DOES NOT COMPROMISE THE WASTE ISOLATION' CAPABILITY.
8-
]
4 e
7__.c y-
--..em-
=9 OBJECTION 4:
INSUFFICIENT SHAFT CONCEP-TUAL DESIGN INFORMATION SIGNIFICANCE:
DOES NOT ALLOW EVALUATION OF INTERFERENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ON TESTING ACTION:
NRC TO PARTICIPATE IN DESIGN REVIEW MEETING.
DOE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DESIGN INFORMATION 9
O e
e 4
0 e
e e - -,
--,.,,-,e,.:,
- -~- -
+
s.
e OBJECTION 5:
LOCATION OF SHAFTS SIGNIFICANCE:
LOCATION MAY NOT SUFFI-CIENTLY MINIMIZE SURFACE WATER INFILTRATION INTO THE SHAFT ACTION:
NRC TO PARTICIPATE IN DESIGN REVIEW-MEETING.
DOE TO PROVIDE EVALUATION.'
e e
e 4
4 4
n-.
wi ei-a SCP AND NEAR-TERM SITE CHARACTERIZATION MILESTONES l
SCP - JANUARY 1989 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND DOE HEARINGS ON SCP SHAFT COMMENTS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF SCP -
APRIL 1989 START' SHAFT AFTER CONSIDERING NRC COMMENTS - JUNE 1989 SITE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS (SCA)
WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF SCP - JULY 1989 11-l I
4
-n.
c--
e,-.,
v--
,e
-, - -c.
v.,.-w---,
,,, - -,, - - - --,--, - -- - -- - - - -- -,. - -.-n--
,nr
SUMMARY
- NRC ISSUED DRAFT POINT PAPERS
'NRC AND DOE HAVE HELD WORKSHOPS
' DOE INDICATES THEY UNDERSTAND OUR
~~
CONCERNS AND PLAN TO RESPOND TO THEM IN THE SCP
I O
O e
8
M WWWWWWWW64%WWWdWdWdWdWd%Wd%%ffWggygg g gggg g i TPAHSMITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips fj ADVANCE 0 COPY TO:
The Public Document Rocm J/d /f[
DATE:
/
l 3
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch E
l Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting j,
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and l
j.
placement in the Public Document Room.
No other distribution is requested or j
required.
Meeting Titie: [atudwA D '--
<d ww A
{
OedLLNJ4%& n/kObudw%)
+1 C
.wr7v Mxw g
/wu y/,# '
Open K
Closed 3
d#
~
ll Meeting Date:
ll
/
/
1:
i:
+
Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS 1:
'8 to POR g
ll l
- lI
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 l
w/A m M i
v i :
1 E 1:
! E l!
2.
l li 3..
a :
3 3.
m3m:
S
'3 1:
4.
9 5-6.
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper, y
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attacheents, withcut SECY g
a
- papers,
- 5 h
alA6
'5 l
lhlYlhklbkkhlhlkl YYlYI lYIYlYlYI lYlhl lYlhlflflhhhlflhlfl
- ------------ ------------- --- _ - _ --