ML20154G751
| ML20154G751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8805250072 | |
| Download: ML20154G751 (71) | |
Text
_
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
Title:
BRIEFING ON EFFORTS TO LICENSE A HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY AND STATUS OF CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY REGULATORY ANALYSIS Location:
ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND Date:
THURSDAY, MAY 1.,
1988 Pages:
1-47 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 16251 Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
8905250072 080512 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
i l
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Mav 12-1998__ in the Commission's office at One t
White Flint North. Rcckville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been rev'iewed, corrected or edi ted, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general 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.
i l
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any j
(
j statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize j
i i
i i
l i
1 l
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON EFFORTS TO LICENSE A HIGH-LEVEL WASTE 5
REPOSITORY AND STATUS OF CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE 6
REPOSITORY REGULATORY ANALYSIS t
7 e
8 PUBLIC MEETING 9
10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 One White Flint North 12 Rockville, Maryland 13 14 Thursday, May 12, 1983 15 16 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 2:00 o' clock, p.m., the Honorable LANDO W.
- ZECH, 18 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
f 19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 21 THOMAS M.
ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 23 24 j
25
}
P
- - _ - ~ _ _ -
2 j
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
1 2
3 S.
CHILK 4
V. STELLO i
5 B.
BROWNING 6
G.
BUNTING I
7 W.
PARLER 8
H. THOMPSON 9
B. OLMSTEAD 10
\\
11 AUDIENCE SPEAKER 12 i
13 L. ROUSE 14 15 16 9
17 3
1 18 19 i
20 21 i
22 l
23 i
j 24 3
i 25 4
...---..n--
.-,,,-4,,ym.,--,,nm.
. vga
,n n_
y_--_.,,
,,4,_,.-,,,-,-n,,,y,"'v'
T'
'Wf'
- ~_.
3 i
1 PROCEEDINGS f
2 (2:00 p.m.)
I 3
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
4 Commissioners Bernthal and Carr will not be with us 5
this afternoon.
6 Today the Commission will be briefed by the Offices 7
of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards and the General 8
Counsel on prelicensing activities associated with the high-i 9
level waste program.
The Commission was briefed last week on the Staff's review on the Department of Energy's consultation 10 11 draft site characterization plans for the Yucca Mountain site; 12 however, the Commission needs to be kept informed of a number 13 of other prelicensing activities and actions associated with 14 the high-level waste program.
For example, the Commission is l
15 interested in any new agency requirements as a result of the 1
16 1987 amendment to the Muclear Waste Policy Act and on the 17 status of ny current or planned rulemaking activities 18 associated with the high-level waste program.
2 19 Additionally, in October of 1987, a contract was let j.
20 with Southwest Research Institute to establisn a Center for j
21 Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis.
Today the Staff will
)
22 provide a summary of actions and activities associated with the l
j 23 high-lavel waste repository and a status report on the Center 2
24 for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Aaalysis.
25 This is an information briefing today, and the i
i
4 1
Commission is not expected to take a vote.
i 2
Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 3
comments they desire to make?
i 4
(No response.)
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
If not, Mr. Stello, would you 6
proceed, please?
7 MR. STELLO:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
8 With me starting at the far end of the table today, 9
we're happy to have Mr. Olmstead return to help us with this 10 activity, and he'll be briefing on some of the rulemaking for 11 the licensing process that's been ongoing, and Mr. Thompson, 12 Director of the office and principal briefer this afternoon, 13 Mr. Browning on the immediate right, and Mr. Bunting at the far 14 end of the table.
15 We have characterized the purpose of what we're here 1
16 today for as just to simply give you a broad overview of the 17 legislative changes in December of 1987 that impact rather l
4 18 directly, rather than getting into any of the programmatic 19 details.
I think we are getting closer to where we're going to 20 have to get into those kinds of details and the very detailed j
21 kinds of rulemakings that ought to go on and the reasons for 22 them, but we're clearly not ready to do that this afternoon.
23 But we do need to get on with that task, as I mentioned the 24 last time we had this discussion, d
25 I'll ask Mr. Thompson to begin the briefing, and 4
J
5 1
we'll just keep going right through the table and get through 2
hopefully all of it in about an hour.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
4 MR. THOMPSON:
Thank you, Mr. Stello.
5 As you know, we have -- we're preparing a quarterly 6
report to the Commission of where we stand, so many of the i.
7 things that will be highlighted here today will be addressed in 8
more detail in that quarterly report, and with that, Mr.
9 Browning will provide most of the briefing.
10 I will discuss some of the MRS, the changes on the 11 MRS, in particular what that may have on the impact of the 1
12 operating report.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
14 Mr. Browning?
j 15 MR. BROWNING:
We'll go directly to page 2 of the 16 briefing charts.
17 (Slide.)
l 18 As you know, in 1987, late 1987, the Congress passed 19 an amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which had some key 20 provisions that affected the NRC's regulatory program.
21 I think the first point to note is that it really l
22 didn't change in any way our role with regard to licensing the 23 repository piece of the high-level waste management system.
It l
24 still requires us to review the DOE license application and act j
25 within a three-year period with a possible one-year extension.
6 1
That's the event in the long term that all these short-tern 2
events that we refer to as our proactive role in this process 1
3 are oriented, to make sure that that will, in fact -- comes as 4
close as we humanly can to meeting that particular legislative 5
requirement.
6 It did authorize an MRS, but in the process, it put 7
in provisions tying it so closely to the repository timetable 8
that it raises questicns, at least in my mind, as to whether 9
the MRS will, in fact, be part of an integrated waste 10 management system unless some changes are recommended and 11 proposed by the MRS Review Group that the law also has to be 12 set up.
13 The OGC provided you with a detailed analysis of the 14 bill in March of
'88, so I won't go into any more details, j
15 except to point out that the net result of all the things that l
16 were done probably is going to put tremendous production 17 pressure on the whole attempt to characterize the Nevada site 18 to determine whether it is, in fact, an acceptable site for a j
i 19 high-level waste repository, and if it is, a lot of production 20 pressure to get that repository built.
And that's going to put l
21 a lot of production pressure on the Commission, the Commission
)
22 Staff, and we think we're geared up to be able to deal with 23 that, but we have some additional checks just to make sure we 24 do, and when Mr. Bunting gets to the center piece of the 25 program, he can describe how we have them looking to make sure
7 1
wet've accurately identified all the things we have to do and to 2
give us some additional help to make sure that stuff is going 3
to be done on time.
That, in turn, will help us feed in to 4
make sure we've got the right budget kind of numbers to be able 5
to do our particular piece in this national effort.
6 MR. THOMPSON:
One other thing other than the MRS 7
that we did, as you know, in the amendments act and have 8
responsibility squarely placed on our shoulders, and that was 9
for licensing the transportation casks associated with the 10 high-level waste spent fuel.
We had previously agreed to 11 review and certify those casks, but the Nuclear Waste Policy 12 Act Amendments of 1987, in fact, made that a statutory 13 requirement.
14 The one issue that Mr. Browning was talking about was 15 the impact of this delay on the MRS would likely have on 16 reactor operations.
As you know, the previous schedule would 17 probably have an MRS in place in about the 1997 to the 1998 18 timeframe.
That was because of the linkage they had with 19 actually operating that facility with the receipt of the 20 construction authorization for the repository site.
21 Ha/ing changed now, that you will have a -- that the 22 DOE can't even start looking for a site until the MRS 23 Commission reporte back, which is scheduled to be somewhere in 24 June of 1987 -- I mean 1989 -- and there is some doubt that the 25 Commission is even fully formed yet.
They are looking at -- I
8 1
think two people have been identified, and_they are looking now 2
at a third individual, and one of the question is, you know, I
3 six months almost will have passed before they even get the 4
Commission in place --
5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
How are those people selected?
6 MR.' THOMPSON:
They are selected -- I guess I don't 7
know precisely
-- by Congress, but I think they are selected 8
by the Administraticn, and then they are -- directly by 9
Congress?
Well, I don't know how the names go to Congress, but 3
)
10 there is a process where the individuals' names, I guess, go to i
11 congress, and then they are approved by Congress, and I guess l
12 they have had a number of names.
I think Commissioner --
I 13 former Commissioner Gilinsky i
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Is this that Victor accepted, j
t 15 and then --
16 MR. THOMPSON:
I believe that his replacement is the 17 individual that they are looking for right now, and I think 18 they have some names that they are actively considering, but 19 I'm not sure where they ace in the process.
20 Assuming the process goes on its earliest schedule, 21 our estimation is that they would not be able to select a site 22 until about 1994, and with a two to three-year licensing and 23 hearing process and then a four-year construction process, the 24 facility, an MRS facility, would not likely be available until 25 the year 2000, 2001.
That timeframe is so close to the time
9 1
that the reactors will -- the first set of reactors will 2
actually meeting their onsite storage capacity that they'll 3
have to start planning several years ahead of that, and they 4
will probably not be able to rely on an MRS.
5 That would give them two options:
independent spent 6
fuel storage onsite, which, you know, we have already licensed 7
two facilities for dry cask storage, or consolidation and 8
expansion of the spent fuel pools if they have that capability 9
available to them.
10 The longer the MRS takes to become online, the less 11 attractive, the less flexibility it really provides DOE in the 12 transportation system.
This might be an issue that you might 13 wish to pursue with Mr. Kay when he comes and meets with the 14 Commission in the future.
But it is certainly less flexibility 15 than previously had been planned by DOE.
16 Bob?
17 (Slide.)
18 MR. BROWNING:
On Chart 4, we've identified some of 19 the near-term repository program milestones in which the 20 Commission would become directly involved in the process.
21 As you note from the previous briefing, we have i
22 issued the draft comments on DOE's draft site characterization j
23 plan.
They went out today.
24 There's a draft final MOU between DOE and NRC, which 25 will come to your attention shortly, with regard to how the
10 1
Waste Fund would be tapped back into the Treasury to account 2
for the expenses incurred by NRC's effort in this program.
3 It's currently being looked at with regard to the question of 4
whether the costs associated with our review of Nevada state-5 related programs in connection with the repository would be 6
covered also.
We think it is, but we want to make one last 7
doublecheck.
8 Currently, DOE is scheduled to issue a draft mission 9
plan amendment.
This is the programmatic document which lays 10 out the schedules for all the events that they're doing.
11 They're currently scheduled to update that to be consistent 12 with the impacts of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act in 13 May of this year.
So a lot of the dates and timeframes we're 14 talking from are things that are derived from previous versions 4
15 of that document or the best estimates we've been able to get 16 from DOE orally.
But when this document comes out, that will 17 give the official DOE timetables and frames that we have to 18 frame both our reactive program to and to some extent our 19 proactive program to make sure the proactive effort is going to 20 be timely to support the overall DOE effort.
21 On page 5, the next significant reactive item coming i
22 from DOE would be their final site characterization plan which 1
23 would, if we're mutually effective at bringing the comments and 24 concerns -- we've brought their attention to closure -- those 25 should be dealt with satisfactorily in that final site
- ~ ~ -
m 11 1
characterization plan which is currently scheduled by DOE to be 2
submitted around the end of this year or the first part of next 3
year.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Will we be able to meet that six 5
months schedule that's called for the DOE's site 6
characterization plan?
7 MR. BROWNING:
Yes, I believe so.
It depends to 8
large extent to how complete the DOE submittal is, and one of 9
the things we did when we got the draft was to do an acceptance 10 review.
We plan also to do an acceptance review of the final 11 SCP to clearly identify whether it has sufficiently resolved 12 our concerns and addressed our concerns that it warrants us 13 even beginning that six-month timeframe.
But I don't i
14 anticipate being on the limiting path for that particular 15 reactive effort.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, you need to factor in enough 17 time for the Commission to review it and also for the Advisory 18 Committee on Nuclear Waste, the new committee, to review it, 19 too.
Have you factored that into the six-month schedule?
20 MR. BROWNING:
We have factored the time for the i
21 Commission.
I'm going to have to go back and look and make j
22 sure that we did, in fact, factor in enough time for -- we'll J
23 have to work that with the Advisory Committee.
4 l
24 MR. THOMPSON:
I would say probably -- we would i
25 certainly involve them.
Whether or not it would be a i
i 12 1
sequential review -- that is, complete-the full review with the t
2 Advisory Committee before coming to the Commission -- I don't l
l 3
- think we had that in the previous schedule, as I remember it.
4 MR. BROWNING:
No, I don't think we did.
l 5
MR. STELLO:
I think we'll have to go back and look, i
6 because I think for the Commission chould have the benefit of 7
that advice before the Commission makes a decision.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That's right.
9 MR. STELLO:
And it's important for that review of l
10 the committee --
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That's correct.
l j
12 MR. STELLO:
-- to be finished and to have the 9
13 opportunity of --
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We want them to be informed, and we i
15 want to hear from them, so factor that into your plans.
q j
16 MR. STELLO:
We will.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
18 MR. THOMPSON:
And I would say that would likely add 19 a month, you know, to ensure that they'll have time to review 20 it 6nd respond and write the report.
j 21 MR. BROWNING:
Yes.
We're going to try to get them 22 on as near a parallel path with our reviews, rather than a J
23 series path.
I think we've had a tendency to be on a series 24 path with the oversight group, and we'll work closely with them l
25 to try to get on a more parallel production path for their i
1 I
J 2
13 1
review and our reviews, 2
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Exactly.
I think you should get them 3
in on it as soon as possible.
4 MR. BROWNING:
Yes, sir.
l f
1 5
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right 6
(Slide.)
7 MR. BROWNING:
On page 6, I just want to highlight l
8 the fact that --
9 MR. THOMPSON:
I would highlight one other thing that
[
10 I think we didn't put on here, which is our review and approval j
I think that's going to be a key element i
12 that will occur in this timeframe.
We are still negotiating 13 with DOE, when they would be able to actually submit their QA L
14 plans for our review and approval.
But that is going to be L
a 15 another key element in this timeframe.
I 16 MR. BROWNING:
Yes.
We'll touch on that in a little l
17 more detail in some of the subsequent charts.
l 18 On page 6 the thing I would like to point out is in 19 connection with what we refer to as the proactive part of our 20 effort, namely, that effort to make sure that we are ready to l
21 deal with applications and issues when they are submitted by l
22 DOE and, to the extent we can, provide them with guidance that 23 might be helpful to them in deciding how to frame their 24 programs so they do address our concerns adequately.
1 25 It involves products which we are referring to as i
I l
I
14 1
staff technical positions, and some may involve rulemakings, 2
but to try to put that in some perspective because I know there 3
has been some concern about exactly what that scope of effort 4
is, and it is a concern on all of our parts as to whether we 5
have accurately identified and framed that to make sure we are 6
going to have all the guidance documents, both to our own staff 7
and to DOE where necessary, on a time scale that will help 8
support this production effort without adversely affecting our 9
responsibilities from a health and safety standpoint.
10 I think it is fair to say that where NRC rulemakings 11 are necessary and required by law or where a law implies that 12 we have to do a rulemaking, all those rulemakings either are 13 completed or in the process of being completed.
So in my 14 perspective, the highest priority of rulemaking is where a law 15 has said we ought to do a rulemaking.
16 For example, we have 10 CFR Part 60 on the street, 17 both the procedural aspects and the technical aspects, in final 18 form.
We currently have amendments to 10 CFR Part 51, which 19 deals with the question of to what degree we can adopt DOE's i
20 final environmental impact statement, which is something the i
21 law says we should specifically try to do, I think with the 22 intent to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort on the part 23 of two Federal agencies.
24 That is in a proposed form.
It is about to be 25 published, if it hasn't already been published, in the Federal
)
15 1
Register as a proposed rule.
We had amendments to 10 CFR Part i
2 60 which would conform our regulation to the final EPA standard 3
all ready to go out as a final rule when the courts vacated the 4
EPA standard, so we have got that on a hold status now waiting j
f 5
to make sure.we get into step with whatever effort EPA is 6
mounting to revisit their standard so that as they go through l
7 their process, we can try to get on a parallel track to l
8 whatever modifications we have to make to our Part 60 to 9
incorporate the EPA standard.
10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Very briefly, why did the 4
j 11 court -- your words -- vacate the EPA standards?
12 MR. BROWNING:
As I recall, there were two aspects.
4 13 One was the court was raising the question as to whether or not i
14 or why hadn't EPA considered the high level waste repository to 15 fall under the deep well injection requirements of EPA, which j
16 we were not at that point in time very familiar with, but i
i 17 apparently we are going to have become familiar with them.
18 Another was with regard to the length of time that 19 they had to do their analyses to conform, to address impacts on I
20 radiation exposure to the population resulting from the 21 repository.
There are two relatively narrow technical, legal
]
22 kind of questions that they needed to address.
It wasn't that 23 they just vacated the whole standard.
Maybe the OGC could --
i 24 MR. PARLER:
What Mr. Browning has said generally I 4
)
25 agree with.
I would wish to emphasize the last point that he l
)
lL
-= --
16 i
1 just made, that the bulk of the EPA rule was upheld by the l
t 2
court.
The scope of the assurance requirements, not including f
3 the ALARA principle, the 10,000 year containment requirement, f
4 the reasonable expectation of compliance, et cetera, all of L
5 these things are covered.
I just say this for the record.
I 6
think we have already responded to your question in a j
t 7
memorandum that I sent to the Commission on August 10, 1987.
8 The holding was a narrow one.
In large part it was 9
an affirmance.
Now, where EPA is now I do not know.
I heard 10 recently that perhaps it would be about two years before they 11 get the matters straightened out, and I would also agree that 12 before we put our final implementation in place, we would have 13 to wait until the EPA rule is in place.
However, it would 14 appear to me, at least from a legal standpoint, that adequate 15 information is available already as to the general intent of 16 the EPA rules.
17 MR. BROWNING:
It is our opinion that the fact that 18 it is not finally approved need not necessarily stop the 19 collection of data to be able to make the analyses that 20 whatever the final rule is, the fina3 standard is, you would be 21 able to deal with that.
22 The staff has also evaluated opportunities for 23 streamlining the procedural part of the whole repository 24 licensing processing to help ensure that we can meet the three-25 year time frame that the law has limited us to, and we have
s I
17 1
initiated the one rulemaking on the licensing support system, i
i 2
which Mr. olmstead will talk abc't a little later.
i 3
The staff has also identified areas where additional j
3 4
guidance would be helpful, and that guidance has been in I
i I
5 various stages of development.
We had guidance that we have i
6 developed, issued for public comment, resolved the comments and 7
issued in final form.
For example, in the quality assurance t
8 area, which was one of the areas of our highest priority 9
concern from an overall programmatic standpoint, we have 10 identified three areas that we felt guidance was required, and 11 those are in final form.
]
12 Things like how you qualify existing data that was 13 taken under quality assurance programs other than a quality 14 assurance program that meets all of our regulatory s
]
15 requirements. Guidance on what constitutes a technical peer 1
16 review. In an area like this where we are dealing with some of l
17 the -- I will take the liberty of referring to them as softer 18 sciences, where a lot of technical judgment is involved, peer i
j 19 review is going to be ar. extremely important means of getting 20 technical consensus on some of the technical issues, so we put j
21 published guidance on that.
]
22 We have identified other areas where guidance would i
23 be helpful and have it out in proposed form.
For example, one 24 of the phraseologies used in our regulation is that they have 25 to consider anticipated and unanticipated process and events.
l
18 1
We have laid out what we mean by that to provide more specific 2
guidance to DOE, and that is going to be very important in 3
terms of developing their site characterization program and 4
doing performance assessments.
5 We have currently in house under preparation for 6
publishing for public comment definitions, more precise 7
definitions on what we mean by the disturbed zone surrounding 8
the repository, methodologies for dealing with ground water 9
travel time.
One of the concerns that came out of our review 10 of DOE's draft site characterization plan was we were rather 11 surprised, I guess, to find that their definition of what we 12 meant by substantially complete containment was out of sync 13 with our thinking, so we need to provide some official guidance 14 ot them on that one so that we start coming to closure on these 15 areas that under the current regulation have multiple ways of 16 being dealt with.
17 The staff is also developing a set of criteria that 18 we could use to decide when some of these technical areas that 19 cry for guidance warrant the additional effort up upgrade the i
20 rulemaking, and we are working closely with OCG, the Office of 21 the Research and our own technical people to try to make sure 22 that the whole population of guidance areas we look at very 23 carefully to see which ones would have some payoff in terms of 24 eliminating issues that might result in a very protracted 25 licensing hearing process.
=. _
19 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That is a very important area, I i
2 think.
It seems to me that it needs to be given a lot of f
3 thought as to how much additional rulemaking beyond Part 60 1
}
4 might ba needed to demonstrate our compliance with our
]
5 regulations, and there has to be a balance, it seems to me,
)
6 between providing for the public health and safety, which is, t
7 of course, primary, but also what is legally sufficient.
8 This is a very important area and it is something 9
that I hope the staff was looking at very carefully to see what j
10 additional -- we need a proper mix, as I understand it, of j
11 regulatory tools: rulemaking, NUREGs --
i l
12 MR. BROWNING:
Where technical guidance that the 13 staff has issued would suffice, that probably is the most j
14 economical in terms of our own resources, so that is our first t
l 15 cut.
Then we are going to look at that population and see 16 which ones need to be elevated.
We will probably have to come 17 back and give you some more discussion about that.
18 MR. STELLO:
We are not really ready to deal with 19 that issue.
The balance we have to make is we can issue a i
I l,
20 document that is just a staff document, a NUREG, Reg Guide, i
l 21 branch technical position, but when that comes to the hearing i
22 process, then you are going to have to have that issue then be 1
1 23 subjected to the context of the hearing where we are ready and i
i 24 can get that into rulemaking and we have the potential for
(
25 substantially easing the burden on the hearing process for the i
i 1
20 1
repository by taking it in advance and getting some of these 2
through a rulemaking process ahead of time.
We are not ready j
3 to answer your question.
It is very important, as you said.
j 4
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It seems to me that it is such an j
i 5
important issue that it might be decided separately or by 6
itself, separate study, separate briefing, because the planning l
}
7 we do ahead of time in this very new area is extremely i
8 important and we need to commit ourselves to meeting our 9
requirements for public health and safety, and again being 10 legally sufficiently, but also I think we don't want to create 11 a monster.
12 We want to make sure we are doing our job, and I i
13 think it is involved, as I understand it, with perhaps 14 additional rulemakings, perhaps additional technical positions, i
15 perhaps additional NUREGs, and maybe we have some in existence, 16 but the whole subject is something I think is extremely I
i 17 important in order to get resolved up front so we don't find 18 ourselves well down the line and kind of not having looked into 19 these matters.
20 so my feeling is that planning and study in this 21 particular effort is extremely important.
22 MR. BROWNING:
I might add this is one of the areas 23 that we put high on the priority list and at the very front end 24 of getting the center on line.
We have them doing a top down 25 look as an added check to make sure that our day-to-day
i 21 l
4 i
1 involvement in this thing over the past seven years hasn't 2
misled us in terms of concentrating on all the right things.
l i
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That is fine, but it has to combine j
l 4
the technical review as well as a legal review.
l l
5 MR. BROWNING:
Yes, sir.
We have a team consisting 1
6 of the lawyers that have hearing experience that can give us 7
the kind of guidance to make sure we are identifying the things l
8 that will, in fact, have some kind of a payoff in terms of an 9
efficient process once it comes to the hearing.
l
)
l l
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
When will you get that in hand?
i 11 MR. BROWNING:
I think within the next couple of l
I 12 months we will have --
f l
13 MR. STELLO:
I can't give you an answer.
I indicated j
l j
14 at the last briefing that it was an area we wanted to get into.
4 1
I j
15 We haven't, since the last briefing was just last week, we just
}
1 l
i 16 haven't done it.
We need to do it and we will commit to an
}
I
}
17 answer.
(
l 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, you need to get together with j
1 19 general counsel, too, I think.
You can give us a joint 4
}-
i 1
j 20 respo:se.
l 21 MR. STELLO:
We will.
)
]
22 MR. THOMPSON:
And we also include the Office of 23 Research in this aecause they have certain clear j
j 24 responsibilities.
We are working together on the issue.
I
?.
)
25 think we recognize it, and it is one that we are providing much I
l
22 l
l 1
more attention to these days.
l 1
)
f l
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But I do think it is such an i
3 important issue that it deserves to be considered almost by l
l 4
itself.
It is the plan for what we are about to enter into, I
j 5
and I think if we think through that thing very carefully, it j
6 is going to have an important payoff for us as far as being i
i;.
7 organized about this very important endeavor.
i r
8 MR. STELLO: I agree.
[
i j
9 (Slide.)
1 i
I l
10 MR. BROWNING:
The upcoming NRC reactor efforts that j
i 11 affect the one I want to emphasize the most, is the one that I
f
~
12 Mr. Thompson referred to, which is the last one, Continuing i
i j
13 Staff Review of DOE's QA efforts.
And if I could have the 14 slide or picture that shows the DOE organizational structure?
15 (Slide.)
t 16 Page 8' identified a committment which DOE has 17 recently re-emphasized.
This has been a long standing 18 committment on the part of DOE, in conjunction with an early
]
3 1
19 letter form the Chairman, Palladino of the Commission at the 20 time.
j 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We're looking at the wrong slide, I 22
- guess, i
?
23 MR. BROWNING:
No, sir.
I'll be getting into this.
24 I'll be leading into this particular picture.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
?
--,,m,r v
wn,.,,,,m,,
,m-mm
_,,m,,.n v n n,.
, w w.
,n p.,
emm m--w p -m -m e,yve,w.-,r-
23 1
MR. BROWNING:
The committment is, that they would i
i l
2 have a QA plan or QA program that is in place and functioning, 3
before they start their site characterization effort.
And the l
4 key point in time when that effort is considered to begin, is a
5 when they start sinking the first exploratory shaft, which we 6
referred to at the last briefing, which is currently scheduled 7
for June of next year.
^
8 As part of that effort -- could I have the next
)
j 9
picture, please.
10 (Slide.)
i 11 As part of that effort, what has to happen, as you 12 see in this chart, there's a DOE headquarter's effort that's j
i j
13 headed up by Mr. Kay, and then there's a Nevada project, 14 located out at the Nevada site.
And then there are 7 major 15 contractors under that project.
Within that organizational 16 scheme, each of those boxes has to have a QA plan, and audit f
17 program that ensures that those plans are being met.
l I
i 18 And as you recall, one of our comments, one of our i
19 objections, in fact, on the draft site characterization plan, 20 was that at the current state, this is not at a stage where the
)
1 j
21 plans are in place.
The plans have been audited and DOE is 22 confident, and we are confident that they're ready to implement j
23 the site characterization program.
i i
24 For example, we have not yet received the Nevada 1
25 project QA plan.
It's promised to us, I believe, the end of i
i
I 4
24 1
this week.
From that plan flows all the other plans.
What you 2
actually have today, are different plans, different revisions, f
3 all in different states of, if you will, readiness to implement i
4 on an approved QA plan.
5 So, that's going to be a relatively massivo effort 6
for DOE to get up to speed to be able to meet that committment
]
7 to us.
And if there's one point, and one effort that may have 8
as, you know, production impact on meeting DOE's planned date i
9 for sinking an exploratory shaft, in my opinion, this is it.
10 It's a very important effort.
j 11 MR. Tl!OMPSON:
And this has been an issue at the i
1 12 Commission, well before I began in NMSS, was highlighting as a j.
13 very important one, and it has not been an easy one, because as 14 somebody said, DOE has yet to submit and have in place, a plan 15 that would be effectively be able to be implemented that would 16 meet our regulatory requirements.
17 We noted in the other slide, again the QA position 18 which was established, and partly in response to the NRC 19 questions and comments.
It's still a vacant position, while 20 all cf the otner positions are at least acting.
I think the 21 people in those acting pocitions are essentially, except for 22 Mr. Kay, are awaiting confirmation through a process that OMB l
23 certifies.
But those people are really effectively there and 24 assuming their new responsibilities for the QA program that's 25 still in need of identification of a key person.
~
i i
25 1
(Slide.)
)
2 MR. BROWNING:
I believe this chart is one that 3
Commissioner Rogers was referring to in the last briefing, j
4 This is our version of the organization chart that they forward l
]
5 to us for information.
I think it may be something that you
)
6 might want to question Mr. Kay about when he does come and talk 3
as to about their steps to fill that QA position.
7 l
8 By the way, that's a major -- that organization chart
=
9 is also a major resolution of one of our long-standing comments j
10 where the quality assurance function within the headquarters h
f 11 organization used to be down in one of those other boxes, or 12 the equivalent of one of those boxes in earlier states.
So 1
13 they've elevated the position.
Now the key thing is to get it i
j 14 to be a filled and working position.
[
5 15 (Slide.)
f i
]
16 Cha.c number 9, is intended to emphasize the fact 17 that the state of Nevada, is in fact, developing an independent j
18 technical and qt.a: My assurance program of their own.
They 19 have requested us to review their QA plan, and they plan to 1
i I
t 20 submit it in the May, 1988 time irame.
And as we discussed in
.i 21 the last briefing, and Mr. Stello emphasized that we should be i
)
22 planning to be able to review that plan, and make sure we're 23 aware of, and cognizant of the state technical work, because
)
24 the state does intend to actually do investigations and tests
(
25 of their own on the Nevada site.
1 i
26 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Do we have the resources to follow 2
through in this area?
3 MR. BROWNING:
We did not specifically budget for 4
this.
We have budget line items that cover this kind of 5
consultation with the state, but we did not have in mind, the 6
extent and magnitude of this.
So, we're going to have to take 7
a look at how we can manage to do that.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It's my understanding that the state 9
of Nevada has been given considerable resources in this regard.
10 MR. BROWNING:
If we have page 10 of the chart.
11 (Slide.)
12 This was an attenpt to give you an idea of what 13 they're projecting.
Now, they do have to work out the actual 14 amounts with the Department of Energy.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right, but I mean -- let me just 16 finish if I may, and you can stay on this slide.
But my point 17 is, that seems like an awful lot of money, which could cover an 18 awful lot of consultant-type expert work.
I'm just concerned 19 whether we have enough resources to respond to the initiative 20 of the state of Nevada?
21 MR. STELLO:
Mr. Chairman, you made a very good 22 point.
Their Fiscal Year '89, if they get that much money, 23 it's in excess of our budget.
So, that program of their's is 24 going to be very sizeable, and I think essentially required, 25 since they will be a principal party at the hearing, that we
27 1
understand how they'll generate data, do analyses, because 2
we'll have to consider it, and make our own decision.
3 So, we are going to have to gecr it up.
And how big 4
of a problem it's going to be, we don't know yet, because we 5
don't really know all of what they're going to ask us to do.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I guess my concern is, it's not so 7
much, you know, how much they have, as how much we have.
But I 8
just want to make sure that we do have sufficient people and 9
resources to handle this job.
Again, it's a new job for us, i
10 and I know we've budgeted for what we have in mind, but I don't 11 know that we budgeted to respond to this area, and that's my 12 question.
13 MR. THOMPSON:
We did not, and we would have to look 14 at that very carefully, because with the increase in this area.
i 15 as well as the effort on rule-making, you know, I'm not sure 16 that we have sufficiently budgeted in all those areas to do 17 that at the level that we may --
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, it will need a careful look, 19 because we simply need to make sure that we do have the 20 resources, or get the resources to respond to the 21 responsibilities that we're given in this program.
22 MR. BROWNING:
Could we have the figure that shows 23 the state's technical program?
24 (Slide.]
25 Just to give you a relative feel for how they're set
88 1
up to do their technical review, compared to the previous 2
figure that we had on the screen -- it's going to be rather 3
difficult to look at, but they have a executive director, 4
they've got a QA function, and then they've got 6 technical 5
support contractors currently lined up to do work for them.
6 Various consultant groups, the University of Nevada -
7
- so you see a very similar kind of structure, and a very 8
similar kind of technical and QA review kind of job, depending 9
how we get involved with the state of Nevada's work, as we have 10 for the Department of Energy's work.
11 And at this point, I think we're ready to talk about 12 the licensing support system, which is one of the proactive 13 efforts that we undertook to try to make sure the 3-year 14 licensing time frame could be attained.
15 MR. OLMSTEAD:
I think that's slide 11?
16
[ Slide.)
17 In August of 1987, the Commission established, under 18 the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a negotiated rule-making, 19 which consists of the likely, interested groups which might 20 petition to participate in any adjudication on the high-level 21 waste geological repository application filed by DOE.
22 The objective was to allcy for the development of a 23 record and decision by the NRC in 18 months.
If you take the 24 3-year statutory time frame in the Waste Policy Act, 18 months 25 of that is slated for staff and technical review; 16 months of 1
29 1
it for the adjudicatory process.
I 2
In the history of this agency, we have never 3
conducted a reactor licensing adjudication in that time.
So, 4
the purpose of this negotiated rule-making was to get the 5
principal participants in such a proceeding together to the 6
extent we could identify them, and try to negotiate some 7
changes to 10 CFR, Part 2, which would allow us procedurally, 8
at least, to meet our statutory responsibilities.
If I could 9
have slide 12.
10 (Slide.)
11 A key feature of this negotiated rule-making, or the 12 quid pro quo, or consideration that we're offering potential 13 participants as the incentive to negotiate, was the licensing 14 support system, which was an electronic litigation support 15 system and issue management system that would provido for the l
16 service of formal paper, instead of using the U.S. mail.
17 That, incidentally, under our rules, saves 15 days j
18 svery time a paper would be filed, because, under our rules, a 19 paper has to have 5 days for a rcoponse for mail service, 5 20 dais for the filing, and 5 days for the decisions.
21 So every time there is a motion in one of our 22 proceedings, there's 15 days allotted just for mail time.
The 23 other part of it, was to facilitate document discovery by the 24 immediate production of documents through the litigation 25 support system, and to provide the parties the ability to find
.y
30 1
information by doing Lexis/ Nexus type searches in the database 2
-- full tech search and retrieval.
In fact, could I have slide 3
13?
4 (Slide.)
5 The Commission established a negotiating committee 6
originally, which has about 24 parties, but as a result of the 7
Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments, selecting Nevada as the 8
site for characterization, the committee was reconstituted in 9
February of this year, and now is composed of NRC, DOE, the 10 state of Nevada, Nevada local governments, the American Indian 11 Tribes, the industry coalition of CEA, and an environmental 12 coalition that represents EDF, Sierra Club, UCS, and other 13 organizations of that type.
14 We have two meetings of this advisory committee 15 rema!.ning, and if I could have the next slide --
16 (Slide.]
17
-- where we are, we have a draft rule, and we will meet in May 18 and June and we have in the draft rules, provisions that would 19 implement the licensing support system, and provisions that are 20 designed to meet the schedule.
21 The Conservation Foundation, which is the independent j
22 kind of arbitrator, convener, who's leading these negotiations, 23 has told me that they're optimistic that consensus can be 24 reached.
They're a little unsure whether we can do that with 25 the two remaining meetings, and may ask us for an additional
31 1
meeting.
2 That additional meeting would be over budget, and so 3
it would require to extend the contract for that purpose, and I 4
will include that issue in a staff paper that will be presented 5
to the Commission.
6 (Slide.]
7 There are some significant issues that I have 8
tentatively agreed to on behalf of NRC that I think have policy 9
implications and what I intend to do is submit a staff paper to 10 the Commission that will address some of these issues.
11 First off, the rule as currently drafted and agreed 12 to by the parties requires the entry of relevant documents by 13 all parties and their contractors in searchable full text.
14 This means the state of Nevada, if they are a participant, the 15 local government, if they are a participant, DOE and NRC from 16 the date of initiation of the system would be required to 17 submit documents that are of a licensing nature in electronic 18 full text.
19 Secondly, the parties have asked for pre-application 20 access to the system.
This means that before DOE submits its 21 license applications, the parties would like to have the system 22 up and running.
We haven't agree on how long before but the 23 discussions have generally been in the neighborhood of two 24 years and to facilitate handling that and administering it and 25 ensuring that disputes can be resolved, the parties are asking
32 1
N2C for a pre-license application review board, essentially 2
somebody to call balls and strikes about whether other parties 3
are abiding by their agreements to submit documents.
4 This board would function prior to the application, 5
the theory being that after the application was filed whatever 6
board, if it is this blue panel thing that is circulating 7
around the Congress, a Commission-appointed board or whatever, 8
they would take cognizance of this pre-license application 9
review board's rulings and we would move on from there.
10 The parties have agreed to that on two provisos.
One 11 is that NRC would bc the licensing support system 12 administrator, namely when DOE's got their system procured and
)
13 up anu running, the state of Nevada doesn't want to submit its 14 dccuments to DOE.
They are willing to submit them to NRC, 15 provided NRC is the one that controls access to their document 16 database.
So there is a policy question concerning the 17 licensing support administrator within the Agency.
18 The only conditions the parties have asked NRC for 19 are that the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 20 not be the administrator and that the hearing division of the 21 Office of General Counsel not be the administrator.
22 This is the ex parte separation of functions issue.
23 Other than that, they don't care what organizational entity in i
24 the Agency performs that function.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Is the staff going to have a 4
l 1
33 1
recommendation in that regard?
2 MR. STELLO:
I have talked with Mr. Olmstead and 3
basically what he has outlined in here, I see no problem.
We 4
will get the issues before the Commission for their judgment, 5
but certainly what he has concluded, the positions he has taken 6
seem certainly very respectable and reasonable to me.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Are you going to recommend that the 8
NRC be the administrator?
9 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That will be coming to the Commission 11 for decision?
12 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
13 MR. OLMSTEAD:
There is another issue that the 14 environmental groups are very concerned about.
I think it is a 15 minor issue.
It has to do with whether they can make 16 electronic fee waiver requests under the Freedom of Information 17 Act.
Currently they have to file the request in writing with 18 their request for document production and ask for a fee waiver.
19 We routinely have been granting it to such organizations and I 20 didn't see any reason why an electronic method could not be 21 established which would allow us to grant those in accordance 22 with the Freedom of Information Act.
But we will highlight 23 that issue as well.
24 I've already mentioned the additional meeting.
25 The industry group -- there is one final thing on my
34 1
note -- has withheld saying that they definitely would agree or f
2 disagree with the consensus reached by the other parties.
They 3
have agreed issue by issue but not to the whole text of the 4
rule on the grounds that they want an opportunity to look at 5
the overall cost of the system.
That, after all, is their 6
interest -- how the Waste Fund is being implemented and the 7
time savings that they believe would be realized and then 8
determine whether they think we have achieved the time savings 9
goal.
i 10 That is going to be a judgment call.
I can't 11 guarantee that is achieved, nor can I guarantee that it is not 12 achieved, but you use your best judgment.
I can tell you that 13 the rule as it is currently drafted would meet the timeframe 14 with four months to spare but there is always potential in this 15 things, as the Commission is well aware, for a party to throw a 16 money wrench in the process and you get some delay and four 17 months is not a lot of cushion.
18 MR. PARLER:
May I ask Mr. Olmstead a question?
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Pleast do.
20 MR. PARLER:
When is it to be finished -- the old 21 negotiated rulemaking effort?
I 22 MR. OLMSTEAD:
June is the last scheduled meeting and 23 we think we can do --
24 MR. PARLER:
When is the product going to be up 25 before the Commission?
= __
35 1
MR. OLMSTEAD:
The product that would be before the 2
Commission will be a proposed rule -- after we have the last 3
meeting.
4 MR. PARLER:
And under the charter from the 5
Commission you are responsible for doing that?
6 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Yes, sir.
7 MR. PARLER:
Thank you.
8 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Thank you.
9 Chart number 16 is a listing of the -- and chart 10 number 17 is a listing of the seven areas liivolving the pre-11 licensing phase of DOE's high level Waste Management Program, 12 which we report on to you periodically.
You will be getting a 13 quarterly report shortly, so I won't spend much time on these 14 particular issues.
15 Number one, the DOE implementation of scheduled and 16 systematic consultations:
This is one of the key areas in 17 bringing some of the concerns we have raised to a technical 18 conclusion, so one of the things we would urge that you in turn 19 urge to Mr. Kay is that they support the ongoing efforts to i
20 improve the technical communications between the two agencies 21 and the state of Nevada, who is a participant in those 22 meetings.
23 A good example such a meeting is the meeting we held 24 recently out in Nevada to talk about the various conceptual 25 views of what might be going on underneath the Nevada site, and a
36 1
from what I read in the paper everybody including the state of 2
Nevada representatives thought that was a very worthwhile 3
technical exchange.
I think we can build on the success of 4
that meeting.
We may very well be able to start building a 5
technical consensus on how to resolve some of these issues.
6 So I would like to go on to page 18 and allow Mr.
7 Bunting to give you an update on the status of the center for 8
Nuclear Waste regulatory analysis.
9 At the last meeting Commissioner Bernthal asked in a 10 general sense how well they were doing and I told him that we 11 were in the process of looking at the performance over the j
12 first period, where we have to make a determination of whether 13 they get a fee or not.
I am happy to say that the Fee 14 Determination Board has done its review and it is recommending 15 that they get full fee.
16 We were extremely pleased with what they were doing 17 and the rapidity with which they are coming up to speed on this 18 program.
19 (Slide.)
20 MR. BUNTING:
Mr. Chairman, as you said in your 21 opening remarks, the contract was signed last October.
We were 22 down about a week after that to give you a briefing on our 23 plans for the first year.
Just recently we sent you a 24 commission paper, an information paper with a fact sheet laying 25 oud more or less the status of the center as it stands today,
37 1
the number of staff, the facilities, dollars, that kind of 2
thing.
3 I say all of this just to try to re-emphasize the 4
importance of wh'at it is wo are doing.
This is a Federally 5
funded research and development contract.
It is not just 6
another contract, and because it is an FFRDC, NRC as the sole 7
sponsor takes on certain responsibilities on which we briefed 8
you that last time we were here.
9 The center is devoted exclusively to NRC's High Level 10 Waste Management Program.
This is the first of a kind 11 undertaking for both NRC and the Southwest Research Institute 12 and it has been -- I say this to try to give you some idea of 13 the magnitude of the job to start from scratch, get up to 14 running, and I think to produce the products they produced in 15 the six months has been truly outstanding.
16 We had carefully laid out a three-year phase-in plan 17 for the center.
During Year 1 we had envisioned that the 18 activities of the center would be devoting to learning and i
19 planning and instituting a systems engineering approach to take 20 an independent look at our high level waste repository 21 regulatory program.
22 This is a rather unique venture to apply systems 23 engineering to a soft system rather than to a hardware system.
24 Based on the understanding we hope to gain from this activity, 25 we would then hope to develop'a technology transfer plan to l
38 1
move our work from existing TA contractors and research 2
contractors into the center.
3 (Slide.]
4 So during this time we intend to keep almost all of 5
the reactive work, that is responding to DOE reviews and things 6
like that, out of the center and have them done by Mr.
7 Browning's staff or the existing contractors.
8 We tried to keep the center's focus on the system 9
approach, which I just mentioned, and so far up until I guess 10 mid-April we really wrapped them in a cocoon to avoid all 11 distractions and try to focus them on meeting their early 12 milestones, and we want them out of this cocoon beginning with 13 the demonstration on April 20th of their product.
Recently Mr.
14 Thompson and Mr. Arlotto from Research and Commissioner Rogers 15 were down and saw the results of their work and we would like 16 to emphasize that during this six-month period we spent about 17 the first six month developing the detailed what we call 18 operations plans, which are then incorporated in the contract 19 and become the governing documents for the work they will do.
20 So the products that those that went down to see the 21 demonstration reflect a three months productive effort after we 22 agreed with the statements of work.
23 As Mr. Browning indicated, we've completed the first 24 evaluation period and as the NRC's program manager for the 25 center I am very well pleased.
I think what we have seen
I 39 1
demonstrates the commitment of the center management to make 2
this a viable center for NRC and I think it also shows the 3
commitments of the Institute's staff and the management to 4
support the center.
5 Perhaps you are not aware of it, but when we started 6
this contract we had envisioned that NRC would be able to 7
provide the computer support for this program architecture we 8
developed.
Early on, because of the move to White Flint and 9
the delay in getting the computer up to speed, it was evident 10 that it wouldn't be ready in time to meet the deliveries, so 11 the Southwest management put up the capital funds, which are 12 considerable, to buy a separate mainframe so that the center 13 could proceed and meet it's contractual commitments.
14 Now if we could turn to the next chart.
15 (Slide.]
16 During the next six months our foremost priority is i
17 going to be staffing.
It is more of a problem than we 18 anticipated for a number of reasons.
There's competition for 19 these scarce staff folks out there.
There is the complexity of t
20 demands.
Because of the limited funds, when you hire someone, 21 you want him to be able to work in various areas, so you are 22 looking for people, for instance with lab experience, field 23 experience and analytical experience all wrapped up in a single 24 individual.
So it makes it very hard to find one individual to 25 be able to put into one bullet you've got to use on this case.
40 1
We are going to continue this systems approach to 2
produce our recommended regulatory program.
This is a top down 3
approach.
4 (Slide.]
5 Taking a look at all of the requirements of 10 CFR 6
Part 60 and other agencies who have regulations that may impact 7
on our regulatory program.
We are going to call out each of 8
those regulatory requirements and for those regulatory 9
requirements we are trying now to identify the findings of fact 10 that would be necessary to prove to show that you have met that 11 regulatory requirement in the hearing.
12 If there is any lack of certitude in those findings, 13 we'll identify those uncertainties.
They could be regulatory 14 because you don't know what the regulation means.
They could 15 be technical because you don't know how to prove it.
Or they 16 could be institutional uncertainties depending on what other 17 agencies' roles may be with respect to timing and when we have 18 to take an &ction.
19 So for each of these uncertainties we will develop 20 the issues that need to be resolved, identify the technical i
21 programs, the schedules and the resources to reduce those 22 uncertainties that fall in NRC's lap.
23 We have started out on this approach and laid out a 24 20-step process.
As a result of the visits that we've had, 25 I've asked the center to consider modifying the process to i
}
41 1
focus first on just those regulations and the sections of the 2
regulations that have to do with siting and hopefully we can 3
produce some partial results that would indicate what are the 4
issues of concern for NRC when it must review DOE site 5
characterization plans, which I guess are supposed to be coming 6
in end of this year.
7 MR. BROWNING:
It's basically an acceleration of what 8
we originally planned to do to accommodate the real world 9
focusing and acceleration onto the site, so we are certain to 10 deviate from our original contractual plan.
11 MR. BUNTING:
Now that means in preparing our 12 technology transfer plan we'll probably have to modify our plan 13 there and develop a plan a little bit sooner than we had 14 anticipated with a little bit less understanding of what needs 15 to be done before we do that.
Mr. Browning is trying to move 16 out of the existing TA contractors into the center at an 17 accelerated pace and so we are trying to get the center ready 18 to accept that and be supported to the staff.
19 In summary, I think that things are going very well.
20 My caution right now is I just don't want to overload this 21 fragile organization out there by accelerating too fast, too j
22 quickly and we are going to be looking at that and giving 23 honest assessments about what we can and cannot do, other than 24 that, I think everything is going as well as could be expected.
25 I can update you, if you will, on the number of
42 1
people that are there at the moment.
We have 17 core staff out 2
there currently and we are getting bits and pieces that add up 3
to another for FTE.
By the end of the year, if our recruiting 4
efforts are successful, we'll have 25 core staff and about 7 5
other FTE equivalents there.
6 By the end of Year 2 on our current plan, we'll be up 7
to 33 in the core staff and 9 other, and the Institute is 8
preparing facilities to move the center into and the plans are 9
there will be transition into the new facilities by mid-July 10 this year.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
12 MR. STELLO:
That concludes our presentation, Mr.
13 Chairman.
L 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
Questions from my fellow 15 Commissioners?
Commissioner Roberts?
Commissioner Rogers?
3 16 (No response.)
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Under the Center for Nuclear Waste 18 Regulatory Analysis, are they or will they be in a position to 19 provide assistance to the NRC staff as far as reviewing DOE 20 plans?
Will they be able to do that kind of an effort as well 21 as other things?
22 MR. BUNTING:
Yes, to a limited extent.
We have 23 envisioned that we'd be getting more into this reactive work 24 beginning in the Year 2 and by the end of Year 3, totally taken
)
25 over all of the other contract efforts that the Division of i
i m_,,
,.,,___,.,_,__,__,____,,,J-
43 1
Waste Management has currently.
So it was a three-year phase-2 in plan to take it all over beginning with a healthy dose of it 3
in Year 2.
4 MR. THOMPSON:
But quite a bit of their focus is 5
looking at the proactive stuff as well as the planning 6
activities.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I understand that.
8 MR. THOMPSON:
We are trying to provide as auci. focus 9
for the staff itself as being on the reactive portions in this 10 early stage until they get the planning out, the longer range 11 types of things.
We do have that capability if it is needed.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Fine.
13 I have another question.
Back to the dry cask 14 storage issue.
As I understand it, the Nuclear Waste Policy 15 Act requires that we review DOE's dry cask storage report and 16 you discussed that briefly.
Will we receive any input from DOE 17 prior to receiving the report and could you discuss the 18 schedule for providing any comments on that?
We can ask Mr.
19 Kay when he comes, I guess it's next week, is it not?
But
]
20 perhaps do you have any comments on that now?
21 MR. THOMPSON:
I would like to ask Lee Rouse of the
)
i 22 Staff to respond to that.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Would you step up to the microphone 24 and identify yourself for the reporter, please.
25 MR. ROUSE:
I am Lee Rouse, with HMSS.
Yes, there is l
44 1
going to be a very early interaction, Mr. Chairman, with DOE on 2
the DOE dry storage support that is mandated by the Amendments 3
Act.
They are scheduled to have their report to Congress by 4
October 1.
In a very recent letter to you from Mr. Kay which 5
you referred to Mr. Thompson for response, they outlined very, 6
very generally a tentative time schedule, and recognizing that 7
they got a little late start, they hope to meet the October 1 8
date by an early draft in July I think it was.
9 They also sort of indicate if they begin slipping 10 much more, they might have to go back to Congress to ask for 11 more time.
But even now we've had the Staff contacts and I 12 think we have a meeting tentatively scheduled for tomorrow with j
13 the Staff l' get sort of an outline of what DOE expects to put i
14 in the report.
So I think the interaction between the DOE 15 staff and the NRC staff will follow somewhat like we did on the 16 MRS proposal.
Very early interactions so the NRC Staff is 17 familiar with what they are thinking and also provide the DOE 18 people with some of the regulatory guidance or regulatory views 19 early on.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
21 Well, let me just thank the NRC Staff both in NMSS 22 and the General Counsel's office for this useful and important 23 briefing.
Although the high-level wasta repository may be a 24 few years off, there are a number of issues as we well know and 25 discussed some of them here today that need to be addressed
47 1
that one and suppi ing a full-time person, even though we were 2
only budgeted for a half-time person in that.
3 So, I would think that that should be looked at quite 4
carefully, that we are supplying the resources that they need 5
to do the job that we expect them to do, because while they are 6
very enthusiastic and committed to doing this, they obviously
~
7 have to be able to have gas in the tank if the car's going to 8
go.
So, I would say we should pay particular attention to that 9
in this intense early period.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I certainly agree with that, and j
11 also, just to emphasize one last time, our own look at 1
12 resources.
I know we've made the best estimates we could, but 13 they are estimates.
We're in an unknown field, and I think we 14 simply must make sure that we're covering what we have to do to 15 carry out our responsibilities.
16 MR. THOMPSON:
And there are some new challenges that 17 we really have not been aware of with respect to t'te Nevada 18 issues.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
And there could come some unknowns 20 that we simply must recognize.
That's certainly very possible.
21 and very, very probable.
So, we've got to be able to be 22 flexible enough to respond to those circumstances.
23 All right.
Thank you for a very fine briefing.
We 24 appreciate it.
We stand adjourned.
25 (Whereupon, the briefing was concluded at 3:15 p.m.)
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBEP This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
Briefing on Efforts to License a High-Level laste Repository and Status of Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, May 12, 1988 were transcribed by me.
I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
M a
U c~ '
Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
O e
)
BRIEFING FOR THE COMMISSION ON THE NRC'S HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM MAY 12, 1988
~
6 d
OVERVIEW NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE (MRS)
REPOSITORY PROGRAM
- LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY
[
ANALYSES l
i l
b
.i 6
d NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT (NWPAA)
DOES NOT CHANGE NRC REPOSITORY ROLE CuANGES HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM (DETAILS IN OGC ANALYSIS SUBMITTED
{
3/4/88)
I a
IMPACTS ON REACTOR OPERATIONS 2-i
?
['
i 1
f a
j i
+
- i
. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _, _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- L s
f NEAR-TERM MRS PROGRAM-RELATED ACTIVITIES OF LIKELY COMMISSION INTEREST
- DOE DRY CASK STORAGE REPORT i
- MRS REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
- MODIFICATION OF 10 CFR PART 72 TO ACCOMMODATE MRS LICENSING d
NOTE:
REVIEW COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP i
UNCERTAIN AS OF 4/29/88 3
4 4
I 6
i j
-~-rm
-v.
---r.w.--_,,
.,~,---+.,-3.---s
.-,e
,-.s v,
-m.,m-
i b
t NEAR-TERM REPOSITORY PROGRAM MILESTONES FOR COMMISSION REVIEW FINAL,NRC COMMENTS ON CONSULTATION DRAFT SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN (CDSCP) - MAY 1988 DRAFT FINAL DOE-NRC MOU FOR WASTE FUND REIMBURSEMENT OF NRC NWPA-RELATED l
COSTS - MAY 1988 DRAFT DOE MISSION PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLISHED FOR COMMENT - MAY 1988
' l i
O
I NEAR-TERM REPOSITORY PROGRAM MILESTONES FOR COMMISSION REVIEW l
(CONTINUED)
DOE MISSION PLAN AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS - AUGUST 1988 DOE SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN (SCP) -
i JANUARY 1989 f
NRC SITE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS (COMMENTS ON_SCP) 6 MONTHS AFTER SCP i
ISSUANCE (EXPLORATORY SHAFT CONSTRUC-TION TO BEGIN IN JUNE, 1989) l t
i d
l J
i 0
-+
w-r---er-*----+-
CURRENT NRC PROACTIVE EFFORTS PREPARE REVIEW PLAN FOR SCP AND ASSO-CIATED STUDY PLANS l
DEVELOP STAFF TECHNICAL POSITIONS (TP'S)
ON INTERPRETATION OF 10 CFR 60 RULEMARINGS IDENTIFICATION OF TOPICS FOR FURTHER I
REGULATORY GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT 6-l I
l l
i 1
,j
[
l E
5 a
i i
UPCOMING NRC REACTIVE EFFORTS i
REVIEW OF DOE MISSION PLAN AMENDMENTS EXPECIED IN MAY 1988 SCP REVIEW (SIX-MONTH EFFORT BXPECTED l
j.
TO BEGIN IN JANUARY 1989) l
- SCP-ASSOCIATED STUDY PLANS J
CONTINUING STAFF REVIEW OF DOE QA i
EFFORTS 4
7-J e
S 4
i a
i T
i i
4
l1 i
l I
l i
i t
i i
4 1
- QUALITY ASSURANCE DOE WILL NOI START NEW WORK IN ANY AREA UNTIL NRC HAS REVIEWED QA PLAN FOR THAT AREA AND OBSERVED IMPLEMEN-TATION THROUGH AUDITS (DOE COMMITMENT "I 3/24/88 CDSCP WORKSHOP)
NRC STAFF EFFORTS i
r f
d I
l i
l i
a l.
r 1
I i
J
[
1
)
f t
e
i e
i i
4 a
b STATE INTERACTION I
i NEVADA DEVELOPING INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL i
AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM i
i NEVADA QA PLAN FOR NRC REVIEW IN MAY I
1988 1
i l
NRC STAFF WILL MAINTAIN COGNIZANCE OF l
STATE TECHNICAL WORK 9
i 6
4 i
4 1
1 I
i i
1 1
l A
l 1
4
-.------,--,,,,,,,..----.,.--,-,,,.-n,.
,,,,,,.,,,,,,-.,,,,.--._,n-_,.,,,,,.--,n-
,,,,n,,-,.,,
4 l
'i E
s i
i 1
i NEVADA NWPA PROGRAM BUDGET FY1988 - FY1991
($ MILLIONS) 4 FY88 FY89*
FY90*
FY91*
l i
$6.6
$23.0
$26.0
$31.0 1
i 4
?
r i
- NOTE:
FY89-91 FIGURES ARE ESTIMATES i
E t
j
- NOTE:
FOR COMPARISON, NRC FY88 BUDCET IS $19.6 MILLION, FY89 BUDGET IS $22.5 MILLION l
.)
i l*
i a
'I 4
4 I
i
. _, _ _ _ _ _._ _.. _,. _ _.. _, ~. ~. _
=..
r -
i L*
)
HIGH-LEVEL WASTE LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM l
NEGOTIATED RULEMAXING Initiated:
August 5, 1987 Develop a consensus on the use of the LSS in the HLW licensing proceeding Objective - timely & effective review of the DOE license application 11 -
e e-
4 LSS Characteristics
- early and comprehensive access to licensing information
- full text search capability
- electronic mail.
I e
b O
f
(
I l
i 4
Negotiating Committee - NRC, DOE, State of Nevada; Nevada local govern-ments, NCAI, Industry coalition, Environmental coalition NRC draft regulatory text reviewed i
at the April meeting i
j Committee mark-up of draft text j
complete at the May 18 & 19, 1988 meeting; possible consensus at June meeting,
l j
Y e
e 1
l 1
Scope of draft rule --
' provisions to implement LSS
- provisions to ensure meeting the NWPA schedule 1 i
O 1
Significant provisions --
- entry of relevant documents of all parties and their contractors, in searchable full text
' pre-license application access to the LSS
- Pre-License Application Licensing Board
- NRC serves as the LSS Administrator
- Immediate effectiveness review 2 4
a 4
QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS ON THE PRE-LICENSING PHASE OF DOE'S HLW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (1)
DOE IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHEDULED AND SYSTEMATIC CONSULTATIONS (2)
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (3)
EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (4)
EARLY ESTABLISHMENT OF REPOSITORY DESIGN PARAMETERS l 1
\\
i
~..
T i
I i
l
[
t f
t 4
s QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS ON THE PRE-LICENSING PHASE OF DOE'S HLW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CONTINUED) i (5)
EARLY RESOLUTION OF STATE AND TRIBAL
- CONCERNS l
{
(6)
ADOPTION OF CONSERVATISM l
(7)
EARLY RESOLUTION OF ISSUES THROUGH A PROGRAM OF LICENSING TOPICAL REPORTS AND OTHER MECHANISMS l
l l
- NOTE:
THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO "AFFECTED TRIBES" AS DEFINED BY THE NWPA i
i FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE l
\\ i i
4 1
)
1 1
a
]
A l
~
CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGl*LATORY ANALYSES o
CONTRACT SIGNED OCTOBER 15, 1987 o
STATUS REPORT TO COMMISSION APRIL 1988 (SECY 88-96) o KEY MANAGERS HIRED o
RECRUITING TECHNICAL STAFF
- 1 P
i l
4 i
i i
i I
a 0
- 1 CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES (CON'T.)
I o
FIRST YEAR EFFORT DEVELOP UNDERSTANDING OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS DEVELOP SYSTEMATIC APPROACH j
TO NRC'S PROACTIVE ROLE DEVELOP COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM i
TO PROCESS INFORMATION l
i o
ACCELERATE TECHNICAL TRANSFER FRCM OTHER CONTRACTORS i
4 a ;
1 J
{.
,1 l
l
)
i L
1 l
L -
MAWd%%%%%WA%%d d%Wd%%% d%%dfnQdffWd df dgggggggg(fggiftg,g TRANSMITTAL TO:
_ Occument Control Desk 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Rocm
/3M!
DATE:
5j iROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch E
Attached are copies of a Comission meeting ; 2. script and related meeting i.
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and i
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or required.
d[d/dAe~.
Meeting
Title:
Sh //v 7 Mod d mwr i S. k w d Y d l O k St-n_, //!L-etc s'.k da
<.J y
Meeting Date:
Cd!2/f 7 Open I Closed E
E Item Oescription*:
Copies Advanced DCS
'8 to PDR C3 j:
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 G) ln l: w <~,n pIeJ l i
/
j!
2.
J:
3:
a:
3.
S!
G
-s::
4.
M 5.
4 rc 6.
- PDR is advanced one copy of each documert, two of each SECY paper.
P C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attach: rents, withcut SECY 3
- papers, g
3 h
(Shhhhhhhhhhhhh?MMhhBYMYMhPMhnBhBBM%BEhhhhhMiwy)$MMMyM%K$
- - - - - - - - - - -