ML20246E155
| ML20246E155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/06/1989 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8905110165 | |
| Download: ML20246E155 (114) | |
Text
_ __ __ _ _ ._
p, ,..
N LUNITbD STATES OF AMERICA l
N.UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS.SION
=
f
$bI3l BRIEFING ON STATUS OF ACTIVITIES'WITH THE CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSIS LOCatiOB: ROCxvItLE, MARYLAND ,
e bdI6 ~ APRIL 6, 1989
~
I i -. ~ .
PageS 79 PAGES NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC.
COUAT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
,o .
9 8905110165 890406 \(
FDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDC
G 3"
s DISCLAIMER f.
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on April 6, 1989 in the Commission's office at one White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was i open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, 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 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript' do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or
' addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
i.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN5CRisERS 1313 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
W ASHINGToN. 0.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 (202) 234-4433
e ..
. U11ITED STATES OF AMERICA
.- 2 !!UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOli 3 * *
- 4 BRIEFIliG Oli STATUS OF ACTIVITIES WITH THE CEllTER 5 FOR liUCLEAR WASTE PEGULATORY AITALYSIS 6 * *
- 7 PUBLIC MEETIliG 8 * *
- 9 liuclear Regulatory Commission 1C One Uhite Flint llorth 11 Rockville. Maryland
~
12 13 Thursday, April 6, 1939 .
S 14 15 The Commis'sion met in open' session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 9:30 a.m., the Honorable LAl!DO U. SECH. JR.
17 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
18 19 COMMISSIONERS PRESEllT:
20 LAIIDO W. ZECH, JR., Chairman of the Commission 21 THO!!AS M. ROBERTS, Meiaber of the Comn ission 2? K Eliff E T H M . CARR, Member of the Commission 23 EEllliETH C . ROGERS, Member of the Cormission 34 JAMES P. CURTISS. Meraber of the Cormission P 25 w
(2021234-4433 ITEAL R. GROSS & COMP AITY , IITC . (202) 30-6600 1323'RHODE ISLA!!D AVEliUE, 17 . U . . WASHIliGTOli, D.C. 20005
_j
+' ]
1 STAFF A!!D PRESE!!TERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSIO!! TABLE:
2 SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary 3 ITILLIAM C. PARLER, General Counsel 4 HUGH L. THOMPSOIT, JR., Office Director, IIMS S 5 ERIC BECKJORD, Director, Office of Research 6 Research 7 ROBERT BERIJERO, Deputy Office Director S
9 10 11 .
12 13 14 .
15 16 17' '
18 i
19 20 21 ,
22 23 24 7
25 (202)234-4433 IIEAL R . GROSS & COMPAITY, IITC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLA11D AVElfUE, 17 . 17 . , UASHIIIGTOIT , D.C. 20005 ,.
s .~
_- 1 P_ R_ O C E E D_ I_ fl G_ _S_
]- 2 (9:30 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAlf ZECH: Good morning, ladias and 4 gentlemen.
5 Today the Commission will be briefed by the 6 staff on the status of activities ~ with the center for 7 Iluclear Maste Regulatory Analysis, located at San Antonio, 8 Texas. The briefing will be conducted by the Office of 9 !!uclear Materials Safety and Safeguards and the Office of 10 liuclear Regulatory Research.
11 .
The Center was established in October of 1937, 12 when the liuclear Regulatery Commission executed a contract 13 with the Southwest Resea'rch Institute in San Antonio, 14 Texas. . .
15 The Institute is a non-profit organization with 16 expertise in applied engineering and physical sciences.
17 The Center is currently under operation as a federally-1S funded research and development center. I understand that 19 the Center is in transition from startup phase to full 20 operational phase at this time. l 21 The Commission is interested to hear about the 22 status of operations at the Center, the current technical 23 research activities and the projects the Center plans to 24 undertah in the fature.
u 25 Copies of the slide presentation, I understand.
(202)234-4433 !IEAL R. GROSS & CO!!F AITY , I?ic . (2C2):32-6600 1et esaae vnana avaintR _ ti U _ UAsMTHGTon. D C, 20005 1
J 4
.c 1 are available at the entrance to the meeting room.
2 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any
-3 comments they wish to make before we begin?
4 (lio response) 5 CHAIRMAli ZECH: If not, Mr. Thompson, you may 6 proceed.
~
MR. THOMP SOfi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 As you know, the Center has been a key element 9 in the staff's review, planning for the high-leve] saste, 10 the repository licensing activities at Yucca Mountain. It 11 is an important area for us to have qualified individuals 12 there, as well as the qualified individuals on our staff.
13 And we are working together to do the review a s p r.: t s 14 associated with it. _ .
15 Mr. Bernero now, who has replaced ma as th+
16 Office Director in liMSS, has the key responsibilities for 1~7 i.?plementing that, and he will be leading the briefing
- , today.
10 nob.
20 EM AIPII AIT CECH: Thank you very much.
21 Mr. Barnero, you ray proceed.
22 MR. BERIIERO : llerbers of the C o:"r i s s i o n , =. s yco 23 can see, Eric Beckjord is here at t h ,- table with - c, and Ca we're going to be c o v e r i. ng the technical assistance md 25 research work at the Center. I will give th; briefing (202)234-4433 t!EAL R. GRCSS & COMPAITY, IIIC . (202):32-4620 1323.RHODE ISLA1TD AVEIT1IE, li.U., UASHIIiGToli, D.C. 20005 j
5 1 but, in the dialogue,. feel free to interrupt and ask 2 questions and, of course, we can talk about both the 3 research and the tech assistance.
4 'fe also have in the audience some of the key 5 people, the two key division directors, Bob Browning in 6 IIMSS and Guy Arlotto in the Office of Research, Jesse 7 Funches, from !!MS S , who has a new, more significant 8 management role in handling the work at the Center--
9 that's a recent change, and I will be referring to that i 10 later -- and Ed Halman, from the Division of Contracts, in 11 the Office of Administratiori is here.
12 John- Latz, the President of the Center, is 13 present in the audience, as well as Ues Patrick, who id 14 the Technical Director for it, _ , ,
i 15 May I have slide 1, please?
16 (Slide) The outline of the briefing today is 17 basically to give you a feeling for the status of the la Center, building on what you said, Mr. Chairnan, about 19 this transition from the startup phase to an operational 20 phase, and then I intend to cover current activities in 21 technical assistance and research, discussing some of the 22- products that are now beginning to appear from the Center, 23 and our future plans and activities, this will be the way ;
24 to cover it.
25 May I have the next slide, please?
i L (202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMP Ai!Y , Ilic . (202)232-6600 a '1323 RHODE ISLAliD A*v'EIIUE, II . U . , UASHIIIGTOII, D.C. 20005 ;
L _ _
.--__-_-.___________________________________j
. .4-l' (Slide) Recall, please, that last October we S .2 j sent to you a paper, SECY 88-285, that provided . the 3 context in which it is useful for you to consider how the 4 Center support is needed and to be used. That paper, SECY 5 88-285, cdvered the strategy and the schedule for 6 licensing --
and remember that our target is to have a l
7, three-year - hearing, license application and meeting the 8l statutory objective of a three-year hearing -- and we set 9l> down -- l 10 MR. THOMPSON: I think it is a three-year 11 licensing process. I think the hearing phase is --
12 MR. BERNERO' Yes. Excuse me, .that was
,, 13 misspoken. It is a three-year application to hearing 14 7 finally. I 15 , CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes, I'm glad you clarified i
16 that.
17 MR. THOMPSOa: People may think there's going to 18 be a three-year hearing, I know, and --
19 MR. BERNERO: No. We will have failed, if that's 20 the case. But we set @wn a strategy for the years in I
.21 advance of that, four years or so, 1988 to 1992, for key 22 rulemaking activities, whereby we could get the l l
23 significant uncertainties, sort them out ahead of time, j 24 and deal with them in advance, so that the process of the
'25 license application and licensing decision was a much more (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
~
o . o
~7 1 disciplined and straightforward one.
'E So, we have these program elements and, for your 2
3 convenience, I have just copied the key figures fror that 4 previous SECY paper, they are benind there. They 5 illustrate the timing and the three major program elements 6 of a regulatory framework resolving uncertainties, IIRC
'T developing its independent review capability, and that 8' includes codes for analysis, independent analysis, and our 9 relicensing reviews and consultations with DOE in advance 10 of the application, and these are all very important.
11 .
We are now in the second year of the Center 12 contract -- and may I have slide 3, please?
13 (Slide) In the second year of the contract,
~
14 roughly halfway through, probably the most illustrative 15 figure to give you an overall status of the Center's 16 activities is the staffing chart. And this little chart 17 here, if you look at it, shows you on the left-hand side 18 of the vertical line is the actual progress and then 19 projected progress to the right, and the dark part of the 20 graph is the support staff -- this is the overhead at the 21 Center, total e rloyees -- and then the cross-hatched part 22 is the technical staff.
23 Right now we have 23 technical and eight support 24 people at the Center. At the end of this fiscal year, L;
25 this chart illustrates, ws still have eight support, but (2021234-4a33 IIEAL R. GP.OSS & COMPA1Y , I1JC . (202)232-6600 13 23 RHODE ISLATID AVEtIUE , 17 . W . , W A SHIIIGTOli , D.C. 20005
3-1 35 technical is the objective, and then by the end of 2 fiscal year '91, we expect the support to be up to about 3 13 and the technical should be about 50.
4 Ue stay in close touch with the Center. They 5 have had some difficulty in hiring some key skills--
6 geohydrologists, rock mechanics, mining engineers with- f 7 experience. My impressions are that the Center is very S careful in how they are hiring, and they are hiring good i
9 people. So, leavening their bread with a little caution, 10 we support them in that.
11 . And, basically, we see that they are building up 12 essentially on the projected curve. And we are confident-
\
13 now that they are sufficiently large in technical force 14 that they can t r uly . b,e viewed, though still building up,
- 15 as an in an operational phase, that they are no longer 16 just the raw startup crew.
17 May I have slide 4, please?
18 (Slide) So, if eney are operational, ve would l
19 like to then turn to actizities that are going on right 20 now -- what is happening? What are they doing? What's 21 coming cut of it?
22 First. I want to cover the technical assistance 23 projects, and I've got four listed here. These are the 24 major ones --
system analysis. That's the term I prefer.
25 Some of you have heard it many times as program l (202)234-4433 IIEAL R . GROSS & COMPAliY, Ific . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAliD AVE!IUE, II . U . , WASHIIIGTOli, D.C. 20005
C.
1 architecture. The second one is the engineered barriers, 2 determination of compliance with the regulations. Then we 3 have, off to one side so to speak, the transportation risk 4 study, a very important element. And last, and certainly 5 not least, the site characterization plan and exploratory 6 shaft facility reviews, where the Center is participating 7 with us.
3 May I have slide 5, please?
9 (Slide) The program architecture, or system 10 analysis -- and, again, I prefer system analysis or 11 systematic analysis, if you prefer. I am quoting here 12 from the contract, and just to illustrate exactly what 13 they are supposed to do, "The Center is supposed to 14 develop a capability to provide, systems engineering and 15 integration support". And they will then recommend a 16 program architecture based on complete regulatory systers 17 analysis of relevant requirements, statutes and so forth.
18 Now, they are doing this. Some of you ha/e been 19 to the Center, and you've certainly seen some of the 20 literature. I have attached, as a bat kup slide in your 21 packet, the logic diagram of the 22 steps of how one goes 22 through and analyzes requirements and recycles 23 information, and so forth, but the important thing is the 24 Center is now doing this activity, and it's beginning to G
25 fold right into the program and play a significant role.
(202)234-4433 IIE AL R . GROSS & Cot!PANY, IMC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEUUE, N . I.~ . , WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
__-__________________-_-____________________a
i 10 1 If you go to slide 6, please.
2 (Slide) The products in system analysis, 3 really, there is a capability product in April of '88 and 4 December of '88, and that was to develop the software and 5 the analytical capability to do the system analysis, and 6 to demonstrate it, and then get down to business in the 7 year 1989, to really do the work and start generating 8 products, getting them into the regulatory process.
-9 I've carried into the meeting here one of the 10 first major products in the nomenclature of the system, it 11 is called R-9. It just came in, literally. It is the 12 analysis of regulatory uncertainties related to the site 13 characterization plan and the exploratory shaft facility
~
14 -- the third item. listed on this slide here -- and it is a 15 very useful one, in that it goes into the site 16 characterization ' plan, in congruence ',rith their review of 17 the site characterization plan, and they are analyzing the 18 uncertainties, the regulatory or technical uncertainties 19 that lie there insufficiently or unclearly resolved.
20 And I have had the pleasure of an advanco draft 21 copy of this, so I had a chance to read it from cover to 22 cover, and it is a very thorough piece of work. And what 23 we are finding is that it is useful in the process because 24 it is this discipline that we are looking for. The 25 program architecture or systen analysis is a discipline of (202)234-4433 ITEAL R. GROSS & COMP A!IY , IIIC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAllD AVEliUE, fi . U . , WASMIIIGTOII, D.C. 20005
{ .
11 1 understanding uncertainties, getting the important ones up
" 2 front, and making sure they are sufficiently resolved, so l 3 that the entire licensing process can proceed as planned.
4 And what we are identifying here is a host of 5 uncertainties inter-related and certain programmatic 6 f e a'tur e s . tihen you look at the site characterization plan, 7 and look at this, one of the things that is beginning to 3 come out to us, and we are talking about it right now, is 9 that the ' Department of Energy needs to get their own 10 performance assessment on the table very soon. It is not 11 in the site characterization plan. And more and more it 12 looks like it is a fundamental part that needs to be on 13 the table, either in the plan, or parallel to the plan, in 14 order to take these technical issues and ider.tif y whether 15 the degree of knowledge that is obtained,.or will ha 16 obtained, is sufficient about a physical parameter, and 17 the degree of sensitivity which the outcome has to that 18 particular parameter.
19 And that's where the performance assessment, as 1
20 it an iterative process, continually evaluating all the 21 parameters of interest and coming up and saying you don't !
22 have enough information on this one, or, we hope, that 23 will identify any number of them where we do have enough 24 information to make judgments, or the systen is not 25 terribly sensitive to it.
I l (202)234-4433 IIE AL R . GROSS & COMPAt1Y, Ilic . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAIJD AVEliUE, II . W . , WASHIIIGTOII, D.C. 20005
f 12 1 COMMISSIONER CARR: Is DOE working that problem?
2 MR. BERHERO: Pardon?
3 COMMISSIONER CARR: Is DOE working that problem?
4 MR. BERNERO: Well, they are certainly doing 5 pe r f ormarkce assessment work, but that is probably going to 6 be one of our major cc,mments on the site characterization 7 plan, that it is not included. It is not direct 3y 8 included in the site characterization plan, and it appears 9 to be a parallel effort, and perhaps should be moved up to 10 be a more explicit and leading effort.
11 ,
COMMISSIONER CARR: I am not sure what it is 12 that you are telling them that you want them to do.
13 MR. BERMERO: Get it on the table, get it on thh
~
14 table, and do the sensitivity anq1ysis. ,
15 COMMISSIONER CARR: Get what on the table?
16 MR. BERNERO: The performance assessment.
17 MR. THOMPSON: The performance assessment 18 approach, as I understand it -- they are still struggling
'9
, with exactly how to do the performance assessment, even at 20 the WIP facility..
21 So, I don't think that it is very clear what 22 they intend to do, and I think that is part of the 23 uncertainty in evaluating the site characterization 24 activities --
h< Uell, is it clear to us what l 25 COMMISSIOffER CARR :
i 1
(202)234-4433 UEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAUD AVENUE, U.M., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
13 1 they ought to be doing, or is it equally unclear to us?
2 MR. BERIIERO : tio , no. Ilo . I would say it is 3 clear to us that they have a development program, a 4 performance assessment, and they nead to have a reference 5 performance assessment selected and on the table very 6 soon, which is used to evaluate the state of data that 7 they have o r, the site now, and the sensitivity of the 3 outcome to tha various parameters involved. They need to 9 have that.
10 In a way -- if I could go back to a thing I 11 often do, making analogies to a reactor -- if you were 12 designing a new reactor, and you said do a FRA for the 13 reactor design and we are going to incorporate that s,-.
14 knowledge to refine the design,_ you can , say in advance 15 that -- if it is a pressurized water reactor, the 16 auxiliary feedwater system is going to be pretty important 17 and the high pressure injection system is going to be 1 P. pretty i7portant, and da de-da de-da, you know, right down 19 the line. But you won't have a good feel for how 20 important, and you won't be able to evaluate the 21 development and characterization of that design, unless 22 you have a reference analysis that cycles back and forth, 23 iterates, and says here is how important it aopears today, 24 that the auxiliary feedwater system is.
- p. -
29 And, so, when we go into all of the potentially (202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMP Afri, IIIC . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAliD AVEi!UE, II . W . , WASHI!1GTO11. D.C. 20005
l 14 1 adverse conditions -- if you go in our regulations, our
(
2 regulations tell you that you have a whole catalogue of 3 potentially adverse physical conditions --
you know, 4 geochemistry and hydrology and all sorts of things like l .
l 5 that -- and when you try to evaluate how significant is i
1 6 the potentially adverse condition, you need to know how 7 sensitive the system is at that site, in that context, and l
8 you have to also know how much do I know about that
.i 9 particular parameter. You may know an awful lot about it 10 already, or you may not know very much at all, but the 11 important thing is to use that state of knowledge and to 12 develop a reference performance assessment that can be 13 used as you gc along, refining the process.
k4 COMMISSIOtJER ROGERS: j Yes, ,ust on this quasFicn 15 of what you mean by uncertainties, I was under t h e.
16 impression that at least part of this review was to look 17 at ambiguities, or lack of precision in our own 18 regulations with respect to this whole business, not--
19 and what you seem to be talking about is another aspect of 20 uncertainties, uncertainties as to what extent those 21 regulations can be satisfied by certain proposed pieces of 22 information or courses of action.
23 Where do we stand with respect to an analysis of 24 nur own regulations as they are today, with respect to 25 ambiguities and uncertainties in them, as they are written (202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPAITY, I!!C . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLA17D AVEliUE, ii . W . , WA SHII!GTO11, D.C. 20005
~
5 ,.o 15 1 down now?
-2 MR. BERITERO: Well, can I have the next slide, l
3 please, slide 7. ?
4 (Slide) The next product we have coming in--
5 and in the nomenclature of the system is called R-8, in 1.
l 6 case you have some familiarity with that. It is listed as 7 the first April '89 product on this. The Part 60 8 licensing and technical criteria and regulatory actions, 9 basically, this -- now, I haven't read this one, but we've 1
10 had access to the draft --
it identifies 75 uncertainties 11 a,n d ranks them according to their attributes of 12 importance -- timeliness and other factors -- and a key 13 element of it is to see if we have the right suite of 14 rulemakings. _
15 You will recall last fall's strategy paper.
16 That, you could say, was general logic or intuitive logic, 17 to say we have to follow this strategy of rulemaking. And 18 this is where we can come to grips with our own licensing 19 regulation. This is the first opportunity we have there, 20 to sort that out and identify regulatory ambiguity, or 21 gaps, or contradictions, if such are found.
22 COMMISS70!!ER ROGERS : Are you saying that that's 23 been done? The corrective action hasn't necessarily been 24 done, but the uncertainties have been identified?
25 MR. BERTIERO : I believe it is fair to say that 3
(202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPA11Y, IIIC. (202)232-6600 1323 PHODE ISLAIJD AVEtJUE, II . U . , WASHIIIGTON , D.C. 20005 .
___ _ ____________________________j
. , . t
.O 17 1 uncertainties concerning the SCP and ESF, are you really 2 looking there, as you have described it, for shortcomings l
3 in DOE's information, to satisfy regulatory requirements 4 that are certain, or does that also -- does the R-9 5 milestone product also cover uncertainties in our 6 regulations?
7 MR. BERITERO : Well, I will just quote from it, 8 and that's why I brought it to the meeting. And I 9 recommend it, to your at least scanning it -- it is a 10 pretty thick report.
11 ,
From the very introductory section, the 12 uncertainties are embodied in the following phrases, in 10 13 CFR 60,122, and 10 CFR 60,122 is the section I referred to
~
14 earlier, that catalogues all the potentially adverse 15 conditions. And the two quotes from 60.122 are, "Taking 16 into account the degree of resolution achieved by the 17 investigations" -- in order words, how much data do you 18 have on that particular thing and, secondly, "not to 19 affect significantly the ability of the repository to meet 20 the performance objectives relating to isolation cf the 21 wasta".
22 In other words, 60.122 basically says, be sure 23 that you look at Item 1, Item 2, Item 3.in all these 24 potentially adverse conditions, and the test of whether E
l ..
25 you are looking them adequately is, how much do you know l
(202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMP AfiY , ItiC . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE TSLAIID AVEliUE, N.U., U A S HI!1GTCli, D.C. 20005 j
. o ,
15 1 this product will include them.
2 MR. THOMPSOti: That is due this month, I guess,_
3 is what we are saying. So it should be coming in shortly, 4 though I don't think Bob or I --
5 MR. BERIJERO : Yes. !!ow , a litt'.e bit later this 6 year -- and that's the other product on slide 7 here 7 -- we are trying to complete the system analysis through 8 the entire 22-step logic -- you know, the figure you've 9 got attached as a backup -- for erosion substantially 10 complete containment and adverse geochemical effects. The 11 three things we are trying to really go all the way, as 12 deeply as you can go, to understand those.
13 For instance, substantially complete
~
14 containment, that is one that some people -- at least T 15 have some misgivings about the clarity or consistency of 16 the regulations on what does it take to demonstrate 17 substantially complete containment? You keep coming up to 18 the subject of containment in the can lifetime, the 19 canister lifetime and things like that. So, I think 20 especially in that one, this will bc our opportunity in 21 1989, to bore in and find critical gaps, or critical even 22 contradictions in the regulatory requirements.
23 COMMISSIO!IER CURTISS: Let me go back to slide 24 6, and nake sure I understand your R-9 milestone. When 25 you say you are going to analyze the regulatory (202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPAI1Y, It!C . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAtID AVEIJUE, II . W . , WA SHI!JGTOII, D.C. 20005
q w
3 ..q , ,,9 - !
17 ,
'I r.
1' looking there, ' as ' you L have described it, for shortcomings j
'2 in - DOE's 'inf ormation , to satisfy regulatory requirements- !
I 3 that. are .certain, or does that also -- does the R-9 j
'4 ' milestone product also cover uncertainties in our 5 regulations?
6 MR. BERNERO: Well, I will just quote from it,
7 a n'd that's why I brought it 'to the meeting. . And . I
'8 recommend it, to your at leas t . ' s canning it --
it is a 9 pretty thick report.
i
- 10. From the very introductory section, the t
11 urycertainties are embodied in the . f ollowing phrases , in 10 12 CFR 60.122, and 10 CFR 60.122 is the section I referred to
@. \, 13 earlier, that catalogues all the potentially adverse
-i 14 conditions. And the two quotes from 60.122 are, "Taking-19 into account the . degree of resolution achieved by the 16 investigations" 1 in order words, how much data do you 17- have on that particular thing and, secondly, "not to 18 affect significantly the ability of the repository to meet 19' the performance objectives relating to isolation of the v.
20 waste".
21 In other words, 60.122 basically says, be sure 22 that you look at Item 1, Item 2, Item 3 in all these 23 potentially adverse conditions, and the test of whether
'. g , 24 you are looking as them adequately is, how much do you 3;
- 25 know about them, and how sensitive are you to them, these
'(202)234-4433 UEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600
! 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, U.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
nR e ,- ,
z..
_18' :
'1' know about:them, and h'w'o sensitive are you to them, these-p, ,
?
2 parameters..
-3 ' COMMISSIONER CARR: I.e., what's the probability 4 you are right, huh?
5 MR. BERNERO: Well, if you are not sensitive'to .
6 it, the thing -- you could have very-crude data,-but you 7 can.use a simple bonding analysis and get the thing behind 8 you, and don't go chase the data because the outcome will 9 be the same, whatever it is. .You can eliminate that as an 10 uncertainty.
11 But on 'the other hand -- in fact, I often i
. i 12 shudder, when-people use the expression "is there a show-LQ 13 stopper"? Is there something going to stop the 1 j
~
34 repository, say_it is clearly unacceptable. And people 15 use that expression as if one would suddenly . discover an ;
16 underground lake, o r_ a huge cavern, you know, some 17 physical feature that was totally unsuspected.
18 And, actually, a "show-stopper" on a repository l 19 review will probably be a whole host of potentially 20 adverse conditions that don't go away, that you are i i 21 sensitive to, and you don't have enough data on and, as 22 you keep working at it, they keep moving ahead of you, and j l
23 you are still sensitive to them, and you still don't have l 1
24 enough data.
s 25 And that's probably how you will find the site (202)234-4433 NEAL R,. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, U W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 ,
j
6
- 19 1 is unacceptable, is, you just don't quite core en grips.
2 You never reach a level of satisfaction.
3 And our regulations have spelled out all of 4 these potentially adverse conditions. And our regulatory 5 requirement is, basically, you have to look at them and 6 you have to show that you know enough about them. And 7 there are two aspects of that showing, and they are the 8 ones I just quoted.
9 COMMISSIOIIER CURTISS: Let me go back to that 10 earlier point. It looks to me- like two issues ars
, 11 -i,ntersected here; one. the question of regulatory 12 uncertainties in 10 CFR Part 60 and the related 13 regulations that will be used to assess the performance of
~
14 the repository and, two, the question that Commission Carr 15 has raised, that has to do with once you've got a certain 16 regulatory requirement, how much information do you need, 17 with what degree of conservatism, to demonstrate i r. the 18 performance context, whether you comply with a clear and 19 certain regulatory requirement.
20 I guess I have two questions. One, from the 21 standpoint of the chronology of this effort, will we be in 22 a position to identify and resolve the regulatory 23 uncertainties, before we get to the question of assessing
- 24 the performance and evaluate the DOE's information?
25 And, two, to the extent that we won't, to what (202)234-4433 tiEAL R. GROSS & COMPATIY, Itic . (202)232-6600 1323.RHODE ISLAND AVETIUE, II . W . , WASHIt1GToti, D.C. 20005
O + C j 1
20 1 extent will this uncertainty, or our search for additional 2 information, be a ~ product of uncertainty in our 3 regulation, and not a product of the kind of conservatism l
4 ws want on a clear and certain regulation? i
)
5 MR. BER!iERO : I think with our system analysir, 6 and' the rulemaking strategy that we have right now, I 7 think we can say at this time that we will be able to 8 follow the set strategy with some confidence, or refine it 9 within the next year or so, to be able to resolve the l 10 early significant regulatory uncertainties, where they are 11 -- uncertainties about what do we really want. That's the 12 one I -- my favorite is, what do you really want in 13 substantially complete containment? What is the true
~
14 requirement -- because there are so many ways to say it, 15 and so many, apparently, overlapping requirements, and 16 that is a regulatory uncertainty, insofar as it identifie*,
17 the true nature of the requirement.
18 It isn't a whole lot different, though, when you 19 come to the 24 potentially adverse conditions. And the 20 regulation did not say demonstrate by a performance 21 assessment that there is a sufficient body of data, et 22 cetera, et cetera. The regulation does not say that. The 23 regulation just says 24 potentially adverse conditions at
- 24 the repository, taking into account degree of resolution 25 and those words I quoted.
(202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPAfiY, IIIC . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAliD AVE!IUE, 11. W . , WA SHIIIGTOIf , D.C. 20005
0 - .
, 21 1 So you could say that that, too, is a regulatory 2 uncertainty about what we really want. What does it take 3 to satisfy those words? And the system analysis the 4 Center has done, and what we are working with here -- and, 5 remember, this comes into the regulatory process and goes 6 back and forth, as we develop this. I personally am 7 convinced that what the regulation means is that you need 8 to demonstrate by performance assessment, (a) you've got 9 enough data, and (b) you understand the sensitivity to it.
10 COMMI S S IOff ER CARR: We've got to be very 11 careful, there is no doubt we can clarify those 12 uncertainties such the repository will never be built and 13 never could meet them.
~
14 MR. BERNERO: Well, we have -- you see, we have 15 a regulatory finding. Ultimately, the regulatory finding 16 behind all of this is that there is sufficient isolation 17 from humankind, that this hole in the ground is good 18 enough, that that is sufficient isolation.
19 And then we have layers of regulations and 20 performance standards that describe how one can make that 21 finding. And then when you come down to it, you do get 22 regulations such as this, that said here are 24 23 potentially adverse conditions. And these are drawn from
- 24 the knowlsage of geoscience, hydrology and all of the 25 appropriate disciplines, but exactly what does the (202)234-4433 UEAL R. GROSS i COMPANY, IUC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAUD AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
. 22 1 regulatibn mean, and exactly what does it take to resolve 2 it is something that comes out of analyzing this thing and 3 carrying it out to the appropriate degree, to demonstrate 4 that on those 24 potentially adverse conditions, you know 5 enough, and you can make a finding of --
6 C O M14 T S S I O t1 E R CARR: We're back to the peint i l
~ I where we're not going to get zero risk.
8 MR. BERt!ERO: Oh, no, no question, no question.
l 9 COMMISSIO!!ER CARR: It is a question of how much 10 risk is acceptable.
11 MR. B E Rt!E R O : Yes, the regulation clearly 12 doesn't say the only acceptable site is one that does not ,
13 have any of these potentially adverse conditions. You
~
14 know, you are never going to find a site that gets zero on 15 all 24.
16 CHAIRMAli ZECH: All right, let's proceed.
17 MR. B E R ii E R O : So, if I turn to slide S--
18 (slide) -- another technical assistant project that is 19 going on is the engineered barrier status. This is 20 getting into the containment, substantially complete 21 containment thing, and the important activities at the l 22 Center are the COf!VO Code, which was developed for the i
23 BWIP is i t e , had to be taken up by the Center. And they had 24 to evaluate it and start enhancements in order to use it 25 for the tough medium and unsaturated medium, and they have (202)234-4433 11EAL R. GROSS & COMPA11Y, Itic . (202)232-6600 1303 RHODE ISLAliD AVElIUE, ii.W., UASHIfiGTOti, D.C. 20005
. . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . ___a
23 1_ been doing that.
- 2 And they have also gone into methodology, as the 3 slide indicates, to develop fast probablistic performance 4 assessment methodology for quickly drawing conclusions 5 from parametric analyses and being a much more efficient 6 process.
7 They had a report product last October. I had 8 the pleasure of looking at that one myself because of my 9 long-standing personal interest in the field, and they are 10 doing a good job there, I believe. And they are continuing 11 their work to develop this CONVO code. And this will be 12 instrumental in the 11RC's independent analysis of the 13 performance of the container, the engineered barrier 14 system.
15 This $s one of the major features of the 16 repository system, and one of the places where we feel we 17 must have the capability for independent analysis, 18 systematic analysis, and that's going on right now. Yes, i 19 sir?
l l
20 COMMISSIO!IER ROGERS: Before you leave the fast 21 probablistic performance assessment methodology, has that 22 -- has the Center offered any publications and referee 1
23 journals on this, to get a reaction fror peer review l
- 24 groups?
25 !!R . B ERIIERO : I couldn't answer that question.
(202)234-4433 !JEAL R. GROSS & COMPA11Y, IIIC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLA!!D AVEtJUE, II . W . , W A S HIMGTOtt , D.C. 20005
F:
l n. . ,
24 1 They ~have filed a report with us but, I'm sorry, I don't r 2 know the answer to that.
, 3 COMMI S SIOIIER CARR: Are we publishing the 4 report?
5 MR. BERNERO: Wes Patrick.
6 C H AIRM ATI ZECH: 'Te ll , will you step to the 7 microphone, please, and identify yourself for the 8 Reporter?
9 Thank you.
10 MR. PATRICK: Wes Patrick, Center for IIuclea r 11 IIaste.
12 We have issued two reports to the Commission, 13 which are internal documents that, of course, are in the 14 Public Document Room, so those are available for broad 15 consumption. We have prepared an abstract, which was 16 accepted for presentation at one of the leading 17 international symposiums on nuclear waste. So that will 18 be presented this fall, that document will be going out.
19 And it is our intent, although we have not yet 20 prepared a paper, to go into one of the leading journals, 21 referee journal on probablistic and numerical methods.
22 So, we are very keenly interested in getting the technique 23 out, and getting it reviewed. The technique, vast 24 probablistic performance assessment, is getting a lot of L.,
25 attention in the ITASA aerospace arena. It is a technique (202)234-4433 IIEAL R . GROSS & COMPATIY, Ilic . (202)232-6600
'1323.RHODE ISLAND AVEIIUE, N.W., WASFIIIGTON, D.C. 20005
. ,-' . c ,1 , ,
'25 1 .that is, specifically- being used, for instance, 'for
- -2 material life prediction for space station considerations 3 there.
4 CHAIRMAN.ZECH: Thank you very much.
5 -Let's proceed.
6 MR. BERNERO: Okay, can we have slide'9, please?
7 (Slide) Another arena of activity in the 8 technical assiutance work at the Center is- in 9 transportation. The - Commissioners may recall that in 10 ~1977, NRC published NUREG-0170, Transportation By Air and
+ 11 Other Modes , which was a transportation environmental 12 impact statement, back at a time when we had rulemaking-
~
'13 considerations about overall . changes in' transport I4- regulations' . And that's been a benchmark study. tiow . 11 15 years later, we ' re . initia ting what amounts to revisit of 16 the subject, to se~e whether we ought to do something else.
17 We have an interim' report coming in, in 18 September of '89, and the final report in September of 19 1990, which would then tell us you have the technical 20 information to support where you are, or you ought to go 21 in another direction and change something.
, 22 We are actually following a Commission directive 23 to stay very close to transportation risk. As you well
- 24 know,- and I am sure it is -part of the basis for your h' 25 diractive, is that the public perceives the transportation
- (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPAtIY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE!IUE, 17 . W . , WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 h- -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ R
26" 1 risk as a very significant one. It is something they can 2 see -- here comes the truckload, or trainload of high-3 level waste. And it is a very strong concern in the 4 public, especially' when they say one waste site and the 5 waste from all over the nation is going to converge and 6 some states have already suggested that they are corridor 7 states, uniquely vulnerable condition, and so forth.
8 tiow , that identifies an issue that is not clear 9 at this time, and we will be in continuing touch with the 10 Commission on this. The technical work is being done by 11 the Center, toward a substantial re-evaluation of risk.
12 But whether it will ultimately take the form of simply a 13 technical report or an environmental impact statement is 14 yet to be determined because, in this particular instance, 15 we have a lot of rulemakings going on, but we. don't have 16 anything in the way of transportation rulemaking, of any 17 significance.
18 ITow , if we determine from this technical work 19 that a major change was appropriate then, of course, we 20 wo.41d probably have some sort of statement associated with 21 that. But in contrast, if we do not so determine, if 22 there is no need for major change, then this would become 23 the supporting basis for a negative declaration, or 24 something like that.
25 That's an issue that may be discussed in the
(
(202)234-4433 IJEAL R. GROSS & COMPAliY, IllC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE TSLATID AVEtIUE, II.W., WA SHIT 1GTO!! , D.C. 20005 o.____________________________ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
. 27 for out any EIS here because, future, about whether we put 1 of Energy EIS that we
] 2 the repository, it is a D e pa r t:-en t J
I will adopt, 3
yes.
The repository, Well, MR. THOMPSOU:
4 transportation primarily on localized though, focuses that 5
6 issues, more than the kind of national perspective nur regulations cover.
7 was the original IJUREG that was The other aspect 8 concept and the reprocessing put out, was based on a 9 as opposed to the associated with that, 10 transportation So, 11 transportation scheme that is kind ofare set out now.
being looked at.
sot 9e of the key issues that 12 those are ask a quick CURTISS: Let me COMMISSIOliER 13 2 Under the Act, DOE is going to be an that.
~
14 question for taking title to the wasta and t r a r.spe r t ing 15 responsible And any action that might be a major federal action That will be a DOE action, I take it?
16 it.
17 under IJEFA, an EIS for.
18 they'll, in turn, have to prepare relationship of this work to what 19 Uhat is the in this area?
20 DOE is or will be doing Well, that's the issue we are MP. . BERIJERO :
21 From what I have seen so trying to pull down and clarify.
22 23 far, DOE seems to be focusing their work on the St about i:r p a c t s locally within the state, Mevada, the 24
_ through Reno, or comes the other a 25 whether 4:verything comes (202)232-6600 GROSS & COMP AfiY , IIIC. D.C. 20005
( 20 2 ) 2 3 4.- 4 4 3 3 ';E AL R . U A SHIIIGTOII ,
' " E T RL ATID AV ETIUE , 17 . U . ,
_7-________________--
~
27 1 future, about whether we put out any EIS here because, for 1 2 the repository, it is a Department of Energy EIS that we 3 will adopt.
4 MR. T H O M P S Oll: Well, yes. The repository, 5 though,- focuses primarily on localized transportation 6 issues, more than the kind of national perspective that 7 our regulations cover.
8 The other aspect was the original IIUREG that was 9 put out, was based on a reprocessing concept and the 10 transportation associated with that, as opposed to the 1 11 transportation scheme that is kind of set out now. So, 12 those are some of the key issues that are being looked at.
13 COMMISSIOliER CURTISS: Let me ask a quick a
~
14 question on that. Under the Act, DOE is going to be 15 responsible for taking title to the waste and transporting 16 it. And any action that might be a major federal action 17 under IJEPA, will be a DOE action, I take it? That 18 they'll, in turn, have to prepare an EIS for.
19 Uhat is the relationship of this work to what 20 DOE is or will be doing i t, this area?
21 MR. BERtIER O : Uell, that's the issue we are 22 trying to pull down and clarify. From what I have seen so 23 far, DOE seems to be focusing their work on the State of ,
f
- 24 TIevada, the impacts locally within the state, about ua 25 whether everything comes through Reno, or comes the other (202)234-4433 UEAL R. GROSS Tx COMPAffY IIIC. (202)232-6600 l 1323 RMODE TSLAtiD AVETIUE, t! . U . , UA SHIIIGTOIT , D.C. 20005 C_________ _f
n .,_ . . ., :..
28 1 way around, and which railway spur and so forth.
1 2 ~They d'o n ' t. seem to have that national 3 perspective from every reactor site to the --
you know, 4 the entire transportation network, and it is important ,
5' that they.do. And it is not our. intention to do an EIS l
6 for'them.
7 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: If they dont have that 8 national ~ perspective, I suspect that they'll need to and 4
9 will-have at some point. If it's a DOE action, I guess ,
10 the question that I have is, to what extent do we.need to i
11 initiate a. full-blown transportation analysis that would i
12 then lead to answering this last question - if , at this j 13 point, adoption of DOE's EIS might be an option that would )
~
14 preclude the need to expend resources in an extensive way 15 on the preliminary work? ;
.16 MR. THOMPSON: I am.not aware of any plans right i
17 now by DOE, that is associated with taking title and doing 1 18 the transportation - of it, that they are preparing an EIS .;
19 on that issue. That may be something we will need to I,
20 explore with DOE.
21 MR. BERNERO: Well, actually, as I understand
.22 their intention, they are preparing the fleet of casks, 23 the transport fleet. They will operate them, and they
-- 24 will, indeed. take title, either at the spent fuel pool, s'
25 or at the dry storage device that is used -- in other (202)234-4433 NEAL P,. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE. ISLAND AVENUE, N.W., WASHIliGTON, D.C. 20005
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ .i
29 1 words, at the reactor site.
- 2 And my understanding of their scope of EIS for 3 the major federal action is, with or without an MRS -- I 4 mean, just assume for a moment the MRS is somewhere in the
~
5 network -- the entire spectrum of activities -- taking 6 possession, transporting into and out of an MRS, if it is 7 there, and into the repository -- is the scope of their 8 action. And that should be the EIS that we are prepared 9 to adopt --
you know, that separate rulemaking we have.
10 COMMISSIOIIER CURTISS: Right.
11 MR. BER!iERO : In our case, if we determine that 12 we've got to change the rules then, of course, we need l
13 this as an environmental impact statement backup for what
~
14 we are doing to the regulations but, absent that, we don't 15 intend to generate a part of the EIS for DOE, or expend 16 resources necessary to do that.
17 May I have slide 10?
1R (Slide) Another part of the Center's technical 19 a .. s i s t a n c e activity is the review of the site 20 characterization plan and the experimental shaft facility.
21 The slide here gives the comments, as they are, on the 22 different portions of the documents in question, the four 23 products, actually, four individual products.
_ 24 Ue decided after the startup of the Center, that 25 it was a good idea to get them involved early in the work. ,
I I
(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMP AfiY , IIIC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLATID AVEITUE, fi.W., WASHINGTOli, D.C. 20005
30
+
i 1 Recall, When the Center contract was first let, we had'the y
t
'2 multiple site agenda. We were in the middle of a 3 situation where the Congress was changing the ground rules 4 about how many sites wera_being developed at once. And I
5 that led to the Department of Energy shifting from three
~6 s'i t e characterization plans to a sing 1~e one, in i'
7 consultation draft form, which we looked at a year ago, 8 ' a n d. now to this one, which is the official site l 9 characterization plan for Yucca Mountain,~and because of 10 that evolution of the DOE program, we thought - it a good 11 idea to get. the Center involved, get into the real 12 evaluation. And I think this is paying off very nicely 13 because their generic work, like the system analysis of 2
l
~
14 regulatory uncertainties, and things like that, benefits 15 greatly from their direct technical application to the 16 plans, to see what is in there, what isn't in there, and 17 to get that full flavor.
l 18 So this is paying off rather well. We are quite 19 pleased with it.
20 Now, I would like to turn to the high-level 21 waste. And there is a backup sheet behind: this slide 10 22 that would probably show on the screen, too, Barbara, if 23 you could put it up there. It basically illustrates the 24 full range of activities for research, for independent 25 research that the liRC could do and, if you look in there, E (202)234-4433 UEAL R. GROSS & COMPAMY, INC. (202)232-6600 Y -_
L, 31 1 you can see groundwater migration, radionuclides migration o_ 2 in the unsaturated medium, the effects of fracturing, 3 things like that.
4 If you look at the little arrows coming over by 5 the repository, on the right there, the effects of heat, 6 sealing of shaft seals, and long-term waste package 7 perf orn ance is a very important one. Remember, our whole 8 regulatory approach is one of defense in-depth, where the 9 manmade portions of the system, the engineered barrier 10 system, are defending in-depth with the geological 11 setting. So these are all fertile grounde for the 12 research work into high-level waste.
~~
13 I would like to touch briefly on -- may I have
?t 4 slide 11, please?
15 (Slide) There are four research projects that I 16 just want to touch on here. The integrated waste package 17 experiments, this relates to the engineered barrier system 18 performance; geochemi s try ; thermohydrological phenomena 1
l 19 and seismic / rock mechanit :. Thess are all current 20 research projects at the Center.
l- 21 May we have slide 12, please?
22 (Slide) If you go to integrated waste package 23 experiments it is rather interesting because the
_ 24 regulations specify in two different places things that 1
25 ynu shonid be looking for, two regulatory objectives of (202):'34-4433 IIEAL R. GPOSS & COIIPANY, I!!C . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAUD AVETIUE , fi.U., WASHIMGTOli, D.C. 20005
~.
32 1 nota. The first one listed there is 10 CFR 60.113 ( a) , and 2 that is really saying that containment of high-level waste 3 within the waste packages will be substantially complete 4 for a period not less t'n a n 300 years nor more than a 5 thousand years after permanent closure.
6 I'd like to translate that one a little bit 7 different -- and here, of course, I am interpreting your 8 regulations, as saying at a minimum, the can had better be 9 good for 300 years. And we encourage you to have a 10 longer-lived can, but you won't get credit for anything 11 over a thousand years.
12 In other words, you can't moot the whole problem 13 of siting, by coming up with a 10,000 year c a n ,. and then "1. 4 say I don't care where I put it, it's a 10,000-year can.
15 We want a good can, good engineered barrier system and a 16 good site.
17 In interesting contrast, that other regulatory 28 objective that is quoted there, alternatives producing 19 lower releases, your regulation 60.21(d) says "The 20 analysis shall also include a comparative evaluation of I.
l 21 alternatives to the major design features that are 22 important to waste isolation, with particular attention to 23 the alternatives that would provide longer radionuclides 1
24 containment and i sol a ti on" . l 2 *i Hers, again, if I were to inter pr :t your i
~
(202)234-4433 TIEA'., R. GROSS & COMPAITY, Ilic . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLATID AVETTUE, II.W., WASHI1TGTOII, D.C. 20005
o ..
33 regul a tion ~, I would say it is'a lure to the developer to
- - don't idly throw away a 10,000-year can, if that's within 3 reach. .Uhat would it cost to have that additional margin?
a CHAIRf!AIT CECH: ~'h a t ' s important because v are 5 not limiting you.
6 HR. BERTIERO : Yes.
7 CHAIRMAlf CECH: I don't think we are liriting 8 you to a minimum, but we are providing a boundary ther3 9 that we expect you to at least meet but, if you go beyond 10 that, you will not displease this Commission.
11 ,
MR. BERNERO: lio , no. And, in fact, we want to 12 make sure you look beyond there. That's what the
,, 1 3 requirement says.
n 14 CHAIRMAli ZECH: Ue are asking you to do that.
15 MR. BERNERO: Yes, we are asking you -- ,
k 16 CHAIRMAll ZECH: We are not limiting you, that's 17 the point. Do you understand what I mean? We are not 18 limiting you.
19 MR. BERNERO: --
co look towards the long end.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, go ahead.
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Does that -- on the first 22 one --
excuse me --
does the 300 to 1,000 year 23 interpretation that you've described jump out at you from
__. 24 the regulations? -
[.a -
25 MR. BERTIERO : I think it does, but this is part (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPAI!Y, IliC . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLATID AVEUUE, N.U., W ASHIIIGTOli, D.C. 20005
o
.o . .
34-1 of our -- remember, I said earlier, substantially complete 2 containment dnd all of the regulatcry requirements that 3 go with it. The regulations, as written, have a very 4 interleave network of requirements. And I think that is 5 clearly what the regulation says. And I was a peripheral 6 participant, at least, back when it was written, but this 7 is part of our regulatory requirement uncertainty thing, 8 exactly what does it mean and how is it treated and, 9 similarly, in 60.21.
10 MR. PARLER: That certainly, Mr. Chairman, is 11 something. If there is any uncertainty, is a candidate 12 to be resolved at as early date as possible and not let 13 that uncertainty get prolonged so that it would have to be 34 debated and resolved in the hearing because a bearing th-n 15 certainly would not get over in 18 months.
16 COMMISSIOIIER CARR: My reading of that says we 17 don't know what we can build. We know we need 300 years, 18 and you may be able to get a thousand.
19 COMMISSIOllER CURTISS: I think that --
20 MR. B E R tie R O : Yes. In fact, there's a 21 widespread belief that albeit with greater uncertainty, 22 you can go well beyond a thousand, and there are people 23 who, for political or technical reasons, are striving to 24 do that.
p~r.,
25 COMMISSIOTIER CUPTISS: I think the important ;
i (202)234-4433 tJEAL R. GROSS & COMPAliY, ITIC . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLATID AVEtiUE, II . W . , UA SHI!!GToti , D.C. 20005
35 1 thing, and one of the reasons I view the systematic
'-. 2 analysis initiative as an important program, is that 3 ultimately, in the first instance, the Licensing Board is 4 going to resolve that uncertainty, and we can all sit 5 around and sort of speculate as to what 300 to a thousand 6 means, but before we get to the point of the Licensing 7 Board toiling for months on end, if not longer, over what a that means, this initiative, it seems to me, in sort of an 9 organized, comprehensive way, permits us to go through the 10 regulations, identify instances in advance, you know, 11 where there have probably been at least two and maybe 12 three interpretations of that very one here this morning,
~
13 and tell them --
14 COMMISSIOtIER CARR: The uncertainty is not the 15 300, the uncertainty is substantially complete. You know, 16 300 is a nice number. If they meet 300, they meet it, and 17 then the question is going to become what " substantia 31y 18 complete" means. So, that's the --
19 COMMISSIOtJER CURTISS: I agree with that.
20 MR. B ERITERO : Well, T think we all recognize 21 that if we wait for the Hearing Board to adjudicate just 22 fahat does that mean, the system will have lapsed badly--
23 CHAIRMATI ZECH: The General Counsel has made an
- 24 important point. I hope you'll take that very seriously. 1 25 MR. BERt!ERO: Yes, indeed. I just want to (202)234-4433 TIEAL R. GROSS & COMPA!!Y, IIIC. (202)232-6600 ;
1323 RHODE ISLATID AVE!!UE, !!. U . , UA SHIIIGTOff , D.C. 20005 l
y
36 .
. 1 1 reinforce his point. We need to address this now, and 2 that's why, in the system analysis -- the substantially 3 complete containment umbrella gets you into this -- we've .
I 4 really got to pursue this thing because it's crucial to l 5 all of the work you do and, if one, in adjudication n.any 6 years from now, discovers that you have to go back to the 7 drawing board and get more information or do more work in 8 order to make the necessary findisng, the system has really 9 failed. We just didn't give enough foresight to it.
10 CHAIRMA!! ZECH: Let's proceed. ;
11 MR. BERNERO: So, !. f you'll go to slide 13, 12 please -- (slide) -- the integrated waste package practice 13 -- it's rather interesting. DOE has been working with a a
~
14 family of stainless steel and nickel alloys, half a dozen 15 of them, and when the Center got into this research 16 project, it inoked at the addition of haste 11oy, another 17 alloy, as a sort of reference material, to get a feel for 18 the conservative side of the spectrum -- you know, in 19 longer-life cans, what one might do -- and what we have 20 right now is a project where materials are being procured 21 and the facilities are being prepared, scoping tests on 22 their way, and so forth.
23 We are operating on what I'll call a six plus-24 one matrix right now -- six alloys plus a haste 11oy
~
25 reference material -- and DOE is signaling that they will (202)234-4433 UEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, IUC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAUD AVEUUE, N.W., WASHINGTOU, D.C. 20005 a:_____________
p ,
j 37 1 -be making a narrowing of the field later this year -- they L- 2 are going to narrow it to a couple of alloys -- and until 3 this week, I thought, from everything we had heard, that 4 it was going to be stainless steel, and now we hear, no, 5 they may be going toward the noble end of the spectrum, 6 toward incanel, and some of you, I'm sure, remember 7 incanel and its development in the nuclear IIavy and much i 8 of the work that was done with it there.
9 So, basically, our research program, though, has 10 this spectrum of materials, and its intent is to give us 11 an independent technical basis to judge those two things, 12 those regulatory objectives. Is it a long enough life for 13 the can, and has the program, the DOE program, looked well s __
~
14 enough at the longer-live side of the spectrum.
15 May I have slide 14? (Slide) The geochemistry 16 research -- there one gets a number of regulatory 17 objectives. I've just listed them here. IIote thet a 18 couple of them are contained within that 10 CFR 60.122, 19 the potentially adverse effects chapter of the 20 regulations, and the research here is to develop the 21 capability to assess high-level waste data, and they have 22 models for gas and water, rock, waste package 23 interactions, things like that, geochemistry effects.
_ 24 COMMIS SIOliER ROGERS: Before you leave that, is
(~ 25 the Center's research work here totally dependent on the (202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPA!IY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 PHODE ISLA!!D AVEIIUE, II . W . , WASHIIIGTOII, D.C. 20005
~
- a. . ..
38 1 USGS samples, or do they have an independent way of
~
2 collecting samples? )
)
3 MR. BERf!ERO : You mean at Yucca 14ountain? l 4 COMMISSIOllER ROGERS: Yes. 1 5 MR. BERTIERO : I believe it's dependent on USGS.
6 I' would stand to be contradicted, though. I don't think 7 we have independent samples.
8 CHAIRMATI ZECH: Step to the microphone, please, 9 and identify yourself. Thank you.
10 MR. PATRICK: Wes Patrick, Center for fluclear 11 Waste.
12 There are several different aspects imbedded in 13 your question. One is with regard to site-specific
~14 geological and water samples. We would rely upon s a:nple s 15 collected at the exploratory shaft and then at-depth.
16 The leading part of this research, though, looks 17 fundamentally at the materials that are present in the 18 rock, and those are widely published, widely available, 19 from borehole data that has been put out into the 20 literature and, from a modeling perspective, it starts 21 with certain basic groundwater, certain basic minerals 22 present in the assemblage, and it calculates what the 23 waters would be at equilibrium condition. That, right 24 now, is the best that can be done. Ito one on the DOE side 25 has yet extracted and published the results of what the (202)234-4433 liEAL R. GROSS & COMPAITY, IIIC . (202)232-6600 i 1323 RHODE ISLATID AVEIIUE, II . W . , WA SHI!TGTOII, D.C. 20005
. . o 39 I water present in the unsaturated zone is. Quite to the s-
._ 2 contrary. They go to a cor4venien t nearby borehole and 3 pump from that well, from tho saturated zone, and use that 4 in their calculations and in their testing. And we've 5 done sufficient calculations at this point, that if we 6 know anything, we know that that water is not like the 7 waters that one would find in the unsaturated zone.
8 So, the answer is, yes, we are constrained 9 somewhat, waiting for those samples, but we are able, 10 through some very sophisticated geochemical nodeling, to 11 bootstrap the experimental activities that are underway, 12 later intending to confirm those.
13 Does that answer your question, sir?
~14 cot 4MISSIOIIER ROGERS: Well, yes, it's just that 15 there have been some quality assurance problems with USGS 16 samples, and it's just a question of whether there's any 17 independent check that the Center, itself, is making on 18 these.
19 MR. PATRICK: For that reason, we are, at this 20 time, not using any of the samples that have been 21 collected from boreholes because there is not a good 22 pedigree as to where those samples came from, and that's 23 why I mentioned going to the exploratory shaft, waiting
_ 24 until we are able to be there on-site, or using the tiPC's
~
25 on-site representative, to confirm precisely, under our I
(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPAITY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLATID AVETTUE, II . W . , WASHIIIGToti, D.C. 20005
'I' _ -__m. __m_.__-___-_-_______m.__m__m_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _
. e o 40 1 procedures, where those samples came from, and the 2 conditions under which they were acquired.
3 CHAIRMAli ZECH: Thank you very much, appreciate 4 it.
5 MR. BERNERO: But -- Wes, stay there for a 6 moment --
it is my understanding, though, that when that 7 occurs, when the properly drawn or taken samples, USGS or 8 DOE camples, that we would rely on those samples. Ue 9 would not independently sample the rock, the !!RC program 10 would not independently sample it.
11 ,
Well, we can skip slide 15. Ues has just given 12 a good summary of where we stand there, and the status of 13 that.
l' 14 We're at slide 16 --
(slide) --
the 15 thermohydrological research. This is basically working 16 toward thermal effects on geohydrology/ geomechanics in 17 60.21, and 60.113, the waste package containment and 18 groundwater travel time, and the extent of the disturbed l
l l 19 zone.
l 20 The objective of the research is to use 21 laboratory experiments and develop an understanding of 22 these thermohydrological interactions at the waste 23 package, itself, and then over the unsaturated melium and I 24 the repository material around it.
25 The status of it, if we go to slide 17--
(202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPATIY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAIJD AVEtIUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
-. 41' i
__. 1 (slidetJ-- is' the technology 'f rom - other sources has been
"- -2 < transferred to the Center, and they have the design and' 3 initiation of -preliminary separate effects experiments 4 just'this month, and then through the. course-of the year, 5 they will be designing the thermohydrological experiments L
l 6 - and'then,.of course, conducting thos'e experiments on into 7 the subsequent year.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Is staffing adequate s at-i 9 this time, to carry out that program?
10 MR. BERNERO: I think they are still trying to 11 get another key. individual here. I think this is one of
~12 the areas -- isn't it?
13 MR. LATZ: Yes.
14 MR. BERNEP,0.; This i s_ one of .the areas where .
15 they're still trying to get the right person, and that 16 -would help a great deal, you know, to get rolling on that.
17 Let me go to slide 19, please -- (slide) -- and 18 the seismic / rock mechanics. Here, we're trying to 19 evaluate the potential effects of seismic events on the 20 repository structure and the ambient groundwater system.
21 Of ' course, you effect retrievability, that's one ,
22 regulatory requirement or objective. The containment of 23 the waste, 60.113, is another one, and the safety of
~
-~ 24 . underground openings.
p.
! 25 - The status of this work, if you go to slide 20
_ (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600 e- a noma o m e nn n uantum a w wa arwween ae e nnrna
l 42~
- 1. -- (slide) -- no, 20 is two more requirem nts -- excuse me 2 -- slide 21 -- (slide). Slide 21 illustrates that the 3 Center has done a report of their literature study. They 4 had a draft report in February of '89. The staff has had 5 a'c c e s s to that. The final literature study report is due 6 next- tmnth. Later this year, they will have analytical 7 model evaluations, and laboratory studies plan by June.
8 So, that's a sample of some of the research work 9 that has just begun, basically, in the past six to eight 10 months, at the Center.
11 ,
Now I'd like to go to slide 22.
12 COMMISSIONER CARR: How do we prioritize their 13 research? -
14 MR. BERNERO: How do we prioritize the Center's 15 research?
16 COMMISSIONER CARR: Yes. How do we know they 17 are working on their most important things first?
18 MR. BERNERO: Well, we actually work with the 19 Office of Research, to prioritize research from an ifPC 20 perspective. What do we want and when do we want it? And 21 then the -- as you'll see when I show you the resources, 1
22 the bulk of the research goes to the Center based on'that 23 priority, so that we no longer go to the Center and do a l
24 second order of prioritizaticn.
25 CHAIRMAti ZECH: Let me ask Mr. Beckjord to (202)234-4433 IJEAL R. GROSS & COMPAfiY, INC. (202)232-6600 !
1323 RHODE ISLATID AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
. 43 1 respond to that. How do you prioritize research?
\'
2 MR. THOMPSON: I'd like Mr. Arlotto to comment 3 on that, Mr. Chairman.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Step to the 5 microphone, please, and identify yourself to the Reporter.
6 MR. ARLOTTO: I'm Guy Arlotto, and I'm from the 7 Office of Research.
8 The key way -- right now, in a transition 9 period, the research has already been in effect at other 10 places. The key element we're looking for now is the 11 transfer of technology to the Center.
12 So, the issue of prioritizing research 13 principally is through user-need letters from the Office 14 of II u c l e a r M a t.e r.i a l s Research. B.asically, the 15 prioritization of the research is to make a judgment--
16 given the fact that this is a relatively new technology 17 for us --
to make a judgment of where do we think the 1
18 large uncertainties are going to come, given the idea that 19 there are -- the elements we are looking at are, one, the 20 container; two, the effects of the heat on the surrounding 21 of the site itself, and the movement of groundwater i
22 through the media, Mr. Chairman -- I mean, the movement of 23 water through the media to the groundwater. And, right 24 now, we have only identified and transferred four elements l
to the Center, and they cover the four things that Mr.
25 (202)234-4433 ITEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, IIIC. (202)232-6600 9 te s sene vev. Awa Aveuv7e . M s. maamvMa9aN. Ed_e_ 26603
I 44
, 1 Bernero has already identified.
t j:,
,. 2 And the bottom line to your question, Mr. Carr, l ..
3 is that we really do not have an integrated plan for the
'.i 4 prioritization of research, simply because the Center and 5 we. must get together and see what evolves from this 6 arch'itecture. The answer is, we really don't have one.
7 MR. T H O!!P S 3il : But there is in place, 8 Commissioner, if there is a conflict in programs, that the 9 Center identifies the fact that they can't meet the 10 current schedules i. n both of the programs, and that's 11 elevated up to Mr. Arlotto and tir . Browning to resolve 12 or, if they can't get it resolved, Mr. Bernero will 13 resolve the conflict with the Center.
~
14 CHAIRMAti ZECH: But are you attempting to get a 15 prioritization of research?
16 MR. THOMPSOti: I think it's --
17 MR. ARLOTTO: Guy Arlotto. Yes, that we are 18 doing. I have -- as part of our personnel appraisal 19 system in the whole area, I have directed :ny chie f in this 20 area to develop a closure plan for high-level waste, which 21 would include the prioritization of research, working with 22 tiMSS. That we will have in a few months.
23 CHAIRMATI ZECH: Thank you.
24 COMMISSIO!1ER CARR: And I would assume it's 25 prioritized somewhere in the direction of clearing up the 1
i (202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & Cot!P AliY , IITC . (202)232-6600 1323 P,HODE ISLATID AVEtIUE, IT . U . , UASHIIIGTOII, D.C. 20005
k:
t .-
4 45 s..
1 uncertainties.
.. -2 MR '. ARLOTTO: Yes.
O COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Are there any serious 4 t? ega t iv e impacts on- f ollowing those priorities due to the 5 shortfall in technical staffing, the. unfilled spots?
6 MR. BERNERO: So.far, I don't think so, but, you 7 know, you recall that staffing slide right up front has a
'8 little dip.in it, and we're optimistic that that dip will_
9 be -- will go into the recovery from it, but if there is a 10 continuing shortfall, then we would --
.11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Does that technical 12 staf fing- projection reflect, to some extent, research 13 priorities? In ether words --
i
~
14 MR. BERNERO: Insofar as we know them now.
15 " Insofar. as we know them now, but'- the system itself is 16 self-changing, that as we go through the systen analysis 17 and get a better understanding of what drives and what 18 needs to drive the system, it could have a profound 19 effect even on the research requirements and, you know, I 20 think Guy Arlotto referred to that, that, you know, we 21 have to wait for that outcome, if that comes.
22 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, in an organization 23 like this, I weuld not emphasize numbers over quality of 24 . people.
'~~
25 MR. BERNERO: Ho.
(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTOtl, D.C. 20005
. 46 1 'MR. THOM P SO!! : And the center does have a
~
2 capability to use consultants, you know, to support their 3 lack of ability to hire a particular area of expertise, 4 and that's certainly called for in the contract. So, 5 -
their ability to have that capability is present. Our 6 preference, obviously, is to have the quality person on 7 the staff, you know, full-time. So, that that, I believe, 8 is essentially the way they make that tradeoff right now.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's proceed.
10 MR. BERNERO: Okay. Go to slide 22. (Slide) 11 I.'d like to just indicate what the future direction of the 12 Center is, and our act ivities there.
13 First of all, there was a letter I signed not 14 long ago, about a month or so ago, on an tiP.C management i 15 realignment. Recognizing that the Center had gone from 16 the startup phase into a more operational phase, and it 17 was involving two divisions in NMSS and also a major I
18 division over in the Office of Research, I decided to move 19 the program management for the Center up to the staff 20 office associated with the Director's office in tiMSS , and 21 that's where Jesse Funches comes in, and Jesse is now the 22 lead manager for Center activity. He's not taking over 23 the t'chnical e direction, you know, each division--
24 Transportation, or High-Level Waste, whatever -- they 25 still have the responsibility and authority for the
(_
(202)234-4433 TTEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-0600 1323 RHODE ISLA!!D AVEITUE , ii.W., WA SHIliGTON , D.C. 20005 3
i s .' , ' !
47
- j. 1 technical direction, but we feel that this will greatly l L_.
- ~2 enhance the effectiveness of the Center as an FFFDC for !
I' i
3 us, and we can get a better integration of Center' work I
4 planning with our five-year plan as well because we-think l
5 that's a vary important thing, to work that into a clear 6 congruence.
7 COMMISSIOtIER CURTISS: In their latest periodic 8 report, they've touched on the reorganization, and 9 identified that as a -- or they list it under what they 10 call heading of Problems.
11 MR. BERNERO: Tes, I noticed.
12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: In a fairly terse 13 statement here, they say "The Center was advised in the l
~
14 period of February 21st, of an NRC reorganization that 15 will influence the management of the Center Further 16 assessment of the problem areas and solutions thereto will 17' await implementation of the new organization".
18 Could you expand upon what the rest of the 19 iceberg looks like there?
20 MR. BERNERO: Okay. Well, what we have -- I 21 have been down to the Center. I've talked to Mr. Latz and 22 others, but John Latz in particular, about that management i
23 change, and Jesse Funches and I have gene to the Center.
24 Last month, we spent a couple of days down there going 25 over management issues. Jesse has since been there again, (202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, Ilic . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE T3 LAND AVENUE, ii.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 .
- _ _ _ _ - - - - ._ _ \
48 1 and we are working with them today.
2 I think the words in that report, which I also 3 read and saw it listed under Problems, that this remains 4 to be fully worked out with the Center. We are in the 5 midst of contractual modifications that are necessary to 6 accomplish that change of characters -- you know, you have 7 different people on different control-panels and so forth.
8 As far as the rest of the iceberg, I think the 9 rest of the iceberg is coming up to the surface now, and 10 I'm still sanguine. I still think that this is a good 11 move, and we'll have a smoother operation. We'll have a 12 more rapid attention at a high enough level to resolve 13 problems.
"14 14R . THOl4PSO!!: As far as I can see -- and, of 15 course, the Center is here, you can ask them, too -- the j 16 key element was that we wanted to make sure they 17 understood how the new managers would be interfacing with 18 them, and that's what the purpose of the trip down to the 19 San Antonio by Bob and Jesse as well as their interactions l
20 up here in negotiating what we call the Fee Award process.
21 And, so, as far as I --
at least in my 22 overview, the communications have been ongoing. As far as 23 I know, they are well on their way to resolving any 24 concerns or problems that may be there, but certainly you, 25 you know, can ask the Center. l (202) 234-4 43 3 IEAL R. GROSS & COMPATIY, It!C . (202)232-6600
. . . l l
49 1 C OMMI S S IOliE R CURTISS: Do you envision the 2 reorganization changing in any significant way, the 3 substance or the schedule for the program architecture or j 4 the systematic analysis?
5 MR. BERlf ERO : I don't envision the management 6 structure change impacting that, but the content -- you 7 know, as I spoke earlier, what we're doing with R-8 and 8 R-9, and we're getting into this business about what does 9 the program now do with the product -- you know, what do 10 we do? Does this lead us in a different direction? That 11 can affect the system analysis, but I don't see this 12 management changing.
13 COMMISSIOtiER CURTISS: But the schedule and the 14 substance for the deliverables from the Center, as opposed 15 to what we do with them when we get the reports, you don't 16 envision changing?-
i 17 COMMISSIO11ER CARR: Well, we've changed some of i 18 the priorities of things we want.
19 MR. BEPffERO: Yes. The feedback mechanism on 20 which we always presume, that can redirect, and has. It 21 has already redirected the system analysis output -- you 22 know, instead of doing this, go do thin -- you know, 23 changing the priorities, and we will necessarily get more 24 of that. I think the R-8 -- this is the R-9 product. The 25 R-8 product, I think, is going to give us more, and then, (202)234-4453 IIEAL R. GROSS & COIIP ATIY , IIIC . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAllD AVEITUE, 11.W., W A SHIliGTOli, D.C. 20005 t '_ __ _ __ ______________-____-._________________a
. r. L4 50 -
1 of course, later this year - when we do the . things, 4 .2 : including subs tantially 'comple te containment, we'17 3 certa' inly-get'into things, I.think.
.4~ I'd like to ask John Latz if he would' speak to 5 -the ' management change. He probably wrote the words two l
~
, 6 weeksago, or three-weeks'ago.
- 7. MR. LATZ: I'm John Latz, of the Center. Yes, 8 Mr. Bernero, I did write those words. I think that rather 9 reflects or bespeaks the uncertainties that are imparted 10 to both the written and the spoken word. 'They were.
11- indeed, terse.
12 The intent of those words was to simply convey 13 that the recent nature of the change did not yet permit y
14 'any assessment of its functicn, and those ongoing problems 15 or'the problem areas that had been identified in the prior 16 report, were being addressed in the management transition.
17 So, I felt it was not really appropriate, in 18 that transitorv state, to address or identify op areas 19 .that were problem areas.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much, appreciate 21 it. Let's proceed.
22 MR. BERNERO: May I have slide 237 (Slide) 23 Slide .23 indicates the funding at the Center, for Fiscal
, 24 Year 1990 and, if you look at it, the technical i G'
, 25 assistance, or fiMS S work, on the left, is a total of $9 l (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPA!TY, IIIC. (202)232-6600
'1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, U.U., WASHINGToti, D.C. 20005
e . F 51 1 million for ITUPA-related funds and 86 percent of it is at
. .;. 2 the Center; St.3 million is outside the Center -- that is 3 a little bit of work on independent spent fuel storage and 4 some work at the liational Bureau of Standards, which is 5 going to phase down to a lower level, so that for the 6 technical assistance work, the very large share of it is 7 at the Center, and will continue to be at the Center.
8 The Office of Research is the bar on the right, 9 a total of $5 million; 26 percent of it, $1.3 million, is 10 outside the Center, 74 percent at the Center. I think 11 it's worth noting that the non-Center research that Eric ,
12 Beckjord has, includes a half a million dollar effort at 13 Sandia that is actually phasing down -- it's a technology' ,
s i
}
14 completion thing -- and it will phase out, approximately p
15 phase out, in Fiscal Year '91, so that the Office of i
16 Research, assuming the funds are not cut -- you know, the '
17 Office of Research, too, will have a large share of its 18 work at the Center.
19 COMMISSIOtIER CARR; Well, you know, this is one 20 of my problens. When we set this organization up, we said 21 we were going to -- you said, the staff said they weru 22 cjoing to phase all the work into the Center, and I'm still l
23 waiting to see that all the work gets phased in and, so, l
24 that black box at the bottom bothers me.
P.
~~ Well, from the outset, it was 25 MR. BERITERO :
i (202)234-4433 ITEAL R. GROSS & COMPAITY, IIIC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLA!!D AVEtiUE, II . W . , WASHIt!GTON, D.C. 20005 L_________________________ ,I
._d -- A' --
< 4 i 52 1 recognized that there might be some work ' that , for a ,
u !
2 unique-reason, or unavailability of some special. facility, i .
'l 3 whatever it might be, could be placed outside the center, 4 - and'the issue --
5 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well', why wouldn't we let l l
6 ' th'e ' Center -place- that work ~ if it's unique and they can't
~
7 do it? I thought we set them up to be our experts in this. .
8 area, and I understand that there-is some discussion about-9 the NAS report saying put-more universities, and that's 10 . been' interpreted to mean you've got to keep some of this
- 11 work at -universities, but that's not the way we set the:
12 program up when we started. At least, the Commission'.s l 13 guidance was clear. It said we're expecting you -- and it-
~ ~
14 .was a gradual phase-in of "all work" -over a period of 1
. 1 15 three years, and'that wasn't just research.
$ 16 MR. THOMPSON: Well, I think that's where we've !
- 17 been headed. Eric, I don't 'know if you want to add i 18 anything else to'the table here, but we have been looking 19 at putting as much of the activities, you know, with the ,
20 center as we can. I know Eric has looked at also this j i
21 aspect of keeping some work at the University of Arizona !
l 22 and others, and I think that's an issue ~ that we'll be !
23 working with the . EDO 's office, to make sure that balance 1
24 comes out, you know, appropriately.
25 The program at Arizona has been one that has (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. H.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 ;
W __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
. l i
53
't 1 been helpful and, you know, dealing with the issues. They
) .
l.
(- 2 have some unique programs ongoing, and I think one of the l
3 things we were looking-at is to have that integrated with i L
4 the Center, such that the Center and, in fact, may.even 5 have a satellite aspect, you know, with the University of 6 Arizona. So, that's --
7 COMMISSIONER CARR: I guess my message is, if 8
you want us to change our guidance, come ask us, but don't 9 ignore us.
10 MR. THOMPSON: We will certainly do that. He I 11 don't intend to ignore you.
12 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIRMAU ZECH: All right. Let's proceed.
n.- ,
. I
^
14 MR. BERNERO: May I have slide 24. (Slide) I'd 15 like to identify some areas of future Center technical 16 assistance and research, at least the ones we can see 17 right now. Certainly, the system analysis work will, if 18 you will, always have them imbedded in the process of 19 selected rulemakings and technical positions and iteration 20 around that subject.
21 Ue intend to draw them a lot more deeply into 22 performance assessment. You know, this is the i
23 quantitative performance assessment of the repository 24 systam. I'd just like to mention to the Commission that 25 w- hav- minutas of a -eeting we held recently with EPA, i i !
(202)234-4433 NEA1,R. GFOSS Fe COMP AtiY , IIIC . (2021232-6600 1323 P'40DE TSLA17D AVENUE, ii . U . W A SHINGTOf f , D.C. 20005
54 1 about the performance standard. You know, the 2 Environmental Protection Agency has their performance 3 standard back in remand, a r. d they're going to fix it up 4 and repropose it, and they are also being drawn into a 5 more explicit role in the WIP facility and, you know, the 6 WIP f acility in flew Mexico is a DOE repository that has to 7 meet the EPA standard, but it isn't licensed -- it's, you 8 know, just a DOE evaluation -- and the EPA -- of course, 9 they don't know what capability the Center has, but they 10 raised the prospect that they might possibly seek access 11 to the Center, for technical assistance in performance 12 assessment, if circumstances develop in that direction.
13 We will certainly keep you informed of anything in that 14 direction.
15 COMMISSIGIIER CARE: Who wants to seek access?
16 MR. B E RITE R O : The Environmental Frotection l'7 Agency.
20 COMMISSIOt!ER CURTISS: Do you think that's a 21 good idea?
22 MR. BERTIERO: We haven't gone deeply enough into 23 it to .s e e it. Legally, of course -- I've done it in the 24 past myself -- I've used other people's FFRDCs in order to
~
25 tap a unique skill, and it's -- you know, there are (202)234-4431 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPAliY, IIIC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAIID AVETIUE, II . W . , WA S HIITGTOtJ , D.C. 20005
e , ,
55 C
, 1 mechanisms by which you can authorize that.
2 One of the things that underlies -- it's a 3 strong concern, I think I've expressed it to this 4 Commission before --
is that you have in the United States 5 the Department of Energy developing two repositories that 6 are to the same ultimate standard, only one is licensed 7 and one isn't, and this might be a good avenue to get a-8 more congruent treatment -- you know, a more consistent 9 treatment.
10 COMMISSIONER CARR: But we don't have an excess 11 of manpower out there, that we would be going around 12 advertising, I hope.
y; 13 (Laughter.)
~
14 MR. BERNERO: No, no. No. They raised it, we 15 didn't. We didn't raise it, and it's quite speculative at 16 this time and, certainly, it's not at this time, this 17 year, that we're talking about. It would be s cra e thing ,
18 perhaps, a year or so in the future.
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: You'd envision coming 20 back to the Commission before a decision is made, with the 21 pros and cons.
22 MR. BER11ERO : Oh, yes, we would -- yes. Yes.
23 Yes. There are many policy implications of it.
. 24 COMMISSIONER CARR: I'm still puzzled on your g.y -
25 performance assessment, I guess, but does that mean the (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPAUY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.U., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 L
i 1
56 I
1 contribution of all these things, we're going to multiply 2 them all together and decide whether we've got the right i
3 answer or not?
5 COMMISSIONER CARR: And do we know how many of 6 those things there are?
7 (Laughter.)
8 MR. BERITERO: That's part of the -- we have some 9 key rulemakings that we have -- in that SECY paper 88-285, 10 the ill-named APES and UPEs -- Anticipated Processes and 11 Events, and Unanticipated Processes and Events -- is a 12 very important rulemaking as to how one segrents or 13 selects the events or scenarios that need to be considered
~14 because, remember, you're going out to a 10,000-year ti:re 15 period, and then when you get to the 10,000-year time 16 period, you're very much aware that you're talking about 17 events going out even far beyond that, into millions of 18 years, and you have to select and bound what would be 19 considered-what isn't considered; then there's a second 20 rulemaking in that strategy that is how do you demonstrate 21 compliance with the EPA standard, which is an overall--
22 as you described it -- an overall assessment, take it all 23 into account --
24 COMMISSIO!IER CARR: The more contributors you 25 put into this multiplication, the harder it's going to be (202)234-4433 tiEAL R. GROSS & COMPATIY, IIIC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEITUE, II . W . , WASHINGTOII, D.C. 20005
- 7. .,
. . l 57 1 to meet it.
7 2 MR. B E RIT E RO : Oh, certainly; certainly; 3 certainly, it is, and it's a crucial issue and we did --
4 COMMISSIONER CARR: We haven't bounded the 5 contributors yet, huh?
6 MR. BERNERO: No, that's part of our rulemaking.
7 That's part of our rulemaking activity, and we want- to 8 sort that out well in advance of the license application.
9 That's crucial --
10 MR. THOMPSON: I think this probably is --
it's 11 the number one of the rulemaking efforts.
12 MR. BERNERO: It's the number one. And by the 4
' 13 way, their system analysis is reaffirming us in that--
14 you know, their system analysis from the Center is really 15 reinforcing that. That's a crucial rulemaking. That's a 4 16 crucial rulemaking-17 COMMISSIONER CARR: Okay.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's proceed.
19 MR. BERITERO: Of course, we will also use the 20 Center on selected DOE study plans, things like that, 21 related to the direct application of information, and 22 things like project decision analysis, or mission plan 23 schedules.
24 If I have slide 25.-- (slide) --
the research l
"]. 25 projects which are under development right now, the (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
[-- - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __
j
58 1 application of stochastic analytical techniques to l 2 repository licensing. This fits into the whole theme of 3 performance assessment and its use in licensing. As 4 probably important now and will continue to be important, 5 even after the system analysis, a workshop on natural 6 analogues is an activity that's being planned, and that's l
7 a very tantalizing one.
8 There are activities going on here in this I 9 country and over in Australia, concerning natural i
I 10 analogues, where it's quite tantalizing that one can get 11 at least some partial confirmation of long-range ,
12 performance prediction. l
~'
13 COMMISSIONER CARR- What does that mean to me, !
14 like the pyramids?
15 MR. B E R ii E R O : Well, probably the one that's 16 easiest to understand is the one over in West Africa, ;
17 where there was an underground criticality many, many 18 years ago, and you can still find the fission product ;
19 distribution around the underground criticality.
20 Here, a more subtle thing, they're not looking 21 for radioactivity, they're looking for chemical behavior.
22 There is a research project that the Office of Research is 23 supporting, the Vallez Caldera in the southwest, New 24 Mexico, where it is a material like Yucca Mountain, a 25 tough material, and then there's another project, the 26 Alligator Rivers project in Australia that is looking more (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPAlfY, I!!C . (202)232-6600 f, aece ammme o m n wm comma w w co mmows-w a a ennas )
. 59 1 -- it's not rough material, but it's looking more at a 2 geochemical congruence, and what's stable over the T.illion 3 year period and what isn't -- you know, what their 4 analogous behavior in the geochemistry they're looking at 5 but, basically, you know, so much of this is you're trying 6 to predict'what will a nuclide do over a long period of 7 time, and sometimes you're not predicting with great 8 precision, a rate.
9 Uhat you're predic ting is , it's going to be 10 stable. It's going to reach a geochemically stable 11 configuration, won't move, and that's possibly the answer 12 that you need. And, so, it's very tantalizing if you can 13 find a natural analog, something in nature that can affirr 54 -- you know, a geologic deposit that's 10 million years
.15 old that demonstrates what you're looking for.
16 And another project on the evaluation of 17 groundwater at the repository site, a field analog that's iS being considered. So, basically, what we see for the 19 Center in the coming years is a deep involvement steered 20 in great measure by this system analysis that steers and 21 contributes to the steering of the whole program, the 22 whole high-level waste regulatory program, and their role.
D Ue're pleased so far, with their participation m 24 with the site characterization plan review and the value 25 it has for making them an integral part of our activity.
(2021234-4433 ITEAL R. GROSS & COMPA11Y, Ilic . (2021232-660C 1323 RHODE ISLAtID AVEUUE, 11. ti . , WA S HItiGTOI!, D.C. 20005
[.
60 1 And, so, we see a very significant role for the Center as I 2 we go into the full development and operational phase in 3 the coming years. That concludes the presentation, if you 4 have a1y questions.
5 CHAIRMAli ZECH: ^" hank you very much. Questions 6 from'my fellow Commissioners?' Commissioner Roberts?
7 COMMISSIOtIER ROBERTS: A quick one. About two S weeks age, my office got a copy of the award fee 9 determination plan. Is this a change, and what is the 10 purpose of the change?
11 ,
MR. BERITERO : We made some conforming changes te-12 the award fee determination plan at the time that we were 13 changing the names. You know, we had a change -- who is 34 going to make the finding, the Jesse Funches rianager rcle
- 15. -- and we made a few other changes as well, in that 16 process. I went over them carefully with Jesse at the 17 time, and I'm sorry I can't remember them. If you'd like, 13 I can hate Jesse -- he might be able to re:rembe r .
19 CHAIRMA!T IECH: '7h y don't you cone to the 20 microphone.
21 11R B ERITERO : Jesse, do you recall the ones 22 other than conforming changes.
23 CHAIRMAli ZECH: Identify yourself for the
, 24 Reporter, please.
y 25 MR. F U TIC H E S : Jesse Funches, from Office of (202)234-4433 IIEAL R . GROSS & C 011F AIIY , Ilic . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLA!TD AVEtiUE, 11. U . , WA SHItiGTOIT , D.C. 20005 L, :_ - - _ - _ - _ - - -
1.
61 l
[
'1 i'I f S S . The basic changes were niade to, on- recognize tha-l
- 2 the Center oss going from a startup phase to operational 3 phass, r o pl a c e: sone errphasis on sxcellent proCaetion as a they p~oduced prr Net for us. So, there's a c on:b i n a t i c r.
5 of changes. One, to recognize that rN nriginal ORT plan 6 was based on e primarily, startup, to recognize that t' 7 . Center was shifting to cperation; another c r. s le r:
8 . reflect reorganization.
9 CHAIRMAli ZECH: All right. Thank you wer; ruch.
10 COMMISSIGIIER CURTISS: One quick questi r. . Is 11 that the same as saying that there will be greater 12 emphasis on short-terr deliverables, or does it ha.- ara 7 13 effeet on the short-term versus long-term?
a 14 HR. FU:ICHES: It was not interidad , in p: , st 15 all there was greater enphasis on shcrt-term, more of 16 ' greater emphasis on both long-term and short-term cutpur 17 I think we did make some minor change, subsequently, to 18 reflect that it was both long-term and short-term, to
'L 9 accommodate Mr. Latz' comments.
20 CHAIRMAIT ZECH: Thank you very truch.
21 Commissioner Carr?
22 COMMISSIO1TER CARE: How are we going to keep the 23 Center at the technical forefront of their capability?
24 Are we planning to encourage them to hold workshops, go tn 15 workshops? Are we planning to leave that up to them, to
( 20212 3a-44 33 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPAtiT, IIIC . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAiiD AVETIUE, ti.U., 'JASHIIIGToti, D.C. 20005
62 1 keep themselves abreast of the technology, or do we plan 2 to assist the , or have you thought about that? What kind 3 of plans have we got to do that' 4 MR. BERIIERO : I can't enumerate a specific plan.
5 We are definitely encouraging them to hold workshops , to 6 take a significant role in interactions with DOE, to rake 7 sure we understand the DOE data as it develops, and to 8 participate in independent, international effort, for 9 instance --
10 COMMISSIOliER CARR: And it behooves us -- they 11 are our baby, we want them to be the experts.
12 MR. BERITERO: Certainly.
13 COMMISSIOIIER CARR: I like EPA coming tc ther
~
14 and asking them, I just don't want to spare them, jou 15 know, but we --
16 MR. B E R iiE R O : Yes. It's to our distinct 17 advantage.
18 COMMISSIOfiER CARE: It's imperative that we keep 19 them technically capable.
20 MR. BERITERO : Yee. And an FFRDC's value is in l- 21 proportion to its technical excellence, and that, too, is 22 in proportion to this open pursuit of knowledge in 23 whatever forum. And, so, we --
24 COMMISSIOIIER CARR: I guess what I'm really 25 asking, does their contract allow them to use expenses for I
l (202)234-4433 t!EAL R. GROSS & COMPAITY, Ilic. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLA1TD AVEtIUE, II . U . , UA SHI!!GTO!I, D.C. 20005
p ~
1a . .
63 1 that kind of purpose?
[_
2 MR. BERifERO : Definitely.
3 COMMISSICIIER CARE: Okay.
4 CHAIRMAli ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
5 Commissioner Rogers?
6 COMMISSIO!!ER ROGERS : Well, just following up on 7 that, I know we-have to be very careful of how we expend 8 our funds, and how we set our priorities, and so on and so 9 forth, but I think we do have to recognize that if they 10 are going to keep themselves on the cutting adge, that 11 they have to have flexibility to some extent, in pursuing 12 things that are at the cutting edge that turn up in their T 13 work because it would be, in my view, a great pity to have L
~
14 to cut something off that they had started to discover in 15 the course of this work because it doesn't really exact 13 16 fit our own predetermined priorities.
17 !!ow , those are delicate questions and questions 18 of allocation of resources, but I think we have to 19 recognize that somehow, if we're going to carry through on 20 that objective of encouraging them in every way to be at 21 the cutting edge, that we can't stop them short of staying 22 there once they get there.
23 So. it's just something for us to keep in mind,
__ 24 It is difficult for an applied activity directed towards a
"~
25 mission such as this, to allow itself to get into some (202).?34-4433 TIEAL R. GROSS & COMP A11Y , IIIC . (202)232-6600 132 3 FHODE ISLAliD AVE'IUE , II.U., UA S HIIIGTO17, D.C. 20005
64 1 things of that sort. It's very tricky how to make those 2 decisions, but I would simply say if we really do -- and I 3 believe that that's the way for us to go -- to have the 4 highest quality effort there, to allow some mechanism for 5 not cutting off exceedingly important and promising 6 avenues that develop in the course of carrying out their 7 mission because they diverge a little bit from what we had 8 thought they should be doing.
9 The other thing is, DOE is conducting an 10 independent regulatory analysis of an exploratory shaft.
11 Is the Center conducting an independent regulatory 12 analysis to support our reviews, of the exploratory shaft?
13 MR. BERNERO: I'm not sure I understand the 14 question. A regulatory analysis ,f o --
15 MR. THOMPSON: Design basis analysis of how the 16 shaft meets our regulations?
17 MR. BERNERO: Well, this product here is for 18 site characterization and exploratory shaft.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And the shaft is part of 20 R-9.
21 MR. BERNERO: Yes, that was part of the product 22 R-9.
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Okay.
24 MR. BERNERO: And, of course, they are reviewing 25 the ESF design analysis document, as part of their SCP (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, IIIC . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
i
.-. . . J
. 55 1 activity.
2 CHAIRMAli ZECH: Anything further?
3 COMMI S S IOliER ROGERS: lio , I don't think so.
4 I've learned a lot today.
5 CHAIRMAlf CECH: Commissioner Curtiss?
6 COMMISSIOllER CURTISS: Just two or three quick 7 ones. 17h a t is the current schedule for completing--
8 baselining and completing the program architecture? ithen 9 do we expect to have that work done front to back, or 10 across Part 60, in its entirety?
11 .
MR. B ERITERO : The rileston+s I'v4 lisned.
12 completing the selected analyses. Septe-ber 'S9. Going
[ 13 beyond that point, let me turn to -- well, get up to the 14 microphone and explain.that.
15 C H AIR M Ali OECH: Identify yourself for the 16 Reporter, please.
17 MR. BRO 17tTIfiG: Bob Browning, Division of High-18 Level 11a s t e Manage.T.ent. Our current plan -- the way ws 19 call baselining is it will be done by December of this 20 year, if we maintain our current schedule.
21 As you noticed on the charts that Bob Bernero 22 was using, we're going to be walking through three 23 specific examples throughout the whole logic problem, and y, 24 that will be the determining factor on giving us s o n's
- .s
- 25 . confidence that the logic structure and the outline for (202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMP AliY , Ilic . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAIID AVEtitJE, II . *d . , '7ASHIliGTO!!, D.C. 20005
- - - . . . - - _ _ . - - - _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
O s' 6b 1 the data fields that are going into the prograv
'- 2 architecture are going to be sufficient, and that gives us 3 the period between that point in time and the end of the 4 year, to complet; baselining and factoring any lessons 5 learned from those three examples.
6 So, it would be by the end of this year, 7 calendar year.
8 COMMISSIOllER CURTISS: I' guess let me ask it a 9 little bit more specifically. The back-up slid'e on number 10 5 that lists the 22. steps that will be undertaken in this 11 area, when will that process be complete for all of t h e-12 Part 60 regulations?
13 MR. BROWITIliG : For' all the Part 60 :egulations, 14 the process itself njay not be done until.we actua113 get 15 the license application. This is an ongoin s process, but 16 the structure will be there. Some data fields won't get 17 filled in until DOE completes its site characterization.
13 for example.
1? C OMMI S S IOITER CURTISS. I'm not asking the 20 question very clearly, I guess. The question that I have 21 is, at what point will we .know, through the prograr 22 architecture. for all of our Part 60 regulations, what the 23 existing uncertainties are?
24 MR. BR OWIIIITG : By the end of this year, the 25 regulatory uncertainties -- we want to have them all (202)234-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & COMPA11Y, IIIC. (202)232-6600 ;
i 132 3 RHODE ISL A!!D AVEITUE, II . *i . , 17AS HIlfGTO11, D.C. 20005
a . .
q
, 67 i 'l buttoned up by the end of this year.
$ 2 CollMIS SIOtiER CURTISS : Okay. I 3 CHAIRMA11 F.,ECH : Thank you very much.
l 4 COMMISSIOliER CARR: Identified, not buttoned up, 5 MR. B R O U ti I t1 G : Identified, not necessarily 6 resolved.
l l
7 COMMISSIOtiER CURTISS: I understand that. Then 1
8 we would, in the regulatory strategy paper, either through 9 rulemakings or generic technical positions, branch 10 technical positions, decide how it is that we want to go 11 about resolving those.
12 MR. BROUl!IITG : Exactly.
13 COMMISSIO!!ER CURTISS: I guess one question on
~
14 the chronology or the timing of doing that. For an issac 15 like substantially cornplete containment where we know 16 today that there are significant uncertainties in the 17 er.isti , regulations and where those uncertainties may 18 become an issue as early as our comments on the SCF, how 19 is it that we coordinate the resolution of the 20 uncertainties, with - regulatory response that-we have to 21 give before we resolve the uncertainties? In other words, 22 how do we comment on the SCP on this issue, before the 23 regulatory uncertainty is resolved?
24 MF, B E F li E R O Ueil, you will always be 2
25 rantalized with that. throughout this process. We go (202)234-4433 tiEAL R. GROSS & C OMP AliY , IIIC. (202)232-6600 3323 RHODE ISLATID AVEtiUE, !! . U . , UASHIIfGTOII, D.C. 20005
o .- .
68 1 through the system analysis. We identify uncertainties 2 that may be imminently resolvable right off the bat, or O
3 require iteration even to identify the approach to resolve 4 them. And let me just use an example to explain it.
5 Right now -- and I'm probably inserting a good 6 deal *of my own personal opinion into this -- the need for
~7 a performance assessment on the table, coming out of this !.
1 8 product, is something that I see --
and, certainly, will 9 be shared with DOE in our comments on the site 10 characterization plan, and there's a delicate balance 11 here.
12 Our comments on the site characterizuion plan
,,' 13 can range from you absolutely, definitely must have a
~14 performance assessment in it, or it looks like you ought 15 to have the performance assessment available, or, iri the 16 other extreme, you don't need it at all -- you know, we 17 are silent on the subject.
18 I think we will always have that difficulty, 19 that the conclusion is not fully right, and yet we have a 20 regulatory responsibility to give fair and open comment at 21 this stage, on the site characterization plan, and ny own 22 feeling is that we must at least communicate c.h a t 23 intermediate or minimal comment to DOE, and we'll have the 1 ". same thing with substantially complete containment because l
25 we will, in the site characterization plan, I'm sure, '
(202)234-4433 IfEAL R. GROSS & COMPAITY, Itic . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLAIID AVEliUE, 11. U . , UASHIliGTOli, D.C. 20005
69-1 identify interpretations of some subparts of that where we 2 think DOE is going off on a skew.
3 COMMISSIOi!ER CURTISS: What you're saying is 4 that, in some instances, just because of the timing of the 5 Center's e'f f o r t , there may be areas where there are 6 uncertainties that we have to come to grips with before 7 we're actually prepared to formalize the agency's position 8 in a rulemaking.
9 MR. THOMPSOti: 'Tell , I'm not sure we have to j 10 come to grips with it. We certainly have to identify and 11 identify that's an area that we will be pursuing te ;
12 further clarify for purposes of rulemaking but, remember, 13 the site characterization plan is a living document also, 54 by DOE. They update that every, you know, six months, you 15 know, and the dialogue continues as we go through the 16 process of actually. implementing the site characterization 17 plan through t h e. ctudy plans, and they'll .a a k e 18 programmatic changes which, you know, ws'11 have dialogue 19 on. so these may be identified as key areas that need to 2C be focused on by both DOE and IIRC , and that may be the 21 focus of the comments and about what you can do with at j
)
22 this time frame.
I 23 COMMISSIOtJER CURTISS: Two other quick 24 questions. On the haste 11oy issue, as you've described
25 that, we have underway there an offort that looks to me l
(2021234-4433 IIE A L R . GROSS & COMPAffY, IIIC. (202)232-6600 1323 PHODE ISLAND AVEliUE, II . U . . W A SHIIIGTOII, D.C. 20005
~
70 4
1 like sort,of a baseline effort or gives us a reference 2 material that we could use in evaluating the two materials 3 that DOE is proposing.
4 What do we do if our evaluation of haste 11oy at 5 the Center turns out to show that that's a preferable 6 ma'terial?
7 MR. BERt1ERO: In fact, there are some that would 8 say if we have a research program in a acod material, and 9 it happens to be better than the chosen material, that 10 there's sort of a jawbone momentum that it gets, and it 11 drives the program. It could. It could be, when we look 12 at the regulatory requirements, the objectives that 13 cited --
the 10 CFR 60.21 which is look at *he y j
- 14 conservative end of the spectrum, and the other which is i
l 15 look at the lifetime of containment -- it could be th' we 16 have the technical basis to say to DOE, not "You will 4
17 choose this material" because the DOE program has to get 18 an awful lot more material data than we're getting--
19 remember, we're doing kind of an overview kind of research 20 on materials -- but we could have enough information for 21 us to say with confidence, " DOE, your program is 22 i dequate because you didn't adequately consider at least 23 this one other alloy, and here's our technical data that 24 says your program isn't acceptable until you do".
25 COfitiT S SIOTIER CAPR: But not if they met the 300.
(202):34-4433 IIEAT. R . GROSS & COMPAIIY, Ilic . (202)232-6600 .
1323 RHODE ISLA1ID AVEtJUE, II . W . , U A SHIIIGTO!I, D.C 20005 j
U.
[
71 1 MR. THOMPSOti: Right.
R 2 MR '. BERiiERO : Ah, but wait a minute. You see,
- .J i 3 that is a key policy decision that you Commissioners have.
4 If you look and remember the rulemaking, it isn't tha way 5 I portrayed it, that you have to have at least 300. I 6 won't give you credit for more than a thousand, but I'm 7 going to pull, push, cajole, and bump you to try to get s
8 you well over a thousand.
9 COMMISSIOfiER CARR: I didn't say that, you did.
10 (Laughter.)
11 MR. BER!iERO : I know. I know. You didn't say 12 it --
7 13 COMMISSIOIIER CARR: If that guy comes in with 6
14 301, he's met the regulation.
15 MR. 9ERIIERO : Yes. Yes. But if he comes in and 16 says, "I have here two alloys. Here is a 300-year can and 17 here is a 3 '5 0 -y e a r can", which satisfies the need to look 18 at the conservative end of it, and it's not worth going 19 for, you know, an extra 50 years. It isn't worth it. It 20 costs twice as much, so you get the 300-year can. Will
- 21. you consider that an acceptable response to your 22 regulations?
23 MP. TH O M P S OII : Remember, we go through a 24 performance evaluation. We would want to exactly know how
%- 25 we're going to do, and that is one barrier that we have to (202)234-4433 tie AL R . GROSS & COMPAITY, IIIC . (202)232-6600 1323 PHODE ISLAiTD AVEliUE, ii U., WASHIliGToti, D.C. 20005
T
. . s
'X 1 look at. And if you have --
2 COMMIS SIOff ER CARR: We won't know until we
=
3 nmitiply all those factors at the end, if he used the 350-4 year can, he'd be sate, and if he uses a 300-year can, 5 he's ansate, so --
6 MR. THOMP SOII: That's right. He may, in fact, 7 need to --
8 COMMISSIO!IER CARR: There's too many factors in 9 that equation, but I certainly wouldn't throw out his can 10 if he met our requirements.
11 MR. THOMPSoff: You would not throw the can out 12 if he met -- if he were able te neet the overall 13 performance at the site.
. 14 COMMIS SIOTJER CARR: But he won't know t h a t' .
15 MR. TFOMP SOII: He won't know that if --
16 MR. BER!!ERO : Mr. Carr, let me stipulate that if 17 he's got a 300 year can, his overall performance 18 assessment for a reasonably good site is going to be l
19 successful -- that is, he's less than the EPA standard.
20 So, the can does meet the 300-year objective, and the can, i
21 in a system, meets the EPA performance objective r overall, 22 although it is certainly 'at the low end of the defense in-23 depth objective. It's a test of the Cormission 24 regulation.
s 25 COMMISSIOtIER CURTISS: Defense in-depth is (202):34-4433 IIEAL R. GROSS & ColiPATIY, IIIC . (202)232-6600 13 23 RHODE ISLAi!D AVETIUE , 11. W . , WASHItiGTOII, D.C. 20005
\
w m__.--- __ ____ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _
o . c 73 1 defined as 300 years is acceptable. I m e a n', that is the L
l, 2 defense in-depth.,
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We're not trying to test the NRC 4 regulations, we're trying to build a suitable, adequate 5 site that will protect the public health and safety. So, 6 you can talk --
7 COMMISSIONER CARR: And there's going to be --
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -- semantics all you want to, but 9 we've given you a band to operate in because, you know, 10 there are uncertainties, we recognize that, but it ought 11 to be clear that because of the uncertainties, we would 12 expect that you are going to try to meet better than the 13 very minimum band that we give you, and if you have any 14 question about that as you proceed during the process in 15 the next months and years, you should come to the 16 Commission and discuss this very fundamental question. ;
J 17 MR. BERNERO: Definitely, that's why we consider 1
18 this array of requirements that we've often called a 19 substantially complete containment set --
20 COMMISSIONER CARR: But to go back to his basic 1
21 question, if everybody says, gee, haste 11oy is what w e ' .r e 22 comparing everything to and everything else is down here i
23 and haste 11oy is up here, then it's only a matter of j i
24 money, if DOE can afford it or.not afford, and if it's 25 going to raise the price of a repository clear out of i (202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPANY, INC. (202)232-6600 1 1323 RHODE' ISLAND AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 l
34 1 sight, why, you know, that's their decision, not ours.
2 Ours is whether what they've got meets it.
3 MR. BERt!ERO : That's right.
4 COMMISSIOliER CURTISS. My question goes to 5 whether our analysis of haste 11oy and its use as a 6 benchmark or a baseline will drive the container form to
~
haste 11oy, if that's the preferred container form, even 8 though all three container forms satisfy our regulations.
9 MR. BERITERO: tio , it wouldn't --
10 MR. THOMP50ti: If they all satisfy -- the intent 11 is not to do tha'. The intent, actually, is al:nost -- we 12 talked earlier about keeping the center on the cutting 13 edge of issues. This is kind of one of the areas where 14 they identified an area that they felt was important to 15 stay on top of the material aspects associated with the 16 site, and that was one of the reasons that that vas, jou 1~ know, left in there, is that that gives t h e. m that IR capability to stay there.
19 It wasn't an effort to say we're going to try to )
l 20 push DOE there, but it certainly is to make sure that they 21 are very knowledgeable of what's happening in the area of 2? materials. .
23 CHAIRMA!! ZECH: It's just an effective standard l 24 to measure by. I mean, if they had picked something else,
./ 25 you'd have sone pluses and minuses. They picked (202)234-4433 ITEAL R. GROSS & CO!!P AITY , IIIC . (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLATID AVEtiUE , fi . W . , WA SHI!!GTOli, D.C. 20005
. 75
'1 haste 11oy, everything is minus, you know.
2 COMMISSIONER ' CURTISS : Just. one other quick a
request. Thu discussion that we had earlier, the 4 transportation initiative that they have underway, the 5 transportation risk r. tudy -- it's not clear to me, from 6 what we've heard here, exactly what the focus of that is, 7 whether i t '. s narrowly. focused on updating our IJUREG-0170, 3 for the purpose of examining our regulatory requirements, 9 or whether it's a more broad ranging look at national 10 transportation. I guess I don't want to go into it here -l 1.1 .bscausa I know we've gone beyond, but what I guess I ' t!
12 like to know at some point is just what is it that the
- 13 transportation risk study is focusing on, how broad is it,
~~
44 and in their annual or their most recent report, it looked 15 to me like, in one of the subeleAents, it was described as 16 a noch broader effort and, at some point, I'd like to have:
17 the staff explain at least to me, what the focus of that iR is, on that point.
10 MR. THOMPSOti: Okay.
20 M P. . BERiiEP O : Uh-buh.
21 COMMISSIOliER CURTISS: And that's all I hnve.
12 . CHAIRMAU ZECH: Thank you very much.
23 If I onderstand you, Mr. Bernero, you've 24 essentially sumed up your evaluation of the role of tb 4 25 Center, by saying it's playing a very significant role and (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS & COMPAITY, Ific. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLATID AVEUUE, N . i" . , UA S HIliGTOIT , D.C. 20005 m_______________________-___________-.___
, >u l
- j D =*
gg 1 e
+,.
1 is naking considerable progress, is that correct?
p 2 MR. BERITER O : That's right, sir.
3 CHAIRMAli ZECH: Mr. Beckjord, before the Center i
1
'f 4 was established, you had, essentia112 responsibility, "
5 solely responsibility -- sole responsibilities for -
6 research in the waste management area.
7 tiow that the Center is operating, movi ng from-8 the startup to the operational phase, how do you evaluate 9 its assistance to you, and would you have the same kind of 10 an assessment that Mr. Bernero has? Is it doing the job i
11 for you that helps you carry out your responsibilities, to 12 the extent it should?
1 I
. 13 MR. BECKJORD: Yes, I believe it is, Mr.
-14 Chairman. We're just getting underway. We've been
~ ~
15 working with them since last fal1, on the transfer of 16 pregrams. It's a little too early, I think, to judge on 17 final results.
1E CHATRMAi! ZECH: But you're satisfied with the 19 progress to-date?
20 MR. BECKJORD: We're certainly satisfied with l 21 the progress. With respect to this other question of 22 whether all of the research should be done at the Center, i
1 23 Commissioner Carr suggested that if the guidance -- if we 24 wanted to change the guidance, that we could ask to do 25 that. I do have some thoughts on that subject, and I (202)234-4433 ITEAL P. GROSS & COMPATIY, IIIC. (202)232-6600 1323 RHODE ISLATID AVEtIUE, 17.W., W A S HI!!GToti, D.C. 20005
i .
77 I think it would he appropriate for us to prepare.a paper 2 for you, on the long-range direction for research.
u 3 I think, myself, there are good reasons for 4 doing some of the research at places other than the 5 Center, having to do with getting the best people and 6 facilities, and that type of thing. I think that, 7 certainly, our intention is that most of the work will be 8 done at the Center, but I don't see that it's possible for 9 the Center to develop expertise in every area that we may 10 find a need to explore.
11 CHAIRMATI ZECH: Well, I think such a paper would 12 be useful. If you could prepare that and send it to the
.13 Commission, I think we'd be very interested in receiving
.14 it, getting your thoughts on that.
15 Mell, let me just say, unless there are other 16 questions from my fellow Commissioners, on behalf of the 17 Commission, I'd like to thank the staff for a very 18 informative and useful briefing here this morning. We're 19 . pleased to hear the progress that the Center is making, 20 and it would certainly appear that they are progressing 21 satisfactorily. .
1 22 This is one of a series of briefings that the 23 Commission has received over the past number of months, 24 and we've ha rd f r om DOE, we've heard from the State of
.. 25 llevada. we've heard from other parties, and we've heard i
L (202)234-4433 tie A I; R . GROSS & COMPA!!Y, It!C . (202)232-6600 (
1323 RHODE ISLAIID AVEIIUE , N.W., WASHIIJGTOII, D.C. 20005
9
+
1 we don't expect you to wait for these periodic briefings.
~
2 Us expect to be informed as you go along, and keep us 3 informed with information papers or in any other formar 4 you wish to get i n f o rn'a t io n to the Commission because it 5 is certainly now, and will be even more in the future, one 6 of the highest prior. ties of this Commission, in my 1
7 judgment. So, the Commission is very actively interested 1
8 in pursuing and staying very close to this program.
9 Are there any other final comments from :ny l 10 fellow Commissioners?'
)
11 (IJo response.)
12 Thank you very much, for a very fine briefing.
13 Ua stand adjourned.
,,1 4 (Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the meeting was l 15 adjourned.)
16 17 q
l 18 1 19 l
20 )
l 21 l
22 l
23 24 25
(?.02)234-4433 IIEAL P. GROSS & COMPAtiY, Itic. (2021232-6600 1323 PHODE ISL AtID AVE!IUE , II . W . , WASHIlfGTOII, D.C. 20005
1 g CERT'IFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF ACTIVITIES WITH THE CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSI S !
PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING: APRIL 6, 1989 I 4l were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
f&kuV WC%vtfUy V
Reporter's name: PHYLLIS YOUNG 4
O I
/
9 e I
e '#
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AHO TRAH5CRl8ERS 1323 RHOOf 19kAND AYENUE, H.W.
WASHtHOTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 (202) 234'-4433 1
L - _- - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ . ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ _
i l
1 l
STATUS OF CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES APRIL 6, 1989 BRIEFER: R. BERNER0
- I 0
u_______._____
1 OUTLINE OF BRIEFING ,
INTRODUCTION / STATUS OF CNWRA OPERATIONS TECllNICAL ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES RESEARCH ACTIVITIES FUTURE PLANS AND ACTIVITIES
~
SLIDE 1 _ ,
0
); e . .
L-l STRATEGY (SECY 88-285) AND SCHEDULE FOR HLW LICENSING:
1988-1992: KEY RULEMAKINGS 1995: APPLICATION SUBMITTED 1998: LICENSING DECISION SLIDE 2 4
k e
i Li_-- _ --_ _ ------ - _ - -_ - - - - - l
l ) - :
. >1I l
!1 l
~
E S
NS NEI CE UR P M)T U U TON NRE NO - K l I C EFM T A
NSE A
MAA REL EYP RC NGSb A
N I
M 5
E S
A B
t sl E H n
A P0M ERT P e W5E Y LUT r- M
- LOS AB ul A Ah o O(W
._OTE TEF ERO SUT 4xR.S o NSR EOA m)3 SRE APY l
CLT e00 C.EOA
,LCS I
HP u2 aJ PA05 2
U _E(
CE S c T h
S RA E )
8 OW
_eS T
C M 9 9 eS S
O l 1
( SE NS R N O
ES P )
5 I C.
,uPC O G M 9 9
1
(
T C
U N
I l
1 N )
R T
3S ER S O 59 I
S S A.
N M T A
9 NN AE HY E l C
1
( OOC P5 I
N N C L P O OG IN I
L M P A A I
T SI II I
E C CtR Y S U E13 R M A P E P 1H CT O 1 C A RU NA T l U E I
6 F SN S
O M 1 )
OL mE C P 8 T NI A 9 L E
l 9 T OSKi 1
I i R W1
)
9 8 S OC
(
M i J' T ,
E 9 IS UEE l
(
1 Y S DK R, H
F l N
A L N P A N
A DO ND 4
_S Y 3
w O 5 OO 9 I I S 9 T T A A 7
=
E 1 Z Z T h S
I l
4 N
E E R
A 9 T 1 H 9 1
C C A A P l R R A A 3 H H 9 C C 9 E E 1
l TI T I 2 S S 9 F F 1S 9 OO ER 1
E E SA l C C AE 1 N N HY
- 9 A A P6 9 U U 1 S S P ,
S S C l I E C I
S c 9
O R T S
D H l
1 O P S_ O 9
8 9 - m 1
1 7_
1 le8 :4 > 8 .l
~
- - !i!l 3
- illish C@
~
__ n .
4 r
- 8 l ;
1
- l i r,
- I o le
- i. si* r i o*
I -
Ii . in sa l l i.jr.
.!,o!
g ji. t !. , ..! ;gi=l!.i !. i i 1!
lp ei I -
1 re i i
I . 1, gi i gi.i
[P! lI i! u t ! j lI -l in to g > > Db i
l lI i e
..s -
i !
ls r.i!
It 4 e
l]s!D r.!D!
E 85 3
~
- 1: j!os
- . ja sil.i! 51.ij i l m,. . p! . m 3.I i a*i.
lil IPi L ij -
~j ll!"El~il*j' ,!
l-- i -l D i l,ii 5 :;ii
- i. I" lI
- ; gijk
!!Ioi gg;, -
i.
i ---
gar- -jgg g-i
- --C>i,
- 8:
5-- lI i a!,*,!!!>
! *e l * [s, et.e! -
I -
Is *o w8 il p
3 -
=
3--
- l l ,i 1 - ;
i! -
1
. W I<
!! s!;I5 Bi l. a8 :s
!. s.
i..ss.'e i *gr.m se e ! c i15 !! l.msas.
- c. :l:!
s.r. 55 s s.t.i=r i I i i i t i a i
> E z!Ei We
- 5E Vi i!Ei VEES E y
,"585g5 582 3 *R I arr.:8 minor 82 j
W. .. .
.I 1-g_ .
11 ig II 8:
g_p I- .
s ci E
l I ::
a a
g [
lg -
_ l , x i t I.
, , l - I s-8 - ofc e -
51 1 i n : = >
I, e -
i l
- ! i .
ln ii lin 11 ia -
"g *I5, s9 4 4
E.e, . e
- I l.j s - 9 15; i I .
!! i s- !" !!; llo lls is li 8
~
ill i
in : 1 lllo!-!
U_: i iii 8 - 1. go ~ _ _!!o!_ llo!_!!al_e l
__c>{
!I s--
!.--+:
E p s .,
I
=l - -
ser l
B g-: i 8
dI I .
> . ir g. .
I s- a esp,e -
I $gi,r tr :;lti.:!r8ni r
e
! as Er =<55 55 ,
i i Irlo . r .
E=IS E k!!$!!!
t
I- O ; o a
l CNWRA STAFFING FY1988 - FY1992 10 90 ACTUAL PftOJECTED T
80-g.0 c .0
?
30-10-0 SSE 1000 9 00 9 91 met FISCAL YEAR M tstrPont) G3 (TECHNICAU SLIDE 3 I
l
D TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS:
SYSTEM ANALYSIS (PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE)
ENGINEERED BARRIERS -- ^
COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION TRANSPORTATION RISK STUDY SCP AND EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY (ESF). REVIEWS SLIDE 4 I
~
[ V; L ,,., .
L.
!=
l CONTRACT REQUIREMENT FOR SYSTEM ANALYSIS:
"THE-CENTER SHALL DEVELOP CAPABILITY TO PROVIDE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND ,
INTEGRATION SUPPORT T0 NRC AND SHALL
. RECOMMEND A PROGRAM. ARCHITECTURE ...
BASED ON A COMPLETE REGULATORY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT STATUTES,
- REGULATIONS,: REGULATORY FINDINGS REQUIRED OF THE COMMISSION AND DOE'S
- LATEST PROGRAMMATIC MILESTONES."
b e
d i
1 i
.,, i
. 1 i CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE Proc; TOP-001 REGULATORY ANALYSES Rey;3;on 1 S
x TECHNICAL OPERATING PROCEDURE Page 3 of 7 g m
5 v - i. _
g.
h08 a i
- 3: >
ls !#gv.! l" hl 8
aa i i j ll!hi,!*lllj 3
v."
i ! ,!.e is-l-l,1
... i ug 2
E@siE sesEE-3 35W 2 Es55*W5g5 Ea f
=; '
, ct g BREElailigs!?i!!~h mitis a Y- g e = s -==e = ;
tej 58 ;
! !!et !!ha JE li i
= ijp is t ll slsl* g
!sil li il8
@ 2
- 19/*
=; A ;2:
. liini!sesm!!il, c ill e n i g A_!E!!sstEBgs. ag s :
m- :a cce
=ssie=rese wn. e 85 f BEE 55555E5gk85E5 m $
g; I =s ase= = = = a
.M: =i ji -
e I e cE sm "
I e !_e- g s, a b' N h 5O5 $ h- W [
t
' a WEB s MEW lsg i L v
- . . si s.lig:smaggg:_U:s- a gEE Bug!-Ws0 E E 1 =
,m = n p- '
3 C3590 E55l5gss
- l
=i => m' . 3 e . gggee e*$~
u seftras g2EE.st$5 5,,ge _e 8 T'
[' $$, !*Erste$."Ee g!gEhefj ' - I
+
', -- .$....s" ages..!,h_k = .
mi gg EEEEELassEEEsm6Emb_ ,
e
-~" cat . .. w v =
l' SYSTEM ANALYSIS STATUS:
4/88: COMPUTER CAPABILITY 12/88: SYSTEM APPROACH TO REGULATORY
. ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATED 4/89: ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY UNCERTAINTIES, RE: SCP AND ESF
. SLIDE 6 .
1
_______m.-_ _ _ ___._. -. ._
SYSTEM ANALYSIS STATUS: (CONT'D) l 4/89: ANALYSIS OF PART 60 LICENSING AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA, RE:
REGULATORY ACTIONS 9/89: COMPLETE SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF EROSION, SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE CONTAINMENT, AND ADVERSE GE0 CHEMICAL EFFECTS
~
.. SLIDE 7 . .
\
4'
~
ENGINEERED BARRIERS STATUS:
7/88: CONVO CODE EVALUATED AND ENHANCEMENTS INITIATED
. 10/88: ANALYSIS OF FAST PROBABILISTIC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY INITIATED
- CONTINUE ENHANCEMENTS OF CODE / METHOD 0LO.GY. .
SLIDE 8 t
c _ -- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _
a
- .
- .:. ..7 .i 1
u .
a J
.- {
I TRANSPORTATION SlATUS:
1977:- TRANSPORTATION EIS (NUREG-0170) PUBLISHED
- ~ 1988: INITIATED TRANSPORTATION
. RISK STUDY-
- ~ 9/89:
INTERIM REPORT .
9/90: FINAL REPORT VALIDATING OR REVISING NUREG-0170 FINDINGS
_- . ISSUE:
UPDATED.EIS.0R. CONTRACTOR REPORT?
SLIDE 9 y
N >
c t___ __ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
t.- r
]
2/89: COMMENTS ON ENGINEERED BARRIER PORTIONS OF THE SCP 2/89: COMMENTS ON REPOSITORY PESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATIONS PORTIONS OF THE SCP 3/89: COMMENTS ON GE0 LOGIC SETTING PORTIONS OF THE SCP 3/89: COMMENTS ON DESIGN ACCEPTABILITY ANALYSIS, SLIDE 10
[
= - - - - - - -- -- -- - -- - - - - -
_ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . - - - - - - ' - - ' - - - " ' ' ' ' - - ' ___,.__.__--v- - - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . - , . _ - - , - , - - - - - - - - - - -- _ _ _ _ , . , . _ - - - - - ' ~ ' ' - - - - - - -
- O j...'
'.+1, .a
- Vs ^b , .-lf* .('*, a. '
- r %
(n *
+.,#.'d s
', l {.- ..
- s a .#
,Q,
- t r,,; 4*p, .,
- e. c_ , , ,
,, 9
'.,e.,.; ** e ! ., . *y. ,
- o.i i j l,
- t.'
. .f ;;g'.f;' .
< s *' . , . , . ; . s * * *s -
,
- L ** 'qi .,.*:, , t y: V - . .
, . f* n ,
.t [ :
.,m. ,zJ , . ' , ,.e, ,, *[f,. I
- w; w g b- r.o , g
<. w ;. r.. P J, w
, 'x. ;,.
P
, .. ,. h p[, $41 O
- >. - C o
4..n: ! vW m g-
<g'.
. y , . .
.M. .m. 'J:..f.,.
CC 3. m2'.a. . W *
,. u
- .. n.
.."J,t., O f *-
f.g :2 v- , , ,.4...
g
.,z ,[.;;} Q ' .
rt ; ; e,:
.y p .. :..;
- i .... ,s...
'.... u
/y..r.,go W .r.,l,?f..- {}
( .. .;j. . . tt 3 !.': a:
?? Y ?Q;'; .,t;f,' ;
Q. 5;'Y[ ' ?!s'd,{} :' c2
%. l.$.j:. y. {Q w w re. t; ..< n. S?Yl4$
C ..Z M.iM.. .j;, . .. Winf.u n*. F e M. b@.
. .,Y M A, Sg d . .s. . 26. 9:0$,@W- . . N,.M~'..a.s. l.p CC f.ynr.j.e % p 4 z q CC y yaW y' >W:w;M&. a
- . g, a. D.;;. .;.e,.!
Q ,.,.. '* '!.;? . *lyf a.4;..t,.;g.*yh
.', t;1b .'.'. %In .m.;slM. .V. Gk,. ** sE:'.Y[m. 4.'.</.. .r. :: . n.l *)N':?<T. ':.7. ,I r:. '.
w m~
et= .n.. a.:'h. W,h W : yxO
.. .I:
- s. d O, m W E
'9. .' .'sf.. W
) m F.v M%m;;4hmg t
'ng
<m w5 m O z cc %.%.%WN.~
em w
@ < e[.s.
?' w .CE w OW g cc.9 M,r :'
a a-s i..M ys m.WlnFUW'Eiir4
- m. : om.yc.,m'i hw40 W w g? @y.y !
6 $,%. re, .3.;%.WP M , 2 +,lW.W.un, n.i ;.o.?: .W:c.ej. . hF.y.4p;k.W.t s c.c) e,.p
.4. .
2 . .,$... 9, p. ~. .:J;$ltWR,@.3 ! M. '
- 5. n? i
. . i. \ '@,:;.,.? . y
't?M.
- d. : p'.N i O . -l'.sh.?;Q 5kh. h. N,bles .p,
. ,M' ' ,..-
s.
N h..W [, f..i'.?,. .94-
,,)
g sk.
. !!. j m
e ;
..l{n':&s,'.$o.w'.r.,.a;lyp.m.g:)N egg .g. $j'(.he%Nkh.,g/G
..g d!
= wM.g$.Yt?&;;g?b*;.[ e
>W
,It'd.
. ,4 O
Q.
M mn D .J.I.Wi
.,.asgbd.Is.,
J nd..y.3SNMv.v..ym...c. 44li u .~u 3% Z : T'l'.M' QAFk W W pg%gWi:Hil iJ i M mD tb $- }%:y;(W.@8M;.MSC,. .
.m.
dll.)z .- Y Q 2ei iW;j,c$lY'@w%%.% f 4 0ADb'hlh'-
sew SzO Z O r . w d .p digri W W Q M 7 8"'
.x m4 We< mo m u.mMMe oww W M.&rz9a CC Yh: E
/
/ W.'.f
% CC
- ??;; x-u.
O Whh.x'A!:
m c a.s.
- h. c...
. u;. .
s 8.sh$* TOm% '
l
.'m.n&ed {g@ a, t h p.M Q d
' 1.0 W Q 4 cJ%}.N.6\g.??w.o.: .NJ
'G'Rf. '%
., rd.
i Qa.7 ? 'M(( sop n %.i.l 2,$,' .O W CC D.i:'.:,?d.,hAN/ f' h
'.%.DI;."% .}%bhN.fs.Qg .M. hnlso
' mq'l~,1*ir: l<- D i h 2}l,Y'k,RE dpQ h'Qfy((.$yhp
,,/
E ,- NyQ 3% Y.V.
ff
!.'d:'t. ,y'.* iJ[,%g:$;
et a w ,, s
< O"'}.lel* *:..,i..(t @gs
. ..i z D
$k$ ,-
y,,, m Q *.:1.*. ... .
.S. d w yt. ;;Q,,,,,.
m < Z d jMy.d.:.:;.t: .m.,y,.y&:y;fd,'y
'/d.$c $o e1.m e y-
<n
- .mo.
- w. z D CC s...w>;";m...s$M.%$w,,.w mon x ii s .Y .. !!f, w;; s zU J ' v.
l I ' "n. , . .e.so:q'.ap*qu .
- Zs.u, iig a Z::
O s ,/
.J
,o e .h~:..,.:". ,wn. .+? .
. . .. . . . .a: k. ,k..!'W$.
. - - ., .. i . '.i'b'ko D. A'5$
O<\\
N l:f. <
.'s - N$Q s
, , . . .. , ..' ..r.q .. }
W v n.
....F 4f
/ ,,. ;i . * '. -
l . ;.. '
, 5h .
- . ( -
- w. . . . ' ..1..
. . , ;n;ze.w: !D .
- , . , .f . ,,,....f.*..
s ' *
. ,,..,,';,-j'f " .
f.u .W!,;,4
.- ' .W. p'w.'
_a e s
. o,. ,
{
l
.- j 1
I i
RESEARCH PROJECTS:
INTEGRATED WASTE PACKAGE EXPERIMENTS GE0 CHEMISTRY THERM 0 HYDROLOGICAL PHENOMENA SEISMIC / ROCK MECHANICS
. SLIDE 11 4
9 e
s
- f
, f ;-
f INTEGRATED WASTE PACKAGE EXPERIMENTS:
REGUL ATORY OBJECTI'!ES:
- 10 CFR 60,113(A) -- 300-1C00 YEAR PERIOD INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF 10 CFR 60.21(D) -- ALTERNATIVES PRODUCING LOWER RELEASES SLIDE 12 1
W__-.-.__- .-- .. . _ _
.4
)
INTEGRATED WASTE PACKAGE STATUS:
i MATERIALS BEING ACQUIRED AND 1.ABORATORY FACILITIES UNDER PREPARATION SCOPING TESTS BEGUN PEER REVIEW 0F TECHNICAL APPROACH (HASTELLOY AS " REFERENCE MATERIAL"),
6/89 DOE FINAL SELECTION OF TWO CANDIDATE MATERIALS, ANTICIPATED FALL 1989
' ~
SLIDE 13 1
b L.-_____ _ _ .-. _ l
. l GEOCHEMISTRY RESEARCH:
REGULATORY OBJECTIVES:
10 CFR 60.21(c) -- SITE GEOCHEMISTRY
. - 10 CFR 60,122(B) -- FAVORABLE GEOCHEMICAL EFFECTS ON RADIONUCLIDES TRANSPORT AND FAVORABLE MINERALOGY
- 10 CFR 60,122(c) -- ADVERSE GE0 CHEMISTRY PROCESSES AND
- CONDITIONS
~
SLIDE 14 t
e f
i
i i
GEOCHEMISTRY STATUS:
PERFORMED MODELING FOR GEOCHEMISTRY AND WASTE PACKAGE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN MODELED EVOLUTION OF GAS, WATER, AND MINERALS FOR REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENT EVALUATING MODELS OF TRANSPORT AND ADSORPTION; AND EVOLUTION OF WATER, GAS, AND SOLID PHASES EVALUATING GE0 CHEMICAL DATABASES AND
- COMPUTER PROGRAMS S'LfDE 15 i
s
)
a
.x , .
1 THERM 0 HYDROLOGICAL PHENOMENA:
BEGULATORY OBJECTIVES:
- 10 CFR 60,21(c) -- THERMAL EFFECTS I ON GE0 HYDROLOGY AND GE0 MECHANICS
- 10 CFR 60,113(A) -- WASTE PACKAGE CONTAINMENT, CONTROLLED RELEASE FROM ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM, l
. GROUNDWATER TRAVEL TIME AND EXTENT ,
OF DISTURDE.D.. ZONE SLIDE 16
)
l 1 .
h
.i e
__ m ..
4 . . :
a :
l l
i THERM 0 HYDROLOGICAL STATUS: 1 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERRED DESIGN AND INITIATION OF
. PRELIMINARY SEPARATE EFFECTS EXPERIMENTS, 4/89 DESIGN UNSATURATED ZONE THERM 0 HYDROLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS, 1989 SLIDE 17 i
i i
)
'i l
[
a
,J A . -! 5 ' . . 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _.
I
-l THERM 0 HYDROLOGICAL STATUS: (CONT'D)
EVALUATE THERM 0 HYDROLOGICAL PHENOMENA INDUCED BY THE AGGREGATE OF EMPLACED HLW IN UNSATURATED GEOLOGIC MEDIA, 1989-1992 EVALUATE UNSATURATED ZONE THERMO-HYDROLOGICAL PHENOMENA INDUCED BY A FEW PACKAGES OF HLW, 1989-1992 SLIDE 18 i
s I
I I l"
l' D
l E
q e, <
. L)
. F :; -;;()
);' f ,
SEISMIC / ROCK MECHANICS:
REGULATORY OBJECTIVES:
- 10 CFR 60,111(B) AND 60,133(c) --
RETRIEVABILITY 10 CFR 60.]I3(A) -- CONTAINMENT OF WASTE
- 10 CFR 60,133(E) -- SAFETY OF UNDERGROUND.0.PENINGS .. .
SLIDE 19
-t e
i
L i
SEISMIC / ROCK MECHANICS: (CONT'D) <
- 10 CFR 60,122(c) -- POTENTIALLY ADVERSE CONDITIONS ARISING FROM SEISMIC ACTIVITY
- 10 CFR 60,131(B) -- PRECLOSURE PROTECTION AGAINST NATURAL PHENOMENA AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
~
SLIDE 20 ,
E_____-.________
SEISMIC / ROCK MECHANICS STATUS:
REPORT OF LITERATURE STUDY DRAFT 2/89 FINAL 5/89 ANALYTICAL MODEL EVALUATIONS, 5/89 LABORATORY STUDIES PLAN, 6/89
~ ~
SUDE 21 l
t I
- _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____-__-A
c l
FUTURE DIRECTION FOR CNWRA:
NRC MANAGEMENT REALIGNMENT IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY l
INTEGRATE CNWRA PLANNING WITH NRC
- FIVE YEAR PLAN BALANCE LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM EFFORTS SLIDE 22 I
L___ _ _ - _ . _ l
- D 9
I DISTRIBUTION OF NWPA-RELATED FUMM FY1990
\
000GMIONS (SWLLIONS)
$ to -
/ /
88-g.
/ /
84-
,, . 2 v --
/
/7 4
W umH:wwm G CNWM SLIDE 23 l
1 1
1
_ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..____.._____.____________________Q
l i
AREAS OF FUTURE CNWRA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
SELECTED RULEMAKINGS AND TECHNICAL POSITIONS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SELECTED DOE STUDY PLANS FORMAT AND CONTENT GUIDE AND LICENSE APPLICATION REVIEW PLAN DOE PROJECT DECISION SCHEDULE
_ AND MISSION PLAN AMENDMENTS i SLIDE 24
[, .
o I
I RESEARCH PROJECTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT:
APPLICATION OF STOCHASTIC ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES TO REPOSITORY LICENSING WORKSii0P ON NATURAL ANALOGS GEOCHEMICAL FIELD ANALOG FOR i EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER AT REPOSITORY SITE
~
SLI.DE 25 .
l l
l 1
i 4
/ M 'kNNNbdddhdWWW WW6dW6$$gypQftypyg(;(44pygggg g g
-TP.ANSMITTAL TO: Document Control' Desk, 016 Phillips p -
3 ADVANCED COPY TO: The Public Document Room j
DATE: 5[V[N
,j FROM: SECY Correspondence & Rtcords Branch i
! Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting i document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and j placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or j required.
Meeting
Title:
Z A /8Idu.a/ 4f d M b NE k s
$ foAANbt #
6 JAlm / W /
I t
Meeting Date:
f/s/a'f Open X Closed E.
E' Item Description *: Copies '
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1 u)ls k m k J y -
2.
3.
4.
- 5. '
t 6
[
- . . , . . - = -
t
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
gOT !
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY j papers. .;
[ j o -___- 0W *