ML20207F613

Transcript of 880815 Briefing on Ctr for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-53

ML20207F613
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/15/1988
From:	NRC
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8808230130
Download: ML20207F613 (84)

Text

.m # . . . . . .. - 1

.t .L,.w:*.'....-..._-"* *"**'* *

' *. L*.'[7

• M *i *:'2*****#** 70.* . -- "' .

._. . . A ..:L . =: p,*.i 7:

. - ._ - =

..  :.r ';5.. c. . ..

.L .- .~~TLa. ~4 E w.:. -

J*

^ *

. w .+ M m.. - .s.' L.i . .;. ~ _ _ L pf.m. . . , N - ._ '8 ...h.,.. .

,+ g.,j_f L.J. d .. s. .. . s. . . . . . .

4.~

m.. .

- s.n. w ;..-- _

.,.W.* e .a.k.4,. 7 *,.. sw

- Q ;,; - -

r...

y...

y... _= ,3,..~-.. s ...-..a.

i l

.mm.ee-

.w e

..M .

-w..

d

. Me M M g m &b eg.w.>

-...e . ..

w . -. UNITED STATES .OF . AMERICA.ih6 -

E NUCLEARJREGULATORY COMMISSION .

g. x. v: .. _

. . .w.g- r,..,,-. _. w .m . v , . - .:,

- ~ . . . - - _ . . .

s-r:.. . - ,.,, ..n.n ~.-..- ----

m. - , -

W,w.w.w:w .m.m r,xmat.nm,as mm_e_Mm_.e.a. nww.smm,g.M._w_a_:~.~s.n .

~ ~

6._,..... ., m, _i IIIe '_'~~BYI'E 'F I N G ' ~0 N C E N Tm._._,,-- E R F O R N U'C L_E. .AIWA _ . STEREGULA p_-- _.. . . . -

. , . . _ -= . _ . . . . . _ . . _ .... . .

- - _ . = = . .

.p - . - .. . . . . - , - . . - - . , . _ ,, - ..-..... - _ - ~ . - -

- = -

V

...n..n.=...

~ - . 9w --.a.au" . w -.c.

"~""---*-""" . . . .

6 w.- w. . .

g;. . - . . 4 OC8tlOn:-~ROCKVIEEQMARTTIAND":-- . .

.:.:m-: = ;=. _- ::~.. =., u:_. .::.:=. .==.,. . . g. ... .,

.:.__ = ~ m=::. . . . _- =. . : .: : =_. =_. :.

~ - -

L_..u.=,,;:r-

,- =1:~ __

._. . .. . m . s, m- m. . _ . _ . . . . = ....._.m_m.m...m__,m.--

-, _.- - . _ . _ _ . ~ ~.._..__m..-._ _- . ..n

. . , , . - . _ . . . .. m m ,_._ m _

.-,e..--_-

. m

~.....

p w. - -.

-- --, Date: - . A U G U S T - I 5 , 19 8 8 ---.% ---& - ; r---- -

e

- - - - --; -~.. _ _ _. . _my.mwges.r.w-y -,ww _. . %., - __ = _ - -

,- .  :.--------- - n- -

p- r m.- .:e r,e Pages... .i. .53 , w w u w , m . n , ;_;s m.ns .

n -- . - - - - -

_ y .. - _

f

.,_a..~...

. ~

g._._..

. . . ,, - . ,.. . . . , ..~ ,. . - .. . _ _ ,,. %v c ..

.,m...,.,_.- . . ,.

_. .m a, ...,..,.~..,..~,,...~.,m.,m,m.:..r,,m._.... ~

. oue. .m . ~. .

~ . . .. .- .. . .

m_._

. ~. - sn.

.m.___..._.,_,

. _ . _ .. .. . .w %m. n_ r .. .. , n ... ,n m.

n... _ _ ,. - .a V. _. ., ' .

a

-. 'y a. ,

e

.e. v p .- . _ . . . . . .

,u - -

.._-_.___-g,.j- -_ _ ._

... _ _- . - . _ w..: ~ . -.. _- a. --, , ,

7.. . . _gg= _ . , _ . . - . . . ..,.. ...

u ..

a.. w . w

.a a m - n n u v.c n m w .a , a  :.a.c.m :

-._,s,. 4 . _ . , . .~. . . .m.. ,. . . . . . . . -. . . .

t.cw1s..: . _

..e.). 4 7s.sg,,. ,.~ :

. *. ,. ,4. ,4 i .. y

%.

• y.

._ ,d 4,, M g.".rj.ms ,ld,.bl. 1 m .h 7.,.wA.;/.,g,,;.g.,c. M 4,W,,m. p.ag,ly , h g ~ W .s.;;c.g.p*.,h *

.m....,.y...,...

, _ , . ";~ _m. .-. .%._.d . . . , . . . . . , . , m .,, _ m _

.,.,s

.w-s.<

. - m

_. .a t_ -.. .

. . ~ .-. . .

. .. , . .-..n.:,-.,-e.. _,.n.n..-._.c...--..- . - - . .

- . _ _ _ ~

= -

h, v. &2t ...%

. m.m A

. m w p y m . .. ~~.wn %m=.,w%vn - m ~ w; gybykw.#., W M% n.rWW 2. V.,%.t e

ew~4 w w.~ %,w.. .

wWL me22.= .

.-..a mc - '*

._ ' w., _. W. '~. . . _%~ ~. - . .

...>.sv. ,. W. u n. 1_ ....+.._ .*". n ~-*'-wNm.n. m ,.,.%. . y. . m.n.

m

..._..._. ~m,.. m. '.'n' n'.~' w.w.. r..,*.** *. .-yy.~..,.m. . ... , r . ..--..e s.

n. . - , ,.

m. . . ., .,..s., . ..,. .

m,. .

.nz mga;. m. ; du,c6y.,.w.<rn.n.~. y .m i

?.e:., . 7 -

,r ,

3M ,W%u.4eNfa ai,,6 eaeX4f.lbe.f*A nic T.h, s,

.y ' *:, .;

v(aa" . i ,, . j f Q r * $.f

. _ ._ nnn- 9y- - SS 8 BS

. .-. . . ~w. . . m. m . . ~

- . . . ~.~ . _,~.. . . ~. ._, w.,m. . *-r . Courf Re90rters - . - . .*+

.-*...~,

m-n .,

1825 i S_tre.et, N.W., S.u.ite 921..u :wp-tw;.w u n u_v.- < ww. m .~ m.w v. .e.MW. x .- ,.=;:a,Reh.v

,.: v.u = &. axx e. %.w ^ + q. E, --.

--.s ~ .. _. .

ww -- .4

< .. ._ y . _ _ ._-..~. , ~. *" Was.h.Ington, D.C. .

- =

wt',e-W e % M!rd Q ).f /4 ;t dS thM,1 w}'--K d d.d kty g*w n O@ M 95020006 4._; --y- r*MMtM.4-  : bT*W.r .d i tA's ^'*t>i **'"+,"

..-n-- .x.,a -. . ,. .

p

c F-eia:e1.

r -Shr -.

• 1ee

'hS =

= = ~-

gg.gfqw,;y;p w w .;.:: . _... .. ... .,. e. m, y g-y :g,p:- u:-MM e2w=~ w. , a ~ s:.r. v= =~-~-

.. ~=

~

-. ,. :.. =. n .7e;--

m m . m ,..>... ,. . ,.. A k.a.-{,

m

- -..s.-.~o . . , . .

7y . w.w pr,7 ,.

"*t~ "

• N~$W+ %~

- - e.~

w*",.,

g. . ,, ,% ,,."_.y,  %

-~

8808230130 pDR 10CFR 880815 PNU _

m m**. g,'" q ..., p mes -.

. m 7 7 ,,.3,p.ga w .w s.-..w~. ".#..._u..;..u

%M,.g.g , ~

,, .,Jg". . e c~

m J'm PT9 .. .7... *m >.c

.- + . . c , 4a m w .,Wy,w. m & q m =~. .

G #- @ v m a.4.f w W . %. .W.-W

I >

l s.

l

{1' DISCLAlHER This' is an unof ficial transcript .of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on August 15, 1988 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been rev'iewed, corrected or edited, and. it may

~

contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the I

~

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 Commissign in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.

'ma a

r-1

-s.-

1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***

4 BRIEFING ON CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSIS 5 ***

6 PUBLIC MEETING 7 ***

8 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 10 Rockville, Maryland 11 Monday, August 15, 1900 12 f 13 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to-14 notice, at 2:00 p.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, Cnairman_

-15 of the Commission,' presiding.

'16

~

17 COMMISSIONERS ~PRESENT:~

18 LANDO W.-ZECH, Chairman of-the Commission 19 KENNETH M. CARR, Member of the Commission

'M KENNETH-C. ROGERS, Member.of~the Commission 21 22 -

23

~

25 W

.I .

)

c. 2 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:

.~..

(2 / 2 S. CHILK 3 W. PARLER 4 V. STELLO.

5 J. LATZ 6 W. PATRICK 7 H. THOMPSON 8 J. BUNTING 9 G. ARLOTTO 10 11 12 13

(

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

9 L@ 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (2 : 00 p.m. )

3. CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good afternoon, ladies and 4 gentlemen. Today the Commission will be briefed by Mr.

5 John Latz. Is that the correct pronunciation?

6 MR. LATZ: That is correct.

? CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you, sir. Who is the 8 President, and Mr. Wesley Patrick who is a Technical 9 Director for the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory 10 Analysis at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, 11 Texas. Also, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and-12 Safeguards will provide a summary of the activities of the

( ., 13 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis.

14 The Center was established in October of 1987 to 15 provide long-term continuity in technical assistance and 16 research in various areas of the high level waste licensing 17 program. The Center-was also established to avoid a 18 potential conflict-of-interest in the licensing'of?a 19 national high level wasteLrepository.

'M -As we approach the end of the first yearlof~the 21 operation of the Center, the Commission is-interested in' M hearing how well the Center is performing in terms of 23 meeting the contractural requirements. Additionally, we 24 would like to know how well the Center has been able to

, ~

25 attract people.to the program and provide technical F.

< }'

s. 4 1 assistance to the staff.

Ef' 2 We would like to have the staff provide a summary 3 of planned activities for the Center for the coming year.

4 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any 5 comments to make before we begin?

6 (No response.)

7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If not, I understand view graphs 8 are available as you enter the room. This is an 9 information briefing this af ternoon. Mr. Stello, you may 10 proceed.

11 MR. .STELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will 12 give you a very short summary view of how the Center has 13 progressed with the passage of nearly a year.- I think the (I

14 bottom line is that we are pleased that the progress that 15 has been made we think is ahead of the schedule that we 16 indicated we'would try to follow at our briefing-last year g 17 when we began.

.4 -

18 I will 'ask Mr. Hughf Thompson to introduce the 19 speakers at the table and.get right into the . briefing.

20 CHAIRMAN ~ZECH: Thank youJvery much. Mr. Thompson',

21 you may proceed.

~

, 22 MR'. THOMPSON: Thank you.- As you.know, Mr.

23 Chairman, this has been an area of intense Commission 24 - .intereat in our establishing the Center and.we:certainly (2*

2 . appreciate the support. I have been particularly. pleased' s

l

,1' i

..? 5 1 in my activities in overseeing the activities of the Center hh* 2 and the staff's effort to get it up and established. In 3 fact, I would say in my 15 years with NRC, it is probably 4 the most successful integration of both the office of OGC, 5 NMSS, Research, the General Counsel's office, and the 6 administrative support, the Contracts Division, Division of 7 Integration, Resource and Management. It is an activity that 8 really has achieved what I was hoping to achieve with this 9 activity of having many diverse contracts out there into 10 one larger contract to focus all of our attention on the 11 system integration, the systematic effort, to look at it to 12 make'sure that we are all ascribing to achieve the excellence 13 that we think and we plan to achieve for this.

-(

14 This morning Mr. Bunting, who is the Program 15 Manager for NRC, we are going to highlight briefly what wo 16 expected to get not only for this year but for the coming 17 year on the contract. The Center' President, Mr. .Latz, will 18 give us a quick summary of the items you discussed, followed 19 by Mr.-Wesley Patrick, who is the Technical Director, who 20 will talk about some of the program architecture or the 21 systematic and the regulatory too which is one of the key 22 products that we are looking for this' year to get.

s 23 In fact, when we talk about being accelerated, 24 this activity has in ossence been-accelerated over what we

(

25 originally planned back in '84 in that tho' Department of L__

ns D' ~

c. 6 l 1 Energy now has focused on one site and we are focused on

' - ' one site.

2 So, many of the activities now can be better 3 focused, as well as our own acceleration, to look at the 4 rulemaking and regulatory actions that we have got to take.

5 Joe.

6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Before you go, I apologize, I 7 should have mentioned earlier that Commissioner Roberts will 8 not be with us this afternoon. He is out of town on a long-9 standing commitment. But he did ask me to express his 10 respects and make sure you realize, especially our people 11 from Texas, that it is not because Commissioner Roberts is 12 not interested. It is just because he can't be'with you 1

13 here today. He asked me to pay his respects which I am 14 pleased to do.

15 Let's proceed.

16 MR. BUNTING: Okay. Could we have chart three 17 first, please?

18 (slide.)

9 19 MR. BUNTING: To set _the stage for the Center's 20 presentation, I would like to take a few minutes to remind 21 you about the requirements for year one and ~ year two. First 22 of all, to be an FFRDC, OMB's office of Federal. Procurement .

23 Policy requires that the contractor establish an independent 24- center of excellence. It is just this development of the M Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis intofa'conter-

., 7 1

of excellence which is our primary requirement during these bi 2 carly years.

3 Now, over the past ten months, the Center's 4 management has been engaged in learning the program, coming 5 to understand exactly what NRC must accomplish, and to secure s the high quality technical expertise in the appropriate 7 disciplines. The learning process continues, however, 8 significant insights have been gained and there has been a 9 substantial increase in the technical staffing over the last 10 three months. Mr. Latz will discuss that in detail in his 11 presentation.

12 During this period, we have also required several

(

13 contractural deliverables which will assist the Center 14 management and the newly acquired technical experts in 15 understanding the NRC mission, give us insights into just 16 how that is progressing, and deliver some very needed 17 products. Principal among these is the applications of 18 systems engineering and integration techniques to the 19 development of the program architecture.

N Now, during the remainder of the presentation, you 21 will hear references to systems engineering and program 22 architecture. The program architecture is defined as a Z3 system description. Simply stated, the applications of 24 systems engineering techniques just means a top down 25 systematic ana;ysis of the applicablo regulatory requirements l

l l

- - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ J

8 i to establish that system description.

2 This analysis is focused on identifying each 3 regulatory requirement, its element of proof or that is what 4 must be proven -- its compliance determination method and 5 that is what must be proven. It also includes assessing 6 the lack of certitude about all of that, that is what does 7 the regulation r,equire, any uncertainty about what must be 8 proven or any uncertainty about how to prove it. It will 9 also include the Center's recommended technical programs 10 to reduce those uncertainties.

11 Finally, it' reflects the NRC's decisions on those 12 recommended programs and priorities. Once the decisions have

[ '13 been made and the uncertainty reduction methods are being 14 executed, it will then include the corresponding specifics 15 of what should be included in the format and content guide 16 and the standard review plan, each.of those key to the-17 specific regulatory requirement. It was felt that.such a 18 program which systematically addresses each regulatory requirement.would develop the technical basis'that would be

~

19 20 needed-to support not only the programatic decisions but 21 also decisions by the Licensing Board.

22 Through a recent contract change in June of this 23 year, this development process has been changed _so as to 24 focus the analysis on certain regulations which are time-25 phased to DOE's production schedule. For example, siting.

-t

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.. 9 1 We are attempting to produce interim reports on siting by b 2 the end of this calendar year. Doctor Patrick's 3 presentation will cover this subject and the Center's 4 progress in greater detail.

5 Now, for year one, we have also specified four 6 research projects which have begun or will begin. They are 7 the int; grated waste package, geochemistry, the rmohydrology 8 and seismic rock mechanics. Support to the staf f production g schedules is very limited during this first year, although to the Center has undertaken a transportation risk study in 11 support of the Division of Safeguards and Transportation.

12 As we come to understand the program and gain insights from the development program architecture, the

( 13 14 Center is also expected to put toge'.her plans to facilitate 15 the transfer of technology from our existing contractors 16 into the Center.

17 Now, given the time available today, the Center's 18 Presentation is intended to be focused on these first two 19 requiremants and that is the development of the Center itself m and the development of the program architecture.

21 If we could turn to chart four which are the year 22 two requirements.

23 (Slide.)

24 MR. BUNTING: I would like to remind you that our i

25 internal planning envisioned a three-year phase-in to the

10 1 Center of essentially all of our technical assistance work

-. <1

(~v. 2 and our existing contractors. Therefore, development of 3 this Center into a center of excellence is still the 4 priority assignment for year two.

5 Also, during year two, the Center is required to 6 develop the program architecture to the point where it can 7 be baselined and we can control further enhancements and 8 changes through' configuration and control procedures. The 9 four research projects that were begun in year one will to continue on through year two. And, of interest here will be 11 the delivery of an integrated research plan which is a 12 deliverable stemming from this development of the program faa 13 architecture. It will reflect the research the Center 14 believes is necessary to reduce these uncertainties which 15 it has identified.

16 Now, the technical support to the NRC staff 17 production schedules and the rate of-technology transfer 18 will increase substantially during the second year.. For 19 example, performance assessment, that will be a new start 20 in year two and we will try'and bring that onboard and byL 21 the end of year two have all of the support durrently being 22 _ provided by Sandia transferred either-to the staff and'into 23 the Center.

24 As a further example, the Division of liigh Level O Waste Management intends to phase-out all of its existing

• 4 11 i contractors during year two with only a few exceptions.

bh 2 This phase-out will be accomplished primarily with the use 3 of residual funds that were unexpended in fiscal year '88 4 and most all of the FY-88 funds will be redirected to the 5 Center.

6 Now, this reflects an acceleration of the three-7 year phase-in plan such that we are attempting to be complete 8 with it in two years rather than three years. There are 9 some concerns which I will speak to and Mr. Latz will speak 10 to pertaining to that acceleration.

11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Now, this phase-in plan you are 12 talking about, is this a schedule? Is it the same thing

(' 13 as transferring of men from the national laboratories to the 14 Center?

15 MR. BUNTING: Yes, sir.

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Is that what you are talking about 17 there?

3 18 MR. BUNTING: Yes. We'have contracts now with'the 19 national-laboratories and also with private contractors.

20 -The notion is to ramp those down and bring that technology j 21 into the Center.

22 MR. THOMPSON: Right. To the extent.that we need 23 to keep'some of the private contractors technical assistance, i 24 it.might well be assisting in some of the site 25 characterization plan reviews, some of the real near-term l

if

_ o- 12 i

type of review activities that we might have because we will (hk 2 likely get a fairly significant review early on in the next 3 fiscal year. But to the extent that we can, the essence is 4 really to get the expertise into the Center.

5 Again, I think it will be an issue that will be.

6 discussed concerning there are some management decisions 7 that have to be made in order to make that a reasonable 8 transition. -

g CHAIRMAN ZECH: Have you also decided what level to of technical assistance or research would be conducted at 11 the Center itself?

12 MR. BUNTING: In terms of funding level, yes, sir,

('.

13 we have.

14 CHAIFGL\N ZECH: But hou about the research itself 15 and the technical material? in otner words, what will'they 16 do as far as the technical assistance is concerned at the-17 research center, or will they be contracting.it out or 18 f arming -it out or whatever?

19 MR. BUNTING: We intend for most of it to be done

3) at the Center.

21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: At the Center.

22 MR. BUNTING: Yes, sir, n MR. THOMPSON: But there is a balance. They;do 24 have-the authority to go outsideland bring in some 25 consultants as they bring up the expertise.

s 13 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Okay.

hk 2 MR. THOMPSON: So, that is part of the technique 3 to give you that flexibility but the intent is, to the extent 4 that you can have the expertise in the Center and it fits a 6 long-term objective, that's the way you want to get it.

8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Okay. But we also have some 7 expertise here on our staff.

8 MR. BUNTING: Yes, sir, very much.

9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: What relationship is that staff 10 OXpertise going to be to the Center?

11 MR. BUNTING: We hope to have it as a team. I 12 think, if you were down there last week, you could see the

( 13- beginnings of that. We had a meeting with the Center on 14 developing elements of proof. If you were there, you would 16 see at one time the spokesperson getting up would have been 16 the Center, at one time the'spokesperson was the Center's 17 subcontractor, and another time the spokesperson was the NRC 18 staff. They were all working as a team.

19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, I am well aware that we-have 20 on the staff a lot of expertise. I had a chance fairly 1

21 recently to go up and down the floors of this new building.

1 L 22 and see some of the fine people we have. So, I' hope we are l.

2 using them in a very strong position.too and doing as much L .,

. 24 as we can within our own staff capabilities.

25 MR. THOMPSON: The staff typically is a' bit more l

l

p.

14 1 reactive to either some issues that come up in the short-77

^\M/' 2 term, issues dealing with review of the site 3 characterization plan as we did this past year, whereas the 4 ' Center, we have a bit more stability and long-term planning 5 with what we call some of the rulemaking activities, the 6 research' activities, that are planned there.

7 So, basically they are an extension of the staff 8 and they are under the direction of the various technical 9 monitors for the contracts. So, they work very closely 10 together. So, I think it is, as Joe was saying, a very e

11 important balance that we have both involved. That is.one 12 of the reasons by going to a Center that the icvel of

(; 13 communication and contact on the same technical issues can 14 be enhanced.

15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you.

16 MR. BUNTING: The reliance'on the Center is no 17 greater than we have had in the past on relying on'the 18 individual contractors. They have just been numerous, 19 located at different places and disjointed.

i M CHAIRMAN ZECH: But the purpose of the Center of 3

21 course is to be a focal point.for expertice that we would M ordinarily perhaps get from the national labs or from DOE 23 facilities because of the conflict-of-interest concern.

24 MR. BUNTING: That is correct. 7 e

~M CHAIRMAN ZECH: That is important to recognize ,

1

o* ' 15 1 and, therefore, the people that they bring on and they h 2 contract with should stand the test, a conflict-of-interest 3 test, at any hearing that should come.forth.

4 MR. BUNTING: That is correct.

5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I am sure our people here 6 understand that. I would like to hear from you in that 7 regard when you take the floor. But I do believe that it 8 is important that our staff here, that we do as much as we 9 can ourselves, and that the technical center will be an 10 extension of what we can't do becauee we don't have the 11 entire expertise available to us. i 12 MR. BUNTING: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN ZECH: We must keep and we are trying I

( 13 14 know to keep the expertise within the ' staff with the Center l 15 as an-extension of our staff so we don't have a conflict-of-

" interest there so we can actually perform as a competent 16 17 regulator and make the proper decisions regarding regulatory 18 issues. t 19 All right. Let's proceed, please.

M MR. BUNTING: Okay. I would just like to note a i 21 that because of the.recent change to the contract that 22 accelerated this program architecture, the contractor is 4 i

i- 23 fairly well committed f rom.now through tire .end of December 24 to produce.these products that I mentioned. So, these new 25 starts in year two and the acceleration in year two won't N

16 i 1 materialize very much until after the first of the calendar

.h

[Sf V 2 year.

3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.

t 4 MR. BUNTING: Okay. Now, let's turn to chart five 5 and speak to the development of the Center. t 6 (Slide.)

7 MR. BUNTING: We have indicated that the j s development of the Center's technical excellence is the ,

9 highest priority. This means that we must have a clear ,

10 vision of wha. Long-range we want the Center to be. Now, 11 this vision was expressed in the statement of work in terms 12 of a balance between research and technical assistance.

13 Our attempts to accelerate the phase-in of support

( '{l ~

14 provided by~ existing contractors to the Center coes pose

, 15 certain risks and we are carefully considering these ,

16 ' potential impacts. For example, if the long-range vision 17 is neglected, it is possible to create an imbalance by +!

18 consuming all your staff resources for short-term things. ,

19 Now, given the relative small size of-the Center, 20 we are not going to lose sight of that.. We are particularly 21 paying attention to maintaining this balance-over the long 22 run. So, at this point, I-wculd like to present Mr. Latz, 23 the President of the Center, who will present t' . progress.

24 and accomplishments of the Centar during its brief ten months i.,

25 of existence.

" 17 ,

1 MR. LATZ: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for l k4 2 the opportunity to be with you today. Befcre I commence, I

\

3 would call to your attention that in the handout we have 4 given you there is an organizational chart that reflects the 5 organization of the Center and its relationship to the 6 Southwest Research Institute.

7 I would like to acknowledge today the presence 8 with us of a fellow vice president of the Institute, Amos 4

9 Holt. Amos Holt, like I, report directly to the President l 10 of the Institute, but Mr. Holt is also responsible for the 11 Institute-wide quality assurance program. The Center, while 12 it will have and does have in place now its cxn1 quality

{y 1; assurance program, that quality assurance program is subject 14 to conformance to and' audit by the Institute.

15 'Amos, if you would please stand up and let the 16 gentlemen, the Commissioners, see you.

17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Welcome.

18 Mk. HOLT: Thank you.

19 MR. LATZ: We wish to briefly outline the life of

~

20 the Center to date and inform you of the Center's current 21 status and snare with you our vision'of the future as the 22 Center grows and its capability.to serve the NRC and the.

23 mission mandated by the Nucl' ear Waste Policy Act. No invite 24 your questions at any time during or after our presentation.

.{ .

25 Chart two, please, d

I L

, I 18 1 (Slide.)

2 2 MR. LATZ: Mr. Bunting has stated quite clearly 3 the history of and the. rationale for the creation of the 4 Center -- avoidance of rea' and perceived conflict-of-5 interest, provide for leag-tenn continuity and locus of 6 institutional memory and technical assistance i- research 7 work, provide a central capability for performing and 8 integrating all aspects of the high level waste licensing 9 process.

10 During the first ten months of the Center's

~

11 existence, we have diligently strived to keep these purposes 12 clearly in mind.

{ ', 13 Chart three, please.

14 (Slido.)

15 MR. LATZ: These underlying purposes have helped 16 us to clearly focus the general objectives of the Center, 17 to function !.n a timely and cost-ef fective manner. Even 18 within prudent budgetary and cost bounds, we anticipate that 19 the high level waste program will be carried out within a M much broader budgetary constraint. It, therefore, behooves 21 us to move.very deliberately in the continuing formation 22 of the Center in order to assure'that within those constraint s 23 the Center will attain its ultimate objectives to develop 1

24 an'd sustain a high IcVel of technical compe-e within the-(

25 Center. I give emphasis to those words. Tusse few words l

I t.

n 19 1 express a simple clear concept. They also, however, catry (T 2 with them the consummate challenge to create an environment 3 which attracts those professionals of high competence, 4 stimulates and motivates those same professionals to high 5 Performance , and maintains a high morale among those 6 professionals.

7 We must assure their continuing association with 8 the Center, instilling in them the confidence that they 9 will obtain that professional satisfaction which constitutes 10 their dominant remuneration. I can't emphasize that point 11 strongly enough.

12 The Institute as a whole has a turnover ratio'of 13 something around six percent. The Center, being relatively

(

14 small in numbers, must strive for a much better turnover 15 ratio. 'So, in order to attain that objective, we must create 16 an environment which not only attracts but motivates and

! 17 retains the interest of those'high professionals to provide

18 technical support and testimory when' required on NRC staff j

19 decisions, to' facilitate streamlining of the licensing 20 process.

21 We are confident that t'.te top down systems .

22 engineering approach which Doctor Patrick will address i

23 momentarily embodies in the program architecture -- embodied 24 in the program architecture -- will identify those areas of 25 uncertainty which can and must be reduced. The methods to i

... 20 1 accomplish this objective can range from clarification of (r.1 F.1 2 definitions to revision of existing rules or the promulgation 3 of new rules where necessary.

4 Chart four, please.

5 (Slide . )

6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, before you go on to that, 7 how have you been doing as far as attracting the type of a people that you obviously want for the program?

9 MR. LATZ: I plan to address that momentarily, if to I may, Mr. Chairman.

11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine, certainly. Please just go 12 ahead.

13 MR. LATZ: But I will elaborate as_you wish.

~ ('

14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you. Go ahead.

15 l MR. LATZ:- To develop and evaluate compliance 16 determina' on methods, to identify research needs and 17 priorities. These needs and priorities will be driven by 18 the effort to reduce uncertainties. To develop and sustain 19 expert socioeconomic, institutional and environmental .

20 analysis capability.

21 Chart ten, please.

22 (Slide.)

23 MR. LATZ: In the material handed out to you;are 24 several charts which depict key milestones and accomplishment s 26 and the like for the Center.. No will not take your time.to Q --_

21 1

walk in detail through these charts. Generally, they refer (I 2 to the early original staffing of the Center, the 3 development of operations plans for each program element, 4 the approval of such plans, and significant accomplishments 5 which were embodied in these operations plans.

6 Mr. Bunting has earlier alluded to the process of 7 the development and implementation of tnese operations plans.

8 The preparation and implementation of these operations plans 9 was performed by the original core staff of the Center. That to core staff is the management of the Center now and will be 11 for the foreseeable future.

12 This exercise, in addition to being a necessary

( 13 management first step, had the very salutary effect of 14 bringing the Center and the NRC's program management staff 15 to a common understanding of the basic elencnts of the 16 program as well as the definitive tasks to be initiated in 17 the first year.

18 The dominant accomplishment to date has been the 19 preliminary design of the program architecture and its 20 support system.

21 As Mr. Bunting has indicated, the cecond contract 22 year will see the completion of the construction of the Z3 program architecture. At that time, with the initial 24 exercise of the program architecture, the Center will be 25 able to methodically and rationally determine appropriate h

L

22 1 areas for uncertainty reduction including those areas of

(' 2 research with the highest cost time benefit pctential.

3 Additionally, we will initiate performance 4 assessment work. This performance assessment work should 5 serve to further assure that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 6 technical program is appropriately and properly focused and 7 directed for best use of the time and resources available.

8 Also during year two, we will be engaged in 9 technology transfer. One of the principal tasks of this to technology transfer will be the assessment, evaluation and 11 assumption of all appropriate existing computer codes and 12 models. The Center now has on its staff all necessary

(' 13 disciplines to make these codes resident at the Center.

14 Chart eleven, please.

15 (Slide.)

16 MR. LATZ: Translating the above activities to 17 specific numbers, we now have 20 professional and six 18 clerical employees of the Center. At the end of our first 19 contract year, we propose to have 21 professional and eight 20 clerical employees. At that time, we will have the ultimate 21 depth in expertise, or we will not have the ultimate depth 22 of expertise the Center will require but we will have the 23 essential breadth of expertise we will need.

24 We will have recognized professionals in geology, 25 geochemistry, material sciences, mining, rock mechanics,

... 23  ;

1 geomechanics, nuclear health physics, transportation,

~ G;'

'd .2 environmental sciences, chemistry, system analysis and j 3 regulatory analysis. We have yet to add a competent j 4 hydrologist.

5 At that time, deficiencies in depth of staff will 6 continue to be met by Southwest Research Institute staff and 7 approved subcontractors and consultants. It is a a contractural requirement and goal of the Center to possess

9 within its core staff by the end of the third contract year 10 all essential required full-time expertise. Only those 11 "less than full-time" requirements will at that time continue  ;

1 12 to be met by subcontractors.

[]' '

13 Responding to your earlier question, Mr. Chairman, -l i

~

)

- 14 we feel we have been imminently successful.. We'have had i

15 numerous opportunities to bring to the Center a .-

16 geohydrologist. We have not had that one opportunity for  ;

17 the competent geohydrologist that we-seek. We are still' 18 pursuing that. [

19 Chart 12, please.

N (Slide.)

21 MR. LATZ: This chart does not present a problem. l mt Rather, it reflects,as a consequence offthe acceleration to 23 which Mr. Dunting alluded, acceleration of the' development 24 of the Center. And,.it is a necessary preoccupation of'my-

1. own. It rather reflects the delicate balances that we must i

.y E

1: _:_.________--_____---_____.____. ~

.. 24-1 make in order to build to the full balance staff presently Lb h 2 envisioned.

3 Let me emphasize that this issue is well 4 understood by the NRC's program management staff and we are 5 addressing it hand-in-hand. It may be_of interest to note 6 that the Center's organizational design covers the same 7 breadth of disciplines reflected in the recommendations to 8 the President by the National Academy of Sciences for 9 membership on the Technical Review Board created by the 10 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. There is not a single 11 discipline. mentioned among those recommended by the NAS to 12 the President that the Center has not included in the Center's (J, 13 present organization design.

u 14 In closing, let'me state our gratitude to the 15 NRC's piJgram management staff. Their' clear. vision and 16 unswerving dedication has been instrumental in bringing the 17 Center to its present state. .That dedication exists today

~

18 and assures our mutual success in achieving the Center's 19 goals.

20 Doctor Patrick islnow prepared to discuss with you 21 the Center's work to date in developing the systems approach N to the. program. However, if there are any questions, Mr.

23 Chairman, about the staffing of the organizatio.. or any.

24 other aspects of the organization, we would be happy to

(-

2 address those.

25 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think we can proceed now.

(f 2 MR. LATZ: All right.

3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We will come back to the questions 4 in a little while if that is all right with my colleagues.

I 5 (No response.)

6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Doctor Patrick, you may proceed.

7 MR. PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Could 8 I have chart number 13, please.

9 (Slide.)

10 MR. PATRICK: I would like to start out setting the 11 stage by indicating to you the four principal goals that thef 12 Center is focusing its attention on betwoon now and the end 13 of this calendar year. There are four bullets noted there,

{^

14 the first'two of which deal with our role in assisting the 15 NRC' staff in fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities.

ut Our-approach is to examine the pertinent 17 regulations and to identify those uncertainties that exist is within them, focusing on the regulatory but also_looking.at 19 those institutional issues and technical uncertainties that 20 may exist. You will note there in'that first bullet that 21 this years focus is on siting, looking to the submittal of

~

22 the DOE site characterization plan.-

23 Beyond just identifying those uncertainties, we 24 are looking~for recommending solutions. 'It is the'socond 25 bullet that deals with those recommendations, prioritizations s

.- 26 3 and,probably most important,an examination of the rationale h f- 2 as to which of those candidates might be recommended for  !

3 rulemaking and which ones might be able to be dealt with  ;

i 4 simply by further definition for.the clarification of what  :

5 the Commission's staf f meant when those rules were 6 originally written and posed.

7 The second two items address another high priority a item, mainly the staff review of the site characterization g plan. In analyzing the regulatory requirements, we find-10 that although all must be met they fange quite broadly in 11 terms of their importance and time crit.tcal nature.

-12 The third bullet speaks to our analyzing,

?

j"7 13 evaluating and assessing the relative importance that these 14 various requirements neight have so that within the resource 15 - available we might be able to make some recommendations for-

• 16 which of those site characterization' sections should receive-17 the highest priority and which ones.would receive secondary.

is priority and so forth depending on the availability of staff-19 resources to address the site characterization plan. i r

MF Chart number 14, please.

21 (Slide.) 1 1

.n MR. PATRICK: Now, 14 and 15 deal with some rather general statements which I won't take our time to 23 24 address but I would call th'em to your attention.  !

( .

S5- If we could move to chart number 16, please, we

I

?'** 27

.g will begin some comments on the systems engineering approach. ]

. [ 2 (Slide.)

3 MR. PATRICK: The approach that the Center has 4-embarked on working shoulder-to-shoulder with the NRC 5 staff --

t 6 Cll A I R M A N Z E Cll : Do you have the right slide here?

7 MR. PATRICK: We should be on 16, the systems i a engineering approach. It should be a five bullet item.  !

g Cl! AIRMAN ZECH: I think there is a new slide 16 to but I don't have it myself I don't think. Let me see if I 11 can find it now. That's 16, huh.

12 MR. PATRICK: There should be a 16 in that packet, 13 sir. }

( ,

14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. That's.a new one, a ,

1 15 different one. Thank you.

16 MR.. PATRICK: It should be headed systems 17 .cngineering approach.

18 CilAIRMAN ' 2ECH : Thank'you. Proceed.

19 (Slide.)

30 MR. PATRICK: There are five principal 1 attributes 21 of the approach that the- Center is undertakir.g, the first of 22 which is that the approach is very much mission oriented.

23 By that, we moan that it focuses in on the requirements of' ],

the Nuclear Waste Policy-Act as amended-in December of 1987.

M ' '

i ':'

That provides for us- the scheduled = drivers that the staff.

~

g5 n

t' l'

28 1 needs to march to in terms of its proactive work, the

( 2 rulemakings that need to be in place, as well as the more 3 reactive review of site characterization plans, study plans 4 and things of this nature.

5 The second item is that it is requirements-based.

6 By that, we mean that we start with the primary regulation, 7 10 C.F.R. 60, then incorporate any other NRC regulations, 8 other agency regulations that are incorporated in that 9 document by reference, and build up the fundamental 10 requirements which DOE must be shown to be in compliance 11 with, making a very top down broad systematic review of what 12 is required of the DOE.

(' 13 The third principal point to be made is that it 14 is a very proactive approach. By that, we mean instead of 15 waiting until an initial document is submitted by the 16 Department of Energy, our goal in assisting the NRC staff 17 is to identify those areas where maybe additional guidance 18 or clarification of current guidance is needed on a timely 19 basis so the DOE will know as precisely as possible what 20 needs to be provided in some of those crucial documents such 21 as their SCP updates and, above all, the license application 22 itself.

M The fourth bullet speaks to integration. That is 24 a word that I think means a lot of different things to 25 different peopic, Here we are taking it to mean two

-.. 29 1 principal things, organizational integration and having the (h 2 Center properly augment the NRC's broad capabilities as they 3 exist today, and then the functional aspects of integration, 4 so that not only the research needs are met but also those 5 needs that exist in technical review, technical assistance 6 sorts of activities, the special needs that exist in 7 transportation and its transportation risk study, but full 8 integration both organizationally and functionally.

9 If one takes a top down system view, you can to - identify all of those various interfaces that should exist 11 between the organizations. You can identify the overlaps 12 that could possibly develop between say research and technical review, eliminate those sorts of possible overlaps,

( 13 it and focus the work more closely with the given resource.

15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just on that --

16 MR. PATRICK: Yes,-sir.

17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: -- are you going to say 18 something about what the state of affairs is with respect-19 to integration work and how far along you are with anything 20 involving integration. In particular, are you looking, for-21 example, to test your whole approach to how integrated we 22 are within our NRC activities themselves?

23 MR. PATRICK: Now, there is a lcading question.

24 I think, to draw upon the same example that ' Mr. Bunting C

25 gave earlier this week, every day that goes by_'we are a

?

- *' 30 1 testing that integration. We are seeing with every meeting bh 2 we have and there is today and tomorrow going on meetings 3 -with both your technical review personnel as well as your 4 research personnel in the areas of geochemistry. For  !

i 6 instance, we are testing those out day by day, case by case, 6 putting real integration, not just words, in integration of  :

7 our programs together.

8 So, we are seeing, for instance, in the 9 geochemistry area, a clear definition of the work that is 10 research versus those. activities that are more correctly 11 and properly done within the technical review function.

J 12 Now, within the Center itself, the integration is done quite 13 handily because they are typically very similar sorts of

([1 14 people or, in the case when you have one each geochemist, 15 they are the same individual who'is responsible.both for  ;

16 the research activity and also the-technical review 11 activity.

18 Are those the types of subjects that --

19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I don't want to derail -

20 your presentation but there is a distinction between 21 considerations of what I would call' coupling between parts 22 of.the organization and activities to see that they are 23 ' linked together. The notion of integration seems to me the .

34- one that is really all-encompassing. It takes a look at the -

i.'

25 whole picture and you are talking about a systems.

'O' 31 1 engineering approach which does exactly that. +

k,!s' 2 I was just asking if you could apply that thinking 3 to a state of affairs of our own involvement and use of our 4 own resources within NRC and how well they are integrated 5 .together?

6 MR. PATRICK: We have certainly not made an 7 attempt to make that sort of an application.

8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, is it-possible to do 9 that with that machine?

10 MR. PATRICK: Yes, yes. What we do, just to allow 11 myself to derail the presentation a little bit here, the 12 database that we.are developing and will speak to shortly-

{} , 13 here, what we call a relational database, identifies not 14 .only the responsible parties but also the various essential

.15 areas of expertise and the support areas of expertise and 16 identifies those various organizations who have primary 17 action for accomplishing each of these uncertainty reductions ,

18 So,.through.that program architecture, through 19 that relational database feature, one is able to do just l M that sort of assessment. It requires that the database be 21 loaded fully and that of course has not yet been accomplished Zi at this date.

M COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Thank you.

NL MR. PATRICK: The last point then on slide 16 that-t ,

26 I would speak to is the notion that the systems engineering i

S

.- 32 I approach must be and'is a very dynamic thing. By that, I

/ 2 mean that it can adapt to the changing environment. It can 3 adapt to new legislation being passed, rules being changed, 4 the state of scientific knowledge, gradually improving 5 itself in tne coming months and years, and the systems 6 engineering approach accommodates those sorts of changes.

, 7 Slide 17 speaks to a top down approach that is a being used.

9 (Slide.)

10 MR. PATRICK: Speaking.to the breadth of the 11 p rogram , the first bullet certainly is the focus, the mine 12 geological disposal system, also known-as the repository.

(.' 13 But there are also three very important components to that

~

14 system -- the monitored retrievable storage system, at-15 reactor storage and the transporation interfaces. Each one 16 of those three can affect ultimately the configuration of 17 the geological' repository because each one of those has,an 18 interplay in the type of waste form that eventually shows up 19 at the repository.

20 The rates of receipt at that repository and of 21 course configuration of those waste forms is a key to the 22 safety aspects, the nuclear safety aspects, of'those 23 operations.

24 The fifth item is a rather broad statement. Taking '

+

t 25 a top down approach, one forces oneself to monitor.various ,

L =-

,4 * - -- =r < e

Q o' 33 1 alternative programs which may arise as time goes on. The 2 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act spoke specifically to 3 the possibility of research in the subseabed area. We are 4 not committing any resources into that area at this time 5 other than just to maintain an awareness of what is going on 6 in the subseabed area and any other alternative programs 7 that may develop in the coming months.

8 Slide *18, please.

9 (Slide.)

ICL MR. PATRICK: Where the previous slide spoke to 11 the breadth of the program, slide 18 addresses itself to how 12 far the program needs to be capable of going in the future,

~'( 13 and it examines the complete timeframe involved.

14 Again, the immediate focus ~is on' construction.

15 authorization and the processing of DOE's license _ application.

16 But 10 C.F.R. 60 speaks to the entire licensing cycle all 17 the say through the decommissioning process. 40 C.F.R. 191, 18 the EPA regulation, even addresses post-closure monitoring 19 during a period of institutional controls.- The approach we-20 are taking,'although focusing on the license application; 21 process, it is amenable to continuing extension and updating ,

22 to handle all of the phases of the licensing of the high-23 level waste repository.

24 Slide 19 speaks to some of the practical results

('

v 26 ' we hope to achieve. I won't speak further~to that today. We

i 34 I i

1 will move directly to item number 20. ,

t b' 2 (Slide.)

\

3 MR. PATRICK: The following four slides address 4 some of the fundamental products that are-going to be able 5 to be obtained from having taken a systems engineering 6 . approach. I would also bring to your attention in the i 7 handout item number four which is titled "Program Architectura a Functional Allocation Diagram". It's a neat little block ,

i e schematic that you might want to have open at your side 10 there as we speak through these four additional slides.  ;

11 The first bicek that you see there in the page 12 four handout is called the PASS system control. PASS-stands i

I j' '

13 for the program architecture support. system. You can view j 14 that as the software, the front end, sitting at the computer  !

-t side, that allows you to have access to all of the databases-

.15 18 that will'bc generated in taking a systems engineering.

17 approach. You could do systems engineering using a pencil 18 - and paper approach in document rooms and so forth. But we j

19 anticipate that the mass of documents that will be made ,

20 available in this licensing program and the crucial inter-21 relationships among those various documents and analyses L 22 is going to be too complex to be'able to handle in that sort

23 of an approach.

24 So, we ate building a very' user. friendly front end (I 4 ,

25 that will allow NRC staf f, ourselves, Commissioners who have

. [

Oie -

.m . . - -~ 4

• - 35 1 so desired, to examine what is in here, to look at things

(' 2 that we will be talking about here in a few minutes that I 3 have termed products.

4 These next four slides that are called products, 5 you might think of at this stage of development more in terms 6 of capabilities that are going to be provided for in the 7 program architecture and will be made available through the 8 program architecture support system.

9 Slide number 20 refers to the relational database 10 which you will note there is also a block on the far right 11 for in your little diagram. The first bullet is very likely 12 the most important that we are dealing with right now. It is the requirements analysis. If you will recall, back in

{ 13 14 the initial goals slide that I spoke to, it is analysis of 15 those requirements that have been laid down in 10 C.F.R. 60 16 and the various regulations that are incorporated in it by 17 reference. We are going to focus between now and December 18 on those that are siting-related, and those will be our very 19 detailed requirements analyses, so that we understood, to 20 key in with Mr. Bunting's presentation, we need to 21 understand what must be proven to show compliance with each 22 one of those regulatory requirements.

23 1 draw your attention also to the third bullet 24 on this slide, namely issue identification and resolution 25 status. Although it speaks to a statusing function, there

36 1 is also resident in the relational database recommended bT 2 programs for reducing the uncertainties and for bringing 3 issues that may arise to resolution.

4 Slide number 21, please.

5 (Slide.)

6 MR. PATRICK: A second set of capabilities deal 7 with the matter of text management. I bring your attention 8 here to the first bullet, the storage, retrieval, and 9 contextual searching of regs, statutes, and a variety of to other things that will be lodged in what we call the 11 relational database. There are a variety of programs 12 available commercially and custom programs that will allow

, 13 you to search certain limited databases but what those 14 databases don't provide for the user is a relation of those 15 regulations and statutes to anything else.

16 In this database, we will relate each requirement 17 that is expressed in a regulation directly to the 18 uncertainties that may exist in the programs that the NRC 19 and the DOE have put in place to reduce those uncertainties.

N The third bullet I would call your attention to 21 deals with a very essential item that we are purposely 22 designing into the system to avoid any duplication. That 23 is shown achematically on your handout on the lef t-hand side 24 speaking to systems interfacing. We call out three particular 25 items there. The first two are NRC staff items, the open y

4 l

• 1

.- 37 I 1 item management system and the work planning system that J

h/ 2 are available to the staff. The third one is the licensing 3 support system which is currently the subject of rulemaking 4 and will be funded by the DOE and will most likely be 5 administered by the NRC.

6 Slide number 22 addresses --

7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Excuse me.

8 MR. PATRICK: Yes, sir.

9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Let's go back for a moment.

10 Could you just say sometime a little bit about how your 11 text management program, the last bullet on there, the 12 interface and retrieval from LSS, how that is set up relative to the contemplated structure of LSS? Is there an

( 13 14 identity there? Are you using exactly the same technology 15 way of structuring search capabilities and so on and so 16 forth or do you have a different one?

17 MR. PATRICK: We anticipate that the technology 18 will be very, very much the same. Right now the LSS is very 19 much a thing of the future that is in a definitional stage.

20 We are staying very much abreast of it. In fact, we are 21 working with people in the NRC staff specifically to review 22 the key LSS documents as they become available to both M provide the expertise that is available at the Center to the 24 NRC to aid them in their analyses and also to at that point M bring in the interfaces that are needed so that we can

^ _

' 38 1 identify what DOE is proposing and what their contractorc l J 2 are developing so that that interface is properly defined.

3 The situation we find ourselves in though is that a

we have certain contractural requirements that we need to 4

5 meet now. Waiting until 1990 really isn't an option for us.. ,

6 So we are using search capabilities very similar to those ,

7 that you would find say in WESTLAW or INQUIRE or some of [l a those types of databases. More specifically, keeping track 9 of the NRC's TLSS, the transitional licensing support system,

to and as it comes on line will bring the program into 11 compliance with the capabilities of that system.

12 But a key not to lose track of is that with regard ,

r

( ', to to regulations and statutes, we divide them up in a 14 particular way and relate those to.these uncertainties and 16 these uncertainty reduction programs, specific staff actions 16 that need to be taken, but we really can' t have an ef fective t

17 interface there. Now, that is a relatively small overlap.

18 in capabilities but that' overlap does exist. We feel it.is 19 justified because of the additional requirement, that the.

' Center has and the NRC technical staff have for relating i 20 f

21 these bits and pieces of regulatory requirements to actions.  ;

22 they are taking. The simple TECH searching, things of that 23 nature, we anticipate will be completely handled withi'n the f

~

24 LSS once it becomes available,

(-~

26 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: It's just a question of .

f e

h

m' 39 1 compatibility --

k 2 MR. PATRICK: Yes. .

3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: -- of the systems.

4 MR. PATRICK: Yes.

6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: That's very important.

6 MR. PATRICK: And, not only compatibility, but we 7 feel divorcing ourselves from duplicative system, maintaining 8 only those portions that need to be present say in the post-9 1990 timef rame.

10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, you know, that economic 11 and that's avoiding waste but if they are not compatible, 12 they cati' t even talk to each other and that is a ' totally 13 different kind of problem.

{

14 MR. PATRICK: We anticipate that the compatibility 16 will be there given the documents we have seen in the LSS 16 planning stages. Any other questions on that?

17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let's proceed, please.

18 MR.-PATRICK: Turning quickly to' resource 19 management, there are really only a couple of points that 90 I would like to make there..

21 (Slide.)

22 MR. PATRICK: One, we-are speaking of -- if you 23 look at your block diagram -- both critical path method N- planning, network display type capabilities, cost budget t ,

26 control features, the normal sorts of project management

40 1 capabilities that the staff would need available to them 2 and that our staff needs available to it to accomplish its 3 mission.

4 I would point out that our highest order-schedule 6 in the network program is the NWPAA mandate and its 6 impicmentation via the DOE mission plan. Knowing what DOE 7 is doing and interfacing with them is the only way that we 8 are going to be' able to maintain the kind of a timely 9 program in terms of regulatory analysis and in terms of 10 review of their documents. It's essential to the program.

11 Slide number 23 speaks to a variety of special 12 reports --

(', 13 (Slide.)

14 MR. PATRICK: -- which the systems engineering 15 approach, in particular its implementation, using-the 16 program architecture support system, will provide for the 17 NRC. Long-range-planning capabilities'in terms of resource 18 loading and so forth are_ project management types of 19 capabilities that are previded. The open item tracking 30 and reporting capabilities are also noted there.

21 The last two items are two that are of very keen 22 interest. That is the format and content guides for'the 23 license application which provides DOE with the guidance it.

24 needs in preparing.its licence application and, the'ftnal

(

36 item, the standard review plans which staff will use in

, ,, , .,,,r n- -

.- 41 1 reviewing that license application.

x C'M 2 That summarizes my communts on the systems 3 engineering approach that the Center is taking. I will be 4 happy to entertain any further questions that you might have j 5 at this time.

h 6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Could you just say a little  !

I 7 bit more about the PASS system control, just how that really  !

i a does function, particularly with respect to the relational i i

9 database? It seems to me from what I can glean from your l 10 presentation that the real heart of the matter is all in  ;

I 11 the relational database. That's where all the action is i 12 and that is really the whole thing. Almost everything else >

13 is supporting that. [

{'

14 So, how does the PASS system control relate to l

18 the relational database? Just how functionally does that 16 work? ,

17 MR. PATRICK: We have schematically viewed it very  ;

18 much like a wheel with a hub in the middle. . You can put 1

19 whatever you want in the hub. Our particular hub had the i N program architecture support systens control at the hub. [

21 Now, you can proceed out any one of five spokes on that 22 wheel and find yourself located at monitoring and reporting 23 functions, text management. function, network display, cost I

24 and budget, or the relational database.

I .

25 What you find in doing that though is that, with l; I

y .- , . - . , c., 7 ., . - - , _

.- 42 1 the exception of text management, you always pass through

(# 2 and you always go down the spoke that contains the relational 3 databacc. I think that speaks to the point you are making.

4 With the exception of text management, you always pass 5 through the relational database to pick up the information.

6 That gives you a special report dealing with cost, with 7 schedule, with monitoring and reporting, open item tracking 8 and so forth.

9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Carr, any questions 10 at this time?

11 COMMISSIONER CARR Yes, I have got one question 12 which I think Commissioner Rogers was approaching if I 13 und9rstood him right. That is how many bosses do you have

(

14 at the NRC?

15 MR. LATZ: I will answer, if I may. There is one.

16 COMMISSIONER CARR: Who is that?

17 MR. LATZ: Mr. Joseph Bunting.

18 COMMISSIONER CARR: So, all requirements to you 19 go through him.

20 MR. LATZ: Yes, sir.

21 COMN!ISSIONER CARR: So, you don' t have coming in 22 laterally from the sides do this and do that.

23 MR. LATZ: I don't know what Mr. Bunting has 24 coming on him but we don't.

i 25 COMMISSIONER CARR Okay. That satisfies me.

.- 43 1 Thank you.

h.' 2 CllAIRMAN ZECll Commissioner Rogers, do you have 3 any other questions?

4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes, just a little bit. Ilow 5 is the negotiated rulemaking incorporated into the program 6 architecture? In particular, how does it show up in the 7 process diagram? Does it? Should it?

8 MR. PATRICK: Are you speaking particularly to the 9 LSS negotiated rulemaking?

10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes.

11 MR. PATRICK: It shows up in the sketch, item 12 number four, as accommodating the interface with the LSS.

( 13 In terms of impact that the program architecture and the 14 systems approach might have on the negotiated rulemaking, 15 I think it would be inaccurate to say that we are having 16 much of an influence at all because that rulemaking was so 17 far along when the Center came into existence.

18 Another possibility I think, to look at how program at architecture is affecting rulemaking more broadly, would be M to look at the interactions that we have begun with NRC 21 staff on such other potential rulemakings that are being 22 contemplated such as groundwater travel time and some of 23 that nature. We began in fact just this last week working 24 very closely with those NRC staff members who are putting M in place the technical work that may very well likely lead L_

P

• • 44 1 to rulemakings in those areas that are currently being

• ? 2 contemplated.

3 cot 1MISSIONER ROGERS: Well, if .I look at the 4 procese diagram for-developing and maintaining the program 5 architecture.

6 MR. PATRICK: That's slide number three.

7 COMMIGSIONER ROGEEbr ':hatever number it is. It 8 doesn't have a number here.

9 MR. PATRICK: Uh . ."

10 COMMISSIONER ROVERS: Th! ' low diagram.

11 MR. PATRICK: Uh-huh. I you would move to block 12 15, we generally cover there those uncertataty reduction

(' 13 methods and the related information requiremento in the NRC 14 programs that would Icad to reduction in uncertainty. Now, 15 cepending on the type of uncertainty it is, if one gets to 16 block 15 via 4a and 4b up in the upper lef t, we are speaking 17 of institutional and regulatory types of uncertainties which 18 are best addressed through rulemaking or some other related 19 action.

N If one is looking instead at 4c, a technical 21 uncertainty, the uncertainty reduction methods would more 22 ;ikely be some sort of a research program or a recommon e . . ion 23 that DOE undertake a research progran. So, that would be 24 where you would see rulemaking coming up as a specific 25 recommendation to reduce regulatery uncertainties or

~ . . . _ - . ~ _ _ . _

45 1

' institutional uncertainties that taight exist. j

%q 2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I see. So, that's how it l

3 fits into this general process. All right. You said 4 something in one of your slides and I have changed my packet 5 here in the meantime, so I don't even remember which one it 6 was on now, but you referred to the various elements that 7 conld influence each other. That is why you are taking 8 the systems approach. But what is your present thinking

about the status of the at reactor storage insofar as it may 10 affect the repository itself?

11 In particular, we have been hearing lately-about 12 pac': aging and the possib11ity of standardization. So, we 13 are very sensitized to the whole question.of.at reactor

(

14 storage and how that is being done or might be done in the 15 future. How does that fold back into looking at thi 16 repository itself?

17 MR. PATRICK: Are yc" asking for the kindaof 18- effect it might have or how we are-deall.ng with it?

19 Well, wha.t is your thinking' COMMISSIONERLROGERS:

M just on!that?

l 21 MR. PATRICK: Okay.

22 COMP'SSIONER ROGERS: Have you_gilen some thought-is 23 -to it? -Is'it tooqearly for you right now to comment.on that?

24 MR. PATRICK: I always want to jump in, sometimes

25- when I shouldn't, but the part of it that we have looked at

,.g m _~..p. f .p.

..,,_c, ,,,y ,_ . . , . , - _ , ,

.'~ 46 1 ever so briefly is the matter of what happens before one

( 2 does at reactor storage. If there is a ctep of consolidation ,

3 you begin changing the source term, both in terms of radio-4 nuclide content and also in terms of heat output, both of 5 which have an effect on the repository. Now, nuclide content 6 also is going to have an effect on the transportation aspect 7 but at the repository then you begin changing the temperature 8 environment that would exist around the waste packages and 9 you could affect the technical performance of the repository.

10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I don't know to what 11 extent you have been in that, but it seems to me that it.is 12 very important that we start to link these things together

( 13 . in our considerations. If we are talking about packaging 14 and standardization of packages for.at reactor storage and 15 later on they are going to go'into this repository, I think 16 it.is well to try to take the systems approach on this whole-17 thing and perhaps something in your activities could be-18 helpful in supporting that.

19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Do you have any comment?

20 liR. PATRICK: No additional comment at this' time:

21 anyway. -

22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you. Well, perhaps we.could 23 : hear-from the staff on any-planned activities they have for 24 the Center for the coming year, n- ,

25 MR.~ THOMPSON: As you know, probably the key,

.. Z v. . . . , , _ _ , . . . _ . _ . . . _ , _ -.. . . , , ,, .__ _ ._ , , . . -

47 1 element we are looking for is the December deliverable of 2 the program architecture as it relates to the siting 3 activities. I think those were highlighted earlier to us 4 during the briefing today and, generally, there may be some 5 others in the research program but that is the one that we 6 see will be giving us an effective tool looking at the site 7 characterization activity plans that DOE is developing, as 8 well as identifying primarily those programs that we will 9 use both in the research area and either our rulemaking 10 activities to reduce some of this uncertainty that we have 11 talked about in our own regulations and whether we need to 12 make any changes into our branch technical positions or

(] 13 acceptanen criteria.

14 Joe, you may ha, some other ones.

15 MR. BUNTING. Well, we do have the-December 16~ deliverable which is the first slice of these regulations 17 trying to take it through block 15 of this' complex diagram-18 that you see here. But the niajor deliverable - in year 'two

'19 will be to try and take all of these regulatory ^ requirements.

20 all the way through step 22.by the end of the.second 21 .contractural year.' And, I hope you can-appreciate the 22 complexity and the ambition of that undertaking.

23 In fact, when we. start off on doing.this, we don't 24 get very f ar before we modify the chart one more time to a reflect things we didn' t know when we' started. But that is

..s 48 1 the fundamental thing we are trying to get done. In 1

C [f 2 addition to that of course pick up all of the -- be in a 3 position to pick up all of the existing contractors and move 4 that work into the Center at the end of year two which means 5 all those plans have to be made at the same time we are 6 trying to go through this process.

7 So, we have some very strong competing priorities 8 to try and execute in year two.

9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And, do I understand that you are 10 trying to get your staffing completed also by the.cnd of the 11 second year?

12 MR. LATZ: We are accelerating it, Mr. Chairman, 13 under the proposed operations directives which the program

(

14 r: r.agement'staf f is discussing with us for year two. If, 15 indcod, that is the way they finally direct us, then, yes, 16 we would be at the end of year two on the accelerated basis 17 very close to year three staffing.

18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That was.my.understan' ding.

19 MR. THOMPSON: But that is a key. element that we 20 are discussing right now at the Center to-make sure that 21 this approach doesn't create an imbalance. Aga'in, it is-22 their ability to find the right individual at the right 23 time. They are, you know, a fairly small organization, as 24 We are small, so it is an effort on.bothlof our parts and i

25 a requirement on both of our parts to make sure that that

.__________n_______.___________________

~'

49 1 staffing is done very appropriately. )

E 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, I appreciate your emphasis 3 on the right kind of people too because that is important.

4 I recognize you are a small group but that is even more 5 reason for making sure that you select the highest quality 6 experts that you possibly can. They eill be advising you 7 and they will be advising the staff and the Commission in 8 extremely important matters for our :ountry. I certainly 9 would encourage you to attempt to get the highest quality 10 experts you can.

11 But you will be tryirg to do that at the end of 12 the second year, to fill out your staff to the best of_your

-[ 13 ability with the highest quality you can; is'that correct?

14 MR. LATZ: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: ..re there any other comments?

16 MR. LATZ: No, sir, that's all I have.

17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.

1 18 MR. THOMPSON: Well, let me say'researchis an 19 important part of.this and we certainly~ arc working very'

, 20 closely with research to -integrate tha~c in effectively in 21' our program. 'I.have been very pleased with.the support _that' 22 research has given us throughout the program. Ccrtainly one.

U of the products I'think we are looking for next' yearis,-you'

~

know, some focus on come of the research activity and~

r. ' '

5 starting to really implement those activities.

• ' 50 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Arlotto, would you like to gi9 2 comment, please?

3 MR. ARLOTTO: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, 4 that you have hit on a couple of other things of concern, 5 and that is particularly this transfer of technology is an 6 extremely difficult thing. I think the Center understands 7 that issue. We.have built up a certain capacity and 8 capability with'our contractors, particularly in the 9 laboratories that now must be transferred to the Center, 10 which it has built up over many years. We are going to try 11 to do that in a relatively short timeframe for them to come 12 up to speed regarding technology as evolved over many years.

(' 13 I think that that is an issue that the Center recognizes is 14 a very difficult one.

15 The use of staff I think will be variable.

16 -Initially I would expect that our staff will.be-very, very 17 -heavily involved _with. helping;the Center come up to speed 18 with the transfer of technology as well~as providing a direct

~

19 service to Mr. Thompson. I am speaking now of the research

~

20 staff. But because we do inave a'significant capability in 21 modeling in~particular and in hydrol'ogy wh'ich.will help I-22 think solve some of these issues.

M Of course the real big' issue that must be faced 24 ~ by the Center.is the integration of all these. variables, M' the development, the hiring, development of staf f, addressing R & - _

51 1 short-term issues of NMSS, preparing for longer term

.(m E4' 2 research issues and obviously the transfer of technology 3 I just mentioned. These all must be integrated into the 4 plan while they are trying to staff up. It s very, very 5 difficult.

6 We will be working closely with them. Within the 7 staff, I have no difficulty. We meet monthly on the higaest 8 levels in the whste and research. So, we know exactly where 9 we are coming from and how we are going to integrate.

10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Commissioner 11 Rogers, you had another comment or question.

12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I think at our last

[j 13 meeting that you presented to us some months ago, as I 14 recall there were certain initiatives that you felt;were 15 important for you to take that you took despite the fact 16 that you weren't budgeted for them as I recall. .I wondered 17 how that kind of a situation is working out and are there any 18 other items that you feel at this time are important for 19 the coherence of the program that'somehow we have had M difficulty get' ting ~ budgeted?

21 MR. LATZ: Commissioner,-yes, I ck) recall our 22 conversation. Let me hasten to say that part of that M conversation was to assure you of the commitment of Southwest 24 Research . Institute to see that the needs of L the Center are 25 satisfied. Now,.having said that, please accept that.the

52 1 first years exercise is quite a learning experience. We

^ C:

V7 2 knew how to work hard. We are now rapidly learning how to 3 work smart. That has not been all of our own doing. It 4 has been with the very excellent guidance, direction, 5 cooperation, working shoulder-to-shoulder with program 6 management staff within the NRC.

7 Those kinds of issues to which you allude are well 8 anderstood by the program management staff and I feel as we 9 approach the operations plans for contract year two, they 10 will all be resolved. So, I guess the short answer to your 11 question, Commissioner, is I think we are past those 12 . problems.

-13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Thank you.

{'

14' CHAIRMAN ZECH: 'Any other comments from the staff.

15 (No response.)

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, let me on behalf of the-17 Commission ,thank you Mr. Latz and Doctor Patrick for being.

18 with us here today. I want to thank the staff for their-19 monitoring of this important initiative. It would appear.

20 that we have gotten off to at least a reasonable start on.

21 a very important project for the first' year. I would say 22 that the people involved in it are probably~the most 23 important element of any kind of initiative like this.

24 The Center has a very important role to' play.of

l. {. .

course in the NRC's pro-licensing and licensings activities' M

.- 53 1 for the national high level waste repository. As the Center i

( :k 2 develops further expertise and experience and attracts 3 additional people, we will feel that we have indeed a 4 capability that we can count on to help us make these 5 important decisions.

6 I believe it would be useful though for the staf f 7 and for the EDO perhaps to put together an information paper 8 that would kind of summarize the performance of the Center 9 for this first year and the activities that have taken place, 10 briefly summarize the planned activities for the Center _ful 11 this coming year, and how these activities would-fit into the

'a overall waste program. I think a status report paper like -

(, 13 that might be appropriate. The Center might contribute to 14 that paper with the staff so that we would have a brief-15 paper summarizing the activities in writing. I believe the

~

16 Commission might be served with something -along that nature.

17 But, again, thank you very much for-an excellent 18 presentation. We will count on your continued energetic 19 and competent performance at the Center and your continued 20 advice to the staff and to the Commission.

21 With that, thank you very:much. We stand adjourned .

22 (Whereupon, at 3:20 o' clock, p.m., the Commission 23 meeting was adjourned.)

24 f:'

25 L

l l

l CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER l

This is to certi'fy that the attached events 1

of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regula. tory Commission i l

entitled: BRIEFING ON CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE l REGULATORY ANALYSIS (CNWRA) l TITLE OF MEETING: Public Meeting PLACE OF MEETING . Washington, D.C.

DATE OF MEETING: August 15, 1988 i

were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best i

. of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and t

I accurate record of the foregoing events.

, , -d CLA g~fu hf

JOHN TROWBRIDGE, CVR f I

l-l Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

-~-

COMMISSION BRIEFING ON CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES AUGUST 15, 1988 I

l

im 4 a ..

O e

l

.. i l

l OVERVIEW JOINT NRC / CNWRA BRIEFING

1. NRC STAFF - CENTER REQUIREMENTS

2. CENTER PROGRESS REPORT START-UP AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING / INTEGRATION

3. NRC STAFF -

SUMMARY

4

, , ~ . . . . .,5 _ ._ -. , .-, , - . - . ..., -- , -

BACKGROUND 10/12/85 - SECY 85-388 NOTICE OF INTENT 06/27/86 - SECY 86-192 CONTRACT APPROVAL 10/15/87 - CONTRACT AWARDED 10/21/87 - NRC COMMISSION BRIEFING 04/05/88 - SECY 88-96 (STATUS) 05/12/88 - NRC BRIEFING TO COMMISSION 06/30/88 - NRC/CNWRA BRIEF ASSISTANTS 07/22/88 - NRC/CNWRA BRIEF ACNW i

l l

l.

I L_

w 4 ,

&4

.f 4

YEAR ONE REQUIREMENTS PRIMARY - DEVELOP THE CENTER DEVELOP PROGRAM ARCHITECTURS RESEARCH (FOUR SPECIFIC PROJECTS)

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER LIMITED SUPPORT FOR STAFF PRODUCTION SCHEDULE i

t-l L

l l

L i

a b

Q

.4* e YEAR TWO REQUIREMENTS PRIMARY - CONPINUE CENTER SEVELOPMENT COMPLETE ARCHITECTURE BASELINE CONTINUE RESEARCH BEGIN PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT INCREASE TECHNOLOGY RATE TRANSFER MODERATE SUPPORT TO STAFF SCHEDULES

, , , ., . .,, ,r . . . - . , .-<, m .. _.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CENTER VIABILITY / CAPABILITY DETERMINED BY STAFF SHORT TERM VS. LONG TERM REQUIREMENTS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE VS. RESEARCH NEEDS EXECUTE PHASE-IN CAREFULLY l

l'

, , . - , . - - - - . . . . a- - - - - - - -% . --.. , + y.e , , - --

b

, j l

l NRC STAFF

SUMMARY

PRIMARY REQUIREMENT -- DEVELOPMENT OF THE CENTER SECONDARY REQUIREMENT -- THE DELIVERY OF TECHNICAL PRODUCTS YEAR TWO, SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT TO NRC STAFF SCHEDULES CAREFUL CONSIDERATION REQUIRED IN EARLY BUILDUP t

-w m . , yew y = <,- w

BRIEFING CHARTS O

T446

m CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES BRIEFING TO THE

! COMMISSIONERS August 15,1988 l

1

9*

THREE PURPOSES FOR FFRDC

- AVOID CONFLICT OF INTEREST

- PROVIDE LONG TERM CONTINUITY IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND RESEARCH

- PROVIDE CENTRAL CAPABILITY FOR PERFORMING AND INTEGRATING ALL ASPECTS OF HLW LICENSING PROGRAM l

9

, - - ,,w ,--n. ,-- - - - - . - - , - , , , - - - -, , , - -, , - , - - - , - - - - - , w_-- , . - - - - - .a -,---. ~ --- -- ----

l l

l CENTER'S GENERAL OBJECTIVES e FUNCTION TIMELY AND COST EFFECTIVELY e DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN HIGH LEVEL OF TECHNICAL COMPETENCE e PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORTITESTIMONY ON NRC STAFF DECISIONS

• FACIUTATE STREAMUNING OF THE UCENSING PROCESS CENTER'S GENERAL OBJECTIVES

• DEVELOP AND EVALUATE COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION METHODS

• IDENTIFY RESEARCH NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

• DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN EXPERT POUCY, SOC 10 ECONOMIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAPABILITY i

l -4 I .

I l

KEY MILESTONES e CONTRACT EXECUTED - 10/15/87 e EMPLACEMENT OF ORIGINAL CENTER CORE STAFF - 10/26/87 e POST AWARD KICK OFF MEETING - 10/26/87

• OPENED WASHINGTON OFFICE - 12/ 9/87 I

l

~

l 1

I I

1 l

i KEY MILESTONES e APPROVAL FOR COMMENCEMENT OF WORK

- WASTE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING /

INTEGRATION -

12/ 9/87

'~

- EBS, GEOLOGICAL SETTING, QA, REPOSITORY DESIGN, SPECIAL PROJECT -

12/11/87

- TRANSPORTATION RISK STUDY -

1/12/81 y

-,,,.------..wg -%.,, ,,---, --. .,,y , _ _ , , . , . ,-. ,.,, , -

KEY MILESTONES e TRANSMITTED FINAL OPERATIONS PLANS -

1/15/88 e APPROVAL OF RESEARCH OPEHATIONS PLAN -

1/20/88

• SUBMITTED QUAUTY ASSURANCE MANUAL - 2/26/88 e TRANSMITTED RESEARCH OPERATIONS PLAN - 2/29/88 i

e p - - - --

a e KEY MILESTONES e COMPLETED LI[ERATURE SEARCH FOR TF.S -

3/28/88 e SUBMITTED CENTER'S ADP PLAN -

5/24/88 e APPROVAL OF SEISMIC RESEARCH FROJECT PLAN -

5/31/88 e APPROVAL OF INTEGRATED WASTE PACKAGE RESEARCH PROJECT PLAN -

6/ 5/88 l -

l l

e

I

c. .

KEY MILESTONES e APPROVAL OF OVERALL RESEARCH PLAN -

8/ 1/88 e APPROVAL OF GEOCHEMISTRY RESEARCH PROJECT PLAN - 8/ 1/88 i e APPROVAL OF THERM 0 HYDROLOGY RESEARCH PROJECT PLAN -

s p

5 l

b

.e_,_,.,. ,,._ w, n- - - w'^ '

SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS e UTERATURE SEARCH FOR TRS - 3/28/88 e M.S.18 PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE PREUMINARY DESIGN AND PASS PROTOTYPE - 4/20/88 e INiilATED TRANSFER OF "CONV0" COMPUANCE DETERMINATION MODEL - 5/26/88 l

• NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY - 6/15/88 l

l

T CENTER STAFFING DATE PROFESSIONAL CLERICAL 10/26/87 11 1 CURRENT 20 6 10/14/88 (EST.) 21 8 10/14/89 (EST.) 33 37 8

=

POTENTIAL END OF YEAR 5 65 TOTAL P

f c

1 l

1 i

1 POTENTIAL FOR AND RISKS OF ACCELERATED GROWTH e CONTROLLED ADDITION OF UP TO 11 STAFF DURING FY1989 e ACHIEVE YEAR 3 STAFFING DURING YSAR 2 o EXPERTISE MIX BECOMES FIXED i

e EXPERIENCE LEVEL MIX BECOMES FlXED l

l

• RELATIVE FUNDING LEVELS BETWEEN NMSS AND RESEARCH NEED TO BE FAIRLY STABLE l

l l l l

i L

J

IMMEDIATE GOALS OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING e ANALYZE INSTITUTIONAL, REGULATORY, AND TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES PERTAINING TO SmNG s RECOMMEND, PRIORITIZE, AND PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR CANDIDATES FOR RULEMAKING e ANALYZE, EVALUATE, AND ASSESS IMPORTANCE OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS e IDENTIFY PRIORITY ASPECTS OF THE SCP FOR NRC STAFF REVIEW

l l

l t

'l NWPA ESTABLISHED LICENSING ENVIRONMENT

• TECHNICALLY SOPHISTICATED AND COMPLEX e SEVERAL INTER RELATED COMPONENTS

• FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCESS .

• MULTIPLE PARTY EVALUATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS w

~

1 o ,

NWPA ESTABLISHED LICENSING ENVIRONMENT

• INSTITUT10NALLY COMPLEX

• INTENSE PUBUC SCRUTINY

• RIG 0HOUS 3 YEAR UCENSE REVIEW !.CHEDULE l

- IJ -

1 i

1 l

l i

THE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING APPROACH ,

o MISSION ORIENTED e REQUIREMENTS BASED e PROACTIVE o BASIS FOR INTEGFtATION e DYNAMIC i

f Y

h

"TOP DOWN" APPROACH USED

• REPOSITORY (GEOLOGIC OlSPOSAL) e MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORa.GE e ATREACTOR STORAGE o TRANSPORTATION INTERFACES e ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS (e.g. SUBSEABED)

J t

N

O 1

I i

1 COMPLETE TIMEFRAME

• CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION i

e UCENSE TO OPERATE o OPERATIONAL MONITORING e OECISION TO CLOSE AND DECOMMISSION

• POSTCLOSURE MONITORING l

s n - ~ - - -- - , -

0 i

1 l

l 1

PRACTICAL RESULTS ACHIEVED '

• SCHEDULE RISK IS REDUCE 0

• RESOURCES ARE CONSERVED e PUBUC CONFIDENCE IS INCREASED 1

O 4

PRODUCTS:

RELATIONAL DATABASE e REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS e COMPL!ANCE DETERMINATION CRITERIA e ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION STATUS e METHODOLOGY SPECIFICATION e PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION a ORGANIZATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL INTERFACES l

O l

3-PRODUCTS:

TEXT MANAGEMENT

• STORAGE, RETRIEVAL AND CONTEXTUAL SEARCHING OF REGULATIONS, STATUTES, AND COMPLETE CONTENTS OF RELATIONAL DATABASE o KEY WORD AND CROSS REFERENCING e INTERFACE AND RETRIEVAL FROM LSS, OlM, ETC.

l l

PRODUCTS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT e RESOURCE ESilMATION AND ALLOCATION FROM ISSUE LEVEL TO TOTAL PROGRAM e FORECASTING, TRADE OFF, AND IMPACT ANALYSES e VARIANCE ANALYSIS AND REPORTING i

l PRODUCTS:

SPECIAL REPORT

• LONG RANGE PLANS

• OPEN ITEM TRACKING AND REPORTING e REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND ISSUE RESOLUTION MONITORING e FORMAT AND CONTENT GUIDES

• STANDARD REVIEW PLANS f

.,e, , - . - - - - , , - - - - , - - , - - - - , -

• ' " a 6AL .."Ag, , ,

5 g9 e k

HANDOUTS n

f s

9 h

__.ma _ _ _ -_ __- .-_.._._i

)

Z O .

H -

! '}i .

< i=p N

i z jM.1 pl

< y i ,!

@3 0 js!l 113 u!l y Jl i g p] ef .

O i H i ,

jA 4

Z  !

! - si 1g}i le LLI  !!i  !'Is co I]j! 5" I*l i  !!i , I j

i m a I

is 17!i k g

9 a. i b .,

L I I

l l

4  !? 3fli Il 3

E li hl 5 Uf _ 5}-

g  ! {I{J 3

j!h l z o O

1 l

l

\

' - - - - n - - . - -_-maaw.ma--. .i._w-.a-. e._aa ,, u o

9 9

CENTER MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR DIRECT ON AND CONTROL OF WORK m

TeduncJ Duecsur lhoih&.vNpurts/

Flesource Funaru: J Infornwwi P , -. - .as

- a

.f wasrungian onc.

t 1f 1f Tedumdow Dupar===ais T.dwuce j J L 8""""*"*"*

m scinc.

As:,,f .

j s  :.._

noseardi

• • "M ;

p-: .

4 cer.cmon ranc Proped 4>

taucs.ar lbydasury 6

g=  ;(Taa sp.ano l1 i,so, ,,,o , oshcw caruremni Escfiange Scor.u 1f n.v ise Tode r noe D cnon informamosi Ncoeth./Hepostil I'"'""'

pocasit.,1Repusist FinasLd

]f sm '

m ms.ardi

- Duector Manager TedwucJ Coastanasson and >Wegsahosi u

_ _ e -

-- 4a ~ 10a _ _ .

- 3-

• 4c y y]{10c 4b - 10b m ,

),,

11 anc RC '

4--- RC -

ll R R ar RC

,/ .,*-

4RC

~ .

,1 2 1 3 5 6 ) 7 -+

8 9  : 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 5 20 21 22

. /

QA - - -

QA ' QA QA "/

QA 12 ,

12 j

_o ; <ws ex-

'N _3 o

I"tASE OF TI E PitOCESS IEOf.HrM WGlK AT IHASE OF IIE ImocESS IILQJilteM WIEGIAIKN g flEVf W Ato AIMOVAL BY NUCLEAR REGA A!aIY REVEW AND APPfENAL BY OIALIIY ASSURANCE i AM) NUT f ROM DE PHOGRAM ELEnn.NTS CanasSxn TE

IlfYlOIENilA11Y APIUCAIR EIEGLAAllotJS 101 UEtJilFY NSTITUTONAll#JCEllIAINIY 15. IDENilFY UNCEllTANTY REDUCTotJ METilODS ANALY& EGULATOllY FEQUIREENIS QUESIONS AtJD RELATED NORMAION llEOUHEMENTS; OE~~.~JY MO LIST Et1MENISOF PROOF lati OENilFYllECULAIOllYUtJCERIAltJIY SPECIFY AtIERNATE NRC IBOGIAMS FOR CEN ifY MO DESQilHE INSilIU TONAE UNCEllI A;N IES QUESIONS UNCElliArJIYIlEDUCliON DENTIFY APO DESCREE EOutATORY UNCLillAINTES 10c. OENTIFY TEGINCAI UNCERTAINTYOUESTONS la DEVE10PCOSiS.SOEDULES. AND R EAD TiuLS OE:IW AND DESG10E TEQ NCAL UNCEilTAtJIES I1. ODIAN DOE ISSUES

• N ORMAll0NNEEDS FORisiCIHOGRAMS NTEGRATE AND EVitWEGIATOllY NJD UNCEllTAINTES 17. ANALYZE ALTERNATIVES ANDNRCPROGRAM EOUREENTS; AND NTEGIATE.EVEW.Ma) 12. OGTAIN STATE.1REE. ANDOillER AFFECTED TilADEOFFS EV!Gi ELEMENTSOf."HOOF PARIES ISSUES.INFORMAllON NEEDS AND 18. RECOMEND t#1C PROGIAM NJC:UDNG SEL ECT C BSET C5 sMULATIONS FOR FURTI Ell UNCERTANTES OVERALLRESENICit PROGRAM PLAr.

ANALYSIS BASED ON INE QilIICAL NAItNlE 13 WIEGRAIE.CONSOLDATE. AND RANK 19. DEVELOP ANO DISPLAY NETWORK AND CHIIICAL OENIFY BASC APPROACil FOR COMPLIANCE UNCERTANTES AND UNCERTANTY OUESIONS PAnl FOR EACal EGULATORY REOtMIEMEN T DEILHMMATION METHODS (EVISE AT (NCLUDNG DOE MO STATEITEMS) 20. DEVELOP AND DISPLAY NETWORK FOR TOIAL jSUlb1_OULNI ITERATIONS) 34. FUNCEllTAINTY UNCERTANTYOUESIlOtl. PROGIAM tNIEGRAT E0EN I FY INFORMAT10N REOU"lEMEtJ I S OR INFOIMAATON REQUtlEMENTIS 21. CONTIOL MO DOCUMENT Pf0GUu4 STRUCitN1E NilEGRATE. EVIEW. MO ECE COh5'LIANCE UtglESOLVED. FLAG AS OPEN ITE M. SEL EGT ANDQlANGES DETERMINADON METHODS.11EMENTS HEMS FOR NRC ACTION,IDENllFYODIER 22. CONDUCT tilC PROGRAM OF PRODl: MOINFOfMATION EQUIKM[NIS ACIION PARTES PCOCESS DI AGR AM FOR DEVELOPING AND M AINTAININ G THE PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE

_ _ L

PROGRAM AR_CHITECTURE FUNCTIONAL f' ALLOCATION DIAGRAM .

i i

PROGRAM

ARCHRECTURE i

l SYSTEM ,

INTERFACES _

P^$$ TEXT NETWORK P.ELATIONAL l '

SYSTEM CONTROL MANAGEMENT DISPLAY DATABASE i OlM _

WPS

~

l LSS l MONITORING COST BUDGET REPORTING ,

l t

I -

l

_ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___ . _ . _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___ _-__t

M E%%%%%%%%%dWA%%%%f%%dffgfffffffffffigggg g gi g g 3 i TPAHSh!TTAL T0: [ Occument Control Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY TO: The Public Document Roem OATE: -

f//7N g

FROM: SECY Correspondence & Records Branch 5

I Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related mertting 2

document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and

! placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requestad or required.

t f Meeting

Title:

bM, A bC

, hbd

[

i AM L%E~)(e "

nosAn 1:

Meeting Date:

"f//(/f! Open X _ Closed

. Item ')escription*: Copies j!: Advanced DCS

'8 jj to PDR Copy, 1

1 1

1. TRANSCRIPT li w lau t

!! /

s

2. J j!

t 1  :

N 3

l!

3.

k E

E Si 2:

%2 .

5-S[

2 .

a ",,

a j '

6.

a .

3:

• POR ir, advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.

C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, witheut SECY papers.

DF0%

MMMhMMhMMhMMMMMMMMMMN MM

-