ML20195J494

Draft Summary of High Level Waste Licensing Support Sys Advisory Committee 871015-16 Meetings in Arlington,Va. Viewgraphs & List of Attendees Encl

ML20195J494
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/26/1987
From:	NRC - HIGH LEVEL WASTE LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY
To:	NRC - HIGH LEVEL WASTE LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY
References
NACHLWLS, NUDOCS 8801280397
Download: ML20195J494 (50)

Text

............L......~.-.....i.............c.....

~:

~

\\

ad by to M m.I % +.h h)0v,/4f?

N. 4.W7 October 26, 1987

---

D R A F T -------------

MINUTES OF THE HIM LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING October 15-16, 1987 Arlington, Virginia MEETING LOCATION AND ATTENDANCE The second meeting of the HLW Licensing Support System Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as the committee) was held on October 15, 1987 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and October 16, 1987 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 f 30 p.m. at the Crystal City Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Virginia.

A list of the committee members and their alternates who attended the meeting is attached, along with a list of the members of the public who were in attendanco (see Attachment 1).

MEETING OVERVIEW The meeting included three separate training sessions on technical / computer issues, legal issues, and negotiation, as well as a short "business" meeting.

Copies of the view graphs and training materials which were used in each session are attached to these minutes.

(Attachments 2 and 3 covers the technical training, Attachment 4 covers the legal training, and Attachment 5,

to be distributed in a separate mailing, covers the negotiation training.)

8801280397 871026 PDR ADVCM NACHLWLS PDR _-

.,.... ~........,.............. - -

..-.s....

SUMMARY

OF THE BUSINESS MEETING Committee Membership The facilitator opened the committee's business meeting by introducing Priscella Attean of the Penobscot Nation.

Ms. Attean will be joining the committee as a second tier participant.

The facilitator then informed the committee that letters from representatives of five local governments had been hand delivered the day before.

These letters generally request participation on the committee.

The local governments who wrote letters include:

Nye County, Nevada; Clark County, Nevada; Lincoln County, Nevada; the City of Caliente, Nevada; and the Mid-columbia Consortium of Governments from the State of Washington. 'The committee agreed that the facilitator should respond to these letters by writing a letter simply indicating that they had been received and distributed to the committee, and that the committee would act on them at its next meeting.

(The letters from these local governments are appended hereto as.)

Review of the Minutes and Protocols

'The next item on the agenda was a review of the minutes from the committee's September 16-17, 1987 meeting.

The facilitator noted that the minutes of this first meeting were probably more detailed and lengthy than what is likely to be the norm, the reason being that the facilitators felt it was important to capture as completely as possible each parties' opening y.

.~..~..a.

.,c.,~.

..... -......... ~.

i

\\

statements and the temporary agreements reached by the committee on the organizational protocols.

Committee members went through both the draft minutes and i

l the revised organizational protocols, making changes as necessary.

(These changes will be incorporated into both documents and distributed to the committee either before or at the its next meeting.)

Agenda and Location for the November Meeting The facilitators distributed a dccument (hereafter referred to as the "Issues Paper") which amplified and elaborated upon the issues list which had been developed at the committee's last meeting.

The facilitors suggested that the agenda for the next meeting include a discussion of the seven "preliminary" issues identified in the Issues Paper, including:

What are the objectives of the LSS?

o l

t What are the objectives of this rule?

o What types of rule changes are needed to accommodate the o

LSS?

When will the NRC have jurisdiction over the DOE or other o

parties?

How do the NRC rulemaking and current DOE LSS eforts o

relate to one another?

What are some of the alternatives to the LSS o

(described as a full text search and retrieval system) that will accomplish the same objectives? _. _. _ - -

,...... ~...

,r...

What are the costs and benefits of the LSS and o

alternatives?

The committee agreed to discuss these items at its next meeting.

The committee also agreed that the DOE would make a presentation at the start of the meeting on its current LSS activities.

Finally, the committee agreed to address procedural issues such as whether and, if so, what type of working groups i

may be needed, and whether and, if so, how to use a single text negotiating instrument to develop agreements on rule language.

The facilitators reported that arrangements had been made to hold all three of the committee's Denver meetings at the Regency Hotel and Conference Center,'a hotel in the Denver area which is approximately one mile from the downtown area and five miles from l

1 Stapleton Airport.

The hotel has agreed to charge committee members (i.e., spokespersons and alternates) a government rate of i

$44 per night.

The hotel's address and telephone number is:

i Regency Hotel and Conference Center 3900 Elati Street i

Denver, CO 80215 800/525-8748 or 303/458-0808 Public Comment An opportunity was given for members of the public to comment on the committee's proceedings.

With no one having chosen to do so, the committee adjourned.

The ConservationIbundation January 6, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO:

HLW Licensing Support System Advisory Committee Members FROM:

Howard Bellman, Tim Mealey, Matt Low, Kirk Balcom SUBJ:

Minutes of the December 14-15 Meeting Enclosed you will find a copy of the draft minutes for the December 14-15, 1987 meeting.

Please review these minutes and contact Tim Mealey either by telephone (202/778-9628) or by mail if you have any suggested changes, additions, or deletions.

As we indicated in our letter of December 29, 1987, the committee meeting that was scheduled to take place in Denver on January 25-26, 1988 has been cancelled.

There is still no word from the NRC as to what, if any, changes will be made to the committee as a result of the recent legislation.

We will keep you apprised.

1250Tmty-FourthStreet,NW %hington,DC20037 USA 202/29M300 Telex:64505 PANDA Affdiated wa %U Widlife Fund J

c -.

l f

e i

1 l

ATTACHMENT 1

3 r

2 ATTENDANCE LIST December 14-15, 1987 Meeting of the HLW Licensing Support System Advisory Committee COMMITTEE MEMBERS Steve Bradhurst Nye County, Nevada Francis X. Cameron Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Barabara Cerny Office of Inforamtion Resource Management U.S.

Department of Energy Gail Chehak National Congress of American Indians David Cross Edison Electric Institute Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group James Davenport Special Deputy Attorney General State. of Nevada Stan Echols Office of the General Counsel U.S.

Department of Energy Ronald T. Halfmoon Nuclear Waste Program Nez Perce Tribe Don Hancock Consultant to the Texas Nuclear Waste Task Force Dan Hester Attorney for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation Renea Hicks Assistant Attorney General State of Texas Mary Ruth Holder Assistant Attorney General State of Texas

l.

l Dixon Hoyle

{

U.S.

Council for Energy Awareness i

Melinda Kassen Environmental Defense Fund 1

Michael M. Later Special Attorney State of Utah Mal Murphy Special Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner Executive Director Wasta Deposit Impact Committee of Deaf Smith County William Olmstead Office of the General Counsel U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission David Ortman Friends of the Earth Walter Perry Department of Justice State of Oregon Narda Pierce Assistant Attorney General State of Washington Charles B. Roe, Jr.

Senior Assistant Attorney General State of Washington Jerome Saltzman Policy and Outreach Division Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U.S.

Department of Energy Jay Silberg Attorney for EEI/UNWMG Shaw, Pittmam, Potts & Trowbridge Carl A. Sinderbrand l

Office of the Attorney General l

State of Wisconsin i

l l

Lisa A.

Spruill Office of the Attorney General State of Mississippi Harry W. Swainston Special Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Dean R. Tousley Yakima Indian Nation Harmon & Weiss FACILITATORS Howard S. Bellman The Conservation Foundation Timothy J. Mealey The Conservation Foundation Matthew A.

Low TLI Systems Kirk Balcom TechLaw, Incorprated EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Donnie Grimsley Division of Rules and Records, ADM U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OTHER AGENCY OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Robert Ackerly John S. Jordan Associates Phillip Altomare U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joyce Amenta U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Avi Bender U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Carol Blackston U.S.

Department of Energy Bernard M. Bordenick U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

m

,, 3,--.~.~..----

M. Daniels Science Applications International Corp.

Charles Head U.S.

Department of Energy John S.

Jordan DOE Consultant Kenneth Kalman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Abel Lopez U.S.

Department of Energy i

Bob McPherson Roy F. Weston, Inc David L. Meyer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W. Richard Pierce Science Applications International Corp.

Edward Regnier U.S.

Department of Energy Thomas Scarbrough U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Besty Shelburne U.S.

Nuclear Regulator Commission Charles Smith U.S.

Department of Energy Robetta Virgilio SLITP U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arnie Wight Principled Negotiation, Inc.

Frank Young U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

^

~l

.w e

ATTACHMENT 2 l

)

.-n.

e

_= y

=. = = _

% "\\c! %r % %.

December 11,1987 Mr. Howard Bellman The Conservation Foundation 1250 Twenty-Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 l

\\

Dear Mr. Bellman:

The U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (USCEA) requests that its membership in The HLW Licensing Support System Advisory Committee be upgraded from second-tier to first-tier.

As you may recall, it was intially suggested that USCEA should have first-tier membership. However, we did not believe at that time there was sufficient interest by our membership to justify the obligations which first-tice membership would entail; thus, we opted for second-tier membership instead. However, subsequent developments-including what has been learned through attendance at the Advisory Committe meetings held to date-have caused us to reexamine that position.

We believe that the USCEA can, through first-tier membership, represent a number of entities which have a substantive interest in licensing of the first HLW geologic repository and which are not currently represented by any other first-tier member of the Advisory Committee. For example, the USCEA-with the full support of the DOE and eel /UNWMG-has offered to represent some 21 entitles which are either a non-UNWMG member utility or a non-utility holder of a DOE Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel or High-Level Radioactive Waste in discussions with DOE of unresolved issues under this contract. These entitles have made and/or are currently making significant payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund and the efficient use of their payments is related to successful licensing of the first geologic repository.

Thus, the USCEA requests prompt review of its request for first-tier membership under the terms of Organizational Protocol 11. E. If approved, Dixon Hoyle would continue as USCEA spokesperson, with Thomas Hunt and John Siegel as Alternates.

Sincerely, i

Dixon B.

oyle cc:

William Olmstead, OGC, NRC

-n-

-w,m.,

.,----n.,

.a

+

5 -

1 l

a

\\

ATTAC104ENT 3

l DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STATUS REPORT HIGH LEVEL WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE H

DECEMBER 14, 1987 j

BARBARA A.

CERNY 1

2

~

l T0_PlcS.

CONCEPTS INVOLVED IN THE DEFINITION OF RELEVANCE l

0 DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT

- CONTROL OF PIECES OF PAPER

• RELEVANCE SCREEING

]

0 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

)

- CONTROL 0F DATA IN THE DOCUMENTS

• INDEXING OF INFORMATION TO MAXIMIZE RECALL 5

RELEVANT TO ANY QUERY i

0 "STRAWMAN" DEVELOPED FROM DOE'S CURRENT SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES SAIC PROGRESS REPORT I

l 0

HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE SOLUTION FOR FULL TEXT i

O WORKSTATION BASED DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURE l

0 PROTOTYPE LSS DEVELOPMENT l

a.

. ~ -

LSS NON DOCU-DOCUMENTS MENTS n

IRRELEVANT TO LSS L

PRIVILEGED I

v i

f i

f I

f n

f I

FULL TEXT i

INCLUDED RELEVANT I

ggg ALL TO I

PROGRAM LSS

-i INFO DATE -

l I

I I

I f

I l

lNDEX g

l (HEADER) g f

I 4

4 4

al f......... y PRIVILEGED v

IRRELEVANT o

Figure 2.2

i

~

i l

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT

)

1 REC S MANAGEMENT POLICY 0 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION l

0 DOCKET CONTROL i

0 STORAGE AND CIRCULATION l

=

LSS DESIGN IMPLICATIONS:

0 RELATIONSHIP 0F RECORDS POLICY TO DOCUMENT DISCOVERY O ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT PRODUCTION FROM ALL SOURCES NOT

~

MERELY DOE AND NRC l

0 DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA, PERHAPS BASED ON ISSUES AND i

l DATES FOR ACQUIRING AND EXCLUDING DOCUMENTS i

j 0 PROVISION FOR DIFFERENTIAL HANDLING OF DOCUMENTS IN PHYSICAL l

AND COMPUTER STORAGE DEPENDING ON RELEVANCE AND SENSITIVITY

{

f

- BIT IMAGES ON OPTICAL DISC

- MICROFILM i

i N

4 INFORMATI_0N MANAGEMENT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION OF:

"WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED FOR THE ENTRY OF INFORMATION INTO THE LSS IN FULL TEXT OR BY AUTHOR, 2

TITLE, SUBJECT, ETC.?"

NRC POSITION PAPER NOV. 19, 1987 BASIC IDEAS:

i

-- DISCOVERY WILL BE CONDUCTED THROUGH THE LSS USING i

INDEXES TO A COMPUTERIZED CARD CATALOG TO DETERMINE DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION.

l THEN DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRODUCED

-- THERE ARE ONLY TWO INDEXING METHODS:

FULL TEXT OR I

SOME LEVEL OF SURROGATE.

BOTH HAVE ADVANTAGES AND i

k DISADVANTAGES.

j

-- THERE ARE ONLY TWO USES OF THE INDEXES IN RETRIEVING j

DOCUMENTS FROM THE DATABASE:

BOOLEAN OPERATORS AND j

PROXIMITY SEARCHING

)

D i

STRATEGIES FOR INDEXING OPTIMIZATION t

AIDS TO FULL TEXY INDEXING VOCABULAR-Y CONTROL k

INDEXER QUALITY CONTROL CENTRALIZED RETRIEVAL W

9 i

i

}

i

?

PROPOSED INDEXING METHODS Levels of Treatment A

Bulk Treatment - A descriptive title used to index groups of documents (to a file or larger level) such as procurement data, contractor monthly / weekly reports, RTPs, etc.

Will be filmed.

Citation - Bibliographic citation to reading room location.

B Material is usually not filmed because it is copyrighted.

Predominantly raterial referenced in technical reports.

C Bibliographic Coding only includes author and recipient names and organizations, document

date, document

type, titles, control numbers (including microfilm number) and attachment information.

Used for transmittal memoranda and

letters, administrative procedures and plans, contracts, etc.

D Bibliographic Coding, Objective Content Coding and Subject Indexing - Same as above but also including at least major subject areas and site codes.

Used for some correspondence, some hearing transcripts, minutes or agenda computer j

printouts, graphics, raw data, press releases, etc.

E Bibliographic, Subject Indexing and Abstracting - Used for all documents that are important to program but would not be easily retrieved if entered full-text.

Includes some correspondence, reports, hearings and publications.

F Full-Text - Also would capture bibliographic information and major subject information (category D level).

Used for most governing documents, technical reports, depositions, some hearings, etc.

3 4...

DOCUMENT INDEXING REQUIREMENTS ESTIMATES Doc Type Doc Detail Anticipated Category Est. % of Category Level of Coding /

Code Pooulation Code 4 at that Level Correspond-62.8 Letter C/40; D/5; E/5; F/50 ence Memo C/40; D/5; E/S; F/50 Verbal C/5; D/05 Communication Documentation Telefax C/10; D/85; E/5 Reports 25.4 Administrative C/95; D/5 Technical E/15; F/85 Status A/90; D/5; E/5 Audit A/30; C/20; D/50 Hearings D/40; E/50; F/10 Minutes D/90; E/10 Computer D/95; E/5 Printouts Presentation C/55; D/40; E/5 (Speeches, viewgraph)

Graphics 2.3 Map C/15; D/80; E/5 1

Chart (Tables)

Drawings Photographs Publications 6.1 Book B/95; C/5 Journals B/40: C/60 Article C/75; D/25 Newspapers C/75; D/25 Press Release D/95; C/5 Paper E/100 Bulletin D/100

y--.

,,,. -... - - - q Governing 2.3 Orders F/90; E/10 Documents Directives F/85; E/15 Instruction A/65; C/20; D/15 Plan A/50; C/20; D/15; E/15 Policy D/50; E/50 Guidelines D/30; E/40; F/30 Procedures A/50; C/20; D/5; E/15 Standards E/80; F/20 Regulations E/20; F/80 Requirements E/20; F/80 Law E/50; F/50 Raw Data 0.4 Strip Chart D/100 Data Sheet F/95; E/5 Log E/95; D/S Magnetic Tape B/95; D/5 Procurement 0.6 Request for A/85; C/10; D/S Proposal /

A/85; C/10; D/S Evaluation Contract A/85; C/10; D/5 Bidders List C/100 Supplier / Vendor D/100 List Statement of A/85; C/10; D/5 Work Purchase /

A/85; C/10; D/5 Requisition Order Receipt Inspection C/85; D/15 Certificate of C/85; D/15 Compliance Invoice A/85; C/10; D/5 Legal 0.1 Litigation C/5; D/5; E/5; F/85 (subpoena, affidavits, depositions, opinions)

Patent D/45; E/55 Agreement D/80; E/20 non-procurement contract) i

-,s

---

,-n g

CURRENT DOE AUTOMATE _D RECORDS SYSTEM

% OF CATEGORY PERCENTAGE OF CATEGORY

% OF DB IN i

DOCUMENT CATEGORY IN DATABASE IN FULL TEXT FULL TEXT CORRESPONDENCE 62.8%

50%

27%

REPORTS 25.4%

85%

62%

(INCLUDING MAJOR DOCUMENTS)

GRAPHICS 2.3%

0%

0%

PUBLICATIONS 6.1%

0%

0%

s GOVERNING DOCUMENT 2.3%

85%

.5%

f l RAW DATA 0.4%

0%

0%

d PROCUREMENT 0.6%

0%

0%

s 1 LEGAL 0.1%

85%

.02%

i l CRITERION FOR SELECTION OF INDEXING METHOD IS TO OPTIMIZE RETRIEVAL j

! CRITERIA FOR LICENSING RELATING SUBSET, WHICH WILL CHANGE WITH TIME,

,ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT l

n i

l

DATE AS RELATED TO RELEVANCE C

CUT 0FF DATE 1995 1998 FOR FULL TEXT TOTAL % OF PROGRAM ESTIMATED TOTAL PAGES IN FULL PAGES PRODUCED ^/

TEXT FROM CUT 0FF TO 1998 B/

1 SITE 3 SITES

_1 SITE 3 SITES lANUARY 1983 3%

2%

17.7M 25.7M L

lUOf 1986 22%

15%

14.4M 22.5M

'l - INCLUDES NON LICENSING RELATED INFORMATION

~

/ - ASSUMES 5% FULL TEXT PRIOR TO CUT 0FF

- 38 MILLION PAGES TOTAL BY 1998 I

j i

1

FULL TEXT SEARCH SYSTEM CONFIGURATION SINGLE SYSTEM HARDWARE / SOFTWARE YSTEM FULL TEXT MAX PAGES COST NO. OF iTYPE METHOD NO. USERS IN FULL TEXT 1$100_01 SYSTEMS

. PC SOFTWARE 1

.08.5 MILLION 3-20 500 1

. WORKSTATION SOFTWARE 8-16 1 MILLION 200 6-8 i

. WORKSTATION HARDWARE 8-16 2 MILLION 250-400 6-8

. MINICOMPUTER SOFTWARE 10-50 3 MILLION 1000-2000 2-4

. MINICOMPUTER HARDWARE 50-100 8 MILLION 400-500 2-4 2

. MAINFRAME SOFTWARE 50+

25 MILLION 4000-8000 1

NOTES:

SEARCH TIME OF ENTIRE DATA BASE IS 5 MINUTES OR LESS FOR SINGLE USER.

FILES WILL BE SEGMENTED S0 THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PAGES ARE NOT SEARCHED SIMUTANEOUSLYL.

MULTIPLE USERS AND QUERY COMPLEXITY IMPACT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.

SYSTEM COST IS FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE / SOFTWARE AND DOES NOT INCLUDE CUSTOMIZATION, i

j INTEGRATION, DATA ENTRY, OR HARDWARE, SOFTWARE FOR DATA LOADING.

EXAMPLE SYSTEMS:

(1)

PC - IBM PC/AT (4)

MINICOMPUTER - VAX, BASIS OR BRS l

(2)

WORKSTATION - SUN, BASIS (5)

GOULD MINICOMPUTER (3)

TRW HARDWARE (6)

MAINFRAME - IBM, BASIS OR BRS i

_ INTERESTING FACTS DATA LOADING 3,000,000 PAGES IN ONE FILE ON A VAX 8600 USING BRS OR BASIS WOULD TAKE 24 HOURS / DAY FOR 420 DAYS; i

'INDEX CREATION SEGMENTING THE FILE ALLOWS MULTIPLE MACHINES TO BE USED FOR PROCESSING.

PC SOLUTION 25% OF THE 38 MILLION PAGES IN FULL TEXT WOULD FIT ON 110 CD-ROMS OR 18 12" DISCS.

AT A PRODUCTION 1

RATE OF 650,000 DOCUMENTS A YEAR, ONE CD-ROM A

{

MONTH WOULD BE PRODUCED.

l0CR IMPLICATIONS COST OF $2.00 A PAGE IF FULL TEXT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM HARD COPY.

J l

-i i

1

4 IMAGE TRANSMISSION OF BIT LMAGES IMAGES CAN BE TRANSMITTED i

- ELECTRONICALLY FROM OPTICAL DISK

- PRINTED LOCALLY FROM OPTICAL DISK AND MAILED OUT

- OPTICAL DISK DUPLICATED AND MAILED OUT FOR LOCAL USE l

- BLOW BACK FROM MICROFILM AND MAILED OUT i

KEY QllESTION TO SIZE SYSTEM:

l WHAT USE WILL BE MADE OF THE INFORMATION ON OPTICAL DISK IF IT IS NOT LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE AS AN ARCHIVAL MEDIUM AND l

WE MUST MICROFILM ANYHOW?

IIME TO TRANSMIT 10.0 PAG _E DOCUMENT FROM WEST C0AST TO WASHINGTON D.C.

SPEED ASCII BIT MAP IMAGE COST Al SIZE 3,200KB 40,000KB 1200 BAUD 2,666 SECONDS 33,333 SECONDS 9600 BAUD 333 SECONDS 4,416 SECONDS 56 KBPS 74 SECONDS 928 SECONDS

$ 6,000 MTH T1 (1.544 MBPS) 2 SECONDS 33 SECONDS

$40,000 MTH

\\/

COST FOR LEASING A LINE WITH THESE CAPABILITIES

l l

e j

ATTACIDENT 4 i

i l

1 l

- ~...

INDEXING METHODS There are several indexing methods available for use for the LSS.

Briefly, the six (6) proposed methods are:

A short descriptive title used to A

Bulk Treatment index groups of documents to a file or larger level.

B Citation - A Bibliographic citation to a reading room location.

Bibliographic information C

Bibliographic Coding Only such as author, recipient, date, document type, detail document type, title, control numbers and attachment information.

D Bibliographic, Objective Content and Subject Indexing-Subject areas,

Keywords, Mentioned Names and Dates, and Site Codes are added to level C information.

E Bibliographic, Subject Indexing and Abstracting-Abstract summarizing document is added to level D

information.

F Full Text - Entire record is entered onto system as is.

In addition, bibliographic and subject information is coded.

Three representative types of documents are attached to explain these methods.

Sample 1 is a transmittal memo which encloses a copy of the NINSI Project System Engineering Management Plan.

Sample 2 is the NINSI Project System Engineering Management Plan.

Sample 3 is a memorandum on the submission guidelines for the FY 1988 Approved Funding Programs.

These attached samples demonstrate what information would be retrieved using each method.

SAMPLE 1 l

Sample 1 is a transmittal memo enclosing a copy of the NNWSWI Project Systems Engineering Management Plan.

Clearly the bulk treatment or citation indexing methods are inapplicable for such a document and are not set out below.

Level C

Bibliographic Coding only Indexing sample 1

for bibliographic information would retrieve:

Author - Carl P.

Gertz and his affiliation with DOE Recipient - Stephen H. Kale Date - November 24, 1987 Document Type - Correspondence Detail Doc Type-memo Title - Nevada Nuclear Water Storage Investigation (NNWSI)

Project's Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP)

(WMPO Action Item

1. 88-476).

Accession Number - HQX.871125.0025 Microfilm Number Attachment Range -

RPT/HQX.871125.0026 ZZZ/HQ0999-9999-9999 D

Bibliographic and Subject Indexing - Indexing Sample 1 to this level would retrieve no additional information as no subject area is substantively discussed in the memo.

E Bibliographic, Subject Indexing and Abstracting.

Indexing Sample 1 to this level would retrieve no additional information, as the title covers all l

pertinent data that would be included in the abstract.

F Full Text Indexing Sample 1

would retrieve biliographic information plus the name of John K.

Robson found in text of memo and names of

copyees, but no differentiation among the names.

P SAMPLE 2 Sample 2 is the NNWSI Project Systems Engineering Management Plan.

Applicable methods for reports could be type C, D,

E, and F, but F would be recommended.

LEVEL C

Bibliographic Indexing Coding only.

Sample 2 under this method would retreive the following information:

Author - DOE NV Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations Date - November 23, 1987 Accession No. - HQX.871125.0026 Attachment - MEM/HQX.871125.0025 Doctype - Report Detail Doctype - Administrative Title NNWSI Project Systems Engineering Management Plan D

Bibliographic and Subject Indexing.

Indexing Sample 2

would retrieve bibliographic information listed in level C plus:

Site Codes - Yucca Mountain; Nevada Subject Codes -

1.

Waste Package Design 2.

Management Procedures 3.

Systems Engineering Management Plan E

Bibliographic, Subject Indexing and Abstracting.

Indexing Sample 2 would retrieve the information listed in level D plus a summary such as:

NNWSI Project Systems Engineering Management Plan l

that describes the system engineering functions and requirements for the NNWSI Project.

The purpose of this plan is to describe the way in which the NNWSI Project will implement the system engineering to manage, integrate, interface and document the technical activities of the Project and to develop and manage the technical element of the Project

Baseline, which consists of the technical, management and regulatory elements.

F Full Text Indexing Sample 2 would enter verbatim the entire i

plan into the system plus the information included in level D.

SAMPLE 3 Sample 3 is a memorandum detailing the submission guidel'nes for the FY 1988 approved funding program.

Applicable methods for memoranda are levels C, D,

E and F.

LEVEL C

Bibliographic Coding Only Indexing Sample 3 under this method would retrieve the following data:

Author - Ronald Milner and affiliation DOE Recipient P Van Loan BW Lott l

FS Smith LE Perrin M Perry l

RJ Lyht Date - November 10, 1987 Doctype - Correspondence Detailed Document Code - Memo Accession Number - HQX.871127.0031 Title Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste l

Management (OCRWM)

FY 1988 Approved Funding Program (AFP) Guidance Control Number - RW 121 D

Bibliographic and Subject Indexing Indexing Sample 3 under this method would retrieve not only bibliographic information enumerated in level C and also the following Subject Codes:

Nuclear Waste Fund Government Operating Expenditure Financial Plans Waste Management l

E Bibliographic, Subject Indexing and Abstract Indexing Sample 3 under this method would add a summary to level D coding:

• ABSTRACT Congressional action on the FY 1988 energy and water development appropriations act is still underway, leaving the program's final FY 1988 funding level unknown.

Therefore, effective November 11, 1987 DOE will be operating under a new continuing resolution, which will be in effect through December 16, 1987.

Final controller guidance concerning issuance of the December AFP's has not been received at this time.

January AFP changes will be due on December 11, 1987.

(c)

. ~

(Sample 3, cont.)

F Full Text Full Text method would enter the entire memorandum l

into the system in addition to level D information.

l l

l i

l 1

l i

4 l

1

sAw12 1 Department of Energy

)

Post Office Box 98518 Las Vegas, NV 89193 8518 HQX.871125.0025 NOV c 4 !98/

Stephen H. Kale, Associate Director, Geologic Repositories, HQ (RV-20) FORS NEVADA NUCLEAR VASTE STORAGE INVESTIGATIONS (NNVSI) PROJECT'S SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PLAN (SEMP) (VMPO ACTION ITEM 888-476)

Enclosed is the NNVSI Project's SEMP for your reviev and approval. This submittal satisfies major systems acquisition milestone M108.

The SEMP is also being revieved by the Nevada Operations Office.

If you have uny questions, contact John K. Robson of my staf f at FTS 575-8933.

. r1 P. Gertz, Project Manager VM P0 : JKR-549 Vaste Management Project Office

Enclosure:

NNVSI Projec t 's SEMP cc v/ encl:

V. J. Cassella, HQ (RV-222) FORS Ralph Stein, HQ, (RV-23) FORS M. V. Frei, HQ (RV-231) FORS C. E. Brooks, HQ (RV-231) FORS T. O. Hunter, SNL, 6310, Albq.

NM L. D. Ramspott, LLNL, Livermore, CA L. R. Hayes, USGS, Denver, C0 D. T. Oakley, LANL, Livermore, CA M. E. Spaeth, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV M. P. Kunich, VMPO, NV L. P. Skousen, VMPO, NV M. B. Blanchard, VMPO, NV V. R. Dixon, VMPO, NV

/*

fG e

Celebrating the U.S. Cowitution Bicentennial-17871987

l SMPLE 2 U.S. 0tPanTutNT 07 (Ntact h

N evesa Nv C

w ii.or HQX.871125.0026

.i.

m a i.,..

put I a...oe.i.a.

AAOJECT l

M

=-

.T. O G A

'y 1

NNWSI PROJECT SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PLAN NOVEMBER 1987 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NEVADA OPERATIONS OFFICE LAS VEGAS NEVADA

. G ? :..a.

• ,2 Dhiri.; :;k 23 hev-87 NEVADA STCLEAR WASTE STORAGE I M STIGATIONS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING W.6AGEENT PLAN NOVEEER 1987 Prepared by Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations (hh13I) Project par-ticipants as part of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Wanagement Program. The h31SI Project is managed by the Waste Wanagement Project Office of the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) Nevada Operations.

NNWSI Project work is spon-sored by the Office of Geologic Repositories of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive vaste Wanagement.

Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Operations c rxtt ce eoa cs a,a o

j

w E3 ggp UnHed States Government Department of Enert memorandum em NOV 101M7 nox.anm. con nom.yto RW=121 em Office of Civilian Radioactive Weste Management (0CRWM) FY 1988 Approved Funding Program (AFP) Guidance P. Yantoan, CH/3RP0

5. W. Lott, CN/TP0 F. 5. Smith, 100 L. E. Perrin WO N. 9enry, OR0 A. J. Light, ALO The purpose of this memorandue is to followup en telephone guidance given to your staff on November 6,1987 concerning subsission of FY 1988 Decersber AFP's.

Congressional ection on the FY 1968 Energy and Water Development (EWD)

Appropriations Act is still underway, leaving the program's final FY 1988 funding level unknown.

Therefore, effective November 11,1987 the Departaent of Energy will be operating under a new Continuing Resolution, which will be in ef fect through December 16, 1987.

Due to the veertainty regarding the program's FY 1988 funding level, Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) activities will continue to operate uneer limited funding through the month of December. The levels provided in the December AFP for both budget authorit to cover WF activities through December 31,y and cost are intended 1987 Obligations should be closely monitored to ensure strict adherence to the cost ceilings to be contained in the December AFP.

Final Controller guidance concerning issuance of the December AFP's has not been received at this time, and it is uncertain as to whether the normal AFP changes will be made or whether mergency allotments only will be required.

Therefore, allottees are instructed to submit December l

requests as planned, noting and providing sufficient justification for any request that may require en emergency allotment in the event December Changes are not made. Requests should be sufficient to continue operations through the entire month of December. Please keep in mind that the funds includeo in any one allotment may be applied in any proportion to the projects and activities reflected in the AFP's; hcwever, no funds should be used for FY 1988 new starts or for the continuation of projects or activities not funded in FY 1987.

The obligational authority available is limited to the mount of funds indicated on the allotment, plus the unobligated balances as delineated in the Controllers Septanbar 22. 1987 meno. "Initial FY 1988 Allotments and Approved Funding Programs."

<e

-,---~e

,n...

11<10/87 18 56 FCRSTL 4 071 003 i

)

[OG This Office provided guidance (memorandum from Samuel Aousso dated September which established cost ceilings intended to cover WF ac the month of November.

Subsequent to this the Controller issued guidance balances., nating available all prior year u,ncosted and unobligated established by 0CRWR in the initial FY 1988 AFP should con Additionally, it is requested that,a gletus report art actual. sgllt, for the modth of October in FY 1984 and projected costs for the m.

November and December, respectively be submitted.

onths of be provided consistent with the level reported in the Headquarter's AFPThis Detail Aeport.

Management and AnalThis information should be provided to the Financial November 20, 1987. ytical Services Division by close of musiness Friday.

January AFP changes will be to Tuesday, December 11 any questicas or desire additional information, pleas,e.947. If pu have 1

(FT3 896 8992) or Richard 'even (Fis 896-9007) of my staff.

contact Terri Lamb Thank you for sur cooperation and attention to this pidance, adherence during this critical funding period.to which is essential for maintaining

& Q-Y L

Ronald A. Milner Director Financial Managem,ent and Analytical Services Division Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management cc:

J. Neff, $MPO (Hereford. Texas)

5. Mann, RTP/TP0 J. Anttonen, BWIP(Chicago) )

(Richland C. Gertz,1490 (Nevada)

J. Selecki,100 J. Robe rt s. TPC, M. Meiste11 OR0 (Chicago)

5. Partins OR0 D. Kenyon,RLO P. Gross,OR0 A. Pino,,ALQ H. Youngaeyer, CH/SRP0 N. Detter, CH/TP0 C. Folker,100 C. 119, M40 D. Coooer. den

e i

i

\\

l i

)

i I

ATTAC M NT 5

i LSS COMMITTEE INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS l

l In order to make an informea decision about the appropriate way to handle the LSS, committee members need to know what options are available and the costs and benefits associated with them.

There is no way to make an informed judgment until further information is made available, l

For instance, a number of committee members believe that a search of the full text of all documents is desired.

Other members assert that this is either not feasible or is too costly.

This has resulted in a proposed time cutoff for searchable full text.

This proposal has the greatest impact on those sites which have been under consideration the longest.

For instance, the Hanford site has been under study as a waste site as early as 1968, the Nevada site has been under consideration since the late '70's.

The following questions, at a minimum, must be answered before informed agreement can occur.

The answers must contain sufficient detail to allow committee members to inquire into the assumptions and calculations involved.

A.

FEASIBILITY:

1.

Is there a maximum size for a file that can be full text searched?

It that a hardware or software limitation?

2.

If there is no technical maximum size, is there a practical limit?

What practical problems occur with searching large files?

a.

Does search time increase?

If so, how much per additional document?

Using what assumptions about the type of system?

What technical solutions are available to mitigate this problem?

(e.g., different hardware, different software; use of more than one database) b.

Does the "quality" of the search decrease?

If j

so, what problems occur?

Are there technical solutions to this problem (e.g., sof tware, l

training in search of techniques).

B.

COST:

We have been told that a "worst case" system would cost $100 million.

Several committee members feel that is i

too costly.

What are the assumptions that went into this figure?

LSS Committee Information Requirements Page Two If the committee wants to consider less expensive alternatives, they need answers to the following types of questions.

1.

What are the incremental costs associated with changing any particular factor.

Such as:

a.

Increasing or decreasing the total number of full text searchable documents (e.g., by 1 million);

b.

Increasing or decreasing the speed of the searches (e.g., by 30 seconds);

c.

Increasing or decreasing the number of documents that have headers or changing the amount of information in the headers; d.

Increasing or decreasing the number of documents stored as images; and e.

Adding or substituting the use of stand alone PC's assuming various types of memory (e.g., hard j

disk, CD ROM disks).

)

We recommend that the committee set up a mechanism to provide the answers to these and other questions to the committee as a whole.

Some of this information may already exist.

Kurt Balcom,

{

has had experiences with other large litigation support

{

systems.

NRC has already studied the LSS and has created a pilot project.

DOE is currently studying it.

Other committee i

members may also have some expertise.

We recommend that the committee request Kurt, Avi and a DOE or SAIC representative meet today to develop a proposal for answering these and other similar questions.

To the extent they can provide estimates or ball park figures immediately they should do so.

Walter Perry Charlie Roe Narda Pierce bj/1245C

I I

l 1

i I

l I

ATTACHMENT 6 1

l NRC LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING State of Nevada Position Paper Re

{

Criteria for Entry of Documents (NRC !ssues 2,1,5) i Priveleged Material (issues 2 and 3)

CRITERIA FOR ENTRY OF DOCUMEN'IE (Issues 2,1,5) 4 We must keep in mind that the purpose of any LSS is to enhance and facilitate discovery, and to provide a means to conduct an expedited, electronic motions practice, particularly on motions with respect to the production of documents. Accordingly, the basic criteria to be used to determine which documents are tv be entered in the LSS in searchable full text (SFT) are the same as the criteria which govern discovery generally; that is, all documents which are

-l relevant to the licensing proceeding, or which appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. These are the same criterle which are currently expressed in 10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1), which, of course, tracks FRCP 26(bXI).

"Relevant"in this context should mean relevant to any issue which may be the subject of the Commission's licensing proceeding, including, for example, the adequacy of the Department's (or the Commission's) EIS, and that term should l

therefore not be limited by the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 60. In determinations f

't 1

1

-=

respecting the relevancy of any document, or category of documents, we should be guided by the definition of "relevant evidence" found in Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides as follows: "Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." (Emphasis supplied).

Relevant in this context should also be taken to mean relevant in any way to the selection of a proposed site for a repository, including accuments related to, or which provide a comparison with, the site selected, and thus the subject of a licensing proceeding, and other sites or locations considered and or characterized by the Department, as well as relevant in any way to the suitability of that site and its abilEf to isolate wasta and spent fuel for the required period of time.

We should also begin with the assumption that any party may place any of its own documents, or documents in its possession, into the LSS in SFT. The negotiation should thus focus on which documents are required to be entered in SFT.

2

With these basic criteria and definitions in mind, Nevada's specific positions, responding to the NRC position paper dated 11/19-20/87, are as follows:

1.

_Date. All documents created af ter the date on which the planning for site specific work at or in the vicinity of a site was commenced should, and which meet the basic criteria, te entered in the LSS in SFT by the party who created the document, or on whose behalf the document was created.

2.

Other Relevant Information. Nevada accepts the NRC's position on other relevant information, on the condition that the designated time frame is the beginning of planning for site specific work, and not some artificial or arbitrary date.

3.

Potential Reliance By A Party. We begin with the assumption that any information or documents which the Department has used in the selection of a site, or which any party intends to rely on at the hearing, must be entered in the LSS in SFT. In that context used should mean, reviewed, referred to, relied on, critiqued, or otherwise obtained information from. The obvious intent of this provision is to capture all documents which the DOE should have of could have relied on in the 3

I selection of a site, and not only those which it intends to offer i support of its application, in all other respects, Nevada accepts the NRC's position on potential reliance, with the qualification that "sufficient justification" means nothing more than the demonstration that the information or document appears restonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4.

Tvoe of Information. Nevada accepts the NRC's position on the type of information, with the exception of annotated documents and otherwise relevant hand-written notes, both of which should be initially entered in the LSS in SFT.

4

PRIVILEGE MATERIAL (Issues 2 and 3)

All documents whleh are relevant, or which are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, should be entered in the LSS in SFT, without regard to any privilege which might be claimed with respect to that document, with only three exceptions:

1.

Documents containing material to which the attorney client privilege applies.

2.

Documents containing attorney work product.

3.

Documents containing safeguards information.

In general, it is Nevada's position that, with the exception of attorney / client, work product, and safeguards information, no privileges should apply to any information which is relevant to the suitability of the site for licensing as a high-level or spent fuel repository, or to the ability of that site to isolate waste for the required period of time.

5

..