ML20154K263
| ML20154K263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/17/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8805270317 | |
| Download: ML20154K263 (63) | |
Text
.
s v
'~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Title:
BRIEFING BY DOE ON HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM Location:
ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND Date:
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1988 Pages:
1-50
(
l i
l Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 h?R 0ffkD00517 PT9.7 PDR
~
o f
DISCLAIMER
'~
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 5-17-88 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 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, i t 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 statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
G m
e
,-,-r---
y v--,
s
1
=
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
,f-4 BRIFFING BY DOE ON HIGH LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Commissioners' Conference Room 10 One White Flint North 11 Rockville, Maryland 12 13 Tuesday, May 17, 1988 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to i
16 notice, at 2:00 p.m., the Honorable LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman of 17 the Commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 FREDERICK M.
BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 22 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission 23 KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Member of the Commission
'(
24 25
2
. s.
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THC TAOLS:
2 3
C 4
W.
PARLER 5
S.
CHILK 6
H. THOMPSON 7
8 Department of Energy:
9 S.
KALE 10 E.
KAY 11 R. STEIN 12 P. SAGET 13 C.
GERTZ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 e
22 23 g.
25
s 3
b 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
[2:00 p.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies the gentlemen.
4 Commissioner Bernthal will be joining us later on.
This 5
afternoon the Commission will be briefed by Mr. Kay, Acting 6
Director of the offica of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 7
of the Department of Energy.
Welcome.
8 This briefing is a continuation of a series of 9
periodic briefings by the Department of Energy, which are aimed 10 at keeping the Commission informed of recent developments in 11 the Department's High Level Nuclear Waste Repository Program.
12 Since our last briefing by the Department of Energy, a number 13 of significant events have occurred which impact on the 14 development of a national high level waste repository.
15 The most significant event was the enactment of the 16 amendment of the Nuclear Waste Pelicy Act in late 1987.
This 17 amendment selected the Yucca Mountain site as the location for 18 the first repository.
Since our last briefing, Mr. Kay has 19 taken over the direction *of DOE's High Level Waste Program and 20 the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has very 21 recently been reorganized.
~
22 The Commission is interested in hearing about this reorganization 'nd how it might impact interactions with the 23 a
24 NRC and the State of Nevada.
The Commission was recently 25 briefed by the NRC staff on Agency comments concerning DOE's
4 e
1 consultation draft site characterization plan for the Yucca
?
Mountain site, and we are very interested in hearing about 3
DOE's response to the Agency's objections and comments on the
~
4 draft plan.
The Commission is also interested in hearing about 5
the development of the licensing support syste.m.
6 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 7
comments that they would like to make?
8 (No response.)
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
If not, Mr. Kay, welcome and you may 10 proceed.
11 MR. KAY:
Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, 12 because communications and interactions are an abiding element 13 of the DOE and the NRC relationship, I welcome the opportunity 14 to continue the practice of periodic presentations to the 15 Commission of OCRWM program activities and significant 16 accomplishments.
17 Today's presentation, my first', is especially i
18 important because of the many events that have taken place 19 since the last briefing in June of last year.
I have with me, 20 Pierre Saget, who is the Acting Director of our Office of 21 Quality Assurance; Ralph Stein, the Acting Associate Director
~
22 of the Office of Systems Integration and Regulation; and Steve 23 Kale on my right, the Acting Associate Director for Facility i
l l
24 Siting and Development.
25 Following the conclusion of the formal presentation,
I 5
s 1
we will be open for questions from the Commission as you 2
desire.
In addition to reviewing some of the program 3
highlights with you, including changes resulting from the 4
passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and Amendments Act in 5
December, I will focus on areas of joint and special NRC and 6
DOE interest with some general comments on the overall program 7
and DOE /NRC relationships.
8 Before addressing these subjects, I would like to let 9
you know that I appreciate the interest of the Commission in 10 the program and your efforts to provide guidance to the staff.
11 The Amendments Act streamlines and focuses the waste 12 management program established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 13 of 1982.
In terms of program implementation, the most 14 important and significant provisions of the Amendments Act 15 includes site characterization of the Yucca Mountain site in 16 Nevada as the only candidate site at this time for a permanent I
17 geologic repository; the authorization, with conditions, i
18 monitored retrievable storage or MRS facility as part of the 19 integrated waste management system; and the establishment of f
20 several new entities such as the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 21 Board, the Monitored Retrievable Storage Review Commission and 22 the Office of the Negotiator.
23 I believe these entities should enhance the public's 24 confidence in the program, particularly the scientific and i
25 technical quality of the program.
Plans for implementing the n.. -.
---w.
,-v a - - -,
,---,,,----,,,,--,,-nr-.--,,.,--,.--.
.- - - = - -,,,
6 0
e 1
new focus of the OCRWM program are currently under development.
2 In response to the statutory changes and the 3
continuing evolution of the nuclear waste disposal program.
4 OCRWM has been reorganized along functional 11aes to facilitate 5
and enhance the integration of the waste management system.
6 The new organization places increased emphasis on quality 7
assurance, systems integration, licensing and regulations.
8 The office will function with full or associate 9
directors and a director of office of quality assurance.
Like 10 the associate director, the director of the office of quality 11 assurance will report directly to the director of OCRWM.
The 12 personnel paperwork has been submitted but not yet completely 13 acted upon for all of these positions.
Therefore, the 14 incumbents to these positions are temporarily designated as 15 acting, but be assured that the organization is functioning 16 fully with leadership ready and willing to make decisions and 17 exercise the responsibilities of management.
18 To facilitate the technical management and 19 integration of the waste management program, OCRWM issued a l
l l
20 solicitation for a managing and operating contractor in October i
21 of last year.
This solicitation was revised due to the passage 22 of the Amendments Act and on April 25th of last month, the 23 solicitation for the M&O contractor closed.
The proposals are I
24 now being evaluated.
25 The major responsibilities of this contractor will be
7 1
to one, help ensure that the Yucca Mountain site is 2
' characterized in accordance with the requirements of the 3
Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended, and if found suitable, the 4
site is developed as a repository.
Secondly, to assist.the DOE 5
in the MRS siting activities.-
Thirdly, to assistlin the design 6
and integration of the repository, the waste packagd, the HRS 7
facility and maintain oversight of transportation design 8
activities and its integration into the overall waste 9
management system.
10 Fourthly, to assist the Department in obtaining NRC
?
11 licenses and certificates for the repository, the MRS facility 12 and transportation casks.
Fifth, to integrato the work of 13 various program participants such as the National Laboratories, 14 other Federal agencies and DOE prime contractors.
Lastly, to 15 help ensure that all work meets safety, technical, 16 environmental, quality, schedule, and cost requirements, the 17 regulatory requirements of the NRC and EPA, and ensure that a.11 18 of our actions are consistent with applicable DOE orders.
19 On January 8 of this year, DOE issued the site 20 characterization plan consultation draft for the Yucca Mountain 21 site to serve as a vehicle for technical discussions with the
/~
22 State of Nevada and the Commission.
To start these discussions 23 a meeting was held in Reno in the latter part of January.
l l,
24 After the meeting in Reno, the NRC transmitted to the i
l 25 Department on March 7 its draft point paper containing the j
- - - ~ - -,-
p
-w
8 1
results of its technical review of the consultation draft.
2 In the NRC Draft Point Paper five principal 3
objections were identified.
These five objections pertained to 4
difficult issues which have been discussed extensively in the 5
past.
A workshop was held on March 21 through the 24 at NRC 6
Headquarters to clarify and discuss those objections, as well 7
as other NRC comments and questions.
8 The Department is pleased with the thoroughness of 9
the NRC review.
Such a review is what we sought when the site 10 characterization plan was issued in a consultation draft form.
11 DOE plans to address and resolve the NRC objections as s
12 appropriate during the consultation period, prior to the 13 release ofJthe ntatutory plan.
DOE will also address NRC 14 concerns te the extent possible, prior to the release of the 15 statutory SCP.
We are planning to meet with the NRC staff 16 later this summer to discuss the proposed disposition of NRC 17 comments contained in the NRC Point Paper.
18 We ale currently planning to issue the SCP formerly, 19 as required by the Nuclear Weste Policy Act, oy the end of this By ha>ing frovided an opportunity for input from the NRC 20 year.
f 21 and the State of,Uevada, we believe that we will have fully considered the v!.ews of the parties tf: ensure-a high quality r
22 23 statutory site characterization plan.. Start up of the 24 exploratory shaft facility is now scheduled for June of 1989.
(
25 Recently, our staff attended an ARCS, soon to be
9 1
Advisory Committee for Nuclear Waste meeting, and offered to 2
review the logic and contents of the consultation draft.
We 3
underNtand the NRC staff is now making arrangements for this f_
4 presentation to take place.
In addition, we are planning upon 5
release of the statutory plan at the staff suggestion, to brief 6
the Advisory Committee en Nuclear Waste of any differences from 7
the consultation draft.
8
'The Amendments Act and other Congressional actions 9
have created new opportunities for the Office of Civilian 10 Radioactive Waste Management to maximize the contributions of 11 an MRS facility to the overall waste management system.
Wa 12 need to put in place not just a mined geologic repository, but 13 a complete operational system that will actively manage the 14 safe and efficient storage,.the transportation and packaging of f
15 waste over a 50 year period, in addition to providing the 16 ultimate permanent isolation of these waste in a geologic 17 repository, as I said.
i 18 Tae role of an MRS in the waste management system may 19 change as a result of several activities, including the 20 recommendations of the MRS Review Commission, the actions of 21 the negotiator, several ongoing system studies including the
'~
22 use of dry storage technology studies at reactor sites and 23 other Congressional actions.
To accommodate these 24 uncertainties, we are in the process of developing a near term,
25 strategy that will allow optimization as a continuing process
{
10
.s s
a 1
and does not detract of our ultimate goal of permanent 2
isolction.
3 In accordance with the Amendments Act, OCRWM is 4
preparing a report on the use of dry casks storage at reactor 5
sites.
The study'will assess the utility industry's spent 6
nuclear fuel storage needs through the start of operation of 7
the geologic repository.
An initial version of this report is 8
scheduled for release later this summer.
9 We view the development of transportation 10 capabilities as an essential element of the waste management 11 system.
runately, we are able to build on a long history of 12 safe shipping experience and a comprehensive system of Federal 13 regulation and international standards.
Because the schedule 14 for the transportation program is linked to the schedule for 15 the development and operation of the waste disposal and storage 16 facilities we have both an opportunity and the time to refine 17 and improve shipping, equipment and procedures and to 18 coordinate transportation planning with other Federal 19 industries, states, Indian tribes and other interested parties.
20 As you know, the Department and the NRC have 21 established a procedural agreement on the certification of e
22 transportation casks.
Under this agreement, as well as under 23 the Amendments Act of December, all cask designs that will be 24 used under the NWPA shipping will be certified by the 25 Commission, including casks designed for defense and commercial
{
11 1
high level waste.
2 In addition, DOE will comply with the NRC shipment 3
pre-notification procedures when shipping waste to NWPA i
4 disposal and storage facilities.
I mention these constructive 5
actions which were taken prior to the recent Congressional 6
directives in December, to indicate our past the continuing 7
commitment to work with the NRC to address technical issues 8
affecting high level waste transportation.
9 I would now like to turn to action items relating to 10 key aspects of the NRC/ DOE pre-licensing consultation program.
11 The Amendments Act reduction of the number of sites to be 12 characterized from three to one will allow more technical 13 interactions to take place on that one site between DOE and NRC 14 staff.
That process is well underway, and I will now discuss 15 in terms of our completed and planned joint consultations and 16 some important subjects of those consultations.
17 In addition to the consultationc on the consultation 18 draft of the site characterization plan, we have also had other
~
19 interaction such as the recent DOE /NRC site visit to observe 20 the USGS Southern Great Basin Seismic Monitoring Network.
I 21 mention this joint site visit as an example, because of the 22 various participating organizations and the dual purpose it 23 served.
24 The prime purpose was to provide the Commission and 25 the State of Nevada with an opportunity to observe and learn
12 1
more about the equipment and procedures associated with 2
monitoring seismicity in the region surrounding the proposed 3
repository at Yucca Mountain.
In addition, the site visit 4
provided information in preparation for audits of the network 5
which will be conducted following adoption of a formal quality 6
assurance program.
7 In addition to the meetings mentioned above, we have 8
completed a useful five day workshop on alternative conceptual 9
models, a quality assurance meeting, and NRC staff has attended 10 the TPO or Technical Project Office meetings of our contractors 11 in Nevada and they have observed DOE audits of our contractors.
12 Clearly, the value of consultation is accepted and 13 recognized by the Department.
We see as a priority, near term 14 consultation on the topics of quality assurance, the 15 exploratory shaft location, design and construction, 16 clarification of some definitions in 10 CFR 60, determination 17 of methodology of calculating groundwater travel time, and 18 seismicity characterization methodology.
19 In the third quarterly progress report to the 20 Commissioner by the NRC staff, the staff identified repository 21 design parameters as an action item that covers a key aspect of e
22 the NRC/ DOE pre-licensing consultation program.
The NRC and 23 DOE have agreed that in developing the site characterization 24 program, DOE will use performance allocation.
\\
25 In the words of the NRC staff, "DOE will select
13 1
tentative values for the contributions that each of the natural 2
and engineered barriers can reasonably be expected to provide 3
to the overall waste isolation performance of the site.
Such 4
allocation is the rationale for establishing specifically what 5
information site characterization will have to produce."
6 It should be emphasized that these tentative values 7
are simply guides for developing a testing program and designs.
8 As data is obtained and the site characterization program 9
matures, these values may change.
10 The NRC Position Point Paper and regular interactions 11
,between the Commission and DOE staff are important vehicles for 12 assessing how well DOE is implementing performance allocation.
13 As the program matures, changes in our parameters will be 14 reported in our semi-annual progress reports.
While there may 15 be some technical differences, I believe that the performance 16 allocation process for guiding the site characterization 17 program is currently proceeding well.
18 With respect to alternative conceptual models for the 19 Yucca Mountain site,,the DOE concurr with the NRC staff 20 concerns and understands the basis for the objection.
The DOE 21 and NRC agreed to an approach to adequately address the r~
22 concerns and to rescind the objection, and the DOE is currently 4
23 implementing that approach in its revision to the site 24 characterization plan consultation draft.
Key elements in i$plementing the approach include a 25
14 1
fuller discussion of the various alter' native conceptual models 2
that can be supported by the existing site information, 3
alternative conceptual models that were considered but 4
discarded as not applicable, the significance of each 5
alternative conceptual model on each of the ologies, designs of 6
the repository and waste package and subsystem performance 7
objectives, testing to discriminate between the alternative 8
conceptual models during the site characterization process, a 9
scheduling of testing particularly to avoid both potential 10 interference between plant tests and preclusion of subsequent 11 tests that may be needed to support licensing.
12 Issue resolution is a key purpose of site 13 characterization in order to demonstrate compliance with the 14 applicable Federal regulations.
We concur with NRC that a 15 major goal of the high level repository program is to ensure 16 that to the extent practicable, resolution of licensing issues 17 prior to licensing hearing should be achieved.
18 To achieve that goal, we are developing a process of r
19 interactions with the NRC staff that should lead to the early 20 resolution of issues.
This process includes the development of 21 position papers for review with the staff, followed by reports 22 that will consider the issue in greater depth, and possibly if 23 warranted, rulemaking.
As I noted, we are developing this 24 proposed process now and will be discussing the approach with 25 the staff prior to recommending its adoption to the Commission.
15 1
As you know, the automated data system, the licensing 2
support system being developed by OCRWM to support the 3
requirements for all parties in the repository licensing 4
process will be based on a detailed set of system 5
specifications.
These specifications will be derived from 6
statutory, programmatic and user requirements.
Some of tbase 7
requirements are being defined through the efforts of the 8
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee that was convened by 9
the Commission.
10 Because of the importance and magnitude of the 11 Licensing Support System, the OMB has made the development of 12 the LSS a top priority within the Executive Branch.
13 I am hopeful that we will be able to facilitate the 14 discovery process and the review of relevant licensing 15 information for licensing proceedings.
Establishment of the 16 information base for the licensing proceedings before the
~
17 licensing applications are submitted will make it possible for 18 the Commission to meet the statutory three year application 19 review period.
20 I might note that I believe the licensing support 21 system is a tool that is new to the formal licensing process.
22 It provides real opportunities for enhancing the process.
- But, 23 on the other hand, the licensing support system also offer 24 opportunities just as real to hinder the licensing process.
25 I am pleased to note the considerable progress made
1 16 1
by the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
The 2
participants have worked hard and cooperatively to reach a 3
consensus on some very important issues.
I am hopeful that the 4
work of the Committee will result in a product that we all can 5
live and work with.
We welcome and look forward to continuing 6
interactions with the Commission, the State of Nevada and other 7
appropriate groups.
8 Further, as we reach consensus on the LSS rule, we 9
should also consider the possibility of other changes to the 10 procedural rules that might enhance the licensing process also.
11 Policy guidance for the quality assurance program is 12 provided by the Director of OCRWM, a responsibility that I take 13 with the utmost of seriousness.
To emphasize the importance of 14 managing for quality, OCRWM has, as I mentioned earlier, 15 established an office of quality assurance to be managed by a 16 director who reports directly to the director of the program.
17 Current goals for this new office are to establish a 18 qualified QA program by January 1 of 1989, to secure approval 19 of the OCRWM QA program by the NRC, and achieve a favorable 20 review of the QA program by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 21 Board when it becomes operative.
22 To do this, QA program documents are being modified 23 as needed, required procedures are being identified and 24 prepared, and efforts are underway to resolve outstanding 25 issues at both Headquarters and our Nevada office and the NRC.
17 1
Other actions include establishing an audit surveillance 2
schedule, implementing verification activities and management 3
reviews of recommended improvements.
4 DOE has worked cooperatively with the State of Nevada S
in many forums.
For example, State Representatives have 6
attended the project office monthly technical project managers 7
or TPO meetings, arrangements were made for the contractors to 8
tour the Yucca Mountain site, a protocol has been established 9
for their access as appropriate to the Nevada Test Site, and 10 office space near the Yucca Mountain site has been offered to 11 the State scientists.
12 The DOE has also participated with the State's Local 13 Government Advisory Group, the Nevada Commission on Nuclear J
14 Projects, and the Nevada Legislative Committee on High-Level 15 Radioactive Waste in many meetings and workshops and has 16 attended meetings with the Nye County Commission.
17 And of particular importance, the State attends all 18 NRC/ DOE technical meetings.
The DOE remains committed to 19 maintain 1ng positive, cooperative interactions with the State 20 of Nevada and appropriate local governments.
The Department i
21 continues to hold open its door to the State of Nevada to begin 22 consultation and cooperation negotiations under the Nuclear 23 Waste Policy Act.
l(
24 The DOE reaffirms the general policy goals and 25 attentions that were laid out in the original mission plan of
{
4
18 1
1985.
The Amendments Act of December authorizes the Department 2
to enter into benefits agreements with the State of Nevada 3
concerning a repository.
And on April 6 of this year, 4
Secretary Herrington informed Governor Bryan of Nevada, that 5
the Department is prepared to. enter into these negotiations 6
with Nevada on the development' of a benefits agreement.
7 The DOE intends to ensure that the State of Nevada 8
and effective units of local government are adequately funded 9
so that they may fully and effectively participate in the 10 program.
The DOE will work closely with representatives of the 11 State of Nevada and local governments in establishing 12 appropriate mechanisms for the efficient processing of grant 13 applications.
14 On April 21, in response to a request from the Board 15 of County Commissioners of Clark County which is contigueus 16 with Nye County, Clark County requested affected unit of local 17 government status.
This will facilitate -- the Department 18 granted the request from Clark County as an affected unit of 19 local government.
20 This will facilitate, I believe, Clark County's 21 active participation in the development of an acceptable r-22 repository site.
Last week the Department received from 23 Lincoln County, which is a contiguous county with Nye County, a 24 request that they be designated as an affected unit of local 25 government.
I met with the Mayor and several other officials O
19 1
of Lincoln County just pr'ior to coming to this meeting.
2 In conclusion, I hope that my discussion of program 3
highlights and areas of joint and special concerns has 4
demonstrated that DOE will conduct a site characterization 5
program so as to assure sound management, efficient use of 6
resources, and above all the successful demonstration of 7
regulatory compliance.
Our approach will be determined, 8
realistic, and credible.
9 In the past, there has been a tendency to view the 10 assurance of safety as a purely technical question.
The NWPA 11 as amended, tells us that the affected public and its public 12 representatives no longer accept that view.
We accept this 13 more enlightened view.
14 We fully expect that the NRC will be very demanding 15 of the DOE program in order to develop the confidence and 16 reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be 17 protected.
We believe that a technically competent and astute 18 regulator is in the program's best interest, and we have and 19 will foster a healthy relationship of mutual respect with the 20 Commission and its staff so that useful and constructive 21 technical and policy exchanges can take place.
22 That concludes the formal presentation, Mr. Chairman.
23 We will be happy to respond to any questions that you or the l(
24 Commissioners may have, r
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much, we appreciate
~
20 1
that.
Questions of my fellow Commissioners? dommissioner 2
Roberts?
3 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
What is the status of the 4
Monitored Retrievable Storage Commission?
5 MR. KAY:
The Monitored Retrievable Storage 6
Commission, all of the members have not been appointed.
If 7
what I am told is true, we should expect the reappointment of 8
the third Commissioner sometime this week.
9 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Who makes that appointment?
10 MR. KAY:
The appointment comes from consensus by the 11 Speaxer of the House and the President Pro Tem -- excuse me.
12 The Majority Leader in the Senate, so it comes from the 13 Legislative Branch.
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Once the Commission is 15 constituted, do they have a timetable for making their 16 recommendations?
17 MR. KAY:
Yes, sir.
They are required to submit a 18 report to Congress in June of next year.
That anticipated that 19 the Commission would also have been appointed, I believe, about 20 30 or 60 days after the Amendments Act was passed.
21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Who is the negotiator?
22 MR.,KAY:
The negotiator has not yet been named, sir.
l 23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
How is that named?
24 MR. KAY:
That is named by the President.
The 25 President will be the person who names the negotiator.
21
~
1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
And that has not occurre'd?
MR. KAY:
No, sir; it has not.
2 3
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
That's all I have.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Bernthal?
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
First, let me apologize, Mr.
6 Kay.
I have'found that our new location very often makes'it 7
impossible to get everything done in two locations in the City.
8 I guess we are not in the City anymore.
9 I do have a couple of things that I wanted to ask 10 here today, and I hope that I am not asking you to repeat what 11 you have already said.
12 MR. KAY:
I would be happy to.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
One of the things that you 14 touched on, in fact shortly after I walked in, was the question 15 of quality assurance.
As you know, the recent experience of 16 one of our largest utilities with respect to the NRC's quality 17 assurance requirements and in particular with respect to i
18 documentation of that utility's having those requirements, 19 turned out to be a major stumbling block to say the least in 20 the Tennessee Valley's continuing operation of its power 21 plants.
r' 22 You mentioned that you have retained a firm to assist 23 you with that element, but maybe you could speak a little bit 24 more to the progress you'have made and how well you see 25 yourselves as being aware of and able to implement adequate
22 r
1 documentation procedures in particular, because that's one of 2
the things the NRC has to rely on.
3 MR. KAY:
Let me first say, Commissioner Bernthal, 4
that the activities of the High-Level Waste Program are 5
extremely intense, important and costly.
I think that it is 6
incumbent upon **he program to develop a QA program that has met 7
the approval of the NRC before we get into more site specific 8
or new work with regard to the site characterization activities 9
in Nevada.
10 We have had very explicit communication with Mr.
11 Thompson and his staff in this regard.
I believe we have made 12 some very real progress, both at Headquarters and with the 13 Project Office in Nevada in the development of QA plans and 14 programs.
We hope to very shortly be able to submit the plan 15 for the Nevada Project Office to the Commission for their 16 review.
This, of course, will be followed up by plans and 17 implementing procedures for the technical project offices in 18 Los Alamos, Livermore, the USGS, the contractors for the 19 program.
20 I feel very strongly that we must have these in place 21 before we go forward with the exploratory shaft particularly.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I agree and couldn't agree 23 more.
I am pleased to hear that.
I would just urge -- I know
(
24 that you are going to do this, Ed, but I would urge that you 25 pay special attention to that occasionally neglected, at least
23 1
in the history of this Agency, element of our regulatory 2
requirements, g_ '
3 It's not going to be good enough in this business to 4
do the job right.
You are going to have to be able to show 5
that you did it right.
And then, of course, it is very 6
important that the public sees you as having done it right when 7
it is all finished.
And quality assurance, I think in many 8
respects, is the key to that.
9 MR. KAY:
If I could address one more issue that the 10 Chairman raised in his opening statement, and that's about the 11 reorganization.
I know there's been some concern that everyone 12 in our organization is on an acting status right now.
I don't 13 expect my acting status to change.
I am the Deputy Director of 14 the program, and I have been told to expect to remain in the 15 position as Acting Director as well as Deputy Director for the 16 remainder of the Administration.
17 With regard to the associate direct' ors, the paperwork 18 is in and we are not an excepted service agency.
We have to go 19 through some other steps.
We hope to very soon have these 20 approved formally by the Executive Personnel Board.
On the 21 Director of the Office of Quality Assurance, this is a new 22 senior executive service position to the Department.
I have
^
23 been told by the Director of Administration it has the number 24 one priority in the Department to try to get this approval i'
25 through all the hoops it has to go through, not only in the
1 I
24 r-1 Department but outside the Department.
2 So, there is some commitment within the Department to 3
be able to get the acting titles off of things, particularly on g
4 the quality assurance.
I feel very fortunate to have Pierre 5
Saget acting in that position right now.
I feel very 6
unfortunate that he will not commit to me on a full-time basis 7
for this.
So, I will have to advertise for that position once 8
it is approved by the Department and OPM for a new SES 9
employee.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I sympathize with your 11 circumstances.
I guess acting isn't exactly like being lame 12 duck, but it probably has certain similarities.
I can relate 13 to that.
14 MR. KAY:
I am held responsible, no matter what.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Right.
One other question I 16 had was with respect to your relationship with the new Advisory 17 Committee on Nuclear Waste in this Agency.
As you know, the 18 Commission has recently established a separate Advisory 19 Committee in the tradition of the ACRS, which we call the 20 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
We have two or maybe the 21 Chairman will correct me, I guess we aren't at three yet.
I
(~
22 guess we have two outstanding individuals that are already 23 committed to serve on that small committee.
(
Have you set up a plan or mechanism, and more 24 25 importantly a person, that will establish a communications link
25 1
between DOE's efforts and this independent Advisory Group that 2
will also report to the commission?
3 MR. KAY:
We have established a person that will be 4
the primary interface with the NRC staff and other mechanisms.
5 That will come out of Mr. Stein's office, the Office of, Systems 6
Integration and Regulation.
7 We do have a schedule.
We are, right now, in the 8
process of developing with the staff a time that we can come in 9
and brief the ACNW more on the consultation draft.
We plan to, 10 when we put the statutory SCP out, to come in and brief him on 11 what changes have taken place from the consultation draft to 12 the statutory version.
13 We look forward to a continuing relationship with the 14 Advisory Committee.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Good.
I think that will be 16 very important.
That's all I have right now, Mr. Chairman, 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
16 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Yes, I have some questions.
Your 19 plan, your Mission Plan when you first put it out -- not you, 20 but wherever it first came from -- the next time it came by it 21 had a five year slip and a two year revision.
We are waiting 22 for the second revision now.
'~
23 How do we stand on it and what does the schedule look 24 lika?
25 MR. KAY:
It is very optimistic, but we plan to hold
26 1
to the 2003 schedule, sir.
2 COMMISSIONER CARR:
When will we see the Mission plan 3
for comment?
4 MR. KAY:
I can't give you a firm answer on that, as 5
that's under discussion within the Department.
The Department 6
staff Will put it out for review.
7 COMMISSIONER CARR:
So we probably won't see it this 8
month like we expected?
9 MR. KAY:
N o ', sir.
10 COMMISSIONER CARR:
According to my notes, we were 11 supposed to have a May meeting to resolve some open items in 12 the QA area.
How does that stand?
13 MR. KAY:
We hope to be able to -- we had hoped to 14 last week, be able to submit the Nevada Quality Assurance Plan.
15 Later this week I think we may be able to do that.
We are 16 running a few days behind on that.
I think the latter part of 17 May, we should still be able to have that meeting, if I'm not 18 mistaken.
19 MR. SAGET:
I don't know if it will be the latter 20 part of May or the early part of June.
It will probably be a 21 safer bet for that one.
r' 22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
How many bid +srs do you have for 23 your M&O Contract?
24 MR. KAY:
I'm not allowed to say that, sir.
<\\..
25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Very well.
There's a schedule
27 1
for your DOE contractor QA plan submittal.
He's going to put 2
out a QA plan, too, or is that a different contractor?
3 MR. SAGET:
That contractor, the M&O contractor, will 4
probably do it.
5 COMMISSIONER CARR:
So that's the guy we have to wait 6
on to get his QA plan?
7 MR. SAGET:
That's correct.
But in the meantime, we 8
are already putting out QA plans for Headquarters and also the 9
project office QA plans.
10 COMMISSIONER CARR:
When you said your 2003 date you 11 are going to hold to, do you think that's an achievable 12 schedule?
I would much rather see a realistic one that we can 13
' work toward than an optimistic one that everybody knows we are 14 not going to meet.
How much confidence do you have in your 15 plan?
16 MR. KAY:
I think it is achievable.
I think it's 17 optimistic, but achievable.
I think we have to set out 18 milestones and goals and attempt to reach them.
19 COMMISSIONER CARR:
And the budget will support that, 20 you think?
21 MR. KAY:
Yes, sir, r'
22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I have one more question.
What 23 are you waiting on us for, and are we holding you up anywhere?
24 MR. KAY:
I think we have had very good interaction, 25 sir, with the NRC staff.
We have been getting I think, good
28 1
guidance from the staff and their interactions with you I think 2
have facilitated that.
I think there are going to be 3
continuing times when we would like to expedite the schedule 4
but it's going to take much time and discussion to resolve 5
issues.
6 I think to come to a good resolution of the issues is 7
much more important than trying to press it too quickly 8
sometimes.
9 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I'm not sure that you answered my 10 question.
You are not waiting on us for anything?
11 MR. KAY:
No, sir.
Ne are not waiting on you.
You 12 are probably waiting on us for the QA piece right now 13 primarily.
14 COMMISSIONER CARR:
That's a better position for us 15 to be in.
Thank you.
That's all I have.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes, just to pick up on a point 18 that commissioner Bernthal made that not only does this process 19 have to be'done well, it has to be seen to have been done well.
20 Just a general comment, and that is that Nhile I fully agree i
21 that licensing issues really should be resolved prior to the
(~
22 licensing hearing, I think that it is very important that great 23 care and attention be made along the way and probably at the i
- \\~
hearing itself to illustrate the differences that have arisen 24
{
j 25 and how those differences got resolved so that it does not seem L
j
l 29 7-1 to appear at the hearing that there are no differences, that 2
there never have been any differences and that it is really a 3
very, very cut and dried proposition.
4 I am sure that there are differences, that you will
{
5 work them out, and that there will be many times when there 6
will be great thrashing about in coming to a resolution.
That 7
really should all take place prior to the hearing.
8 But then if the hearing looks as if it is a very 9
perfunctory business, the public's perception is or those that
?U describe the events to the public, tend to characterize it as t,1 just a very cozy relationship that has not had any strong i
12 oversight from the NRC on the process.
13 I am concerned about that perception, and I think 14 that it is important that care be taken to document and 15 illustrate in connection with the ultimate licensing hearing, 16 that it has been an arduous process that has been gone through; 17 that every professional difference has been aired and explored i
18 and resolved; and that there have been such events during the
)
j 19 course of events.
20 It's really a question of just following through on j
21 this point, that if the public is going to be catisfied that a 22 thorough job is done then they have to see the full, in a 23 sense, to have been exposed to what really did happen rather I
24 than a licensing hearing which goes through very smoothly as it
\\..
25
- should, r
i t
30 1
MR. KAY:
If I could just briefly respond, 2
Commissioner Rogers.
I don't mean to sound flip about this, 3
but I think that we live in such a glass house and it's such an 4
open process that throughout the proceedings of this program 5
and the interactions between the Commission, the State and the 6
Department and other interested parties, that it is going to be 7
very evident that this type of exchange and differences are 8
discussed and then --
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
If I can differ on that, 10 because these things take a long time.
It is amazingly short 11 how short people's memories are.
Even though you have gone 12 through all that process and it's all been exposed along the 13 way, but then if the hearing goes through in a very smooth way 14 it can easily be characterized as something that did not go 15 that way at all.
16 I think that one has to just pay attention to that.
17 I don't think we can rely on the actual history.
We have to 1
18 tell the world exactly at every stage of the game, including 1
19 the final hearing.
)
20 MR. KAY:
I guess I feel that this is one of a type 21 facility that we are building is so unique that I don't think i
(~
22 the memories will be that short.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
In other words, if you are 24 going ' o have a fight, Ed, do it in public.
25 MR. KAY:
Yes.
I don't think that we will do
i 31
~
1 anyth'ing in private.
7 2
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It isn't so much that.
It's 3
just that it is so eacy to forget how detailed these studies 4
and differences are that have to be resolved before a hearing.
i 5
And then when the hearing goes through smoothly, it very often 6
is forgotten that that's the process that led to that being a 7
smooth event.
8 The other point is on the LSS.
You do mention the 9
LSS Rule.
Is that just the requirement that there be a 10 detailed set of specific system specifications?
What do you 11 mean by the LSS Rule?
12 MR. KAY:
The License for System Rule which is being 13 conducted by the Commission, the Commission is chairing the 14 effort, the negotiated rulemaking.
It lays out the actual 15 parameters that will be used, the basic parameters for it, who 16 will be operating the system.
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It is a specification really?
18 MR. KAY:
Yes, sir.
It doesn't specify everything,
'19 but it specifies the major parameters, yes, sir.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Right.
Now, what are the major 21 issues there?
Is there a disagreement of any kind?
Are there f
any significant differences?
22 23 MR. KAY:
I am not aware of any disagreements at this 24 time.
I think that the NRC staff, the DOE staff, the State of k
1 25 Nevada and other people, the industry that have been involved
32 1
in it have worked very hard.
I think that'there still may be 2
some philosophical differences, how well it will work, how long 3
it will take, what improvements it will make to the licensing 4
process.
5 As I stated, I think in my statement, I sincerely 6
believe that the licensing support system can provide some real 7
good forward measures for the licensing proceeding.
But then 8
too, it stands to hinder the licensing proceeding too, because 9
objections can be raised by intervenors at some point.
And 10 when you go through a very formal process like this, I think 11 you can lengthen the process sometimes.
12 This is the first time such a system has been used in 13 a licensing proceeding.
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
It is terribly important 15 that there be commonality throughout all aspects of this 16 compatibility and commonality of databases and the information.
17 MR. KAY:
Yes, sir.
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I would hope that any questions 19 about those things would all be ironed very early on, before an 20 enormous mass of information is accumulated that is not readily 21 accessible by all interested parties.
'~
22 Thank you, sir.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Does the DOE intend to meet the 24 milestones that you have discussed here very briefly today,
.t 25 those milestones particularly that require NRC concurrence or
t 33 1
comment? 'How do you view that?
i 2
I believe you answered that you thought it was 1
3 feasible and all.
I guess my concerns is that for example, you l
4 are developing I understand, over 100 study plans associated 5
with the Yucca Mountain site.
My concern on that would be, 6
will we receive those documents -- I think the time schedule we-7 are looking for is somewhere near the end of the year.
8 In other words, will we receive those documents and f
9 other comments that we are required to make in time for the 10 staff to give them the review that I know is going to take 11 time?
i 12 MR. KAY:
Mr. Stein and Mr. Bernie, I will let Ralph i
13 address this more directly.
They are working, I think, to 14 develop a schedule so that the NRC receives these in a timely 15 way, not all at once, but on a schedule.
[
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Perhaps you can address that.
Thank 17 you.
18 MR. STEIN:
We have sent over to the NRC a schedule 19 for the next 18 months on the release of study plans.
Our 20 current plan is t; release on the order of about five study f
3 21 plans in the near term.
These are important study plans that f
22 we think go to the types of site characterization that we think 23 we ought to start now even before the exploratory shaft i
24 proceeds.
25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Can I ask if that's geologic near
{
34 I
1 term or is it something that I can relate to?
2 MR. STEIN:
Geologic near term.
In addition to that, 3
earlier -- actually in May of 1986, we identified those study 4
plans that would need to be released as part of the release of 5
a statutory SEP, that the staff would want to look at 6
concurrently, both for near term and work that would start 7
within the next six months to a year.
8 We count, at the present time -- and I would 9
appreciate not being held to this number -- 26 study plans that 10 we plan to release.
We could count as many as 40.
We are on a 11 track to release those etudy plans to the NRC in a period of 12 the next year to 18 months, and they will support the issuance 13 of the statutory SEP.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
The milestones are in.portant 15 and the timing is important, of course, but also*we are in a 16 new field, a unique field and the quality of our product is 17 what is really important.
So, we need the time, our staff 18 needs the time, of course, to review carefully and thoroughly 19 the important issues before them.
I hope that you will do your 20 best to meet those milestones so that we can also have the time 21 to do our job thoroughly.
r-22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Can I piggyback on that?
When do 23 you think we will see those first five that you are talking 24 about?
s 25 MR. STEIN:
The first one should be released within
35 1
the next -- within a matter of a week or two.
The others, 2
hopefully, within the next two to four months.
l 3
COMMISSIONER CARR:
Thank you.
l 4
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I hope that you will get those to us 5
When you are satisfied so that we can get on them as soo,n as 6
possible.
Concerning Part 60, what areas of Part 60 do you see 7
needing additional clarification in order that you can proceed 8
and develop your own program?
9 MR. KAY:
There are several areas, I think Mr.
10 Chairman, that have been under discussion between our statf and 11 the staff of NRC anticipated, unanticipated events, containment 12 and design basis -- assessnent limit, actually the dose limit.
13 We have had these items under discussion with the 14 Commission, and we think that we may need further discussion 15 and perhaps rulemaking to help refine this, 16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
1 think you are right.
We have the 17 same concern here.
I hope those discussions will continue and 18 we will get on with those decisions, if it looks like decisions 19 are necessary in that regard as soon as possible.
20 I guess what concerns me as much as anything too, we 21 are talking dates in the future.
It sounds like it's a far way i
/~
22 off, but in my judgment it is not and the time is now to make 23 these decisions and to make the plans.
In other words, a 4
24 strong plan so that we can start executing is so important.
i i I think that it is important that Part 60 be looked 25 i
i 1
wi 36 1
at very carefully to see if decisions need to be made, and if 2
they need to be made, let's discuss them.
Some of those 3
decisions, as far:as I can understand, will very likely take 4
time too.
So, we should make those decisions and plans as soon 5
as possible.
6 You mentioned the NRC objections, comments and 7
questions that we have given you.
Do you see, in your review 8
so far, do you see any real significant problems in answering 9
the concerns that we have?
In other words, do you see anything 10 that perhaps could be si very,significant impediment to 11 proceeding, or do you think the problems that we have given to 12 you can be resolved in an adequate manner?
13 MR. KAY:
I believe from what I am told,. hat the 14 issues can be resolved in a compatib?.o manner.
That floorn't 15 necessarily mean that we are going to 100 percent agroo with 16 the staff.
We have concurred with some of the comments of the 17 staff.
He are taking the opportunity to further discuss with 18 the staff our position and to further understand the position 19 of the staf'.
20 Also, I would like to leave this to both Mr. Kale and 21 Mr. Stein to comment on too, so that they may have an 22 opportunity to answer.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Please do.
24 MR. K3LE:
There are some very significant issues 25 which we think, based on our discussions with the staff,
37 1
following discussions with the staff, that we have a good 2
indication from them as to what their requirements are and 3
their parameters are.
4 Certainly, the objection that was raised on quality 5
assurance is a very serious one and will require a lot of hard 6
work to implement and bring us up to the point where.we can 7
have the program in place by the end of the year.
We know the 8
need to do that, and we think we know how to get there.
It 9
will be an enormous amount of work for us to do, but it is 10 necessary and we will do it.
11 We havs spent a lot of time in the. discussions on the 12 alternate conceptual models.
We think we know what to do, th-2 13 corrections we need to make, and the additions we will make to 14 the site characterization plan.
Again, I think we can do these 15 things that will satisfy their domments and their questions.
16 We have to have some more discussions with them on 17 design issues related to the ' exploratory shaft facility, and to 18 further understand the comments they have made and we plan to 19 do that during the summer and make whatever additions we need 20 to make to the site characterization plan.
21 So, there are some significant issues but we are 22 exploring them.
I am hopeful that we will be able to make 23 whatever adjustments we need to the SCP.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank,you.
Any other comments?
25 MR. STEIN:
I think that I would answer your question
38 i
f-1 by saying that I don't envision any impediment to our moving 2
ahead from the staff towards the start of the exploratory shaft 3
next summer.
I believe that Mr. Kale is correct in his 4
assessment of those issues.
And I think that some of the areas 5
that Mr. Kay talk,ed about, particularly on questions on 6
substantially complete containment, anticipated and 7
unanticipated or groundwater travel time, these are very 8
important matters that need to be addressed.
9 They don't serve, at least in my view, as an 10 impediment for starting the characterization of the site.
I 11 think that they do need, and I agree with you completely, that 12 they do need to get reco1ved in the near term rather than 13 letting those matters just drag on for a much longer time in 14 the future.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
Let me mention also the 16 emphasis on quality assurance, the importance I think the 17 Commission and the staff pay to this particular issue.
Quality 18 assurance -- and I am pleased that you have the bill filled 19 now.
I think that's very important, and I hope you can develop 20 your program rapidly.
Quality assurance, having it in place as 21 soon as possible and having it up to speed as soon as possible,
,r-22 I think is going to give all of us a degree of confidence that 23 is extremely important.
24 The Commission is interested in the development of 25 the licensing support system.
I guess my question here would
39 i
be, had DOE in your judgment, allocated sufficient resources to g
2 cover the development and operation of this system?
~.
3 MR. KAY:
I believe we have, sir.
The system is g,
4 evolving with the Advisory Committee.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It is a significant undertaking 6
though, a rather enormous project.
I am just concerned that 7
you feel that you have the resources applied to it that you 8
need.
9 MR. KAY:
I think we do now have sufficient resources 10 for the stata of development that we are in.
It is going to 11 require, I thirk from the Commission, as the system becomes 12 operational -
in the operating of the system with the DOE, 13 with the State of Nevada and other interested parties.
It is 14 going to be a joint effort in making the system itself operate.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It's going to be a great value, of 16 course, to the whole project and to all of us, I agree with 17 that.
The status we are in right now, of course, is still kind 18 of making sure that we have asked the right questions and we 19 are trying to put our arms around the big problem and make the 20 plans accordingly.
21 So, I hope that DOE will continue the close r'
22 relationship that you have with the staff and the Commission so 23 that any perhaps new problems that you see or any new questions 24 that we may not have addressed yet do get laid on the table 25 just as soon as possible.
We will quickly be in the stage
40 1
where we are doing a lot of execution of the plans that we have 2
la'd in the past and arc still laying now.
3 So, while we are still laying the plans and asking 4
the questions and defining the problems, let's make sure that 5
we have done that as well as we can.
I would ask you to make 6
sure, as the one with the mandate from Congress to put this 7
repository in place, that you just ensure that you have to the 8
best of your ability, defined the problems and asked the 9
questions and laid the key issues on the table.
10 MR. KAY:
If I could, this partially responds to 11 Commissioner Carr's statement and question, too.
When we 12 developed the site characterization consultation draft, I feel 13 that the Commission staff was just very responsive in wanting 14 to know what our time schedule was, and they laid out a 15 schedule for review.
As you know, and I think a very 16 optimistic schedule, gave us draft comments and now as of the 17 last week -- I guess it was last week -- gave us the formal 18 comments (n the site characterization consultation draft.
19 I feel that was very responsible on the part of Mr.
20 Thompson and his staff to develop a schedule to give us these 21 comments.
I think in the sense that we are very close, I 22 believe, to signing an agreement by which we will provide the 23 funding back to the Commission for the activities of the 24 Commission, I think that's very important because it allows you s
25 to do your resource planning.
41 l
1 It has take, some negotiation between your staff and 2
our staff to come to this, but I think we have come to a good 3
resolution of this and I expect within the next week or so to 4
be able to sign this.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECil:
Good.
On the same line, where we are 6
still making sure that we have looked at the whole issue 7
carefully, again, I will just make a last reference to the 8
areas of Part 60 that you think need to be looked into and 9
provide additional clarification and so forth becausa I know 10 that our people are looking at that also, but I hope that you 11 will do the same so that we can make sure if there are any 12 initiatives that we should be starting that we look at them 13 carefully and get those actions underway.
14 Are there any other questions?
Commissioner 15 Bernthal?
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
One item.
We had a briefing 17 here recently by our own staff and I recall that the question 18 of sinking shafts came up; the size of the shaft, how big the 19 shaft had to be in diameter to do, perhaps depth as well as to 20 do what you need to do.
21 Related to that then, the ability of DOE after the
(-
22 shaft sinking process including any separate effort I gather 23 that the State of Nevada may want to undertake.
The ability of ll 24 DOE then to assure the integrity of that shaft against vertical
'\\
25 migration of ground water.
a l
42 y-1 Has that issue been substantially resolved at this 2
point or where are we?
3 MR. KAY:
You go ahead, Ralph.
4 MR. STEIN:
I hope that we will resolve the issue 5
soon.
We are trying to establish a meeting with the staff 6
sometime early to middle of June to cover that item 7
specifically.
The staff has raised a number of concerns 8
relative to the location of the shaft and the constructability 9
of the shaft.
10 We are prepared to discuss it to the extent that we 11 can.
There is still data that is being developed that
.hink
.a 12 that we can support our present design satisfactorily.
13 Hopefully after that meeting, we will have a resolution with 14 the staff.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Good.
I would hope that we 16 are somewhat cautious a*. this point.
It may be worth spending 17 a few weeks to make sure that there are not r,0rious questions 18 raised later on that could jeopardize the whole project.
I 19 have no reason personally at this point to think that's not a 20 resolvable question and problem, but we ought to make sure that 21 it is clearly resolved in the eyes of all of those with an e'
22 interest.
23 One other quick one.
I guess I ask this almost every 24 time that DOE comos over here, Ed.
It reflects a personal 25 interest of mine that I have taken in this Agency over the
43 1
years.
What about your data handling system at this point, 2
document handling system?
You were in the lead of a rather 3
innovative system and proposal initially that would have used 4
optical disk and associated equipment.
5 Is that still going to happen and are you still in 6
the lead, and is this Agency learning from you in that effort?
7 MR. KAY:
Commissioner Bernthal, this is the 8
licensing support system which we were discussing.
We now have 9
the.9egotiated rulemaking which is taking place under the 10 leadership of the Commission.
I believe the Negotiated 11 Rulemaking Advisory Committee has one more meeting next month.
12 I am hopeful that what is developing out of the 13 negotiated rulemaking is going to be a workable system that we 14 can live with.
But I still am awfully cautious that it is 15 innovate and anytime we try a new system like this, while it 16 has great potential for expediting the process it also has the i
17 same potentials for hindering the process.
18 I believe we hav.e developed a very workable system 19 with all the parties.
I think that NRC has been very l
l 20 responsible in their leadership in the negotiated rulemaking.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I am not focusing so much on 7-22 the procedural aspect here.
I really was curious about how the l
23 technology is working out.
24 MR. KAY:
I think the technology -- the use of the
(
l 25 technology, which will not be, as I understand the negotiated I
44 1
rulemaking'is coming, there are degrees of how the technology 2
will be used.
It will not all be optical disks but there will 3
be some information that may be passed on in 24, 42, 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, 4
based on the priority of that information.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Thompson, I think you. wanted to 7
make a comment?
8 MR. THOMPSON:
Hugh Thompson, NRr Staff.
Mr.
9 Chairman, it might be that Mr. Kay could clarify one issue.
I 10 thought I heard you make a comment that the head of the QA 11 position was filled.
I am not sure, Mr. Kay, if that's the 12 correct interpretation.
You might want to clarify that 13 particular position, or it may be filled and I am not aware.
14 MR. KAY:
No, that's correct.
As I said in my 15 talking about the QA office, I wish Mr. Saget was willing to 16 move to the East Coast on a permanent basis to join us, but he 17 does not wish to do so.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Why don't we just get him to 19 do that right now.
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. KAY:
At such a time as I get final approval from
<~
22 the Department and OPM on the new SES position, whoever will be 23 the director of that office
.T will be advertising it.
I am 24 hopeful that we can fill this very important position very
[
l 25 soon.
t
4 45 1
on the subject of QA, I would like to if I can, try 2
to correct possibly a mis-impression in the discussion that we 3
might need to wait on QA plan for the M&O contractor which is 4
yet to be selected and will be some months off.
I think what 5
the Commission is waiting on right now is the Nevada project of 6
this QA plan and the Headquarters plan which we hope to be able 7
to get to the Commission staff shortly.
8 The M&O contractor, of course, can't produce this 9
until such time as he is selected.
That will have to be based 10 then on the Headquartere plan, as a flow down docunient.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
I appreciate 12 the clarificchion.
13 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Can I add one other comment?
14 CHAIRMAN 2ECH:
Yes, go ahead.
15 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Is somebody going to tell us 16 about the show and tell us what we have here?
17 MR. KAY:
What I might do is, if Carl Gertz would l
18 come up.
Carl is our Project Manager from Nevada.
This is a 19 model that was developed by one of the contractors that worked 20 with us in Nevada.
It's a two-scale model.
21 MR. GERTZ:
This is a model of Yucca Mountain, which
(~
22 runs North / South here.
It is a one to one scale, so it is not 23 exaggerated vertical or horizonal.
This is all a relative 24 scale.
It shows the repository' horizon about 1,000 feet below
(
25 the Mountain and about 1,000 1'eet above the water table.
0 46 f.'
1 This is a visualization of the water table as we have 2
been able to portray it from our monitoring holes out there.
3 It portrays our exploratory shaft which goes down here, and 4
certainly our surface facilities over here which, when the 5
repository is built if it is built, we would bring the waste in 6
' on a replacement ramp.
7 If you recall, Yucca Mountain waste will be driven 8
down into the repository horizon and not put down a shaft.
I 9
will be glad to respond to any questions.
It's about a mile 10 and one-half in the long direction and about a mile in the 11 shorter direction, the footprint.
12 We hope to, as Ed pointed out, start explorato.y 13 shaft construction right in this area (pointing) in about a 14 year from now, June of 1989.
We use this as a model to kind of 15 visualize and help pecple understand how the repository horizon 16 lies below tne mountain and above the water table.
That is our 17 main use of it, as a visualization tool.
18 I will sure respond to any questions that you have.
19 COMMISSIONER CARR:
So actually, the repository will 20 all be on the same plane nearly?
21 MR. GERTZ:
Yes, sir.
r' 22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
And the shafts, what are they for 23 then?
24 MR. GERTZ:
They will be for air exchange,
(.
25 essentially, ventilation.
4 47 1
COMMISSIONER CARR:
Okay.
7-2 MR. GERTZ:
The tuft will be moved out l'n a ramp, so 3
to speak.
It will be mined out in a ramp and the waste will be 4
moved in a ramp.
Our exploratory shaft will be incorporated 5
into the design facilities as ventilation shafts.
6 It does lie on a plane but it lies.on a tilted plane, 7
and that's one of the pictures that we are trying to portray.
8 It is not level, it's on a tilt.
9 MR. KAY:
For those of you who have been to the 10 Nevada test site, this is North on this end.
The Western 11 boundary of the Nevada test site, Carl, I guess runs about 12 along here; is that correct?
13 MR. GERTZ:
You are right, exactly right.
14 MR. KAY:
So the surface facilities will be located 15 on what is now the Nevadh test site with the repository itself 16 and the exploratory shaft, this is on Ellis Air Force, BLM 17 land, approximately line this (indicating) and on BLM land here 18 with the Nevada test site over to the Eastern boundary.
19 MR. GERTZ:
We do have depicted on here also, the 20 layers of the tuft that underlay the mountain.
21 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Thank you very much.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let me thank you for clarifying the 23 quality assurance status.
The chart that you gave us 24 originally that the position is vacant, at least you brought a g
25 gentleman to the table here.
I appreciate that.
48 p,
1
[ Laughter.)
2 MR. KAY:
That was a chart that wasn't provided by 3
us, but I think by your staff.
I think we were indicating that 4
we had not filled that with a fulltime person that will be here 5
permanently.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Wall, at least you have a part-time 7
person; is that about right?
8 MR. KAY:
Yes, sir.
I am very happy to have him.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
I hope you get a full-time 10 person as soon as you can.
It is important to do that.
11 Are there any other questions by any of the 12 Commissioners?
13 MR. GERTZ:
I was just told that perhaps I portrayed 14 the rampo as going up.
The ramps go down at about an 8 percent 15 grade.
It slopes down into the repository.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
17 MR. GERTZ:
We'have it tilted up.
18 CHAIRMAli ZECH:
On behalf of the Commission, Mr. Kay, 19 und your colleagues, let me thank you very much for a ve.y 20 informative briefing today.
I think that it is important that 21 the Commission be briefed periodically by the Department of e
22 Energy.
23 I know that you are working with our staff on a daily 24 basis, and I commend you for those efforts.
I think the staff v
25 is also working hard to make sure that they are providing the
49 1
regulatory insight that is so necessary to have early on in 2
this unique project.
3 We are involved in a national program, and the early 4
resolution of the technical issues are certainly to the benefit 5
of all of us.
For that reason, I think that the continuing 6
meetings that you have on a daily basis and the continuing 7
interface that you have with the staff is extremely important, 8
and I hope that you will keep that up.
I hope that you will 9
also let us know if there is anything that does come up from 10 time to time, that you feel should be emphasized; that you 11 don't have to wait for these periodic meetings, you can get the 12 word to the Commission through the staff or directly to the 13 Commission as you see fit at any time.
14 We do want to stay abreast and working in parallel if 15 we possibly can, so that we will be able to make at the 16 appropriate time, the regulatory decisions that are necessary.
17 I would also like to emphasize that I would certainly hope that 18 you would continue to work with the State of Nevada and ensure 19 that they are informed and other parties, regarding the 20 resolution of all the issues.
I think that that interaction is 21 extremely important.
(~
22 I think that the progress you are making to date is 23 certainly effective as regards making a real good first start 24 as this initial phase of the effort.
But I would only
.(
25 emphasize that I think all of us should be alert to any
50 1
potential issues that we may have missed so that we can get on 2
them as soon as possible and continue to work together so that 3
as Commissioner Rogers pointed out earlier, these hard issues 4
can be addressed openly and constructively analytically.
5 And that we can use the best advice, analysis that we 6
can get within our country, both within the government and 7
outside the government, so that when the time comes we will 8
make the proper decision and have an effective repository.
9 That's what we all want and that's what we want to have.
Our 10 obligation, of course, is to ensure that from the regulatory 11 standpoint the public health and safety will be protected.
12 That's what this commission certainly intends to do.
13 Thank you very much for a very informative briefing.
14 Unless there are other comments, we stand adjourned.
15 (Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m.,
the briefing was 16 concluded.)
17 18 19 20 21 r'
22 23
(
24 25 t
L
o 4
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING BY DOE ON HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING: TUESDAY, MAY 17, 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.
nf fCN -9W L &J
]
l Ann Riley ' Associates, Ltd.
j 1
b l
1 l
i i
l
h
/
May 17, 1988 PRESENTATION TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Charles E. Kay, Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management May 17, 1988 Because communication and interactions are an abiding element of the DOE and NRC relationship, I welcome the opportunity to continue the practice of periodic presentations to the Commission cf OCRWM program activities and signficant accomplishments.
Today's presentation, my first, is especially important because of the many events that have taken place since the last briefing to you on June 11, 1987.
In addition to reviewing some program highlights with you, including changes resulting from the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (often referred to as the Amendments Act), I will focus on areas of joint and special NRC and DOE interest, with some general comments on the overall program and the DOE /NRC relationship.
Before addressing these subjects, I want to let you know that I appreciate the interest of the commission in this program, and your efforts to provide guidance to the staff.
Procram Hichlichts The Amendments Act The Amendments Act streamlines and focuses the vaste management program established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
In terms of program implementation, the most significant provisions include:
o Site characterization of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada as the only candidate site at this time for a permanent geologic repository; o
Authorization, with conditions, of a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility as part of the integra'.ed waste management system; and o
The establishment of several new entities, e.g. the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the Monitored Retrievable Storage Review Commission, that should enhance the public's confidence in the scientific and technical quality of the program.
Plans for implementing the new focus of the OCRWM program are currently under development.
OCRWM Reorcanization In response to the statutory changes and the continuing evolution of the nuclear waste disposal program, OCRWM has been reorganized along functional lines to facilitate and enhance the integration of the waste management system.
The new organization places increased emphasis on quality assurance, systems integration,
i 9
licensing and regulations.
The Office will function with four associate directors and a director of the Office of Quality Assurance.
Like the associate directors, the director of the Office of Quality Assurance will report directly to the OCRWM Director.
The personnel paper work has been submitted but not yet completely acted upon.
Therefore the incumbents to these positions are temporarily designated as "acting", but be assured that the organization is functioning fully with leadership ready and willing to make decisions and exercise the responsibilities of management.
Solicitation for Manacement and Operatino Contractor for Systems Encineerino. Development and Manacement (M&O)
To facilitate the technical management and integration of the waste management program, OCRWM issued a solicitation for an M&O contractor on October 5, 1987.
This solicitation was revised due to the passage of the Amendments Act and on April 25, 1988, the solicitation for an M&O contractor closed.
The proposals are now being evaluated.
The major responsibilities of this contractor will be to:
o Help ensure that the Yuc 1 Mountain site is characterized in accordance with the requirements of the NWPA as amended, and if found suitable, the site is developed as a repository.
o Assist the DOE in MRS-siting activities, o
Assist in the design and integration of the repository, the waste package, and the MRS facility and maintain oversight of transportation design activities, and its integration into the waste management system.
o Assist the DOE in obtaining NRC licences and certifications for the repository, the MRS facility, and transportation casks.
o Integrate th4 work of various program participants, such as the national laboratories, other Federal agencies, and DOE prime contractors, o
Help ensure that all work meets
- safety, technical, environmental, quality, schedule, and cost requirements; the regulatory requirements of the NRC and the EPA; and is consistent with applicable DOE Orders.
Issuance of the SCP/CD On January 8, 1988, DOE issued the SCP/CD for the Yucca Mountain site to serve as a vehicle for technical discussions with the State of Nevada and the NRC.
To start these discussions a meeting was held in Reno, NV on January 28-29, 1988.
After the meeting in Nevada, the NRC transmitted to DOE on March 7,
- 1988, its Draft Point Paper containing the results of its technical review of the SCP/CD.
In the NRC Draft Point Paper five principal objections were identified.
These five objections pertain to difficult issues 2
t which have been discussed extensively in the past. A workshop was held on March 21-24 at NRC Headquarters to clarify and discuss these objections as well as other NRC comments and questions.
DOE is pleased with the thoroughness of the NRC review - such a review is what was sought when the SCP was issued in consultation draft form.
DOE intends to address and resolve the NRC objections as appropriate during the consultation period prior to the release of the statutory SCP.
DOE will also address NRC concerns, to the extent possible, prior to the release of the statutory SCP.
We are planning to meet with NRC staff later this summer to discuss proposed disposition of NRC comments contained in the NRC Point Paper.
We are currently planning to issue the SCP formally, as required by the NWPA, by the end of 1988.
By having provided an opportunity for input from the NRC and the State of Nevada, we will have fully considered the views of the parties to ensure a high quality statutory site characterization plan.
Start up of the exploratory shaft facility is now scheduled for June 1989.
- Recently, we attended an ACRS, soon to be ACNW, meeting and offered to review the logic and contents of the SCP/CD.
We understand the staff is making arrangements for this presentation to take place in the near future.
In addition, we are planning upon release of the statutory SCP, at the staff's suggestion, to brief the ACNW on the SCP and any differences from the SCP/CD.
Monitored Retrievable Storace The Amendments Act and other Congressional actions have created new opportunities for OCRWM to maximize the contributions of an MRS facility to the overall waste system.
We need to put in place not just a mined geologic repository, but a complete operational system that will actively manage the
- safe, and efficient storagt, transport and packaging of waste over a fifty year period, in addition to providing for the ultimate permanent isolation of thest wastes.
The role for an MR3 in the vaste management system may change as as a result of sevtral activities, including the recommendations of the MRS Commiss; on, the actions of the Negotiator, several ongoing DOE systems studies including the use of dry cask storage technology at reactor sites (that I will discuss in a moment),
and further Congressional actions.
To accomodate these uncertainties, we are in the process of developing a near term strategy that will allow optimization as a continuing process and does not detract from our ultimate goal of permanent isolation.
Dry Cask Storace Study In accordance with Section 5064 of the Amendments Act, OCRWM is preparing a report on the use of dry cask storage at reactor sites.
The study will assess the utility industry's spent nuclear fuel storage needs through the start of operation of the 3
geologic repository.
The primary objectives of the study are to:
o Consider the costs of dry cask storage technology, the extent to which dry cask storage will affect human health and the environment, the extent to which the storage at reactor sites affects the costs and risks of transporting spent nuclear fuel to a central location such as an MRS facility, and any other appropriate factors, o
Consider the extent to which the Nuclear Waste Fund can be used and should be used to provide funds to construct, operate, maintain and safeguard spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage at reactor sites.
An initial version of this report is scheduled for release this summer.
Transportation We view the development of transportation capabilities as an essential element of the waste management system.
Fortunately, we are able to build on a
long history of safe shipping experience and a comprehensive system of Federal regulation and international standards.
Because the schedule for the transportation program is linked to the schedule for the development and operation of waste disposal and storage facilities we have both the opportunity and time to refine and improve shipping equipment and procedures, and to coordinate transportation planning with other Federal agencies,
- industry, States, Indian Tribes and other interested parties.
As you know, DOE and NRC have established a procedural agreement on the certification of transportation casks.
Under this agreement, and as required by section 180(a), as amended, all cask designs used for NWPA shipping will be certified by the NRC, including casks designed for defense and commercial high-level waste.
In
- addition, DOE will comply with NRC shipment prenotification procedures when shipping waste to NWPA disposal and storage facilities.
I mention these constructive actions, which were undertaken prior to recent Congressional directives, to indicate our past and continuing commitment to work with t!.e NRC to address technical issues affecting high-level wasta transportation.
As a specific indication of the growing importance we are placing on transportation, o ar FY 1988 budget for transportation activities shows a 50% increase over FY 1987, and our request for FY 1989 is 33% greater than our FY 1988 budget.
With this increase in funding, our plan is to ensure that transportation activities are performed in a safe, secure, and efficient manner, using private industry to the greatest extent possible; comply with applicable laws and regulations; and foster broad based public understanding of and participation in program planning.
4
4 NRC Fee NRC and DOE staff have been working together to develop a Memorandum of Understanding between our two agencies that deals with the reimbursements to NRC of actual costs incurred by the NRC for its work related to the pre-licensing application phase of the high-level waste management program.
Issues have been resolved satisfactorily and I anticipate no difficulties in providing fee payments to NRC for its costs that are currently being budgeted at $15 million.
Areas of Joint and Special NRC Interest I will turn now to action items relating to key aspects of the NRC/ DOE pre-licensing consultation program.
The Amendments Act reduction of the number of sites to be characterized from three to one will allow more technical inteiact' ns to take place on that one site between DOE and NRC staff.
' iat process is well underway and I will now discuss it in terms of our completed and planned joint consultations, and some important subjects of those consultations.
DOE /NRC Consultations In addition to the consultations on the SCP/CD, we have also had other interactions such as the recent DOE /NRC site visit to observe the USGS Southern Great Basin Seismic Monitoring Network.
I mention this joint site visit as an example because of the various participating organizations and the dual purpose it served. The prime purpose was to provide the NRC and the State of Nevada with an opportunity to observe and learn more about the equipment and procedures associated with monitoring seismicity in the region surrour. ding the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.
In addition, the site visit provided information in preparation for audits of the network which will be conducted following adoption of a formal quality assurance (QA) program.
In addition to the meetings mentioned above, we have completed a l
useful five day workshop on Alternative Conceptual Models; a QA l
meeting; and NRC staff has attended our Technical project Office j
meetings, as well as observed DOE audits of our contractors.
Clearly, the value of consultations is accepted and recognized by the Department.
We see as a priority, near-term consultation on the topics of:
(1) quality assurance, (2) the exploratory shaft
- location, design, and c on st ruction, (3) clarification of l
definitions in 10 CFR 60, including substantially complete containment and anticipated and unanticipated
- events, (4) determination of methodology for calculating ground water time, and (5) seismicity characterization methodology.
l Repository Design Parameters In the Third Quarterly Progress Report to the Commissioners dated February 9,
- 1988, NRC staff identified repository design 5
1
parameters as an action item that covers a key aspect of the NRC/ DOE pre-licensing consultation program.
The NRC and DOE have agreed that, in developing the site characterization program, DOE will use performance allocation.
In the words of the NRC staff, "DOE will select tentative values for the contributions that each of the natural and engineered barriers can reasonably be expected to provide to the overall waste isolation performance of the site.
Such allocation is the rationale for establishing specifically what information site characterization will have to produce".
It should be emphasized that these "tentative values",
are simply guides for developing a testing program and designs.
As data is obtained and the site characterization program matures these values may change.
The NRC Position Point Paper and regular interactions between NRC and DOE staff are important vehicles for assessing how well DOE is implementing performance allocation.
As the program matures, changes in our parameters will be reportad in our semi-annual progress reports.
While there may be some technical differences, I believe that the performance allocation process for guiding the site characterization program is currently proceeding well.
Policy of Conservati m I would like to return to the alternative conceptual models workshop held recently, as an example of DOE's efforts to address the NRC's objections and concerns.
At this meeting, the NRC staff clearly explained their concerns and the basis for their objection to the SCP/CD on the subject of alternative conceptual models of the ground-water flow system at the Yucca Mountain site.
The DOE concurs with the NRC concerns, and an approach to adequately address the concerns such that the NRC objection can be rescinded was discussed at the meeting.
The NRC staff indicated their concerns may be largely a problem with inadequate documentation in the SCP/CD.
The DOE concurs that the documentation of alternative conceptual models can be substantially improved in the statutory SCP.
The DOE believes that the approach discussed at the technical workshop will provide adequate documentation in a form easily understood by all parties, and accordingly, the DOE has implemented the approach in each of the "-ologies" as recommended by the NRC staff.
The DOE recognizes, however, that a part of the problem was related to consideration of a
broader range of alternative conceptual models that were considered then discarded and those alternative conceptual models, both internal and external to the OCRWM program, that may be supported by the existing data base.
DOE used the technical meeting to solicit additional alternative conceptual models, and DOE is appreciative of tnose persons who provided descriptions of alternative conceptual models and/or comments on the DOE conceptual models.
DOE is currently 6
reviewing the transcript of the technical meeting and will incorporate the alternative conceptual models and comments on the i
DOE conceptual models in the planned revisions to the SCP/CD.
- Further, DOE agrees with the NRC comment related to the
)
integration of the site data in the various "-ologies" and in the repository and waste package designs.
Accordingly, DOE will prepare tables for the statutory SCP that address the alternative conceptual models and their significance on both site characterization and repository performance.
DOE will define the interrelationships among natural processes in order to integrate across the various "-ologies" and the designs of the repository and waste package.
For example, DOE will consider the potential effects of increased hydrothermal activity under the site on not only the ground-water flow system, but also the geochemistry of the ground water, the waste package environment, the stability of clay minerals, the in-situ stresses within the host rock, and the designs of the repository and waste packate.
In
- addition, DOE will identify the testing to discriminate between the alternative conceptual models during site characterization and will provide a schedule of testing in order to evaluate potential interferences between planned tests.
The DOE is confident that the actions currently being implemented will adequately address the NRC concerns and will provide the basis for rescinding the objection on consideration of alternative conceptual models.
Early Resolution of Issues Issue resolution is a key purpose of site characterization in order to demonstrhte compliance with the applicable Federal regulations.
We concur with the NRC that a major goal of the high-level repository program is to
- ensure, to the extent I
practicable, resolution of licensing issues prior to the licensing hearing'.
To achieve that goal, we are developing a process of interactions with the staff that should lead to the early resolution of l
issues.
This process includes the development of position papers for review with the staff, followed by reports that will consider l
the issue in greater
- depth, and
- possibly, if warranted, I
rulemaking.
As I noted we are developing this proposed process now, and will I
be discussing the approach with the staff, prior to recommending l
its adoption to the Commission.
i Develcoment of an Information Retrieval System As ye know, the Licensing Support System (LSS) computer system being developed by OCRWM to support the requirements of all parties in the repository licensing process will be based on a detailed set of system specifications.
These specifications will 7
1 be derived from statutory, programmatic, and user requirements.
Some of these requirements are being defined through the efforts of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (NRAC) that was convened by the NRC.
Because of the importance and magnitude of the LSS, the OMB has made development of the LSS system a top i
priority within the Executive Branch.
As a
first effort toward developing a
sound requirements foundation for subsequent design work, two reports in a series of four reports have been issued by OCRWM.
The Preliminary Needs Analysis and the Proliminary Data Scope constitute the system requirements basis for developing a conceptual LSS design, which will be presented in the third report scheduled for completion this month.
The fourth report, a Benefit-Cost Analysis which will evaluate the conceptual design alternatives, is scheduled for delivery to OMB with copies to the NRC and other parties in July.
In addition to these studies, a multi-user prototype is to be tested both in Nevada and Washington D.C.
that will contain 120,000 pages of the SCP/CD and its over 2000 associated references, as well as associated program documents all in full text with images of the pages of the documents.
This prototype can be used to assess user reaction to such a system and test hardware and software components in order to develop tighter specifications.
The prototype is expected to be available for use in early 1989.
Building on these reports and later refinements, I am hopeful that we will be able to facilitate the discovery process and review of relevant licensing information for licensing proceedings; establish the information base for the licensing proceedings before the license applications are submitted; and make it possible for the NRC to meet the statutory three year application review period.
The LSS is a tool that is new to the i
formal licensing process.
It provides real opportunities for enhancing the
- process, but on the other
- hand, it offers opportunities just as real to hinder the licensing process.
I am pleased to note the considerable progress made by NRAC.
The participants have worked hard and cooperatively to reach consensus on important issues.
I am hopeful that the work of the Committee will result in a product that we can all live and work with.
We welcome and look forward to continuing interactions l
with the NRC, the State of Nevada, and other appropriate groups.
1 Further, as we reach consensus on the LSS rule, we should also consider the possibility of other changes to the procedural rule which would enhance the licensing process.
Imolementation of a Ouality Assurance Procram Policy guidance for the QA program is provided by the Director of OCRWM - a responsibility that I take with the utmost seriousness.
l l
l 8
l l
1
o l
6 To emphasize the importance of managing for quality, OCRWM has, as I
mentioned
- earlier, established an office of Quality Assurance to be managed by a Director who reports directly to the Director of OCRWM.
Current goals of this new Office are to establish a qualified QA program by January 1,
- 1989, secure approval of the OCRWM QA prc, gram by the NRC, and achieve a favorable review of the QA program by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board when it becomes operative.
To do this, QA program documents are being modified as netsded, required procedures are being identified and prepared, and efforts are underway to resolve outstanding issues at both Headquartars and our Nevada Office and the NRC.
Other actions include establishing an audit / surveillance
- schedule, implementing verification activities, and management reviews ef recommended improvements.
State and Local Government Interactions Informal Cooperation DOE has worked cooperatively with the State of Nevada in many forums.
For example, State representatives have attended the Project Office's monthly technical project manager's (TPO) meetings, arrangements were made for the contractors of the State to tour the Yucca Mountain site, a protocol has been established for their access, as appropriate, to the Nevada Test Site, and office space near Yucca Mountain has been offered to State scientists.
The DOE has also participated with the State's Local Government Advisory Group, the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects, and the Nevada Legislative Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste in many meetings and workshops and has attended meetings of the Nye County Commission.
And of particular importance, the State attends all NRC/ DOE technical meetings.
The DOE remains committed to maintaining positive, cooperative interactions with the State of Nevada and appropriate local governments.
I Consultation and Cooperation The DOE continues to hold open its of fer to the State of Nevada to begin consultation and cooperation negotiations under Section 117 of the NWPA.
The DOE reaffirms the general policy, goals, and intentions that were contained in Section 4.2, "Consultation l
and Cooperation" of the 1985 Mission plan.
I Benefits Agreements The Amendments Act authorizes the DOE to enter into benefits agreements with the State of Nevada concerning a repository.
On l
April 6,
1988, Secretary Herrington informed Governor Bryan of i
Nevada, that the DOE is prepared to enter into negotiations with Nevada on the development of a Benefits Agreement under Section 5031 of the Amendments Act.
Among other benefits, such an l
9
4 agreement would provide for State and local representation on a Review Panel with broad review and advisory responsibilities.
It would also include a schedule of annual payments to Nevada.
No response has been received from the State of Nevada.
Financial Assistance The DOE intends to ensure that the State of Nevada and affected units of local government are adequately funded so that they may fully and effectively participate in the program.
The DOE will work closely with representatives from the State of Nevada and local governments in establishing appropriate mechanisms for the efficient processing of grant cpplications.
on April 21, 1988, in response to a request from the Board of County Commissioners of Clark County which is contiguous with Nye County where the Yucca Mountain site is
- located, Secretary Herrington designated Clark County as an affected unit of local government.
This will facilitate Clark County's active participation in the development of an acceptable repository site.
Last week, the Department received from Lincoln County, which is contiguous with Nye County, a request that they be designated as an affected unit of local government.
Conclusions I hope that my discussion of program highlights and areas cf joint and special concern has demonstrated that DOE will conduct the site characterization program so as to assure sound management, efficient use of resources, and above all the successful demonstration of regulatory compliance, our approach will be determined, realistic, and credible.
In the past, there has been a tendency to view the assurance of safety as a purely technica) question.
The NWPA as amended tells us that the affected public and its public representatives no longer accept that view.
We accept this more enlightened view.
We fully expect that the NRC will be very demanding of the DOE program in order to develop the confidence and reasonable I
assurance that the public health and safety will be protected.
We believe that a technically competent and astute regulator is in the program's best interest, and we have and will foster a healthy relationship of mutual respect with NRC so that useful and constructive technical and policy exchanges can take place.
l l
l 10 1
{
l
Md6W%W6Wd'dWA%%WA%%fW6%%WgVg(gygy4;(gy4fff;ygyggggtg,g, TRAt!SMITTAl. TO:
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips
?
i
- DVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Rocm f//8!f DATE:
/
/
j FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch
- 0 5I Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting ll document (s).
They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession t.ist and l-placement in the Public Document Room.
No other distribution is requested or required.
Meeting
Title:
bM _N AMerb -
i; Ma k ~'
Meeting Date:
5'// 7/f[
Open I Closed i
ll Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS 1:
'8 ll to POR Copy t
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 i!'
i
- 2. S & ~ a e G / u n f
/
/
I
!i kaw Abt 'r/n / rF
$i
/
3:
3.
3:
33 4.
si s.
~
l 6.
- POR is advanced one copy of oach document, two of ea@ SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attacnments, withcut SECY g
- papers, j
_d/R6 J
l l
l I
II II II I
I I
I I
I
_ _