ML25329A184: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 15: Line 15:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:SECRETARY UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20555-0001 CERTIFICATION MINUTES OF ELEVENTH MEETING OF THE LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL I certify that the attached minutes of the Meeting of the LSS Advisory Review Panel, held on May 12, 1995 are accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
December 31, 1998 Date
 
MINUTES LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING May 12, 1995 Las Vegas, Nevada The eleventh meeting of the Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) took place on May 12, 1995 in Room 3-B45, two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
Members of the LSSARP present were:
John Hoyle, Chairman (NRC)
Claudia Newbury (DOE)
Steve Frishman (State of Nevada)
Kirk Balcom (State of Nevada)
Dennis Bechtel (Clark County)
Brad Mettam (Inyo County)
Pete Cummings (City of Las Vegas)
Jay Silberg (Nuclear Industry)
Lloyd Mitchell (Oneida Nation)
Enclosed are:
: 1. Meeting Agenda
: 2. Federal Register Notice (Pre-publication) Announcing Meeting
: 3. Attendance List
: 4. Meeting transcript and Material Presented at the meeting The meeting was open and attended by members of the public.
This transcript has not been corrected or edited and it may contain inaccuracies.
J9h~~h~an LSS Advisory Review Panel
 
ENCLOSURE 1 MEETING AGENDA
 
AGENDA LSSARP MEETING, MAY 12, 1995 Rockville, Maryland Friday, May 12, 1995 1:00 1:15 2:15 2:30 2:45 Introduction (LSSARP Chairman)
Technical Working Group Recommendation on Level 1 Requirements for LSS Design (TWG)
Final Approval of Header Working Group Recommendations (HWG)
Current LSS Activity at NRC (NRC/LSSA)
Action Item Review/ Next Meeting Schedule (All)
 
ENCLOSURE 2 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ANNOUNCING MEETING
 
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Notice of Public Meeting.
 
==SUMMARY==
The Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) will hold its next meeting on May 12, 1995, at the Headquarters Building of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Room T-3 B45, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to the public pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L.94-463, 86 Stat.770-776).
AGENDA:
The meeting will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Friday, May 12, 1995.
The agenda will consist of the following topics:
: 1.
Consideration of a Report of the LSS Technical Working Group on Level One Requirements for the LSS Design
: 2.
Current LSS Activity at NRC
: 3.
Future Meeting Topics and Schedule SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established the LSSARP in 1989 to provide advice and
 
.. recommendations to the NRC and to the Department of Energy (DOE) concerning the design, development and operation of an electronic information management system, known as the Licensing Support System (LSS), which will contain information relevant to the Commission's future licensing proceeding for a geologic repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste.
Membership on the Panel consists cf representatives of the State and Local Governments of Nevada, the National Congress of American Indians, the nuclear industry, DOE, NRC and other agencies of the Federal government which have experience with large electronic information management systems.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John C. Hoyle, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555: telephone 301-415-1969.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Interested persons may make oral presentations to the Panel or file written statements.
Requests for oral presentations should be made to the contact person listed above as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Dated:
Andrew L. Bates Advisory Committee Management Officer
 
ENCLOSURE 3 ATTENDANCE LIST
 
ATTENDANCE LIST LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING May 12, 1995 Panel Members U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John C. Hoyle, Chairman U.S. Department of Energy Claudia Newbury State of Nevada Steve Frishman Kirk Balcom Local Government - Adjacent Dennis Bechtel, Clark County Brad Mettam, Inyo County Pete Cummings, City of Las Vegas Nuclear Industry Jay Silberg Chris Henkel Indian Tribes Lloyd Mitchell, Oneida Nation
 
Others Tony Neville, LABAT Anderson F. Dickerson, OCRWM M&O Michael J. Fisher, TRSS Martin Cummings, TRW/M&O Stan Schafer, NRC Dan Graser, NRC Joe Speicher, LABAT-Anderson Paul Bollwerk, NRC Chip Cameron, NRC Roger Hardwick. Clark County James W. Frank, OCWRM/M&O Moe Levin, NRC Phillip Paull, WESTON Ken Kalman, NRC Camille Kerrigan, M&O/TRW Bill Olmstead, NRC Jim Peguer, City of Las Vegas Lynn Scattolini, NRC Victoria Reich, NWTRB Jocelyn Smith, LAI
 
ENCLOSURE 4 TRANSCRIPT AND MATERIAL PRESENTED AT 5/12/95 LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL
 
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 
==Title:==
Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP)
Docket Number:
Not Applicable Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
May 12, 1995 Work Order No.:
NRC-217 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Pages 1-79
 
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL (LSSARP)
+ + + + +
FRIDAY MAY 12, 1995
+ + + + +-
1 10 11 The Review Panel met in Conference Room 3B45 at 12 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, q
13 ii ll545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, at 1:00 p.rn.,
14 *John C. Hoyle, Chairman, presiding.
15 I I I
16 ! 1 PANEL MEMBERS:
I 1 Chairman 17 18 19 20 21 '
22 23 24 25 JOHN C. HOYLE ARNOLD LEVIN LSS Administrator, NRC CHIP CAMERON KIRK BALCOM DENNIS BECHTEL PETER CUMMINGS STEVE FRISHMAN CHRISTOPHER HENKEL BRAD METTAM NRC NEAL R. GROSS (202) 234-4433 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 PANEL MEMBERS (Continued):
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I
I i I I ; I I I
:1 I
I I l I LLOYD MITCHELL CLAUDIA NEWBURY JAS SILBERG (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 2,
(202) 234-4433
 
3 1 1
I N D E X 2
AGENDA ITEM PAGE 3
Introduction, Chairman Hoyle 4
4 Technical Working Group Recommendation on Level 1 6
I 5
Requirements for LSS Design (TWG), ROGER HARDWICK 6
Final Approval of Header Working Group Recommendations 51 7
8 9
10 11
! I 12 'I I I, I 13 I I ii
, I 14 15 16 I*
I I 17 18 I
19 i I 20 21 I I
22 'I I!
23 24 25
( HWG) I Current LSS Action Item (202) 234-4433 Activity at NRC (NRC/LSSA)
Review/Next Meeting Schedule NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 58 72 (202) 234-4433
 
1 2
3 4
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1:05 p.m.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
This is a meeting of the 4
Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel.
It's a 5
federal advisory committee panel, and we meet under the 6
conditions and the provisions of the Federal Advisory 7
Committee Act.
8 If there are members of the public who wish to 9
make statements, I'd appreciate if they would hold them 10 until the end of the meeting, but you are certainly invited !
11 to make statements at that time.
12 Before proceeding with the agenda, I would like 13 to have the members of the panel reintroduce themselves.
14 i I This is sort of a procedure that we have for our meetings.
: I 15 1: so, I'll start with Claudia.
16 I MS. NEWBURY:
My name is Claudia Newbury.
I I
17 I work for the U.S. Department of Energy.
I 1a I MR. MITCHELL:
Lloyd Mitchell, Oneida Tribe of 19 Wisconsin.
I work with the National Congress of American 20 Indians.
21 MR. METTAM:
Brad Mettam, with Inyo County, 22 California.
23 MR. CUMMINGS:
Pete Cummings with the City of 24 Las Vegas, Nevada.
25 (202) 234-4433 MR. BECHTEL:
Dennis Bechtel, Clark County, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.NW.
WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
5 1
Nevada.
2 MR. FRISHMAN:
Steve Frishman, State of Nevada.
3 MR. BALCOM:
Kirk Balcom, State of Nevada.
4 MR. HENKEL:
Chris Henkel, Nuclear Energy 5
Institute.
6 MR. CAMERON:
Chip Cameron, Office of General 7
Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
MR. LEVIN:
Moe Levin, NRC.
8 9
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Okay, and I'm John Hoyle from 10 NRC, without a mic.
11 Our agenda today is a planned agenda, it's 12 relatively brief.
I think I've heard some things at the 13 meeting with DOE this morning that may add an item or two, I
14 :
1 but I particularly want to hear today from the Technical 15 Working Group on the Level 1 requirements, and ask the 11 16 !I panel to act on those recommendations, though, we haven't 17 1, seen them to deliberate on them ourselves.
18 I I I would like to see if we can reach final 19 1 approval of the Header Working Group recommendations.
I I
20 I We'll hear from Moe about the activity within 21 the NRC on LSS.
22 One other item, I'm ready to give Mr. Levin, 23 the LSS Administrator, a memorandum from the panel which 24 recommends the manner in which the technical language in 25 the LSS rule can be understood.
I got comments from the (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVENUE, NW.
WASHINGTON. DC. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 panel members.
Brad gave me a couple of what I would call 2
editorial changes which I've made, and there is a copy of 3 it in your blue folder.
So, Moe, I'm giving you the 4
original at this time.
5 Unless there are comments, initial comments by 6
members of the panel, at this time I would like to move 7
ahead to the Technical Working Group recommendations on 8
Level 1 requirements for LSS design.
Sponsor? There's 9
room up here, Roger, why don't you come on up.
10 MR. HARDWICK:
Okay.
Thank you.
11 My name is Roger Hardwick with Clark County, 12 Nevada, and I'm also the Chairman of the Technical Working 13 Group.
Before I get started on the presentation of the 14 Technical Working Group I would just like to take a minute I
15 to let the panel know how much work has gone into this and I
6 16 li the commitment and dedication of these 14 people now on the ;
17 I I Technical Working Group, it has just been absolutely I
18 ll amazing.
It's been successful and it's been all because of I 19, the participant commitments that they are making.
I j
20 :
There's three areas I'd like to talk about.
I I 21 1 One is the Level 1 Function Requirement Statement, the 22 other is the Technical Working Group has come up with 23 several questions that they thought they wanted to present 24 to the panel to get an opinion on, or to get a call on, and 25 then also talk a little bit about the next steps for the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 2
3 4
Technical Working Group.
We met this morning, the Technical Work Group met this morning, at 8:00 here in this building, to go through one final iteration.
There are 29 Level 1 7
I I I I
I 5
functional requirements that have been agreed to up to this I I
I 6
point, and everybody has had several weeks to review them I
and we met this morning to go through them one more time 7
8 9
and made a few editing changes, no content changes, but did j make some editing changes, and that's the reason I don't I
I 10 have a copy of the 29 requirements because we just finished I I
11 1, it this morning at about 10:00, but I will commit to having,
12 j those requirements to the panel on Monday when I get back 13 I I to my office.
1, 14 But, the consensus of the Technical Working 15 '! Group is that these 29 Level 1 requirements are
! I 16 ' encompassing and are complete, relative to defining Level 1 17 ;[ requirements, and the Technical Working Group recommends 18 ll that the panel accept those requirements as Level 1 19 1requirements.
I 20 Any comments from the Technical Working Group, 21 that any of the members of the working group would like to 22 I add, relative to enhancing my statements on the Level 1 I
23,* functional requirements.
24 I think the effort that has gone into the Level 25 1 functional requirements has been phenomenal, and the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.NW WASHINGTON. DC 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 homework that everybody has done here has just -- we're 2
much farther ahead than I thought we'd ever be.
3 Any of the panel members have any questions on 4
the Level 1 requirements?
No?
Okay, good.
5 MR. BECHTEL:
Could you maybe just go through 6
some of the -- maybe discuss some of the requirements?
7 8
MR. HARDWICK:
Okay.
MS. NEWBURY:
Or, at least the changes since 9
the last time the panel met?
10 MR. HARDWICK:
Okay, yes, that would be good.
11 I kind of hesitate to go through the changes, because I 12 !haven't given everybody a copy of the document that we I I 13 I! changed today.
14 1 I I I The document we were working from was a pre-8 I
15 I decisional draft dated 5/11/95, and that outlined 29 16 1/ requirements.
In the first requirement, LSSl00l, it has to 17 ldo with LSS software components shall be integrated using j
18 !modern design techniques and well-documented interfaces 19 !which allow components to be integrated into the system 20 without seriously impacting other components.
The big 21 !! change there was that we took out any references to 22 /software, because in our discussions it's much more than 23 just software, it's systems, it's hardware, it's processes 24 and procedures.
So, the text, the content of the text 25 pretty much stayed the same, we just took out the (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 references to software, to remove some specificity from 2
that.
3 And, the rest of them, going all the way down 4
to LSS1005, there was no problems, and these are pretty 5
much the basis -- the basis of these was the original 6
functional requirements document that TRW prepared and 7
submitted that we reviewed at the last ARP meeting.
That 8
was the genesis of these, and the changes are not that 9
significant from there.
10 LSS1005, we had talked about the capability of 11 ll recognized characters from digital images, and the main I
9 12 ll question here and the main controversy was the fact that we 13 ll were concerned that what best achievable is for optical I I h
* t '
t Th d
h 14 l c aracter recogn1 10n accep ance.
e ec1s1on ere was 15 !that we -- this is not a Level 1 functional requirement, to,
l b d
16 e defined at Level 1, but we wante to make note of 1t so 17 that when we go to the Level 2 functional requirements it 18 doesn't get lost, that we, in fact, do go through and 19 determine some levels of accuracy and some minimum 20 acceptable standards for those.
21 And, with the other one we talked about, and 22 that's one of the questions that we had for the panel 23 today, was the two search and retrieval modes.
Oh, no, 24 wait a minute, we decided that wasn't going to be a 25 question, didn't we?
The next major thing was the system (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.
WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
10 1
definition, and we came up with a system definition, and 2
I'm not sure that I have even the comprehensive, but in my 3
notes I have the comprehensive, but let me just take a 4
second and read what we've come up with as a system 5
definition.
This not be exact word for word what's going 6
to be issued when I go through my notes and type it up.
7 The system definition is the totality of hardware, 8
software, communications, data and processes and procedures,
I 9
dedicated to writing document intake, searching, retrieving 10 I and delivery to the users of the headers, text and images, I
11 I j as detailed in the mission statements found in 10 CFR 2 ( j).
I 12 I And, I think we had consensus among the group that that I
13 I I would be an acceptable systems definition.
14 MR. BALCOM:
Actually, I might as well raise it I here.
ii 15 I raised the question this morning that it could be 16 seen from this statement I I 17 l 1 place where the raw data that the technical repository, the I will reside, which is, perhaps, a 18 separate facility, might not be included in this statement, 19 and the question to the ARP is going to be, is it part of 20 21 11 "
22 23 24 25 the LSS?
The headers and the pointers to that separate collection of tangible data of core samples, field notes and so on, is all going to be part of the LSS, but in terms of actually physically getting to those tangible pieces of the system that are not documentary, is that part of the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
11 I 1
LSS?
And, I just raise that, you know, for your 2
consideration this morning, because if it is, there may be 3
some design considerations that DOE is doing.
4 i
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
What do you see the advantages '
5 or disadvantages of it being part of the LSS or not?
6 MR. BALCOM:
Well, it's a separate facility to 7
be managed, so I guess, you know, the LSSA also would be 8
wanting to know how that impacts on the actual operation of !
9 the LSS at some point.
I 10 The advantages, it seems to me that there could I 11 be some control over the timeliness of actually getting 12 data, which seems like it's beeri a problem in the past, at 13 least from the standpoint of Nevada's request for I
11 14 materials.
Granted, this goes way back several years, you
, I 15,know, five or six years now, and I know NRC, prior to their I I 16 !!organizational changes, was looking in depth at the I
17 l protocols for getting at this material, and, you know, I 18 just want to raise this again and see where the ARP stands 19 on it, and where the interests of the community is on it, 20 and is it going to come up and bite us at some point?
21 MS. NEWBURY:
Let's see if I understand 22 properly.
You are considering the Sample Management 23 Facility as part of the LSS?
24 MR. BALCOM:
No -- is that what it's called 25 now, is the Sample Management --
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
 
12 1
MS. NEWBURY:
It's always been called the 2
Sample Management Facility.
3 MR. BALCOM:
All right.
4 When NRC was looking at some of the protocols 5
for getting at documentary material, and actually even 6
doing document intake several years ago, I guess maybe four '
I 7
years ago now, I think the word they used then was 8
technical repository or something like that, and the sample 9
data --
10 MS. NEWBURY:
You are not talking about the 11 data that's generated from the sample, which would be in 12 the LSS, you are talking about the sample itself?
13 MR. BALCOM:
Well, no, actually the data 14 i I generated, would the header be there or would the actual 15 l: data generated be in the LSS?
16 MS. NEWBURY:
In most cases, the data that's 17 generated from the sample would be in the system, because 18 it would be, you know, electronic paper data.
19 20 MR. BALCOM:
How about somebody's field notes?
MS. NEWBURY:
Field notes would be in the 21 system, because they are part of our record system.
22 23 24 25 (202) 234-4433 MR. BALCOM:
And, there would be --
MS. NEWBURY:
From notebooks.
MR. BALCOM:
-- an image of each page?
MS. NEWBURY:
It's how we understand that's how NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 the records are kept, yes.
2 MR. CAMERON:
I think that years ago we did 3
address -- the technical data, of course, is addressed in 4
the rule, and that includes the material that can only be 13 5
imaged that are parts of the package, and it also includes 6
headers for the material, such as core samples, that would 7
not be "in" the LSS.
8 And, we thought that it would be sufficient to 9
establish a protocol with the Department in its 10 responsibility to manage that core sample facility, so that I 11 people would have reasonable access to that.
12 We saw a lot of problems with that being 13 designated as a part of the LSS.
14 MR. BALCOM:
I guess what I'm getting at is 15 1 1
simply wanting to clarify exactly where we stand on that, 16 !, and maybe having it be a part of the LSS is not the right 17 language, but do you still see the protocols as being, you 18 know, part of the LSSA's function?
19 MR. CAMERON:
Well, I think 20 MR. BALCOM:
And, the reasonable time issue is 21 I certainly one of the big issues for the State of Nevada.
22 MR. CAMERON:
I don't want to speak for Moe, 23 but I think that we would think that it would be very 24 important to take the lead in working out a development of 25 a protocol, of course, with the input from the panel that (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.
WASHINGTON. DC 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 would establish some sort of reasonable access, because 2
otherwise, you know, what good is it, you have to have 3
access to it.
MS. NEWBURY:
Chip, there's already an 5
agreement in place between DOE and NRC, and DOE and Nye 14 6
County.
I'm not sure that we have any agreements with the 7
state, in terms of getting samples from the Sample a Management Facility, if that's what this will turn into an 9
issue of.
And, I really think we ought to wait for Nye 10 County to be here, because they are the other big player, 11 ' they are the ones who are collecting samples.
12 I MR. BALCOM:
I think one thing that would help 13 Nevada is to maybe see that protocol.
I mean, I don't know I
14 where the state 15 MS. NEWBURY:
It's part of the site -- not the 16 'l site specific agreement, it's one of those that are the 17 l1 standard protocols, formal interaction protocols.
I 18 11 MR. LEVIN:
I suggest that maybe this is 19 11 something we can discuss at the meeting in June, and so we 20 can be prepared now that you've surfaced it, so we'll have 21, I all the information.
22 I
23 11 MR. BALCOM:
Okay, good.
MS. NEWBURY:
But, that's not part of these 24 functional requirements.
25 (202) 234-4433 MR. BALCOM:
No, since system design is -- I NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE NW WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 didn't want to narrowly -- so narrowly define it that it 2
excluded some things we were discussing four or five years 3
ago.
I feel comfortable with it now.
4 MR. LEVIN:
The reason for the system 5
definition was kind of like in procurement space.
When we 6
talk about the system, if we put together any kind of 7
documents or anything, we were looking for a definition of 8
what do we mean by the system.
We were trying to put some 9
bounds around it, and that was the discussion that 10 generated this topic, this issue.
11 MR. HARDWICK:
To continue on, that was the 12 major changes that we had made this morning, and then we 13 had a discussion as to it would not be appropriate for the 14 Technical Working Group to ask the panel to approve these I
15 :I functional requirements if we didn't have the functional 16, requirements to pass out to them and review prior to that.
17 So, one of the suggestions was, and this is a 18 suggestion that we, as the Technical Working Group, would 19 put to the panel, is that we will commit to have the edited 20 version of these functional requirements to the panel on 21 1 Monday, I will fax them to everybody on the panel on 22 Monday, and if we -- one of the ways we could do it is 23 that, if there was no response within 48 hours we would 24 !assume that the panel agreed to it.
And, if there was 25 changes, we would probably have to -- we really wanted to (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
16,
1 be able to get closure on these functional, Level 1 2
functional requirements, however, we didn't feel right 3
asking the panel to do it when we haven't handed them out a 4
copy of the latest and greatest version.
5 So, we are open for suggestions as to how we 6
should proceed with this.
7 MR. LEVIN:
Let me make a comment on that.
We 8
have to get these nailed down and come to closure on this 9
very quickly, because it's very important because this is 10 just the high-level functional requirements, and that's 11 leading to the Level 2 requirements which are the detailed 12 II requirements which really 13 I like and allows DOE to go I I will define what the system looks out and do the procurement 14 actions and everything.
And that, they are already I
15 underway with developing the Level 2.
They have a schedule I 16 to meet, and we need a quick turnaround on this.
So, I
*I 17 just want to express how important it is to look at it and I
I I 18 l! get back to us quickly.
19 I MR. METTAM:
I appreciate Roger is saying that 20 'l he'd like us to have a chance to look at them, because I
~ I 21 was starting to get nervous when I was hearing you folks 22 :! say, well, we are going to approve those today, and Roger ii 23,1 is saying, well, I don't have them for you to -- you know, 24 1
I I think that 48 hours may not be enough time.
You know, we 25 are talking about --
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
17 I 1
MR. HARDWICK:
It was just a number we picked 2
out of the air.
3 MR. METTAM:
but, at the same time, perhaps, 4
some time, you know, within 5
MR. HARDWICK:
Maybe that process isn't even 6
right.
7 MR. METTAM:
-- the next five working days, you !
8 know, which would give us from Monday to Friday morning, or 9
something like that.
10 That also means that someone has got to commit 11 to notify those people on the panel who are not present 12 that this is occurring, so that, you know, we don't have 13 people out of the loop.
14 MR. HARDWICK:
Yes.
15 I MR. METTAM:
Especially if we are going to do a 16 no answer is assent kind of an arrangement.
17 MR. HARDWICK:
We just brought it up as a 18 question as to how the panel would like us to proceed on 19 : ' this.
i I think we've expressed how important it is, and 2 O I we ' 11 do whatever is recommended.
I 21 I MR. BECHTEL:
But, would it be better to 22 I distribute it to John?
23 I CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
I'm not sure that would be the 24 fastest in this case, if he's going to be able to fax it, 25 but I certainly need to be involved.
I would like contact (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
18 :
1 with every member myself, even though it's sort of a 2
negative consent kind of thing, I would prefer a warm 3
feeling that you have seen it, it's been in your hands, and 4
you are not going to object to it.
I 5
6 I would ask Claudia to be sure that I know John participated in it today, didn't he?
that !
7 j MS. NEWBURY:
Yes, John was here this morning.
8 il He had to leave, his daughter is graduating from UNLV 9
tonight.
10 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Oh, okay.
11 Ii I
And, he is -- DOE is in agreement from John's 12 13
'I 11 standpoint?
Ii I,
I I
I MS. NEWBURY:
Yes, we are in agreement with 14 them as they stand now.
15 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
And, remind us of the work I
16 11 time.
Brad has suggested Friday, suppose I get in touch I
17 I. with you later in the day on Friday.
18 ii MS. NEWBURY:
Okay.
I don't know which day jl the 19 week the 23rd is.
As you saw in the briefing this 20,morning, that is our cutoff date for completion of the I
21 'I Level 1 requirements.
22,,
23 24 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
The 23rd is a Tuesday.
MS. NEWBURY:
So, next Friday would be fine.
MR. HARDWICK:
Is that an acceptable process 25 then, that I'll distribute them on Monday?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
of (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
 
1 19 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Yes.
I was going to call for 2
anymore discussion of that.
The suggestion is that, 3
provided you get it out on Monday, the panel members would 4
have the rest of the week to look at it, and give -- well, 5
there can be a negative consent as far as I'm concerned, 6
but I think I will make contact with the members as best I 7
can to see if, in fact, they have no comments or no 8
objection.
9 This will be, what, several pages?
10 11 MR. HARDWICK:
Four pages.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Four pages, okay.
12 I 13,I those
'I MR. CAMERON:
And, a cover memo, especially to who are not present, that explains the process?
I' 14 ii MR. HARDWICK:
Yes, I'll do it.
15 I 1 I MR. CAMERON:
And, John, could you we'll 16 '.
1make that also part of the public record, so that people 17 !l who have not had access to this material will know what we I
18 1;are talking about.
I, I 19 !j Roger, was there anything that was 20 11particularly, I think we've been used to living with 21 !! functional requirements for a long time now, was there 22 1anything controversial or unique that's worth singling out?
23 I think that Kirk already talked about one thing that was 24 worth discussing, the access protocol.
Is there anything 25 else that you think rises to (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 20 MR. HARDWICK:
Well, if you let me go through -
2
- we've come up with three questions also, and, perhaps, 3
and the questions are a direct result of us working on 4
these Level 1 functional requirements, and there have been 5
some discussions that we've had also relative to level of 6
accuracy for optical character readers, and those types of 7
concerns that are not really Level 1 functional 8
requirements, but are something we want to make note of so I 9
that we don't lose it as we get into Level 2, because 10 that's where that's going to have to be addressed.
11 So, if I can, and I'm not closing on the 12 functional requirements, but let me just go through the 13 questions that we had come up, and they were a direct 14 result of working on these Level 1 functional requirements.
I j 15 I The very first question has to do with I I 16 1l privileged data, and I had several iterations of the 11 17 question, but, perhaps, the most coherent iteration of the 18 question was from Preston Junkin, and if I could ask 19 !! Preston to, perhaps, explain the question, because he I
20 1 1really, if there's any questions about it, and Preston is 21 on our Technical Working Group, so could you do that?
22 23 24 MR. JUNKIN:
Can you hear me from here?
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Speak loudly.
MR. JUNKIN:
Okay.
The question, the basic 25 question regards the protective order filed with reference (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
21 1
to the rule, and the question really is whether that 2
protective order filed is physically part of the LSS or 3
not.
Let me give you just a little background.
4 The rule states that regarding privileged 5
material, that the LSS shall include documentary material 6
which is not privileged under Section 1006.
It says that 7
privileged material will be placed into a protective order 8
file, that's stated in 1006.B.
It also says that a 9
bibliographic header will be submitted for this material.
10 So, all of this would imply that the material is in a 11 physically separate file without regard to the media, it 12 I doesn't comment of that, of course, but that's it distinct I
13 / from the LSS, except if there's a header pointing to that I
14, I location.
I I I
15 1, I
There's only sentence in here that's a little 16 !! trouble, which appears to contradict that, and we are 11 17 :I looking for some clarification, and that's in 2.1013D, it 18 il states that on-line access to the Licensing support 19 i: system -- it says, on-line access to the Licensing Support I 20 !' system, including a protective order filed if authorized by 1
21 the Presiding Officer, shall be provided.
One can infer 22 from that that the protective order file is in the LSS.
23 Our question is this, is the intent of rule satisfied if 24 the LSS, (a) contains the headers of privileged documents, 25 (b) the headers include the location of the document in a (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 protective order file, and, (c) the protective order file 2
is not part of the LSS.
For example, it might be a file 3
cabinet, or procedurally protected, or it could be on a 4
stand-alone computer, but it's not part of the LSS.
5 The reason we care is that, if that kind of 22 6
privileged data is in the LSS, it has definite implications 7
on the level of software security that has to be built into 8
the system, because people providing that information will 9
need to be assured that their data is going to be 10 protected, and this is a system that the public has access 11 to.
So, it could raise lots of concerns.
12 MR. METTAM:
Could you do a few examples of 13 what types of information would be in there?
14 ii MR. JUNKIN:
Proprietary data, basically, it's 15 qualified, and I'm not an attorney so, perhaps, they can
, I 16 1
* speak better --
17 1 18 ii MR. METTAM:
MR. JUNKIN:
In general terms.
if a person makes a claim that 19,; information is proprietary or financial in nature, and I I 20,shouldn't be made available for the public, a ruling can be 21
* made that it's absolutely qualified, in which case it 22 j I doesn't go anywhere -- I ' m sorry, that it's absolute 23 privileged data, in which case it doesn't go anywhere, or 24 that it's qualified privileged data.
If it's qualified, it 25 goes into the protective order file.
So, that means it's (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 relevant enough to the proceedings that some people need 2
access to it, but it's on a very controlled basis because 3 it does tend to be proprietary, financial kind of data.
MR. HARDWICK:
Or Privacy Act type data.
MR. JUNKIN:
Right.
23 4
5 6
MR. HARDWICK:
Those types of things.
There's 7
a whole series of categories here.
8 MR. HENKEL:
Could one example be the losing 9
bids for the multi-purpose canister, something like that?
MR. PRESTON:
I couldn't answer that.
10 11 MR. METTAM:
That's what I'm trying to get at, 1
12 !is a feel for what types of things we are talking about.
13 11 MR. HARDWICK:
Company proprietary information II 14 also on bid rates and, you know, those types of things that I I I
15 the company -- and qualifications, perhaps, for some of the I
16 technical experts.
There's a whole series of things.
MR. CAMERON:
Right.
If you look in 10 CFR I
I I
I 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, there's a number of I 17 18 19 privileges that are traditional privileges that I
any type of
* 20 I adjudication, basically, although there's other things that I
21 I are set forth there, and it might be -- it traditionally is I
22 II included, like pre-decisional documents, proprietary, I
23 confidential, financial, there's attorney/client, things 24 like that, work product.
25 The rule says that access would be given to the (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 file.
In other words, privileged documents initially 2
aren't submitted to the LSS for entry and then put into a 3
confidential part of the LSS.
If a party claims a privilege for a document, and the Board rules that either the privilege doesn't apply here, okay, which means the 24 4
5 6
document comes in like a regular document to the LSS, or if,
I 7
8 the Board said the privilege applies, but it's necessary for a decision in the case, then you get to the protective 9
order file.
The rule says that if the Board authorizes 10 that there's going to be a protective order file in the 11 l, LSS, it could be, I think that we might have left this to a 12 future decision when we negotiated the rule.
In other 13 words, does the Board want to keep this all hard copy, or 1~ !1 does it want to set up a separate file in the LSS, and part 15 I of that consideration of leaving it for the future, you 16 know, revolves around exactly the issues that you are 17 !raising about cost, security, those types of things.
So, I 18 ! think that that's something that we need to work out and 19 talk to the representative of the Atomic Safety and 20 Licensing Board Panel, Paul Bollwerk is with us in the back 21 of the room, and I think he should be involved in that 22 discussion.
23 In fact, Paul, if you have anything that you 24 think might be useful to contribute on this issue, please 25 pitch in.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON. DC. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
 
1 MR. BOLLWERK:
This is all I can say, up to 2
this point we've had some electronic filings come in that 3
we've been using in different proceedings, but we really 25 4
haven't dealt, I don't think, with proprietary information.
5 I think we've kept them out of the system.
6 Now, you know, if things are corning along --
7 MR. CAMERON:
When you say the system, don't 8
give people the impression, there are some electronic 9 !hearing dockets already that the Licensing Board has been 10 using.
11 MR. BOLLWERK:
They tend to be for a particular '
12 hearing, we get documents, generally, when we have a large 13 licensee document, they will bring them in electronically I
14, 1so we can use them in the hearing.
I l 15 '
As I say, security is corning along, questions 16 if about public key private, key security, key passwords, all 17 ! those sorts of things, we haven't really made a decision 18 about how we are going to handle those, so it's sort of an 19 ;1open question, I guess, is the answer.
And, as you say, I I 20 1 it's something to be looked at.
When we get electronic I
21 filings, generally, there's no reflection that they need to 22 be dealt with by security.
23 MR. HARDWICK:
One of the reasons we raise it 24 is the operational aspects could be very significant, if we 25 decide that we are going to have this privileged data or (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
26 1
these files on electronic format in an LSS, and I guess the 2
gist of the Technical Work Group question is, is it the 3
opinion of the panel that the rule would be satisfied if 4
we, in fact, have headers of privileged documents, and the 5
headers will include the location, physical location of the I 6
documents, not necessarily in the LSS, and that the 7
physical location has protected procedures, protected in 8
some fashion.
9 And, basically, what the answer to that would 10 be, if the panel says that, yes, the rule is satisfied, 11 then that means we can go forward without having to include 12 the privileged data in the LSS.
13 I MR. CAMERON:
I think that, obviously, the 14 panel is going to have to talk about the pros and cons.
I
'I 15,, guess my opinion would be that if the panel decided that it ii 16,, was best to only have hard copy protective file, and, of 17 ;! course, this is something that we would have input from the 18 Licensing Board Panel on, I think that the rule would be 19 satisfied.
20 I think the question is, as a policy matter, is 21 ! it 22 J to 23 II
-- if you do a cost benefit analysis on it is it better have an electronic protective file or a hard copy file?
MR. HARDWICK:
But, that really doesn't matter 24 to us, because if it's electronically protected or a hard 25 copy file, we are worried about whether it's included in (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 LSS.
It could be an electronic file not included in LSS, 2
and so the interpretation we were looking for was whether 3 it should be included in the LSS, I guess.
27 4
MR. METTAM:
Roger, let me repeat your question I 5
and see if I've got an understanding of it. The issue is 6
whether or not you need an additional level of security 7 built into the system, so that the documents could then be 8
accessed or not?
9 MR. HARDWICK:
No, no, the question is, is 1 O ! I whether the rule already says that we will have headers 11 '
1and locations of privileged documents in the LSS, that will I
12.
1 be there, so that there wi 11 be a traceabi 1 i ty of 13 !1 privileged documents.
14 The question is, where do the privileged 15 documents reside?
Because they are sensitive documents, 16 '' and I'm not sure that they could ever be classified, but 17 il they are sensitive or they are Privacy Act type documents, 18 l! if those documents reside in LSS that could have I I 19,! significant design impacts on the entire design of the LSS I
20 i I and operational aspects.
21 And so, the Technical Working Group is asking 22 !I the question that, is the rule satisfied if we just have 23 1,the headers that point to a physical location where the 24 I privileged data is, and not necessarily the LSS.
Is that 25 I clear, or am I still just stumbling?
(202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.
WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I I I
 
1 MR. METTAM:
When you say the LSS, are you 2
talking about the electronic component of the LSS or the 3
entire system, which includes the physical plant, because 4
I'm not sure it's a Level 1 functional requirement to 5
answer that question now, unless it involves sort of the 6
software design, you know, issue.
7 MR. HARDWICK:
Yes, it does.
28 8
MR. METTAM:
And, that's the question I was at, 9
is it the software security component that's needed 10 answered?
11 12 MR. HARDWICK:
Yes.
MR. BALCOM:
In other words, can you store the 13 materials in a different place than all the other documents.
14 l, for the LSS?
If the answer is yes, we don't have to build I I 15 !,, another level of security.
16 MR. METTAM:
Well, but that issue is easily I
I 17 1 handled.
I mean, whether you keep the file cabinet under 18 I the LSSA's physical control, or in another building, 19 I doesn't seem to be a Level 1 issue.
The issue is really, 20 i you know, are you only going to have a header, or is there 21 going to be some kind of electronic access?
22 MR. BALCOM:
Well, let's say that we have to 23 image, we have to keep an electronic image of a protected 24 document, does the electronic image reside on the computer, 25 as part of the LSS electronic system, or is it okay to put (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 it next door on a mini-computer or in hard copy?
And, if 2 it has to be on the LSS, along with all the other images, 3 it has to be segregated somehow, and that's the software 4
design consideration.
5 6
MR. METTAM:
Right, okay.
MR. BALCOM:
You know, and financially or 7
economically, it would not make sense to include it.
So, 8
what we are looking for is, would everybody be happy with 29,
9 our having it in a room under, you know, your protection or 10 under somebody's protection, the actual physical document 11 or the image of the document, not the header.
12 MR. CAMERON:
I would imagine it would be under 13 1 the control of either the Licensing Hearing Board or the 14 !
1Pre-License Application Hearing Board.
15
: I MR. HENKEL:
Question, can the software 16 II security items be added at a later date?
11 I MR. HARDWICK:
Yes, they could be.
I 18 I MR. HENKEL:
If you have enough money.
19 MR. HARDWICK:
If you have enough money, but I 20 think it would be --
21 22 MR. HENKEL:
Well, that's my point.
MR. HARDWICK:
-- it would be probably a 23 significant cost increase to add it at a later date.
24 25 (202) 234-4433 MR. HENKEL:
As opposed to doing it up front?
MR. HARDWICK:
Yes, and the reason that we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 bringing it up as an issue right now is because we really 2
want to -- it's a Level 1 function requirement, if it's 3
going to be a requirement.
4 Preston?
30 5
MR. JUNKIN:
Lt me mention, too, that the rule 6
is, except for that one sentence, the rule is pretty clear.
7 Let me read you 2.1010c.
Upon a final determination that 8
the material is relevant and not privileged, exempt from 9
disclosure or otherwise exempt from entry into the 10 Licensing Support System, and then it goes on, except for 11 that one sentence that refers to an on-line access, it 12 seems the rule is pretty clear that the header is all 13 that's in there.
And, again, we are simply trying to get 14 assurance I
that it's okay to -- the functional requirements 15 j 1 will differ if there's privileged data in the system.
You I
16 simply have to have more protection than you would 17 otherwise, because it's a publicly accessible system, and 18 it's proprietary data.
19 MR. CAMERON:
I think that's the issue that we 20 need to discuss with some assistance from the Licensing 21 Board, and do it -- I guess the point is, do it soon.
22 MR. BOLLWERK:
As John is aware, there is 23 actually a project here in the Commission going on to put 24 together an electronic hearing docket for the entire 25 adjudicatory system of the agency, and one of the questions (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.
WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
31 1
we are going to have to deal with is just this question in 2
terms of every procedure that the agency has to handle.
3 So, it may well be that some of the wisdom we get from that 4
system is something that you all will be able to use.
5 I don't know how you feel about that, John, 6
but, you know, that's one of the things we'll have to deal 7
with on this.
8 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Right, it's really a question 9
of timing, I guess.
We are not ready to deal with that 10 issue within the agency, because we are still several 11 months away from that.
12 13 14 MS. NEWBURY:
Can I *ask a couple questions?
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Sure.
MS. NEWBURY:
On-line access to whatever this 15 proprietary information is doesn't necessarily have to be 16 through the LSS, right?
17 18 MR. HARDWICK:
No.
MS. NEWBURY:
You could have a separate on-line 19 system, and as long as you have the headers in the LSS that 20 point to the electronic access you are covered by the rule.
MR. HARDWICK:
Yes.
21 22 MS. NEWBURY:
All right, so I don't see any 23 advantages, unless there are some that you haven't 24 discussed, to trying to put this proprietary information 25 into the LSS per se.
Am I right?
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
32 1
MR. HARDWICK:
You are right, and if I might 2
just add one last thing here, is that it's the opinion, and 3
if anybody on the Technical Working Group disagrees with 4
me, but it's the opinion of the working group that the 5
headers is all that's necessary and the data being in a 6
procedurally protected or some other off-site storage, or 7
another room storage, that's the preferred answer.
8 I mean, that's the way the Technical Working 9
Group has leaned, relative to a solution, but it's not our 10 lplace in life to make those decisions, and we wanted to 11 make sure that the panel was aware of the potential impacts 12 both ways.
13 But, our interpretation of the rule is exactly,
14 as you stated it, Claudia, that, you know, all that's 15 required is the headers.
16 MS. NEWBURY:
Right, and the electronic access 17 that's mentioned in the rule does not necessarily have to 18 be part of the LSS.
19 20 MR. HARDWICK:
No.
MR. CAMERON:
And, you don't necessarily the 21 rule doesn't require that there be electronic access to 22 privileged documents that are under a protective order, 23 okay?
24 25 (202) 234-4433 MS. NEWBURY:
So, is this really a non-issue?
MR. METTAM:
I think what Roger was trying to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
33 1
get is to get that resolution.
I would say that, at least 2
my personal opinion is, if we leave unresolved the issue of 3
where do those documents physically reside, you know, if we 4
are not trying to decide whether the LSSA is going to have 5
control of those documents, I think the header is all you 6
need.
7 MR. HARDWICK:
And, that's the opinion of the 8
Technical Working Group also, and to get it down to, just 9
like a one-sentence question, does privileged data -- is 10 privileged data in or out on the LSS?
MR. HENKEL:
I'd like to say I agree with what 11 12 13 14 Claudia and Brad said, and it would seem to me that a public system and security are almost an oxymoron, and I
I that,
you are creating a nightmare that will be a never-ending 15 i: nightmare down the road.
16 MR. HARDWICK:
Exactly, and that was kind of 17 our technical view of it, too.
18 MR. METTAM:
And, whatever you do, some hacker 19 will make his way through it, or her way through it.
20 21 MR. HARDWICK:
Sure.
So, I'm not sure if it even is an issue. It 22 was brought up, it was recommended the group bring it up, 23 because, you know, this was -- this same discussion has 24 gone on in the group in great detail, and I think we came 25 to the same consensus, that the rule clearly states header (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
I
 
34 1
is all that's required, and deal with the privileged data.
2 And, Chip is right, on-line access of that 3
privileged data is not a requirement.
4 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
I think the sense of the panel 5
is that we agree with the working group.
6 MR. HARDWICK:
Good.
Okay, and thanks a lot, 7
Preston.
8 If there's no more discussion on that question, 9
we'll go on to what we had for the -- I think there was two 10 additional questions we had.
Remote access, the other 11 question has to do with remote access, and the background 12 on it was that the remote access implies the accessors have 13 full functionality available as an option to them, and the 14,! question of the Technical Working Group to the panel is, 15 I does this include access to pleadings and transcripts?
16 And, let me just repeat the background again 17 now.
The remote access implies that people who want to 18 access the system have full functionality available as an 19 option.
Does full functionality include access to 20 pleadings and transcripts?
21 MR. BALCOM:
You are talking about non-22 participants and non-potential parties?
23 24 25 (202) 234-4433 MR. HARDWICK:
Yes.
MR. BALCOM:
You are talking about the public?
MR. HARDWICK:
Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 2
Hearing.
3 4
35 1
MR. CAMERON:
This is after the Notice of MR. HARDWICK:
Right.
MR. CAMERON:
What restrictions are placed on a 5
member of the public who accesses the system? Is there any 6
material that's out of bounds?
7 MR. HARDWICK:
Yes, that's a real good way to 8
put it, because that really covers more than just pleadings 9
and transcripts, but you are right, that's exactly what we 10 are asking.
11 MR. HENKEL:
What is the concern with limiting 12 the access?
13 MR. BALCOM:
I'm not sure it's a concern as 14 1 much as it's simply important to clarify some of these so I
15 1, the Technical Working Group doesn't make assumptions on 16 j behalf of, say, the lawyers, you know, who may have a I
17 1
, different sense of the history, and so what we are doing is 18, pinning down some clarification, like can the public have 19 access to all depositions, for example, that are on the 20 I LSS, transcripts from depositions.
21 MR. CAMERON:
Subject to clarification by, not 22 only Paul Bollwerk, but Bill Olmstead in the back, I think 23 that the transcripts of the hearing, motions, all of this 24 is public record anyway, so that there shouldn't be any 25 restriction after the Notice of Hearing on access to that
( 202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
36 1
type of material.
2 And, I would ask Paul or Bill if they wanted to 3
say anything else on that.
Is that correct, essentially?
4 MR. BOLLWERK:
Paul Bollwerk from the Licensing 5
Board Panel, I mean, generally, discovery material is 6
public record information, but people can't come in for 7
protective orders, there is things that is not necessarily 8
considered 9
10 MR. CAMERON:
Subject to the protective order.
MR. BOLLWERK:
-- subject to the protective 11 order, I mean there are certain instances where the press 12 is wanting discovery material, the courts have said no, for 13 whatever reason, you know, given what the case was going 14 on.
So, it's not a blanket that it's all public, we could Ii 15 1l have protected, but as a general rule.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Yes, sir.
16 17 MR. FISHER:
Michael Fisher, TRW.
I think 18 we've gotten off target with respect to what the question 19 was with respect to remote access. It is with respect to 20 potential parties, parties and potential parties, et 21 cetera, not the public.
Going to 21007C, access to the 22 Licensing Support System for potential parties, intra-23 governmental participants, and parties will be provided in 24 the following manner:
(1) full text search capability 25 through dial-up access from remote locations at the request (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 and the expense..., and then it goes on to talk about 2
images.
I believe that's what we were referring to this 3
morning with regards to remote access by the parties, et 4
cetera, was that remote access also supposed to be to the 5
official record materials.
37 6
MR. HARDWICK:
Yes, I recall the conversation, 7
yes, I misstated the question.
8 MR. METTAM:
I have an answer for it if it's 9
raised that way.
The answer is yes, remote access has got 10 to be fully functional, so if you can reach it in another 11 way, the remote accessors have to be able to reach it as 12 well.
13 14 anything?
15 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Bill, do you want to add MR. OLMSTEAD:
Well, Paul just mentioned the 16 electronic documents 17 18 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
We can't hear you.
MR. OLMSTEAD:
-- the problem is service.
If 19 you are a participant in the proceeding, how are you going 20 to get service of documents and pleadings if you don't have 21 access?
In other words, if I file a pleading, I have to 22 file it, not only with the Board, but with all the parties.
23 So, you've got to provide the service to the parties 24 electronically.
So, the answer should be anything the 25 party has to have that they can get through the mail they (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 need to have access to.
2 The way the Licensing Board is really running 3
now, I think it's with a third party provider dial-up 4
access.
5 MR. HARDWICK:
The answer to the question is 6
yes.
Thank you.
7 Then, we have one last question, and that was, 8
in Section 2.1013(c)(4)(i), what is meant by address and 9
return receipt acknowledgement?
And, if I can ask for 10 somebody from the Technical Working Group to explain that a 1 11 little bit further, as to -- Kirk, do you want to give it a j 12 shot?
13 MR. BALCOM:
Yes.
I think this is the 14 !! terminology address in terms of service of process again.
15 I I Is it an electronic address?
I mean, this is another thing l6 11 1
we need a little clarification on.
Is this someone's
\\
17 physical address at, you know, NRC, White Flint, Building 18 Two North, room such and such, or, you know, help us a 19 little bit on how you see that progressing over the next 20 few years, because it may have some design considerations.
21 MR. CAMERON:
We talked about this during the 22 negotiation, and, again, I'm going to let Bill Olmstead 23 elaborate on it, but each party to the hearing would have 24 an electronic mailbox, and all motions, pleadings, would be 25 filed to that electronic mailbox.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON. O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
]9 I 1
Now, is the question, can a party use an 2
existing Internet or E-Mail address that they have now, or 3
do you have to build a whole separate system of addresses 4
for this?
5 MR. LEVIN:
Let me explain a little here maybe.
6 This had to do with when something is sent from a 7
participant electronically and received at the LSS, there's 8
a receipt acknowledgment, a return acknowledgement.
Within 9
that acknowledgement, it's defined that there will be an 10 address.
Okay. We don't know whether that address is 11 supposed to be an Internet address, a mail address, a 12 physical location, we don't know what that address is.
13 MR. CAMERON:
Well, it's supposed to be an 14 electronic address, the way I understand it, and this is I I I
15 I one of the things that, perhaps, can be done a couple of 16 different ways, and it's a question of figuring out what's 17 the most sensible way to do it.
18 I don't think that we have any hard and fast 19 rules or ideas on what that is at this point.
20 MR. BALCOM:
How about in terms -- would you 21 include in that in terms of complying with whatever the 22 federal rules are about service, or are you making a 23 distinction that any electronic mail sent back and forth 24 between participants?
25 (202) 234-4433 MR. CAMERON:
This provision of the rule NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
40 1
focuses on the formal service of pleadings in the 2
adjudicatory hearing.
So, it's not -- although if you set 3
up a system for that, there's no reason why it, perhaps, 4
couldn't be used for E-Mail or discussion between the 5
parties.
I don't know, but keep in mind that the sole 6
function of this provision is for the formal service of 7
pleadings during the adjudicatory hearings.
8 MR. BALCOM:
Right.
9 So, can I imply that there is no need for a 10 hard copy document then?
11 MR. CAMERON:
Oh, we're down to whether you 12 have to have a hard copy duplicate.
Now, the rule requires 13 that there be a hard copy duplicate of all of this 14 material, and the reason that that was -- at the time, I I
15 I I think people were sort of nervous about relying on a purely I I
16 *electronic docket, but I think the rule still requires 17 there to be a hard copy of that material.
18 Now, whether we are in a different world now, 19 is another, you know, question for discussion.
20 Bill, do you want to chime in?
MR. OLMSTEAD:
I'm going to leave.
21 22 There are three elements that are legally 23 required.
You have to have a signature.
You have to have 24 service of the document, and you have to be able to 25 authenticate the document that was sent with the document (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
41 1
that was received.
You have to be able to handle the hard 2
copy.
All the rule was trying to deal with was 3
verification of service.
The hard copy was the -- if there 4
was a contest about what was to be in the document, it was 5
going to be the hard copy that was used in that event, 6
because we didn't, at the time, have any kind of security 7
authentication procedures to ensure by examining the bytes 8
in the document that the document hadn't been tampered 9
with.
10 But, as we all know, there has been a NIST 11 standard that allows us to verify the electronic copy now, 12 but NIST has deferred now to GSA, and GSA doesn't yet have 13 a standard out that we comply by.
So, the answer at the 14 moment is, we want to use electronic service to eliminate 15 mail fraud, but if there is a challenge to authenticity 16 there still has to be a hard copy.
And so, the return 17 receipt is from the electronic mailbox that indicates the 18 electronic copy has been --
19 Incidentally, a new development, Lexus is now 20 giving every lawyer in the United States an electronic mail 21 address, so I think that the problem of how you address 22 these things will be solved by the time you get to that.
23 MR. BALCOM:
So, does that give our designers, 24 the men who are going to write, the people, excuse me, who 25 are going to write the Level 2 requirements, does that give (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.
WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
42 1
you enough information?
2 MR. JUNKIN:
What I heard is that there is no 3
legal requirement for a U.S. mail address.
That's all we 4
wanted to know.
5 MR. HARDWICK:
Okay, so that answers it.
You 6
can proceed.
7 MR. JUNKIN:
An E-Mail return receipt is as 8
good.
9 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Let me ask my own question 10 here, perhaps, my cohorts can answer it.
Does the rule 11 call for an image, as well as an electronic version of the 12 document, of all documents?
13 14 MR. SILBERG:
Are you talking about pleadings?
1 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
No, just all documents that go 1 15 into the LSS.
16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
It calls for image and 17 text.
18 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
So, where does the image come 19 from if you don't have a hard copy?
20 MS. CARRIGAN:
Well, it could have come from 21 the electronic file.
22 23 24 25 the EMNO.
facilities (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
You should identify yourself.
MS. CARRIGAN:
I'm Camille Carrigan.
I'm with You could create, nowadays they have technical where if I create a document in Word Perfect I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 can put it through an electronic process and create an 2
image out of it without ever creating a hard copy.
3 MR. CAMERON:
But, it's right in the rule 4
actually, is that if you look at -- that's very true, but 43 5
if you look at 2.1013, I guess, (c)(6), no (c)(S), is that 6
besides -- the electronic service is meant to eliminate the 7
delay in the physical delivery, but the rule says that one 8
signed paper copy of each filing shall be served promptly 9
on the Secretary by regular mail.
In other words, your 10 proceeding is going on on the basis of the -- and, your 11 requirements of service are being met by the electronic 12 1 delivery, but that paper copy of everything is supposed 13 be served on the Secretary.
14 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Yes, Stan?
I I 15 I MR. NICHOLS:
Stan Nichols.
Then you'd only 16 need one hard copy, not service of hard copies and to 17 electronics to everyone, because the copy that goes to the 18 Secretary would be scanned in, and if anyone wanted to test 19 the authenticity they could bring up the image.
20 MR. CAMERON:
You only need to send the hard 21 copy to the Secretary, not to the other parties, but 22 /electronic transmission has to go to all the parties.
23 MR. NICHOLS:
And, that runs the clock, as far 24 as servicing all the rest.
25 (202) 234-4433 MR. CAMERON:
Right, exactly.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
44 1
MR. NICHOLS:
So, as far as any challenge to 2
the authenticity, that would be the image of the one copy 3
that went to the Secretary could be called up to serve that 4
purpose.
5 MS. NEWBURY:
So, if I'm following this 6
properly, when you are doing the filings you are only 7
filing a text file, you are not filing both an image and a 8
text file.
9 MR. CAMERON:
That's right, just a text file.
10 MS. NEWBURY:
Okay.
So, what we said earlier, I 11 that there's an image and text with everything, is only for I 12 the stuff pre-licensing, not part of the proceeding.
Am I 13 off?
14 15 that.
16 MR. CAMERON:
Fielden, you may want to clarify MR. DICKERSON:
Fielden Dickerson.
No, that 17 was the thing.
A piece of paper is being generated, and 18 that gives rise to the image.
19 MS. NEWBURY:
But, when you are filing the 20 when you are doing the filing, you are not filing both an 21 image and a text.
22 MR. DICKERSON:
No, you are just catching up, 23 you are right.
24 25 (202) 234-4433 MS. NEWBURY:
Yes.
MR. DICKERSON:
But, ultimately, they are going NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
4-5 1
to come together.
2 MS. NEWBURY:
Right, but that's not part of 3
what -- the person doing the filing doesn't have to create 4
an image.
MR. DICKERSON:
That's right.
MS. NEWBURY:
Okay.
5 6
7 MR. OLMSTEAD:
If you use an Adobe Acrobat 8
file, you would have both the image and the text in one 9
electronic document, and that would meet the requirements 10 of the rule as it's written.
11 MR. CAMERON:
Jay Silberg I know wants to 12 elaborate on the Adobe Acrobat file.
13 14 MR. SILBERG:
I'll hold my tongue.
MS. NEWBURY:
That did not constitute 15 endorsement of a particular product by the federal 16 government.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Yes?
17 18 MR. FISHER:
I'd to ask a clarifying question 19 then based on the previous discussion, and that is, the 20 rule differentiates between the documentary material and 21 the official docket or the official record material, the 22 official record file, whatever terminology you want to use 23 there.
So, as I understand it then, electronic filing 24 detects from the electronic files -- purpose, but the image 25 of the paper copy that's sent to the Secretary will be the (202) 2344433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 2344433
 
1 only information on that transmittal that goes into the 2
official record materials, not the electronic filings?
3 MR. CAMERON:
There may be exhibits, and the 4
exhibits that are going to be entered into the physical 46 5
adjudicatory record are going to be in the system full text 6
searchable, as well as having a hard copy of that.
7 Now, the pleadings then, and as I understand 8
the rule, is exactly how you describe it.
9 MR. FRANK:
I'm Jim Frank.
I believe the 10 question started out being, what kind of an address do we 11 need.
I think the answer to that question was clear.
12 13 14 MR. CAMERON:
Let's.quit while we are ahead.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Roger, any other things?
MR. HARDWICK:
Okay, thanks.
15 The only other issue that we had as the 16 Technical Working Group was the guidance from the panel as 17 to what the next steps should be for the Technical Working 18 Group.
The next logical step from our opinion would be to 19 continue doing the same processes we were doing for Level 2 20 that we did for Level 1, and, quite frankly, generate a lot 21 of enthusiasm.
I know everybody is chomping at the bit to 22 get at it. So, we were asking for guidance as to what the 23 panel would like the Technical Working Group to address 24 next and how to proceed.
25 (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Discussion on that point?
NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
47 1
MR. METTAM:
Yes.
Does the Technical Working 2
Group have any suggestions?
3 MR. HARDWICK:
That we do, in fact, do the same 4
thing for the Level 2 functional requirements that we did 5
for the Level 1 functional requirements, would be our 6
recommendation.
7 8
9 10 MS. NEWBURY:
Sounds good.
MR. HARDWICK:
Okay.
MS. NEWBURY:
You already are, aren't you?
MR. HARDWICK:
Well, we've made arrangements 11 to, but we haven't done anything yet.
I just made I
12 I arrangements with John this morning to get a copy and to 13 get it distributed to the group.
So, yes, we were assuming 14 and hoping that that would be, in fact, the next step.
15 16 : I working 11 I CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
But, the next project for the group will be the Level 2 requirements.
MR. HARDWICK:
Yes, and we'll start on that 18 immediately, like the 1st of June, I guess.
19 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
All right.
20 And, Claudia, I guess there are tight time 21 limits on that as well.
22 MS. NEWBURY:
Yes, there are, and I think Roger 23 is aware of them.
24 MR. HARDWICK:
Yes.
We talked about them at 25 the Technical Working Group this morning, and it's going to (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
48 1
require some additional commitment on behalf of all the 2
working group, but they've all agreed that it would be an 3
effort they would make, so that, by the time we come to the 4
next ARP meeting in July, we could give a status on where 5
we are on Level 2 functional requirements.
6 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
All right.
Thank you very 7
much, Roger.
8 I also --
9 MR. FRISHMAN:
Claudia, you are on a schedule 10 to have that done by June 15th, aren't you?
11 1 MS. NEWBURY:
Oh, you've got my schedule there, 12 !which I don't have pulled out.
Yes, that's right, that's 13 why I said Roger is aware of our tight schedule.
What 14 he'll probably be reporting on in July is what they did and 15 gave to us.
16 In our last meeting, I believe we talked about 1
17 whether or not I actually have to have concurrence from the 18 group before we can proceed.
19 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Well, I believe that you do.
20 The working group should not be reporting directly to the 21 agency.
22 23 MS. NEWBURY:
Right.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
But, rather, through the full 24 committee.
So, you've got to keep that in mind, and we 25 will use the process that we are planning to use next week (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.NW WASHINGTON. O.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
 
49 1
in order to get the material around.
2 If a panel member requests a meeting on the 3
subject, I think we've got to take that under consideration I 4
and see if we can call a quick meeting.
5 MS. NEWBURY:
our requirement for the Level 2 6
by June was so that we could start our make-versus-buy 7
analysis, the A,B,C, but that ' s an ongoing process.
So, if,
I 8
we get comments or concurrence from the ARP later than that I 9
June date, that doesn't preclude us from including them.
I 10 don't want to get into a long protracted how we are going 11 to develop the Level 2 requirements that gets beyond our 12 make-buy analysis.
That kind of defeats the purpose of it.
13 14 1 1
process 15 I i ~
16 !I that's 17 MR. FRISHMAN:
Well, that's about a nine-month that you have, from the looks of it.
MS. NEWBURY:
That's true, but they have to --
nine months worth of work.
MR. FRISHMAN:
But, if you were maybe three I
I 18 weeks to a month out on the front end and had to make if I 19 there were adjustments, they'd probably not be major 20 anyway, since you ' ve got your Level 1 already.
And, would 21 that cause us to be overridden?
22 MS. NEWBURY:
Hopefully not, unless the changes 23 are so significant that they would cause perturbations in 24 the whole make-buy analysis, which I would not expect.
25 (202) 234-4433 MR. FRISHMAN:
Hard to imagine one that big.
NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, 0 C, 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
 
50 MS. NEWBURY:
Since the Technical Working Group is already working with us, we have a person on the Technical Working Group, in developing those Level 2 I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 requirements, so I don't think that that would be a serious :
problem.
We will make adjustments based on what the Advisory Review Panel says in July.
MR. FRISHMAN:
That means we can conceivably 8
discuss our working group's recommendations in the July 9
meeting, and we'll still have a meaning for your work.
10 11 12 13 to just MS. NEWBURY:
We'll have meaning in July.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Okay, good.
MR. HARDWICK:
One other thing, John, I'd like and to clarify for my own clarification, is the 14 process that I've committed to is that on Monday morning 15 I'll fax you a copy of these edited requirements, and then 16 after you and I concur I will fax a copy to all of the 17 panel members with a cover letter. Is that the commitment 18 I've made?
19 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Yes, that's the way I 20 understand it.
21 MR. HARDWICK:
Okay, great, and that will be 22 done.
23 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
I'm assuming you have 24 everybody's fax numbers?
25 (202) 234-4433 MR. HARDWICK:
Yes, we do.
NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20005 As a matter of (202) 234-4433 I
I
 
51 1
fact, I think you just gave them to us.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
All right.
2 3
4 I do want to express my thanks to the Technical !
Working Group, not only for taking on that chore on the 1
5 Level 1 requirements, but providing the initial drafting 6
assistance on the memorandum I gave to Mr. Levin a few moments ago.
I I
I 7
8 Okay, moving along, the next topic I would like I 9
to bring up is the header issue.
When we met last time, 10 the panel was about ready to approve the Header Working 11 Group's recommendations, and one panel member asked for a 12 little more time to consider it; and so let me ask Lloyd 13 now if you've had time to consider, and can you now concur?
14 MR. MITCHELL:
Yes, and I feel comfortable in I I 15 *1 concurr1ng at this time.
I I 16 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
All right, very good.
17 So, the panel, then, concurs in the 18 recommendations of the Header Working Group as described in 19 last meeting.
20 MR. BALCOM:
John, before you move on to the 21 next topic, there was a recommendation or a suggestion this 22 morning that the Header Working Group meet again fairly 23 soon to take up a couple of issues that have to do with 24 defining the data elements for the Level 2 requirements, 25 and that was so-called "unitization" definitions, in other (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.
WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
 
52 1 1
words, what is a document, what does an attachment do to a 2
document and so on, and that there are some additional 3
parameters that go beyond what is in the field definition 4
summary table, part of which are already underway with 5
DOE's Records Management System, and are also being 6
incorporated into Level 2 requirements by those working on 7
the design.
8 And, it sounds like a good idea, it sounds like 1
9 a fairly short meeting, but it would have to happen fairly 10 quickly.
So, I open that up for any comment as to having 11 the Header Working Group meet and look at the data elements 12 land 13 complete some detail design considerations there.
MR. MITCHELL:
That would be before the July 14 1 I meeting?
15 MR. BALCOM :
Right, it would have to be in the 16,j next, probably, three weeks, as a matter of fact.
17 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
The outcome of the meeting 18 would be a recommendation to the panel, to the agency?
I I
19 1!
MR. BALCOM:
I hope what would happen there 20 would be simply that there would be a consensus on some 21, more finite aspects of, you know well, Dan, this was 22 your suggestion, do you want to add anything?
MR. GRASER:
Sure, Dan Graser, NRC.
In terms 24 of the actual header fields, I can give you a concrete 25 example.
The Department of Energy, for example, might have (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
53 1
a title field 500 characters long.
The LSS design boils 2
down to a piece of software that will only take 200 3
characters.
So, when you go to migrate data from the DOE 4
system into the LSS, you truncate the last 300 characters.
5 Well, obviously, you want to make sure that 6
doesn't happen, so it's really just a point of us trying to 7
provide enough detailed information on the structure of the 8
field itself, so that we are all of a general understanding 9
that when DOE runs the procurement they are going to ask 10 for an LSS system that will carry a title field 500 11 characters long, so that they know that that would be a 12 requirement in that area.
13 And, in terms of unitization, the point that 14 1was raised this morning is that, back when the LSS i
15 I prototype was being run, one of the products of that drill 16 was to develop a document on unitization of documents, and 17 that documentation, in fact, was incorporated very much 18 into the Department of Energy's document processing 19 structures.
But, if you go back to the rule, and we were 20 looking at things in terms of participant commitments and 21 the sort of guidance that the LSS administrator should be 22 giving to people early on, and we figure, well, if we are 23 the point where we are starting to get into the specific 24 aspects of how you catalogue the record, and how long the 25 field is going to be, we want to make sure that we are all (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
 
1 defining documents relatively consistently, and it is 2
something that the LSS administrator could issue as, you 3
know, a guidance sort of thing to the participants enough 4
in advance so that they incorporate it into the way, for 5
example, DOE starts to reprocess their documents, so that 6
they have that guidance from the get go and can do the 7
document unitization one time and do it right.
8 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Would the product of your work 9
be fed into the Level 2 requirements that we would be 10 looking at in the July meeting?
11 MR. BALCOM:
Yes, it's my understanding is that 1 12 they would.
13 14 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Okay, great.
MR. BALCOM:
Yes.
I 15,,
, I CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
All right.
Well then, we them in the process of the Level 2 requirements.
will 1 16 11 see I
17 Is your -- are the two subgroups sufficiently 18 different, or is the make-up of them about the same?
19 MR. BALCOM:
Well, I was wondering about that 20 this morning.
This is certainly a smaller subgroup, and 21 I'm not sure that it makes sense to get the whole Technical 22 Working Group together just to solve this fairly quick.
I 23 think this would go quickly, and it could be done by a 24 smaller number of people.
That would be my thoughts about 25 it.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
I
 
55 1
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Okay, please do that.
2 Okay, the next item on the agenda for today is 3
to hear from the LSS Administrator on current LSS activity 4
at NRC.
But, before I ask Moe to do that, let me just get 5
a time check.
It's 2:15.
Many of you are returning West I
6 this evening.
What time will you need to leave here, 3, 00? I 7
MS. NEWBURY:
I need to go by 3:00.
8 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
You need to leave by 3:00.
9 So, we have 45 minutes remaining.
What other topics were 10 going to be brought up by anyone?
Were you going to bring 11 up anything?
12 11 MS. NEWBURY:
I have nothing to bring up.
13
* I CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Okay.
I I 14 Brad?
15 I MR. METTAM:
I don't know if this is the
! I 16 ' appropriate time to do it, but I'm going to bring it up I
1 7 ! I anyway.
I have yet to hear a good explanation why the I
18 I Department is not using the electronic file that they used I
I, 19 :*, to create a 20, rather than
.I
*t*
21 1 recogn1 ion document, at least from this point forward, scanning in and using optical character for those future documents.
And, I'd like to 22 either find out why that is, so that I understand it, or 23 find out that I will never understand it and go away 24 disgruntled, but I'd like to resolve it, because it makes 25 no sense to me on the surface.
Maybe there's some deeper, (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
I I I
 
56 1
more complex reason why it can't be done, but it seems like 2
you could make an image, the image would contain the 3
signature, all that good stuff, because you are not going 4
to capture that with OCR anyway.
I 5
You could use the electronic file that was used I 6
to create the document and not have to worry about 7
scanning, you know, OCR accuracy.
Obviously, you still 8
need the OCR technology for all those past documents, but I !
just wanted to raise that issue.
I I
I 9
10 MS. NEWBURY:
I'm going to look toward the 11 of the room.
I think the answer is that we are in the 12 process of trying to do that, right, Preston?
back i 13 MR. JUNKIN:
Well, we are, for next year we do 14 ' have -- we are planning for next year, there is a task to l I 15 'j continue that analysis, and I will say continue, it's been 16 :
1 a hot topic of discussion for some time, but let me give 17 you a couple quick answers to claim why it is not trivial.
18 Number one, what we call native file formats, 19 :, such as Word Perfect, Word, things that we generate 20 documents in, are not in -- formats, that's why the panel 21 1 initially went to ASCII for text.
Ten years ago, and this I I 22 l 1system will last longer, you know, quite conceivably could 11 23 I last ten years, ten years ago most of our documents were on 24 Wang 9-1/2 11 floppies in a Wang format.
So, you can't 25 for long-term archival those are not a good format to use.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON. DC 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 However, it does make a lot of sense, given 2
that they are in electronic form, to get your nice clean 3
text out of those documents, and we certainly recognize 4
that, and that's what we are going to be analyzing.
5 It turns out it's not necessarily cheaper to 57 I 6
take a Word Perfect file, turn it into ASCII, because most 7
documents that they are made up of multiple file formats, 8
graphics and power point, for example, charts in 123 or 9
Excel, they are multiple file documents, and the physical 10 assembly of those images into the proper order to 11 constitute the actual document sometimes can be more 12 difficult.
If a single paper copy exists, for example, 13 that's been properly sorted, signed off and it's in the 14 right order, it actually can mean less labor to run it 15 through a scanner, an OCR, then to do that conversion.
16 MR. METTAM:
But, is the OCR software faced 17 with the same issues of what I do with the graphic image 18 and what do I do with stuff that's in tabular form?
19 20 MR. JUNKIN:
Yes, it is.
MR. METTAM:
But, I think, and maybe I'm wrong, 21 but it certainly seems on the face of it to make sense to 22 do it that way, and I guess -- I understand you are saying 23 you are looking at it, and that I suppose is good enough, 24 it's '95 and, you know, another couple years of loo~ing at 25 it and we won't have to worry about it.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
58 I 1
MR. JUNKIN:
I understand.
It does make sense, 2
but it's not trivial, and it's not obvious that that's the 3
way to go in many cases.
4 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Thank you.
I 5
All right.
Now, I'll turn to Moe Levin.
6 MR. LEVIN:
Most of the activities I'll report I 7
on have come about as a direct result of our NRC/LSS Senior 8
Management Team, and as I reported at the last meeting, 9
this team was formed to provide a mechanism for better 10 I coordination of all LSS-related activities within NRC.
11 And, it's already proved to be very, very beneficial of 12 :I bringing up issues and seeing that they are brought to 13 il closure, and I think it's going to make a positive
, I 14 ' contribution to this whole effort.
15 I
Now, I'll just go through very briefly some of
:I We've begun discussions with 16 11 the activities we've done.
17 ij DOE on creating the LSS Memorandum of Understanding between 18 II NRC and DOE, and we've decided on an approach of, rather 19 I than tackling all issues in one big MOU, we've decided to 20 break it up into phases of three or four different phases.
21 And, these phases are kind of in step with what we see as 22 the phases of the LSS.
23 The first phase is the design and 24 implementation phase.
There will be an MOU that covers all 25 issues related to the design and implementation of the LSS, (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
 
1 2
3 4
59 which is basically DOE's responsibility.
The second MOU would cover what we call the transition phase, and this is the phase where the hand-off occurs from DOE'S implementation of the system to the I
5 LSSA's operation of the system.
Included in the second Mou l I
6 would be all the agreements related to budgeting and I I 7
funding for the LSS.
8 9
10 11 12 13 The third phase and the third MOU would be the I operation phase, and this is where the LSS administrator is actually operating the system, it's up, and it's available to people, and all of the responsibilities between the two agencies in this phase would be outlined in that MOU.
And, we've also discussed a possible fourth I
14 ' phase, and this fourth MOU or fourth phase, which would be '
ii 15 i! once the hearing is done, it's envisioned that the LSS 16 ;I would have some utility for a long time thereafter.
I've 17 heard numbers like maybe 100 years for subsequent activity, 18 and, obviously, during that period of time there will need 19 to be some accommodations made or agreements made to keep 20 maintaining that for a long period of time, enhancing it, 21 and whatever, and maybe even adding new functionality as 22 the requirements arise.
So, that might be a fourth MOU.
23 24 we can Our logic in structuring it this way was that it allows us to focus and come to closure on 25 issues and resolve them in the ti:nte frame of the related (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
60 1
activity.
For instance, we are currently in the first 2
phase, the design phase, and there are a lot of issues that 3
need to be answered right now.
We can't wait until we get 4 all the issues for all phases answered.
So, we decided 5
just to concentrate on those issues right now so we don't 6
compromise any schedules or plans from DOE, and it seems to 7
make a lot of sense, but that was the underlying logic 8
behind our decision to do it this way.
9 And, I guess our current thinking is that we'll 10 have a draft of the first MOU ready to start through the 11 concurrence chain by the end of June, right, Claudia?
12 13 MS. NEWBURY:
Yes.
MR. LEVIN:
And then, whatever -- what we mean 14 !l by that is that, both staffs from both agencies working on 15 this will have come to an agreement on the wording, the 16 content and everything, and then it's just a matter of 17 going through the steps to get it signed off at the 18 appropriate levels.
19 MR. SILBERG:
When do you intend to make that 20 available to this group?
21 22 MR. LEVIN:
That's a good point.
MS. NEWBURY:
How about at the July meeting, or 23 ' do you want it before then?
24 25 agencies?
(202) 234-4433 MR. SILBERG:
Are you still in review in both NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.
WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
61 1
MS. NEWBURY:
It's still under development in 2
both agencies right now.
3 MR. LEVIN:
Maybe we can get it out, you know, 4
enough in advance of the meeting so you'll have a chance to I
5 look at it.
6 Is there anymore discussion on the MOU or any 7
questions?
8 MR. FRISHMAN:
Commissioner Jackson this 9
morning made a suggestion about a higher level MOU.
Have 10 you had a chance to think about that, or whether it's 11 consistent with this phasing that you have described here, 12 because I'm not sure I really understood what she was 13 saying.
14 MR. LEVIN:
I think she was saying that maybe 15 another MOU to memorialize and make sure that there's 16 understanding on this need for the decision-making process.
17 This has been some kind of an issue that's been raised, 18 that everybody would agree that, yes, we realize the need 19 for this, and that we will have a discipline or a process 20 that makes sure that decisions can be tracked, traced back, 21 you know, to get all the steps up to making a decision.
22 We haven't had a chance -- that's my 23 interpretation of what was said, we've had absolutely no 24 discussion on this.
25 (202) 234-4433 MR. FRISHMAN:
Well, maybe at the next meeting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
62 '
1 we could hear your thoughts on what she said.
2 MS. NEWBURY:
Steve, it does raise an 3
interesting question, though, and, that is, we talked about 4
DOE's memorializing its decision processes, but there are 5
other people making decisions on this besides DOE, and so 6
we all have to think about how we are going to keep track 7
of all of our decision processes and be able to trace back 8
through.
9 MR. LEVIN:
And, I think that was the genesis 10 of Commissioner's Jackson's comment exactly.
11 Another thing that's occurred since the last 12 1meeting was, on April 27th the Inspector General of the NRC 13 and the Senior Management Team briefed the Commission on 14 11the IG audit and follow-up activities, and I just wanted to II 15 1 report on what I saw as the main points made by the 16 Commission in response to the briefing.
They were, (1) 17 that the LSS is absolutely vital to the repository 18 licensing, they reaffirmed that, that the Commission will 19 need to intensify support for coming to closure on LSS-20 related issues, and I think that I see things kind of 21 accelerating with a schedule and plan for the MOUs and 22 everything, and I think that's going to happen.
And also, 23 that an LSS pilot needs to be put in place immediately, in 24 order to assure proper functionality into surface issues 25 related to document preparation, inclusion and access.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
63 1
I'll discuss this a little bit more in a minute.
2 Those are what I saw as the main points.
Does 3
anybody else who was at that briefing think there's 4
anything else that should be mentioned?
5 MR. SILBERG:
I assume the Commission did not 6
issue an SRM or something, a follow-up document after the 7
briefing?
8 9
briefed?
10 11 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
After the staff and the IG MR. SILBERG:
Right.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Yes, there is an SRM out.
12 It's recently out.
I don't know* if it's in the PDR yet.
13 14 I yet?
15 16 17 transcript.
18 MR. SILBERG:
Okay, that hasn't been circulated '
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
I'll get it there.
MR. CAMERON:
There, of course, is a MR. SILBERG:
Right, the transcript was 19 circulated, I was just curious if the Commission followed 20 it up.
21 22 MR. METTAM:
What is an SRM document?
MR. SILBERG:
SRM is a Staff Requirements Memo, 23 and it's the device by which the commissioners tell the 24 staff what to do.
25 (202) 234-4433 MR. CAMERON:
I would say one thing related to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
64 I 1
what might be happening in the future.
There were a number 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 I of issues raised today by the Commission that I think that the staff at the NRC is going to begin to explore, perhaps, under the leadership of the Senior Management Team, but as those issues are identified we are going to be corning out to the panel to discuss those issues.
So, there may be I I things popping up on the agenda for the panel in the future I that come out of our exploration of certain things that were raised at the Commission meeting today.
MR. SILBERG:
Will you ~irculate a transcript 11 I today's meeting?
ll of ii 12 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
13 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Yes, I sure will.
14 I MR. LEVIN:
Another activity that the Senior I I 15 Management Team is working on is the -- we ' ve outlined or
*I 16 1 completed the outline for a paper that we are hoping to 17 have to the Commission, at least a draft of the paper, by 18 the 1st of June, and this paper comes as a result of the 19 l! SMT's first task, which was to provide the Commission 20 ;! recommendations on how to proceed on the LSS.
I just 21 j/ wanted to report that this is coming, and so far we just 22 I have an outline.
We'll spend the rest of the time between I
23 1now and the 1st of June just putting some meat on the 24 bones.
25 A follow-up item from the last ARP meeting was (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
65 1 1
on the participant commitments document that we took your 2
comments, revised the document, sent it out.
We didn't get 3
any additional comments, so we consider this issue 4
basically closed.
That doesn't mean that we aren't going 5
to continue to look at the commitments document and find 6
the wrinkles and try and smooth them out, and also, one of 7
our next activities related to this is, we are going to 8
focus on ways to simplify the entire compliance assessment 9
program, and this is in line with what we discussed at the 10 last meeting.
11 Now, getting back to the idea of a vehicle to 12 pilot LSS functionality, part of our discussions in the 13 Senior Management Team is to surface the idea of using a 14 system that's been developed for our Office of Nuclear 15 Material Safety and Safeguards, and the name of the system 16 is TDOX, and it's a system that was developed for NMSS to 17 manage their own technical documents in electronic format, 18 give them an electronic search and retrieval and access.
19 The thought is that the TDOX may represent some 20 of the functionality of the LSS, and there may be some 21 activities we can do using TDOX to start modeling, not all, 22 but some of the LSS functionality, and this might be done 23 in conjunction with things that DOE can provide as far as 24 access to their system and little pieces of what might 25 represent parts of the LSS functionality.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON, DC. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
66 1
During the briefing this morning by DOE, 2
Commissioner Rogers reemphasized the need for a pilot.
His 3
vision was a prototype type situation, where you had really 4
one system that represented all the elements of what you 5
might want to do with an LSS.
Don't know if that can be 6
done or not, that's something we have to look at, but in 7
the meantime I think there's utility in looking at these 8
other things that may already be in place that we can use 9
to at least look at a segment of LSS functionality.
10 And, as a matter of fact, one of the 11 suggestions now coming out from NMSS is that we use the NPC '
12 application as a pilot for LSS functionality.
13 14 MR. CAMERON:
Where is Mel when we need him?
MR. LEVIN:
I know, I was hoping Mel would be 15 here.
I was expecting to get some kind of reaction.
16 this was an idea that just came up last week, and we're 17 going to start exploring it, and I will obviously keep
: But, 18 everybody here informed of it, but it's kind of coming back ;
I I
I 19 20 21 to an idea that had its genesis here, I guess, in an ARP meeting two or three meetings ago, and now it looks like may be able to do something.
we I 22 The idea is that, we are not even sure that 23 TDOX is going to be useful for this, but it may, so we 24 thought we might look at it.
We have something in hand, 25 and we have the application coming, and, of course, the MPC (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
 
67 1
application, the whole proceeding would not hinge on, in any, shape or form, this TDOX system, it's just whoever felt it was convenient to use it, try it out for some I
2 3
4 things, would use it, but it would in no way get in the way I 5
of the regular process.
So, this is something that, again, 6
we'll try and flush out a little bit more and report on at 7
the next meeting.
8 That about sums up all the activities since our 9
last meeting.
10 MR. SILBERG:
Moe, one question going back a 11 couple items.
The paper to the Commission that you 12 targeted that you want, is that an internal document or is 13 that something that we'll get to see after it goes up?
14 l MR. LEVIN:
Once it is made public, you won't 15 !be able to comment on it, obviously, until it is public, 16 but like all other documents, you will.
17 MR. SILBERG:
I mean, will it go out, 18 essentially, at the same time as it goes to the Commission?
19 20 MR. LEVIN:
What's the process on that, John?
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
The process is that it goes to 21 the Commission and gets acted on first, before it is ma~e 22 public.
The Commission may choose t.o share this with the 23 panel and--with the public ~iJe it i-s, delib.erating.
I ~ill 24 r~ise the issue with them.
25 The normal process is pre-decisional until (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON. D C 2000S (202) 234-4433
 
1 we've acted on it.
2 MR. SILBERG:
Sometimes these papers can come 3
out quickly.
I just saw one SECI paper that was just 4
released that goes back to 1987, and it was just released 5
last week.
6 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
In 1987, we didn't have the 68 7
present policy, which is to release papers rather quickly, 8
and we do.
We usually release them within ten days after 9
the Commission has acted on them.
10 Any further discussion of activity here in the 11 NRC?
Unless there is other business to be brought up --
12 yes.
13 MR. SILBERG:
There is one comment, and I 14, apologize for not being here at the beginning of the I I 15 J meeting, I was delayed at a meeting out of town.
The 16 letter that went to Moe concerning the recommendations on 17 the LSS rule, there's one comment that isn't really dealt 18 with in this letter that I would just like to put on the 19 table.
The draft, as it was circulated, recommended to the 20 Commission that the LSS rule be interpreted in a ceratin 21 way to avoid being limited by the terminology that was 22 adopted when the final rule was published in light of 23 changes in technology.
And, I agree with the substance of 24 this, and I also certainly agree that, you know, DOE 25 shouldn't necessarily feel constrained by using outmoded (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
69 1
verbiage.
2 The one suggestion that I'd like to make is 3
that it would be useful, perhaps, very useful, to have some 4
kind of Commission recognition that, in fact, that is the 5
appropriate interpretation of this rule.
I would hate to 6
go five years down the pike and have everyone interpreting 7
the rule, so that, you know, dial up doesn't mean dial up, 8 it means something that's more generic, and then have a 9
challenge be made five or ten years from now and find out 10 that, gee, the rule wasn't amended and there's nothing on 11 the record that indicates this is an appropriate 12 interpretation of the rule. It would be very useful to 13 14 1 I
15 I I
have a contemporaneous recognition by the Commission now that this is, in fact, the interpretation that people ought to use going forward.
I 16 MR. CAMERON:
I guess we would need to -- I can 1 17 18 see the advisability of doing that, what we would need to do is to specify each instance that we are talking about, 19 though, I think.
In other words, work station, ASCII, all 20 that stuff, because it could be too open ended otherwise.
21 We need to do that whatever we do, I would imagine.
22 MR. SILBERG:
Just something that would track 23 the scope of this letter, so that there's an 24 acknowledgement by the people who have the power to 25 interpret Commission rules that it's okay to do this, and (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
I I I
 
1 so you don't get second guessed five or ten years from now.
2 MR. LEVIN:
What would be the vehicle for doing 3
something like that?
4 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Probably a memorandum from me 5
to the Commission.
The DOE gave us a list at the last 6
meeting of the terms and usage of words that -- is that an 7
exhaustive list, so to speak, or is that the list of 8
examples that we should be using?
9 10 11 12 MR. SILBERG:
That was an exhaustive list.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Okay.
Stan, did I see a hand?
MR. NICHOLS:
Yes.
There's just one mechanism 13 that might be -- in addition to a general statement by the 14 Commission, they could recognize or somehow ratify the work I
15 I of the ARP in developing the multilevel requirements that 16 : are being interpreted in real time to be more expansive 17 I than the strict interpretation of the rule.
I don't know 18 i if that would help serve that or not.
In other words, this I 19 I is exactly what you are wrestling with with the working 20 groups and then the panel itself as they vote on 21 requirements now, see.
If they somehow ratify that effort.
MR. SILBERG:
That's a little broader.
Another 22 23 way to do it, you know, would be a General Counsel's 24 opinion.
25 (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
I think the last one was NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.NW.
WASHINGTON. DC 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
 
1 issued in 1977.
2 3
right?
4 5
MR. CAMERON:
It emphasizes the last one, CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Was it autographed?
I
/1,,...__
r *,1 c..
Well, that's why we put c~~ here 71 6
specifically on the cc list of this memorandum, but that's 7
not to say we shouldn't go further.
8 MR. SILBERG:
Yes.
I just think to have some 9
very high level recognition that would be binding, more or 10 less.
11 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Well, I think that's not 12 inappropriate.
I'm reminded, though, that the rule says 13 that consensus advice by this panel is to be followed by 14 DOE and NRC.
So, in terms of requirements, I would think 15 that would apply.
16 MR. NICHOLS:
You couldn't be giving advice 17 that would be inconsistent with the regulation.
That's 18 where you could bump into problems, and if there is someone j 19 saying, well, the plain meaning of dial up is dial up, then I 20 you could get into an argument.
And, it's to avoid that 21 kind of thing years from now that Jay is addressing.
So, 22 you could argue that what you were agreeing upon was 23 outside your authority to agree, because it fell outside 24 the four corners of the reg.
That's a very narrow 25 restrictive interpretation that you want to avoid down the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
72 1
line.
2 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Well, it's like me saying I'm 3
going to go xerox a copy of this, where I mean I'm going to 1
4 go to the Kodak machine to do that.
5 Bill?
6 MR. OLMSTEAD:
consider yourself the Oracle.
7 The General Counsel has reviewed the May 12th John Hoyle 8
memorandum of Arnold E. Levine and agrees with the 9
interpretations therein.
How's that.
10 MR. LEVIN:
Let the record show that's Levin.
11 MR. CAMERON:
I guess that takes care of it, 12 right there.
13 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
All right.
14 Then, let's talk about the next meeting.
Lloyd 15 I lhas proposed - - we had talked last time about a date, and I
16 I we selected early July, and Lloyd proposed that we meet at 17 the Oneida Reservation near Green Bay, Wisconsin, for the 18 next meeting.
19 And, I sent around a memo to everyone to see 20 whether that met with concurrence, and it has.
No one has 21 said that's not a good idea.
So, unless there's change in 22 the date, which is July the 6th and the morning of the 7th, 23 if we need it, that's a Thursday and Friday, the plan is to 24 meet in the space that Lloyd is going to provide.
25 Lloyd, do you want to add anything at this time (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
73 1
to that?
2 MR. MITCHELL:
The only thing I would have to 3
add is that I'm working with John in making sure that we 4
have the appropriate room set up, and enough rooms and so 5
forth, and I believe you've had a chance, or you've gotten 6
that information, and if you want to forward any of that 7
on, or if any other questions I guess could be directly 8
referred to John.
We have it set up so that you can just 9
bring appeal directly, or just let us know and we can 10 arrange to have them processed different ways and so forth.
11 That's about it.
12 If anybody needs any* special requirements for 13 I rooms, or food, or meeting set-ups, let me know if we need 14 I. to have a break-off room, if the Header Group might want to I I 15 li meet a day ahead of time or something like that, or a 16 couple hours ahead of time, just let me know.
17 18 19 20 21 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
All right, Lloyd, thank you.
I think maybe the members have gotten a copy this from the Ratison people.
of I I MR. CAMERON:
Some have and some haven't.
MR. METTAM:
I got a letter addressed to LSS 22 ARP.embers.
23 MR. CAMERON:
I think we might have Left out 24 two,~ couple.
If you dida!t g.e.t one, leave me your card 25 and we'll make sure that you get one.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
I
 
1 2
MR. LEVIN:
Lloyd, I'd like one, too.
MR. MITCHELL:
We forgot you, Moe?
74 3
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
All right.
The topics for the I 4
next meeting that I believe will at least head the list, 5
and there may be others that come up before meeting time, 6
would be the report of the Technical Working Group on the 7
Level 2 requirements, a discussion of the status of the MOU 8
and maybe a draft of the MOU.
9 Claudia, how about the inclusion/exclusion 10 criteria?
I heard this morning that, perhaps, that would 11 have even been discussed today.
12 MS. NEWBURY:
Maybe we should put it on the 13 agenda just for some discussion points on what we could do 14 to improve the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
15 16 meeting.
17 18 MR. CAMERON:
For the agenda for the next MS. NEWBURY:
For the next one, yes.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Okay.
19 Should there be discussion of use of the DOE's 20 present system to find decision documents?
21 MS. NEWBURY:
Yes.
We plan to have something 22 for you at that meeting.
23 24 25 (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Okay.
Are there other topics?
MR. METTAM:
I have just a question on a topic.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
75 I 1
Didn't we discuss inclusion/exclusion at the last meeting, 2
and didn't we all fairly say, I thought we said, Subpart J 3
seems fairly specific, the section.
I was somewhat 4
surprised to hear him come back, hear Steve -- come back 5
with that as an issue still.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 MR. CAMERON:
Well, I think it's -- it's still an outstanding issue to the Commission that we want to make I sure that we explore as much as we can before closing it, i
I and that's why I think there was some discussion, I think 1
I I
some of the comments from the commissioners that you heard I today touched on that subject.
So, I think, we don't want to necessarily repeat only what we said that were discussed the last time, I
14 11 but I think that we need to give it some more time.
I 15 I MR. METTAM:
So, it would be helpful then if 16 there is someone, you know, who did a little piece on what 17 the issues are that need to be clarified, or in what areas 18 do they see grey in those, so that we can address it in a 19 more focused manner.
20 21 MR. CAMERON:
That's a good idea.
MS. NEWBURY:
I'll take an action and we'll put 22 1 something together for you.
23 MR. HENKEL:
I have one other point that we 24 might want to consider at the next meeting.
I'm sure most 25 of you people are aware that the federal budget process is (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
76 1
looking at some tremendous cuts in the DOE program.
: And, 2
by the time of the next meeting we'll probably know a lot 3
more about how that is shaping up, and I think it might be 4
helpful if we could get some information as to how that 5
might affect the LSS.
We're talking about the House is 6
proposing a budget of $200 million for the whole program, 7
and the Senate is talking about $400 million, so if you 8
assume we are going to maybe get $300 million, that's a 9
major difference, and it may have significant ramifications '
10 to this particular project.
11 MS. NEWBURY:
Well, not just the budgets, but 12 the current legislation, proposed legislation, has a lot of 13 significance as well.
14 MR. HENKEL:
Yes.
We might know more about 15 that by July as well.
16 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Well, could I ask DOE then to 17 be prepared to give us an update on activities?
I I I
I 18 MS. NEWBURY:
You'll probably know as much as I
I : I 19 know from reading the Post.
20 MR. SILBERG:
One of the issues that I think 21 would be worth at least bearing in mind, as you go through 22 the design of the system, is the need to remain flexible to 23 changes in funding.
So, if suddenly instead of being able 24 to spend X million dollars a year on the LSS, you have to 25 go to X, you know, -Y, that we not design a structure which (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W, WASHINGTON, DC, 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
77 1
is so inflexible that we go to zero.
2 MS. NEWBURY:
I think that's why in the Level 1 3
requirements, Jay, they put that we have a modular system, 4
that was the first requirement, and that's partially it.
5 6
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Any other --
MR. MITCHELL:
Just a quick note for next --
7 for July's meeting.
The airport is located directly across 8
from the hotel.
Everything is on the reservation there, so 9
you can actually walk across the street from when you get 10 off at the airport, get your luggage, and walk across to 11 the hotel if you choose to do so.
There's also a little 12 bus that goes across the street to get you if you want, so 13 if anybody wants to get there the evening beforehand, just 14 let me know and we can show you around, we can, you know, 15 whatever.
16 17 MR. BALCOM:
Is that the Green Bay Airport?
MR. MITCHELL:
The Green Bay Airport, right, 18 and it's just remodeled now, so you should find your way 19 pretty easy around there.
We have three golf courses, we 20 have an Oneida Golf Course, a riding club, a driving range, 21 and that's on the reservation, and another golf course 22 that's in the Green Bay area.
23 24 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
John, I think that John 25 Gandy believes he is committed to a presentation on the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, DC 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
78 1
access to -- record system.
2 MS. NEWBURY:
We already discussed that, Jim.
3 We've got it all.
CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Roger?
4 5
MR. HARDWICK:
I neglected to mention earlier, 6
the Technical Working Group tentatively has a meeting 7
scheduled June 13th, 14th or 15th, for two days, we are 8
targeting Denver, and it's going to depend a great deal on 9
the availability of the Level 2 functional requirements.
10 The group has decided that we need to have a week or so, or 11 two, to review it prior to our meeting, but if we could be 12 included on the agenda for the July meeting, we will have a 13 definite status update on the requirements.
14 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:
Let me mention also, the 15 Commission is getting two more briefings from Mr. Dryfuss.
16 On June the 9th, at 9:00 in the morning, here at the 17 agency, he'll be briefing on the multi-purpose canister 18 program, and then following that a general briefing on the 19 high-level waste program.
20 Are there any members of the public in the 21 audience that would like to comment, add?
22 Has there been circulating an attendance sheet?
23 I would like one, please.
Could I ask someone to put a 24 piece of paper at the door, and if you would sign it as you 25 go out.
I, of course, have the names of all the panel (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.
WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
79 1
members up here, so you don't need to sign.
2 Anything else? All right, the meeting is 3
adjourned.
4 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 2:50 5
p.m.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 1 5 I 16 I 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
C E R T I F I C A T E This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding:
LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISSORY REVIEW PANEL Docket Number:
N/A Place of Proceeding:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
(202) 234-4433 JOHN MONGOVE Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON. DC. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
 
==SUBJECT:==
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 May 12, 1995
. Levi, LSS Administrator
~,/4_-;
LSSARP Chairman RECOMMENDATION RE LSS RULE At its March 22-23, 1995 meeting, the LSS Advisory Review Panel discussed language in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J (the LSS rule) relating to the processing of electronic information using computer hardware, software and procedures.
It was noted that the LSS rule contains certain language which, although appropriate in 1989 when the rule was promulgated, refers to older technology and standards that would limit current cost-effective design of the LSS.
For instance, terms used in the rule such as ASCII, terminal, dial-up, electronic mailbox and thesaurus refer to aspects of technology that are much broader and varied now than they were when the rule was developed.
The Panel recommends that the Commission, in interpreting provisions of the LSS Rule containing such technical terms, be guided by the underlying functional requirements and intent of these provisions in order to be able to avoid the limitations of outmoded technology.
These provisions of the LSS Rule should be used as guides to intended functionality rather than absolute mandates for a particular technology.
The Panel also recommends that DOE proceed with this understanding unless it hears otherwise from the Commission.
cc:
Hugh Thompson, Deputy Executive Director for Operations, NRC Karen Cyr, General Counsel, NRC Claudia Newbury, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, DOE
 
YMP-5 Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office P.O. Box 98608 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8608 APR 2 8 1995 Jerri J. Adams, Assistant Manager for Administration, YMSCO, NV SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTION FOR LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM (LSS)
DEVELOPMENT (SCPB:
N/A)
Having reviewed the LSS Workin~ Group's Evaluation of LSS Options report, and considering the recommendations of the Information Resources Manager (enclosure 1), the Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing has selected the Working Group's Option 6 as the preferred operational concept for development of lower tier LSS requirements.
Please use the enclosed Phase I Functional Requirements Document (enclosure 2) to develop the level of requirements necessary for an Analysis of Benefits and Costs (ABC), and proceed with an ABC for the LSS in compliance with the schedules as presented in the Project Summary Schedule (Milestone 9894A).
If you have any questions, please call Claudia M. Newbury at 794-7942.
~..&~~~a~n<<:ir. Brocoum AMSL:CMN-2611
 
==Enclosures:==
: 1.
Memo, 4/7/95, Newbury to File
: 2.
Phase I Functional Requirements Document cc w/encls:
Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing J.C. Hoyle, NRC, Washington DC A. E. Levin, NRC, Washington, DC G. F. Dickerson, M&O, Washington, DC Virgil Rochester, M&O, Las Vegas, NV J. G. Gandi, YMSCO, NV Mary lilln Jones, YMSCO, NV
 
Date:
From:
To:
 
==Subject:==
MEMORANDUM April 7, 1995
/jl;/--1f<.J.
Claudia M. Newb~/
FILE LSS Development Option Based on the following information from the Information Resources Management and my own reviews of the M&O LSS Working Group report and the Level I Functional requirements document, I recommend that Option 6 be selected for development.
Option 6 consists of an electronic image based system that provides for electronic dissemination of information including full text search It does not require that text files be verified and corrected via human intervention The IRM evaluation Is as follows*
As presented in the LSS Working Group report, Options 2-8 meet the basic requirements of 1 0CFR2 Subpart J, with Options 6 and 8 being the most attractive with regards to overall responsiveness and cost. The primary difference between these options is that in addition to the electronic distribution of images provided by both options, Option 8 also provides for image distribution via CD-ROM. The CD-ROM library contains all LSS holdings since the last distribution with any new material being provided via on-line transmIssIon. Cost estimates for Option 8 are approximately $1 M higher than Option 6 Primary concerns with Option 8 are the logistics associated with CD-ROM distribution, inventory control and the value added (if any) by this additional functionality. The only potential benefit would be the reduction of network loading due to the local availability of images from the CD-ROM library. Even so, the end-user will more than likely perform searches using the on-line electronic image database to ensure that an exhaustive search has been performed. Furthermore, given that the electronic on-line images database contains the most complete and up-to-date source of information, end-users would use the on-line searches as their preferred mode of operation. Therefore the only time It would be benef1c1al to use the library is if the desired document image is available on the CD-ROM library and it is more expedient to obtain hardcopies of the image locally. Over time, users will migrate to, and utilize the system providing the most comprehensive access to available information From this perspective, the CD-ROM library may become obsolete from the user perspective.
Furthermore, given the rapid advances in storage technology, it would not be prudent to specify a particular type of library retrieval system (1.e., CD-ROM based) at this time.
Based upon these issues and concerns, IRM recommends that LSS Option 6 be adopted as the preferred approach for the implementation of the LSS.
 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Licensing Support System Phase I Functional Requirements Draft February 28, 1995 Prepared for:
U. S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office P.O. Box 98608 Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8608 Prepared by:
TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc.
101 Convention Center Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 Under Contract Number DE-AC0l-9 lRW00 134 WBS: 1.2.5 QA:
NIA ENCLOSURI
~
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
: 1. INTRODUCTION................................................
1 1.1 PURPOSE...............................................
1
 
==1.2 BACKGROUND==
1
: 2. LSS DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 2
2.1 REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION PROCESS........................
2 2.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS..................................
3 2.3 REGULATORY ISSUES.....................................
5
: 3. REQUIREMENT DEFINITIONS................................. :...
8 3.1 OVERVIEW OF APPLICABLE 10 CFR 2 SUBPART J CITATIONS......
8 3.2 INTERPRETATION OF SUBPART J DESIGN REQUIREMENTS........ 10
: 4. REFERENCES.................................................. 31 DRAFT ii 2/2!3/95
: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE This document presents the fust level of Licensing Support System (LSS) functional requirements from which more detailed requirements can be derived.
LSS functional requirements are necessary to facilitate an Analysis of Benefits and Costs (ABC), as required by Department of Energy Orders 1330.lD and 1360.lB, and to support system design. All functional requirements presented in this document are derived from the regulations found in 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J.
The regulatory language found in Subpart J is cast into more precise statements that can be used as the basis for detailed specifications. The functional requirements consider only those Subpart J citations that specify or imply required LSS design features. Traceability is maintained between the applicable Subpart J citations and the functional requirements by means of a trace matrix which provides a side-by-side matching of requirements to the applicable regulations.
 
==1.2 BACKGROUND==
This document is not the first to present LS3 functional requirements.
LSS functional requirements are specified in a document entitled "Licensing Support System System-Level Requirements Document" (Reference 1). This document presents a listing of functional and performance requirements identified for the LSS through analysis, conceptual design, and prototyping efforts performed by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) during the 1988 - 1990 ti.me frame. This document was evaluated as part of the LSS Working Group's efforts to identify an optimal LSS implementation strategy.
The evaluation focused on determining if the document could be used to perform an ABC, and if it could be used as part of a Request for Proposal (RFP) if a buy decision is made, or as a requirements document if the LSS is developed internally.
The Working Group's evaluation (Reference 2, Section 3.4) suggested that as an overall specification, the requirements in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J are satisfied by the SAIC document.
However, there are several deficiencies in the document, when viewed as a system-level or software requirements specification, that preclude its use in an ABC ur in an RFP. In many instances, the document specified system design, included procedural requirements, and contained ambiguous and untestable requirements. In addition, there were many design requirements included in the document that were judged to exceed Subpart J requirements. In short, the document reflected the proposed LSS architecture at the time and the requirements that describe this design could exclude many potentially feasible LSS implementations. Based upon these observations, the LSS Working Group recommended that the LSS requirements document be revised to specify only system functionality.
The LSS Phase I Functional Requirements document represents the first step in this effort--the coalescing of regulatory citations into more concise functional requirements. Detailed functionality will be developed in a separate LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document.
DRAFf 1
2/U,/95
: 2. LSS DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Use of the LSS during the high-level waste hearings will represent the first time that an electronic document discovery system has been used during an NRC licensing hearing. Because the LSS is a first-of-a-kind system that is intended to support a first-of-a-kind licensing process, there is a certain degree of uncertainty that should be anticipated in designing and implementing the LSS. This section describes a process for developing LSS functional requirements that should minimize this uncertainty and maximize participation by interested parties. In addition, the LSS will pose unprecedented challenges to the information management community because of the projected size of the LSS database and longevity of the system. Several design and operation considerations are discussed in this section that could impact the specification of lower-level requirements. Finally, several regulatory issues are discussed that could ultimately impact how the LSS is implemented.
2.1 REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION PROCESS The technical description of the LSS presented in 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J is general in nature.
It provides a framework for how the LSS should be structured and operated, but does not describe the intended LSS functionality in the detail necessary to purchase or develop the system.
Therefore, the details of how the LSS will be implemented are not clearly defined and will most likely be a subject of discussion with interested parties. To facilitate this discussion, LSS functionality will be defined using a "level" concept where subsequently lower requirement levels provide increasingly detailed information on how the function will be implemented. The level concept is simply a method of decomposing the LSS system design requirements into finer and finer detail until sufficient information exists to either buy or build the system. This concept also supports LSS requirements discussions with interested parties who want to understand the LSS design, but do not wish to delve into the details of the design. The individual reviewer may focus on the level that presents LSS functionality at the granularity that he/she is most comfortable.
Before the LSS system design can be decomposed into finer detail, it is necessary to provide a starting point. The LSS Phase I LSS Functional Requirements document represents this starting point. The LSS design requirements and implied functionality contained in Subpart J have been analyzed and coalesced in this document into a set of requirements definitions that represent the first level of LSS requirements. In several instances, this activity required interpretation of the Subpart J requirements. Comments are included in the requirement definition to explain these interpretations. The LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document will contain all subsequent requirement levels.
The LSS directly supports the high-level waste repository licensing process and is therefore considered a tool of licensing. Consequently, defining the general nature of the electronic information management system required in Subpart J is the responsibility of the Regulatory and DRAFT 2
2(12,/95
 
Licensing organization within the Office of Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). The LSS Phase I Functional Requirements document was prepared by the Regulatory and Licensing organization to provide this general description and facilitate a "hand off' to the OCR WM Information Resources Management (IRM) organization.
The LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document will be prepared by the OCRWM IRM organization to define LSS functionality in sufficient detail to support the ABC and support LSS evaluation and acceptance testing.
2.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The LSS is described in Subpart J as an electronic records management system containing the documentary material of all parties to the high-level waste licensing hearing (&sect;2.1002). Although the LSS is effectively a large database management system, it is unique because the volume of information expected to be processed and stored in the system is enormous. This volume has been estimated through the year 2010 in Reference 2 and is shown in Table 1. From this table it is apparent that the manner in which the LSS data is stored must be flexible enough to accommodate the projected volume. It must also be flexible enough to adapt to the varying rates at which data is added to the system, particularly if these rates are significantly different than estimated.
Processing this large volume of data will also represent a unique challenge. The shear volume demands that an efficient information processing procedure be identified and implemented.
Studies performed by the LSS Working Group indicate that the cost of processing documents (e.g. indexing), and hence the cost of operating the LSS, is very sensitive to the time necessary for humans to participate in the processing procedure. Therefore, to minimize LSS operating costs, the LSS design should attempt, to the greatest extent possible, to incorporate automation technologies that eliminate document processing tasks currently performed by humans.
As part of its charter, the LSS Working Group was asked to recommend a preferred option for implementing the LSS. The Working Group identified and evaluated seven implementation options. A description of these options is found in Section 4 of the LSS Working Group report (Reference 2), and is summarized in Table 2. The LSS Working Group recommended that DOE implement Option 6, although Options 5, 6, and 8 were all considered viable implementation options. It is expected that the LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document will describe a concept of operation for the LSS based upon the option chosen by DOE.
DRAFT 3
2/?-8/95
 
Table 1. Estimated LSS Page Volume 90%
OCRWM OCRWM NRC NRC Others Others Total Pages Relevant Year Pages/Year Cumulative Pages/Year Cumulative Pages/Year Cumulative Added Cumulative Yearly 1994 580,000 6,905,000 59,000 550,000 18,000 18,000 657,000 6,782,000 1995 750,000 7,655,000 59,000 654,000 23,000 41,000 832,000 7,584,000 1996 1,351,000 9,005,000 65,000 760,000 42,000 82,000 1,457,000 8,947,000 1997 1,682,000 10,687,000 71,000 891,000 52,000 134,000 1,804,000 10,644,000 1998 1,970,000 12,657,000 78,000 1,046,000 61,000 195,000 2,109,000 12,632,000 1999 2,013,000 14,670,000 86,000 1,203,000 62,000 257,000 2,161,000 14,663,000 2000 2,276,000 16,946,000 95,000 1,381,000 70,000 327,000 2,440,000 16,959,000 2001 2,371,000 19,317,000 104,000 1,567,000 73,000 400,000 2,548,000 19,351,000 2002 1,628,000 20,945,000 114,000 1,694,000 50,000 450,000 1,793,000 20,994,000 2003 1,584,000 22,529,000 126,000 1,818,000 49,000 498,000 1,759,000 22,593,000 2004 1,756,000 24,285,000 139,000 1,956,000 54,000 552,000 1,949,000 24,365,000 2005 1,708,000 25,993,000 152,000 2,089,000 53,000 605,000 1,913,000 26,088,000 2006 1,514,000 27,506,000 168,000 2,208,000 47,000 652,000 1,728.000 27,615,000 2007 1,674,000 29,181,000 184,000 2,339,000 52,000 703,000 1,910,000 29,305,000 2008 1,756,000 30,937,000 203,000 2,476,000 54,000 757,000 2,013,000 31,077,000 2009 1,247,000 32,184,000 223,000 2,574,000 38,000 795,000 1,509,000 32,335,000 2010 1,124,000 33,308,000 245,000 2,662,000 35,000 830,000 1,404,000 33,469,000 Note: The number of bibliographic headers can be approximated by dividing total page counts by 13, the nominal number of pages per document.
DRAFf 4
2/28/95
 
Table 2. LSS Option Features Licensing Support Option System Features 2
3 4
5 6
7 I 8 Microfilm based system No No No No No No No Electronic images based Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes system Electronic image on-line No No No Yes Yes No Yes
( electronic dissemination)
Image disseminated on No Yes No No No Yes Yes 1 CD-ROM library 1 Image available as hard Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes copy from central site (mail/fax)
Text on-line (electronic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes dissemination, including full text search)
Human verified and Yes Yes No Yes No No No corrected text Bibliographic header on-Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes line ( electronic dissemination)
The CD-ROM library contains all LSS holdings, and is not generated as a response to particular queries. The CD-ROM contains image, text and text search index of the docwnents held on ea.ch individual CD.
Electronic images will be provided via on-line transmission between CD-ROM distributions.
2.3 REGULATORY ISSUES Technology-specific Language Even with the general technical description of the LSS presented in Subpart J, there are several instances where the rule includes technology-specific language which could unnecessarily constrain LSS design options. These instances are identified in this section along with the language introduced in this document for dealing with these instances.
The most apparent instance of technology-specific language in Subpart J is the requirement for LSS participants to submit a document as an ASCII file. The intent of the ASCII file is to DRAFf 5
2/28/95
 
facilitate full-text search and retrieval of information. However, there are other text formats the preserve the ability to perform these functions with the added benefit of retaining other potentially useful information (e.g. formatting and linkage information). A more neutral wording of Subpart J would use a term such as "standard text file" as opposed to "ASCII file" since the later is a more specific version of the former.
Another instance of technology-specific language is use of the term "dial-up access". This term suggests access must be provided to the LSS via telephone lines and modems when in fact the intent of the rule is actually to access the LSS from remote sites. Dial-up access is simply one method of accessing any system remotely. A more generalized wording of Subpart J would r~place the term "dial-up access" with "remote access."
Use of the term "bit-mapped image" is another instance of technology-specific language found in Subpart J. Once again, the intent of the rule is to store a retrievable digital likeness of a document A more appropriate term for "bit-mapped image" could be "digital image" which includes the more specific bit-mapped digital image format.
Finally, Subpart J uses the term "terminal" without specifically defining it in &sect;2.1002. The word terminal has the connotation to information management professionals of a terminal without intelligence or a "dumb-terminal." A more fitting term today for terminal would be "workstation" since workstations are common today much like terminals were common when Subpart J was promulgated.
Subpart J is NRC's rule and it is incumbent upon NRC to re-write the rule to eliminate technology-specific language. These technology issues have been brought to NRC' s attention and efforts are currently underway to eliminate technology-specific language from Subpart J. In anticipation of a technology independent clarification to the rule, this document has been written under the assumption that the technology-specific terminology identified previously will be replaced with the more general terms suggested.
LSS Search Modes Section 2.1007 of Subpart J provides two modes of searching for material within the LSS database depending upon whether a notice of hearing on the high-level waste license application has been issued. Prior to the notice, members of the public are allowed access to bibliographic headers only to search for information. Full-text search of the document text file is not required for the public until after the hearing notice is issued. This dual search mode reflects a position that the DOE successfully negotiated during the rulema.lcing process to effectively restrict document discovery for the public to only header searches until after the hearing notice is issued, or until the interested public entity chooses to become a potential party to the hearings. Although this strategy does have merit, it unintentionally introduces inefficiencies in document indexing process which could have a profound impact on the cost of operating the LSS.
DRAFT 6
2/u,/95
 
The LSS Advisory Review Panel (ARP) chartered a working group to examine the header fields required for each document entered into the LSS. This working group proposed a fairly large set of fields primarily to offer the public, who cannot initially perform full-text document searches, a reasonable chance at finding information within the database. Members of the LSS Working Group have recommended reducing the number of required header fields under the assumption that the document text would be available to search. Minimizing the required header fields will reduce the labor required to generate the headers thereby resulting in significant cost savings. However, it is unlikely that the LSS ARP would be willing to reduce the number of required header fields unless the DOE agreed to provide only one mode of access to the LSS--
document full-text search. As the requirement is written in this document, DOE can continue to support dual access modes, or could adopt a single access mode. This issue should be carefully considered and specific guidance should be provided in the LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document.
DRAFf 7
2/28/95
: 3. REQUIREM~NT DEFINITIONS This section presents an overview of the requirements included in Subpart J that specify or imply system design and presents the detailed trace matrices that link Level 1 requirements to the applicable Subpart J citations. The requirements derived from Subpart J are termed Level 1 requirements because they are at the root of the LSS requirements hierarchy and thus form the requirements foundation from which more detailed requirement levels will be derived in the LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document.
3.1 OVERVIEW OF APPLICABLE 10 CFR 2 SUBPART J CITATIONS Requirements that impact system design directly or imply system functionality are included in seven sections of Subpart J. These requirements are summarized below.
10 CFR 2.1002, High-level waste Licensing Support System The LSS is an electronic information management system contammg the documentary material of the DOE and its contractors, and the documentary material of all other parties, interested governmental participants and potential parties and their contractors.
Access to the LSS by the parties, interested governmental participants, and potential parties provides the document discovery in the proceeding.
The LSS provides for the electronic transmission of filings by the parties during the high-level waste proceeding, and orders and decision of the Commission and Commission adjudicatory boards related to the proceeding.
10 CFR 2.1003, Submission of material to the LSS Submission of material to the LSS shall be accomplished by submitting an ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header for all material to be included in the LSS.
10 CFR 2.1004, Amendments and additions A document submitter shall make a reasonable effort to verify that documents have been entered correctly into the LSS.
The LSS Administrator shall ensure that the bibliographic header for the original document specifies that revisions have been entered into the system.
DRAFf 8
2/2.8/95
 
JO CFR 2.1007, Access Access to the LSS for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided by full text search capability through dial-up access from remote sites, image access at remote locations, and the capability to electronically request a paper copy of a document at the time of search.
During the pre-license application phase, tenninal for access to full headers and access to images will be provided at DOE Headquarters, NRC Headquarters, and at all NRC and DOE public reading rooms in the vicinity of the candidate site for a geologic repository.
Additionally, terminals will be provided at the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado, and at Las Vegas, Nevada; Reno, Nevada; Carson City, Nevada; Nye County, Nevada; and Lincoln County, Nevada. After the license application is docketed, access is to include searchable full text at the identified sites.
JO CFR 2.1011, LSS Management and administration The LSS Administrator shall ensure availability and integrity of the LSS database, maintain security for the LSS database including assigning user password security codes and maintain the thesaurus and authority tables for the LSS.
10 CFR 2.1013, Use of LSS during the adjudicatory proceeding The LSS Administrator shall establish a file within the LSS to contain the official record materials of the proceeding in searchable full text, or for material that is not suitable for entry in searchable full text, by header and image, as appropriate.
All filings in the adjudicatory proceeding shall be transmitted electronically. Parties and interested governmental participants will be required to use a password for electronic transmission of documents.
JO CFR 2.1017, Computation of time If the LSS is unavailable for more than four hours of any day that would be counted in the computation of time, that day will not be counted in the computation of time.
The details of how the LSS is to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet these objectives are not identified in Subpart J. The above requirements are re-cast into functional requirements in Section 3.2.
DRAFT 9
2/'28/95
 
3.2 INTERPRETATION OF SUBPART J DESIGN REQUffiEMENTS This section presents the Level 1 requirements that are derived from Subpart J citations. These requirements are presented in the form of trace matrices where the applicable Subpart J citations are listed next to the associated Level 1 requirement. A comment column is included within each matrix to allow for discussions of how a particular requirement is interpreted or the presentation of issues to be considered when deriving lower-level requirements. Each requirement is labeled with a unique identifier indicating the level and the requirement number within the level. For example, [LSS 1-003] is the third in a series of Level 1 requirements. The requirements are ordered based upon the order of their associated Subpart J sections (e.g. 2.1002(a), 2.1003(a)(l),
2.1003(b)(l),... ).
DRAFf 2/'l:3/95
 
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation
&sect;2.1002(a)
The Licensing Support System is an electronic information management system containing the documentary material of the DOE and its contractors, and the documentary material of all other parties, interested governmental participants and potential parties and their contractors. Access to the Licensing Support System by the parties, interested governmental participants, and potential parties provides the document discovery in the proceeding. The Licensing Support System provides for the electronic transmission of filings by the parties during the high-level waste proceeding, and orders and decisions of the Commission and Commission adjudicatory boards related to the proceeding.
Level l Requirement
[LSS 1-001)
The LSS shall be designed in a modular fashion to allow for the integration of functional components.
Comments The LSS must be available to support the licensing proceedings from the pre-license phase, through the amendment to receive and possess waste, and until the license is amended for permanent closure. It is reasonable to expect that during this time frame, technology associated with the various LSS functional components will advance to the point where they are obsolete. To take advantage of inevitable improvements in technology, the LSS should be constructed in a modular fashion. By adhering to this strategy, obsolete hardware and software components can be replaced without adversely impacting the overall operation of the system.
 
N Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation
&sect;2.1002(a)
The Licensing Support System is an electronic information management system containing the documentary material of the DOE and its contractors, and the documentary material of all other parties, interested governmental participants and potential parties and their contractors. Access to the Licensing Support System by the parties, interested governmental participants, and potential parties provides the document discovery in the proceeding. The Licensing Support System provides for the electronic transmission of filings by the parties during the hi6h-level waste proceeding, and orders and decisions of the Commission and Commission adjudicatory boards related to the proceeding.
Level 1 Requirement
[LSSl-002]
The LSS shall adhere to established government and/or industry hardware and software standards.
Comments As discussed previously, the LSS will be in operation for a considerable period of time This time frame is on the order of 100 years based upon the current program approach. It is obvious with the current rate of change in technology, that no computer application can be designed to operate effectively over such a long life-cycle.
Both hardware and software advancements will render any existing system obsolete on the order of every 5-10 years. To ensure that the LSS remains compatible and reasonably consistent with the technology of the time, it is essential that the LSS design adhere to open hardware and software standards.
 
I.,)
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citations
&sect;2.1002(a)
The Licensing Support System is an electronic information management system containing the documentary material of the DOE and its contractors, and the documentary material of all other parties, interested governmental participants and potential parties and their contractors.
Access to the Licensing Support System by the parties, interested governmental participants, and potential parties provides the document discovery in the proceeding. The Licensing Support System provides for the electronic transmission of filings by the parties during the high-level waste proceeding, and orders and decisions of the Commission and Commission adjudicatory boards related to the proceeding.
&sect;2.1013(c)(l)
All filings in the adjudicatory proceeding on the license application to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter shall be transmitted electronically by the submitter to the Presiding Officer, parties, the LSS Administrator, and the Secretary, according to established format requirements. Parties and interested governmental participants will be required to use a password security code for the electronic transmission of these documents.
Level 1 Requirement
[LSSl-003]
The LSS shall provide an electronic mail (E-mail) function to facilitate communications between authorized E-mail users. This function shall allow E-mail users to transmit and receive electronic documents (e.g. motions, filings, orders, decisions, etc.). Each E-mail user shall have a corresponding electronic mailbox to receive and store electronic correspondences.
Comments The electronic mail function will facilitate written communication during the licensing hearings. Therefore, it is essential that the mail system enable users to send messages to other users and send/attach documents with their messages.
 
10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments I &sect;2.1003(a)(l)
[LSS 1-004]
It is anticipated that the Subject to the exclusions in &sect;2.1005 of this subpart and The LSS shall be capable of LSS Administrator will paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each potential party, accepting electronically receive the required interested governmental participant or party, with the formatted and transmitted document information in exception of the DOE and the NRC, shall submit to the LSS document information in the electronic form from one or Administrator--Subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, following combinations:
more parties to the licensing an ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header, a) Bibliographic header and hearing. Therefore, reasonably contemporaneous with its creation or acquisition, digital image functionality is specified to for all documentary material (including circulated drafts but b) Bibliographic header, digital ensure that the LSS can excluding preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the image, standard text accept information in an direction of, or acquired by, a potential party, interested representation electronic form.
governmental participant, or party after the date on which c) Bibliographic header only such potential party, interested governmental participant or party is given access to the Licensing Support System.
&sect;2.1003(b)(l)
Subject to the exclusions in &sect;2.1005 of this subpart, and subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the DOE and the NRC shall submit to the LSS Administrator--An ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header, reasonably contemporaneous with its creation or acquisition, for all documentary material (including circulated drafts but excluding preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the direction of, or acquired by, the DOE or the NRC after the date on which the Licensing Support System is available for access.
 
V\\
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation
&sect;2.1003(a)(l)
Subject to the exclusions in &sect;2.1005 of this subpart and paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each potential party, interested governmental participant or party, with the exception of the DOE and the NRC, shall submit to the LSS Administrator--Subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, an ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header, reasonably contemporaneous with its creation or acquisition, for all documentary material (including circulated drafts but excluding preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the direction of, or acquired by, a potential party, interested governmental participant, or party after the date on which such potential party, interested governmental participant or party is given access to the Licensing Support System.
&sect;2.1003(b )(1)
Subject to the exclusions in &sect;2. 1005 of this subpart, and subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the DOE and the NRC shall submit to the LSS Administrator--An ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header, reasonably contemporaneous with its creation or acquisition, for all documentary material (including circulated drafts but excluding preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the direction of, or acquired by, the DOE or the NRC after the date on which the Licensing Support System is available for access.
Level 1 Requirement
[LSSl-005]
The LSS shall provide the capability to recognize characters from the digital image of a document and convert these characters into a standard text representation of the document.
This optical character recognition function shall achieve character recognition accuracies that are consistent with the accuracies achievable with the best commercial products available at the time of the LSS system design.
Comments Section 2.1003 requires LSS participants to submit a text representation of each document, if appropriate. If a digital version of document is not available, then the document must be either retyped, or digitally scanned and processed by optical character recognition (OCR) software in order to generate a standard text representation of the document. Because of the large volume of data expected to be processed and loaded into the LSS, automation of the text conversion process is necessary.
It is noted that Subpart J does not explicitly require the LSS to include OCR capabilities since each LSS Participant is expected to provide standard text files as part of their document submissions.
However, this function will be necessary in order to meet the material submission requirements. It is included here for completeness.
 
0\\
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation
&sect;2.1003(c)(l)
Each potential party, interested governmental participant, or party shall submit, subject to the claims of privilege in
&sect;2.1006, an image and a bibliographic header, in a time frame to be established by the access protocols under
&sect;2.101 l(d)(lO) of this subpart, for all graphic oriented documentary material. Graphic-oriented documentary material includes, raw data, computer runs, computer programs and codes, field notes, laboratory notes, maps, diagrams and photographs which have been printed, scripted, hand written or otherwise displayed in any hard copy form and which, while capable of being captured in electronic image by a digital scanning device, may be captured and submitted to the LSS Administrator in any fo1 m of image. Text embedded within these documents need not be separately entered in searchable full text. Such graphic-oriented documents may include: Calibration procedures, logs, guidelines, data and discrepancies; Gauge, meter and computer settings; Probe locations; Logging intervals and rates; Data logs in whatever form captured; Text data sheets; Equations and sampling rates; Sensor data and procedures; Data Descriptions; Field and laboratory notebooks; Analog computer, meter or other device print-outs; Digital computer print-outs; Photographs; Graphs, plots, strip charts, sketches; Descriptive material related to the information above.
Level l Requirement
[LSSl-006]
The LSS shall have the capability to create a digital image of each page of a document from a paper copy of the page.
Comments According to &sect;2.1001, an image is defined as a "... visual likeness of a document, presented on a paper copy, microform, or a bit-map on optical or magnetic media."
This requirement intentionally excludes the need for creating a digital image directly from microform. Instead, it is assumed that all document images residing on microfilm will be first be copied to paper, and a digital image of the document will then be created from the paper copy.
This process *will ensure that the intent of the rule is retained while eliminating redundant and potentially costly LSS functionality.
 
7 Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments
&sect;2.1003(c)(2)
[LSSl-007]
This requirement will impact Each potential party, interested governmental Documentary material not suitable the manner in which participant, or party, in a time frame to be established for imaging and conversion to a documents are processed and by the access protocols under &sect;2.lOll(d)(l0) of this standard text file shall be identified the type of fields required in a subpart, shall submit, subject to the claims of privilege with a header that includes a document header. It is in &sect;2.1006, only a bibliographic header for each item reference to the storage location of included here because it could of documentary material that is not suitable for entry the material. This reference shall have an impact on system into the Licensing Support System in image or be descriptive enough for users to design.
searchable full text. The header shall include all identify the location of the material required fields and shall sufficiently describe the and how to access the material.
information and references to related information and access protocols. Whenever any documentary material
-.:i is transferred to some other media, a new header shall be supplied. Any documentary material for which a header only has been supplied to the system shall be made available to any other party, potential party or interested governmental participant through the access protocols determined by the LSS Administrator under
&sect;2.101 l(d)(lO) or through entry upon land for inspection and other purposes pursuant to &sect;2.1020.
 
00 Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation
&sect;2.1004(a)
Within sixty days after a document has been entered into the Licensing Support System by the LSS Administrator during the pre-license application phase, and within five days after a document has been entered into the Licensing Support System by the LSS Administrator after the license application has been docketed, the submitter shall make reasonable efforts to verify that the document has been entered correctly, and shall notify the LSS Administrator of any errors in entry.
Level 1 Requirement
[LSSI-008]
The LSS shall include a function that allows a document submitter to verify that document information entered into the LSS database is identical to the document information submitted to the LSS Administrator.
Comments In order to satisfy this requirement, it is essential that a document submitter have a tool that allows him to verify that information stored in the LSS database is the same information provided to the LSS Administrator. Because of the large volume of information expected to be stored in the LSS, an automated tool might be necessary to minimize human involvement in the verification process.
 
Level 1 Requirement Comments Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation 11----------------------t---------------+------------
&sect;2.1004(b)(3)
The LSS Administrator shall ensure that the bibliographic header for the original document specifies that a corrected version is also in the Licensing Support System.
&sect;2.1004(c)(2)
The LSS Administrator shall ensure that the bibliographic header for the original document specifies that revisions have been entered into the Licensing Support System.
[LSSl-009]
The LSS shall provide a function to allow the LSS Administrator to alert users that subsequent revisions to a document exist.
The intent of the Subpart J citations is to make the user aware that revisions to a document are available in the LSS database. Subpart J suggests accomplishing this task by editing the header associated with the original document to indicate that revisions exist. Unfortunately, if the header resides on optical disk or some other read-only medium, then the original headers cannot be modified.
Therefore, in order to prevent the language of the rule from eliminating specific LSS implementation options, the requirement for editing the headers of the original documents is restated to capture the original intent of the rule, but without constraining system design.
 
N 0
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citations
&sect;2.1007(a)(1)
Tenninals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of DOE, shall be provided at the headquarters of DOE, and at all DOE Local Public Document Rooms established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository.
&sect;2.1007(a)(2)
Tenninals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of NRC, shall be provided at the headquarters Public Document Room of NRC, and at all NRC Local Public Document Rooms established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository, and at the NRC Regional Offices, including the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado.
&sect;2.1007(a)(3)
The access tenninals specified in paragraphs (a)(l) and (a,~2) of this section shall include tenninals at Las Vegas, Nevada; Reno, Nevada; Carson City, Nevada; Nye County, Nevada; and Lincoln County, Nevada.
Level 1 Requirement Comments
[LSS 1-010)
The applicable Subpart J citations The LSS shall be accessible by the public list the generic location for public from the following locations as a access to the LSS. This minimum:
requirement simply states the location of these facilities as they
- DOE Headquarters, Washington DC exist at the time of writing. This
- DOE Project Office, Las Vegas NV requirement can be revised if
- NRC Headquarters, White Flint, MD locations are added or deleted
- NRC Region l Office, King of Prussia, although the requirement is written PA to allow for a greater number of
- NRC Region 2 Office, Atlanta, GA access locations without
- NRC Region 3 Office, Glenn Ellyn, IL modification.
- NRC Region 4 Office, Arlington, TX
- NRC Uranium Recovery Field Office, It might also be noted that the Denver, CO word "tenninal" is conspicuously
- Las Vegas, NV absent from the requirement. As
- Reno, NV discussed in Section 2.3, the word
- Carson City, NV tenninal implies a specific type of
- Nye County, NV equipment to some readers and
- Lincoln County, NV could unnecessarily imply constraints on LSS implementation I
options.
 
Applicable 10 CFR Pan 2 Subpart J Citation
&sect;2 l007(a){l)
Tenninals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of DOE, shall be provided at the headquarters of DOE, and at all DOE Local Public Document Rooms established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository.
&sect;2.1007(a)(2)
Tenninals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of NRC, shall be provided at the headquarters Public Document Room of NRC, and at all NRC Local Public Document Rooms established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository, and at the NRC Regional Offices, including the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado.
&sect;2. 1007(a)(4)
The headers specified in paragraphs (a)( 1) and (a)(2) of this section shall be available at the same time that those headers are made available to the potential parties, parties, and interested governmental participants.
&sect;2. 1007(a)(5)
Public access to the searchable full text and images of all the documents in the Licensing Support System, not privileged under &sect;2.1006, shall be provided by U1e LSS Administrator at all U1e locations specified in paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section after a notice of hearing has been issued pursuant to
&sect;2.101 (f)(8) or &sect;2.105(a)(5) on an application for a license to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area.
Level l Requirement
[LSSl-011]
The LSS shall provide the public with one of two search and retrieval modes depending upon whether a notice of hearing on the high-level waste license application has been issued:
Prior to notice - Full-text search of each field in the bibliographic headers and retrieval of the header and associated image.
After notice is fasued
* same as above plus full-text search of the standard text files.
At the DOE's discretion and given concurrence of the LSS Advisory Review Panel, the latter search mode can be provided to the public prior to the hearing notice.
Comments See Section 2.3 for a discussion of the issue.
It is noted U1at LSS Participants (i.e.
potential parties, interested government participants, and parties) will have access to full-text search regardless of whether the hearing notice has been issued. Therefore, U1e dual access mode only applies to non-LSS Participants (i.e.
U1e public).
 
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments
&sect;2.1007(a)(l)
[LSSl-012]
This requirement addresses Terminals for access to full headers for all documents in The LSS shall be capable of one of the basic functions of the Licensing Support System during the pre-license electronically storing and any database system--storing application phase, and images of the non-privileged retrieving the bibliographic and retrieving information documents of DOE, shall be provided at the headquarters header related to each document pertaining to a record.
of DOE, and at all DOE Local Public Document Rooms in the system.
established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository.
&sect;2.1007(a)(2)
Terminals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of NRC, shall be provided at the headquarters Public Document Room of NRC, and at all NRC Local Public Document Rooms established in the vidnity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository, and at the NRC Regional Offices, including the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado.
I
&sect;2.1007(a)(4)
The headers specified in paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section shall be available at the same time that those i
VI headers are made available to the potential parties, parties, and interested governmental participants.
 
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments
&sect;2.1007(a)(5)
[LSSl-013]
This requirement ensures that Public access to the searchable full text and images of The LSS shall be capable of standard text files can be all the documents in the Licensing Support System, electronically storing the standcrd stored and available within the not privileged under &sect;2.1006, shall be provided by the text representation associated with LSS for full-text search and LSS Administrator at all the locations specified in each page in a document retrieval of headers and paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section after a images. Although it is not notice of hearing has been issued pursuant to specifically required by
&sect;2.101(f)(8) or &sect;2.105(a)(5) on an application for a Subpart J, the text associated license to receive and possess high-level radioactive with a document could be waste at a geologic repository operations area.
made available as well since it will already reside in the
&sect;2.1007(c)(l) system.
Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and p~rties will be provided in the following manner--Full text search capability through dial-up access from remote locations at the requestor' s expense;
 
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments
&sect;2.1007(a)(5)
{LSSl-014]
This requirement addresses Public access to the searchable full text and images of The LSS shall be capable of one of the basic functions of all the documents in the Licensing Support System, electronically storing and retrieving the LSS--storing and retrieving not privileged under &sect;2.1006, shall be provided by the the digital image associated with document images.
LSS Administrator at all the locations specified in each page in a document.
paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section after a notice of hearing has been issued pursuant to
&sect;2.101({)(8) or &sect;2.105(a)(5) on an application for a license to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area.
&sect;2.1007(c)(2)
Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided in the following manner--
Image access at remote locations at the requestor's expense;
 
Iv V,
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation
&sect;2.1007(c)(l)
Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided in the following manner--Full text search capability through dial-up access from remote locations at the requestor's expense;
&sect;2.1007(c)(2)
Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided in the following manner--Image access at remote locations at the requestor's expense;
&sect;2.1007(c)(3)
Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided in the following manner--The capability to electronically request a paper copy of a document at the time of search; Level 1 Requirement Comments
[LSSl-015]
The LSS shall be accessible by potential parties, interested governmental parties, and parties from locations other than those listed in requirement [LSS 1-010) at the requester's expense.
[LSSl-016]
Potential parties, interested governmental parties, and parties who access the LSS from locations other than those listed in requirement [LSSl-010] shall be provided access to images at the requester's expense.
[LSSl-017]
Potential parties, interested governmental I
parties, and parties who access the LSS from locations other than those listed in requirement [LSS 1-010] shall be capable of electronically requesting a paper copy of a document at the time of search.
 
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments
&sect;2.101 l(d)(7)
[LSSl-018]
Hardware and/or software The LSS Administrator shall be responsible for the The system shall provide the tools are typically used by a management and administration of the Licensing necessary hardware and/or software system administrator to make Support System, including the responsibility to--Ensure to ensure the integrity and routine backups of data and to LSS availability and the integrity of the LSS data availability of the LSS database.
enhance the efficiency of the base; database. These and other tools effectively ensure the integrity and availability of a database.
&sect;2.101 l(d)(9)
[LSSI-019]
The LSS Administrator shall be responsible for the The system shall provide the management and administration of the Licensing necessary hardware and/or software Support System, including the responsibility to--
to ensure the security of the LSS Maintain security for the Licensing Support System database. The system shall be data base, including assigning user password security capable of providing users various codes; levels of read/write access.
 
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments
&sect;2.101 l(d)(l 1)
[LSS 1-020]
A thesaurus can be used The LSS Administrator shall be responsible for the The LSS shall include a function during document searches to management and administration of the Licensing that allows the LSS Administrator associate search words with Support System, including the responsibility to construct and maintain a related words included in the to--Maintain the thesaurus and authority tables for the thesaurus.
thesaurus. The thesaurus can Licensing Support System; be used to expanded queries to include searches on related words as well as the words entered in the query.
&sect;2.lOll(d)(ll)
[LSSl-021)
Authority tables are used to The LSS Administrator shall be responsible for the The LSS shall include a function restrict the vocabulary entered management and administration of the Licensing for the LSS Administrator to in select header fields. By Support System, including the responsibility construct and maintain authority restricting the vocabulary, to--Maintain the thesaurus and authority tables for the tables.
words, names, etc. are entered Licensing Support System; in a consistent manner thereby eliminating variations of the same word, name, etc.
I
 
N 00 Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation
&sect;2.101 l(f)(2)(v)
The responsibilities of the LSS Advisory Review Panel shall include advice on--
Reasonable requirements for headers, the control of duplication, retrieval, display, image delivery, query response, and "user friendly" design;
&sect;'.2..1011(f)(2)(v)
The responsibilities of the LSS Advisory Review Panel shall include advice on--
Reasonable requirements for headers, the control of duplication, retrieval, display, image delivery, query response, and "user friendly" design; Level 1 Requirement
[LSSl-022]
The LSS shall provide a graphical user interface (GUI) for all LSS access locations.
[LSS 1-023]
The LSS shall provide a function that assists the LSS Administrator in identifying duplicate documents.
Comments Graphical user interfaces have essentially replaced traditional command line interfaces and are in use be virtually all potential LSS users. GUis are intended to enhance the usability of software by providing a more visual interaction with the computer. Therefore, to ensure that the LSS is as "intuitive and user friendly" as possible, the LSS user interface should be implemented in GUI environment.
The LSS Administrator is responsible for loading the LSS with documents provided by DOE, NRC, and all other parties to the licensing hearing. Even if the document streams submitted by each party are free of duplicate documents, it is likely that duplicate documents will exist when the streams are combined.
Therefore, in order to minimize the number of duplicate documents in the system, the LSS Administrator must have a tool to help identify duplicates documents.
 
Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citations
&sect;2.1013(c)(l)
All filings in the adjudicatory proceeding on the license application to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter shall be transmitted electronically by the submitter to the Presiding Officer, parties, the LSS Administrator, and the Secretary, according to established format requirements. Parties and interested governmental participants will be required to use a password security code for the electronic transmission of these documents.
&sect;2.1013(c)(3) tt, Service upon a party or interested governmental participant is completed when the sender receives electronic acknowledgment ("delivery receipt") that the electronic submission has been placed in the recipient's electronic mailbox.
&sect;2.1013(c)(4)(i)
Proof of service, stating the name and address of the person on whom served and the manner and date of service, shall be shown for each document filed, by--Electronic acknowledgment ("delivery receipt");
Level 1 Requirement
[LSS 1-024]
The E-mail function shall provide password protection for all documents transmitted electronically.
[LSSl-025)
The E-mail function shall provide for an electronic acknowledgement that mail has been delivered to the recipient's electronic mailbox. The acknowledgement shall include as a minimum, the name and address of the recipient and the date the electronic mail was delivered.
Comments Gateways that link various electronic mail systems together are becoming common as popularity with the Internet grows. If an E-mail user accesses the LSS via a gateway that does not allow r~ceipt notices to "jump" the gateway, then the delivery receipt need only indicate the date the message was delivered to the recipients's gateway.
 
0 Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citations
&sect;2.1017 In computing any period of time, the day of the act, event, or default after which the designated period of time begins to run is not included. The last day of the period so computed is included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday at the place where the action or event is to occur, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, nor holiday. Whenever a party, potential party, or interested governmental participant, has the right or is required to do some act within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other document upon it, one day shall be added to the prescribed period. If the Licensing Support System is ur.available for more than four access hours of any day that would be counted in the computation of time, that day will not be counted in the computation of time.
Level 1 Requirement
[LSSl-026]
The LSS shall be designed so that system availability meets industry averages at the time of LSS system design.
Comments The intent of the LSS is facilitate document discovery during the high-level waste hearings and help the NRC meet the three-year license review period required in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
This requirement is included to ensure that the time saved during the licensing hearings from use of the LSS is not significantly impacted by poor availabi\\ity of the system.
: 4. REFERENCES
: 1.
Science Application International Corporation, "Licensing Support System Systems-Level Requirements Document", Revision 5.0, December 12, 1990.
: 2.
TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc., "Evaluation of Licensing Support System Options", Revision 0, January 16, 1995.
DRAFf 31 2(22/95
 
LSS PARTICIPANT COMMITMENTS May 12, 1995 NRC Contract No. NRC-40-30-346 Labat-Anderson Incorporated with Price Waterhouse
 
LSS PARTICIPANT COMMITMENTS The proposed LSSA Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) is based on the commitments placed on participants by the LSS Rule (10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J) and derivative commitments that the LSSA believes are necessary for LSS program control and administration. This document contains all of these commitments. Those commitments that arise directly from the LSS Rule contain an appropriate citation.
The commitments on the following pages have been subdivided into three groups. The commitments in each of these groups are treated differently within the proposed CAP. These groupings are:
GROUP 1:
These commitments address the proper identification of the document universe, the proper screening of this universe for relevant, non-duplicative LSS materials, and the timely submission of this material to the LSS. Specific compliance processing standards and non-compliance reporting thresholds have been established by the LSSA for each of these commitments. Participants exceeding established thresholds will be cited for non-compliance by the LSSA.
If cited for non-compliance, sanctions may be imposed by the Presiding Officer (PO) or the Commission.
GROUP 2:
These commitments address the physical condition of the material submitted to the LSS and its proper preparation. Specific processing standards and rejection/resubmission thresholds have been established by the LSSA for these commitments. Participants exceeding established thresholds will, in most cases, be required to correct and resubmit substandard material. The quality of submitted material will be evaluated at the LSSA's Quality Assurance (QA)
Facility and during the LSSA's compliance audits. Performance related to these commitments will not be addressed in LSSA's periodic compliance evaluation reports to the Commission. However, failure to correct and resubmit returned material in a timely manner could result in reported non-compliance, if the submission volumes/rates addressed in Group 1 (above) are not met.
GROUP 3:
These commitments do not have quantitative standards and rejection thresholds.
They address participant program management requirements and describe conditions for gaining and retaining access to the LSS. Deviations from these commitments will become evident through specific actions taken (or not taken) by participants. The LSSA or the PO, as appropriate, will make judgements about the nature and seriousness of any non-compliance with these commitments. If considered serious enough, participants may be cited for non-compliance by the LSSA. If cited for non-compliance, sanctions may be considered and imposed by the PO or the Commission.
1
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.A Commitment -- Document Universe Identification Each LSS participant will repon in writing to the LSSA, concerning its holdings of potential LSS material, the location and content of each backlog repository and each generation/acquisition source (those that exist at the time the participant's Compliance Program Plan* is submitted and any that may arise thereafter). These will constitute all the sources of material to be screened against the Topical Guidelines and the exclusion criteria in the Rule (Section 2.1005).
Processing Standard Standard: A DLO must report in writing all existing sources of potential LSS material at the time he submjts the participant Compliance Program Plan, and subsequently report any new potential source within IO working days of its identification.
Rationale: To either not be aware of, or not disclose, even a single potential source could prevent relevant LSS material from being entered into the LSS.
Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if, after the initial report of backlog and existing sources is finalized in the participant's Compliance Program Plan, any verified source of potential LSS material that should have been reported is identified by someone other than the responsible DLO.
Rationale: Since it should not be difficult for a DLO to either identify existing sources or establish procedures to stay abreast of new potential sources of LSS material, non-compliance will be reported if any verified source of potential LSS material is overlooked or not disclosed by a DLO. Tbjs is consistent with the importance of full disclosure to the discovery objective of the LSS.
Compliance Assessment Method After becoming aware of an undisclosed potential source of LSS material from someone other than the responsible DLO, the LSSA will ask the responsible DLO to investigate this potential source and certify to the LSSA as to whether or not it is a potential source of LSS material. The LSSA will perform on-site audits when deemed necessary to validate this certification. AJso, as deemed appropriate, the LSSA audit staff may proactively sample other related participant document collections/sources for possible LSS materials.
* See Commianent 3.C and LSSA Guidance on the Format and Content of LSS Participant Compliance Program Plans.
1
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.8 Commitment -- Material Submission Plans All LSS participants will develop and maintain accurate Material Submission Plans in accordance with the I.SSA Guidance on the Format and Contenl of I.SS Participant Compliance Program Plans.
The first submission date for the Plans will be June 30, 1996, and the Plans will be updated annually until the conclusion of the licensing proceeding. The Plans will contain an analysis of the volume and type of documentary material currently in the possession of the participant (backlog) and an estimate of documentary material to be acquired or generated for each of the next two years.
The Material Submission Plans will also contain a long range schedule for the submission of this material to the LSSA, broken down into six-month periods. That schedule will be evaluated by the LSSA to determine if it supports the timely and efficient loading of the LSS database. The LSSA will confer with a participant if adjustments to the offered schedule are necessary. The Material Submission Plan will be incorporated as an appendix to the participant's Compliance Program Plans.
Processing Standard Standard: The original Material Submission Plans and each revision will show:
an estimate of current backlog documentary material (pages) and a two-year projection of the number of pages of documentary material expected to be generated or acquired; that all backlog will be submitted to the LSS at least 12 months before DOE's planned license application submission date; that LSS participants will begin to submit their backlog within 60 days of gaining access to the LSS (but no later than 36 months before DOE's planned license application submission date), and do so evenly over the remaining six-month periods;
[NOTE: This standard does not address the possible need to load the LSS database with highest priority backlog documents early in the loading process. A standard for highest priority backlog will be set later if priority loading becomes an LSS requirement.]
2
 
GROUP 1-- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commianent 1.B, continued Processing Standard (Continued)
Rationale: By the time the LSS is available, it is estimated that there will be about 14 million pages of backlog, with most of it belonging to DOE. It is also estimated that another 4 to 5 million pages of "contemporaneous" material will be created between the time the LSS is available and the time DOE will submit its license application. The LSSA's QA Facility and the LSS itself must be properly sized to accommodate this workload and a predictable input volume from LSS participants is needed to have reasonably stable and efficient LSS operations that will pose little risk to the timely loading of the LSS database. [There will be constraints on bow much material can be loaded into a "pre-LSS" database, indexed, reviewed for compliance with standards, and, when available, loaded into the LSS by the QA Facility each day.] As currently envisioned, during the first 12 months of availability, the LSS will have only a limited number of users and will be dedicated almost exclusively to a high volume of backlog loading. Thereafter, the number of users will be significantly expanded, large volumes of new material will be loaded, and the capacity to load backlog will decline. It is prudent to plan for full loading of the backlog 12 months before the license application submission date to reduce the risk that unexpected loading difficulties/
requirements would endanger full loading of the backlog by the point six months before the license application submission date (as required by the LSS Rule). Unless LSS participants develop Material Submission Plans that are consistent with LSSA plans/constraints, the quality assurance review and loading of material into the LSS could be on the critical path to DOE submitting its license application. LSSA will provide LSS participants with LSS loading plans and constraints as an input to the development of their Material Submission Plans.
Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if an LSS participant does not provide a Material Submission Plan that is consistent with all prescribed standards.
Rationale: If an LSS participant will not commit to submit its LSS material in a way that can be accommodated by the LSS, will not endanger the timeliness of loading, and will not unnecessarily add to the cost of LSS operations, then the Commission will be informed.
Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will review each Material Submission Plan and compare it with the standards. LSSA may also audit backlog repositories and acquisition/generation sources to confirm the accuracy of projected material submission volumes.
3
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I l.C Commitment -- Document Universe Screening After eliminating authorized exclusions under the Rule (Section 2.1005), LSS participants will properly screen all their potential LSS material. Proper screening means making accurate relevancy decisions vis-a-vis the Topical Guidelines and accurate decisions as to what relevant materials are duplicative of previous submissions. If sufficient erroneous screening decisions are found during an LSSA audit, the LSS participant may be required to re-screen all material withheld from the LSS since the previous LSSA audit, identify all errors, and, when necessary submit incorrectly withheld material to the LSSA in accordance with Commitment 1.F (Timely Submission/Resubmission). LSS participant re-screening would be confined to the withholding category or categories (non-relevant or duplicative) in which the LSSA audit found errors. (&sect;2.1003]
Processing Standard Standard: All relevant or potentially relevant material will be submitted to the LSS.
Rationale: The Rule says LSS participants must submit any information that is relevant to or might lead to the discovery of information that is relevant to the licensing proceeding. This means that LSS participants must err on the side of submitting material to the LSS if there is any doubt about its relevancy. Screened material that is withheld from the LSS will be clearly non-relevant, or duplicative.
Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if there is a deviation from the standard of more than 2% of the material screened during a six-month evaluation period.
Rationale: With the large volume of LSS material to be screened, some mistakes will be made even with the best procedures and training. However, given the guidance to err on the side of submitting marginally relevant material, and the fact that relevancy and duplicate determinations are not difficult, there should be very few instances where material is incorrectly withheld from the LSS.
Quantities exceeding the threshold would represent a level of incorrect withholding that will be reponed as non-compliance.
4
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.C, continued Compliance Assessment Method During on-site audits, the LSSA will examine a representative sample of materials from the evaluation period that are deemed by an LSS participant to be either non-relevant or duplicative.
Toe number of errors found in these categories will be summed and divided by the total number of units inspected in these categories.
5
 
11.D GROUP 1 --
A COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS ND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING IBRESHOLDS Commitment -- Accountability for Screened Materials All LSS particip ants will maintain an accurate audit trail of their document processing activities.
This audit trail w of material that a the Rule (and wh ill be capable of identifying the processing status and location of each unit or batch participant determines does not meet the exclusion criteria of Section 2.1005 of ich therefore must be screened for relevancy). If, during an LSSA audit, any material is found to be missing or mis-designated as having already been submitted to the LSS, the be required to perform a complete review of its audit trail documentation since the udit and, when necessary, submit missing or mis-designated material to the LSSA th Commitment l.F (Timely Submission/ Resubmission).
participant may previous LSSA a in accordance wi Processing Standard Standard: Once material has been screened for relevancy, no material wiil b~
*~mg,r tnis-designated.
Rationale: Ace urate accounting for units of LSS material by LSS participants is the only way the confidence that all material that is supposed to be entered into the LSS is actually r entry into the system. If material has entered an LSS participant's relevancy LSSA can have being received fo screening process been submitted to
, but cannot be accounted for, it is missing. If material is mis-designated as having the LSS when it was not, then it is also "missing" from the perspective of the uation threatens the integrity of the LSS as a discovery database.
LSSA. Either sit Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non 0.1 % of all mate
-compliance will be reported if there is a deviation from the standard of more than rials screened for relevancy during a six-month evaluation period Rationale: With the large volume of LSS material to track, some mistakes \\I *1,
* u de even with the best procedur es and training. However, anything greater than a 0.1 % error rate for missing or ocuments will be an indication of inadequate quality assurance that could potentially amounts of material from being entered into the LSS in a timely manner.
mis-designated d delay significant Quantities exceed ing the threshold would represent sufficiently poor accounting to be reported as non-compliance.
6
 
GROUP l -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.D, continued Compliance Ass~ment Method The LSSA will conduct periodic on-site audits which will, among other things, examine the integrity of each LSS participant's audit trail within its document processing system. A sample of screened materials will be tracked to ensure that the units within the sample have been fully accounted for in one of three categories -- relevant, non-relevant, or duplicative. In addition, a check will be made concerning whether any materials have been mis-designated as sent to the LSS by comparing the participant's tracking information with what should be corresponding data from the LSSA's QA Facility.
7
 
GROUP 1 ** COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING IBRESHOLDS I 1.E Commitment ** Backlog Submission LSS participants will submit all their LSS material created prior to the availability of the LSS (for NRC and DOE) or the granting of LSS access (for all other participants) in accordance with their LSSA-approved Material Submission Plans. All backlog materials will be submitted 12 months prior to DOE's planned license application submission date. [&sect;2.1003)
Processing Standard Standard: LSS participants must submit all their backlog in accordance with their approved Material Submission Plans.
RationaJe: Backlog processing is a very large undertaking. By the time the LSS is available, it is estimated that there will be about 14 million pages of backlog, with most of it belonging to DOE.
There are constraints on how much material can be indexed and loaded into the LSS, and reviewed for compliance with quality standards daily. If LSS participants, particularly DOE, do not closely adhere to their Material Submission Plans, the backlog might not be loaded six months before DOE's planned license application submission date, as required by the LSS Rule.
Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if a) the cumulative amount of backlog submitted by any LSS participant is behind its Material Submission Plan by more than:
Variance 10%
5%
Years Before DOE's Planned License Submission Date 3.0 each six-month period beginning 2 years and ending I year before planned license application submission date; and b) if any LSS participant has not submitted all its backlog by June I, 2000.
Rationale: Strict adherence to the standard is not necessary until the license application submission date is close. The Material Submission Plans are only estimates, and deviations can be expected due to estimate errors, a lack of experience early in the process, or other factors which might affect production rates over time. It is anticipated that the overall accwacy of the Material Submission Plans will increase with each revision. However, backlog submission volumes falling below these thresholds have a potential impact on the ability to have all the backlog processed and loaded into the LSS six months before DOE submits its license application.
8
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.E, continued Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will compare actual pages submitted to the LSS for each six-month period, with each LSS participant's Material Submission Plan.
9
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.F Commitment -- Timely Submission/Resubmission Participants will submit all LSS documentary material created subsequent to the availability of the LSS (for NRC and DOE) or the granting of access (for all other participants), so it is available through the LSS in a timeframe "reasonably contemporaneous" with its creation or acquisition.
Participants will promptly correct and resubmit any substandard materials. Participants will promptly prepare and submit any materials which were found to be incorrectly/inadvertently excluded. [&sect;2.1003 & &sect;2.1004)
Processing Standard Standard:
FOR ALL LSS PARTICIPANTS:
Type of Submissions Workdays*
Clock Starts Clock Stops Initial submission of Date of the cover or Date accepted by "Contemporaneous" 20 primary document for LSSA QA Facility.
materials material generated by LSS participant For materials acquired by LSS participant, the date of acquisition as evidenced by a date stamp on the material or other evidence such as the date of a transmittal letter.
Initial submission of any Date submitter is made Date accepted by materials excluded 20 aware of such materials LSSA QA Facility.
incorrectly/inadvertently by LSSA Resubmission of any 20 Date participant notified Date accepted by backlog materials rejected of rejection by LSSA LSSA QA Facility.
by LSSA QA Facility QA Facility
* Not counting workdays in the LSSA QA Facility prior to acceptance.
IO
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.F, continued Processing Standard (Continued)
Standard:
ALL PARTICIPANTS:
Type of Submissions Workdays*
Clock Starts Clock Stops Resubmission of materials Date submitter is made Date accepted by already in LSS found to 20 aware of such errors by LSSA QA Facility.
be substandard by LSS LSSA.
participants or LSSA.
* Not counting workdays in the LSSA QA Facility prior to acceptance.
[NOTE: This standard does not yet cover the timely submission of headers and images for adjudicatory filings during the bearing process. The standard for submission of these materials will be set later in coordination with ASLBP. This standard also does not cover the timely submission of Technical Data Package "segments". A standard for "segments" will be set later if the submission of "segments" becomes an LSS requirement. Additionally, this standard also does not cover the timely submission of highest priority backlog materials. A standard for highest priority backlog submissions will be set later if priority loading becomes an LSS requirement]
Rationale: For the LSS to be effective, it must be up-to-date and accurate. The "reasonably contemporaneous" requirement in the LSS Rule was established to ensure that LSS material is submitted promptly after it is created/acquired. Other categories of submissions/resubmissions, other than the initial submission of backlog materials which are covered under Commitment I.E (Backlog Submission), will also be processed so that errors or omissions are corrected as soon as possible. There is no easy way to compute a "standard" time for processing and submitting material given the many variations in individual units (e.g., complexity of unitization/indexing and size/quality of images to be processed), individual processing operations/locations and other factors.
Therefore, 20 working days is proposed as a readily achievable standard, in the belief that if the 20 day standard is met, LSS participants will be able to make full and effective use of the LSS.
11
 
GROUP 1 ** COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.F, continued Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if too many of an LSS participant's submissions/resubmissions (addressed above) are not accepted by the LSSA's QA Facility within the 20 day standard. The following table defines the volume of material that can exceed the 20 day standard, and by how many days before non-compliance will be reported:
Volume up to 5%
up to 1%
0%
Workdays* to acceptance 21-30 31-40
>40 Rationale: Given the large volume of material to be processed, some material will encounter processing problems and some will have to be reworked due to substandard quality. These situations should not occur frequently if good quality assurance is performed within LSS participants' processing operations. Quantities exceeding these thresholds would indicate poor QA and delay a significant quantity of material from entering the LSS database on a timely basis and will be reported as non-compliance.
* Not counting workdays in the LSSA QA Facility prior to acceptance.
Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will calculate elapsed workdays using LSS header data and the LSSA QA Facility's quality review and acceptance data. "Clock start" and "clock stop" points are those enumerated in the above standard with all workdays that the material is in the LSSA's QA Facility prior to acceptance subtracted. "Date accepted by LSSA QA Facility" is the date that the material passes final QA review. Individual submissions and their processing times will be cumulated over the evaluation period and compared to the standards in order to compute a percentage of deviation from the standards.
12
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.G Commitment -- Use of LSS Electronic Transmission Capability Parties to the high-level waste repository licensing proceeding shall transmit all their filings electtonically to the PO, all other parties, the LSSA and SECY using the electronic transmission capability of the LSS. The electronic transmission will include, on a separate page, a textual representation of the header information for the filing. Note: This electronic filing does not negate LSS participants' responsibility to prepare and submit headers and images, as applicable, for these filings in accordance with the LSS Rule and to provide properly executed paper copies to SECY for docketing. [&sect;2.1013)
Processing Standard Standard: The LSS electronic transmission capability will be used for all filings.
Rationale: The use of the LSS electronic transmission capability will help expedite the bearing.
Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported any time the PO concludes that a participant's failure to use the LSS eleettonk transmission capability has interfered with the conduct of an efficient licensmg process.
Rationale: If the electronic transmission capability is not used in a particular instance, the PO can require the party to refile using that capability. If the process of refiling does not cause any problems, there would be no purpose in reporting non-compliance. However, if the PO concludes that the licensing process is adversely affected in any way by the participant's failure to use the electtonic transmission capability, then non-compliance will be reported.
Compliance Assessment Method The PO will determine if the participant's failure to use the electronic transmission capability adversely impacts the licensing process and will notify the LSSA as appropriate.
13
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.H Commitment -- Hearing Exhibits All parties to the HL W repository licensing proceeding, absent good cause, will make timely submission of all exhibits to be tendered during a bearing, so that they may be entered into the LSS before the commencement of that portion of tbe hearing in which the exhibit will be offered.
[&sect;2.1013)
Processing Standard Standard: All exhibits must be received by LSSA in accordance with the submission deadline established by the PO who, in setting such a deadline, will take into account the need to provide two workdays (or such lesser time as the LSSA specifies) for LSSA processing of the documents.
Rationale: In addition to the time provided by the PO to analyze exhjbits before any hearing, the LSSA may need up to two workdays to process the exhibits and ensure that they are correctly entered/identified in the LSS.
Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if there is any deviation from the deadline established by tbe PO, unless tbe PO has determined tbat there was "good cause" for a particular exhibit being late.
Rationale: Since the standard is set by the PO, no deviation is considered appropriate in the absence of a "good cause" finding by the PO.
Compliance Assessment Method Tbe LSSA will compare the LSSA QA Facility exhibit log-in date with the start date of that portion of the bearing for which the exhibit(s) are being tendered. If the log-in date is not in accordance with the PO's directive establishing a deadline for exhibit submjgsion, the LSSA will contact the PO for a "good cause" ruling.
14
 
GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.1 Commitment -- Good Faith Discovery All LSS participants will comply with the scope and intent of the LSS Rule (10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J, &sect;2.1000 and &sect;2.1003) tO provide for document discovery in the Jil..W repository licensing proceeding.
Processing Standard Standard: There should be no instances where an LSS participant bas willfully withheld or altered LSS documentary materials, bas willfully provided inaccurate header data about its materials, or bas willfully altered any LSS records for the purpose of denying or delaying access tO relevant LSS documentary materials.
Rationale: Having relevant documentary material withheld from the LSS or having erroneous material in the LSS would seriously undermine the integrity of the system as a discovery database.
Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if there is any deviation from the standard.
Rationale: Any willful acts tO thwart the effective use of the LSS as a discovery database are sufficiently serious to be reported as non-compliance.
Compliance Assessment Method If, through any means, the LSSA becomes aware of an apparent willful act tO thwart the use of the LSS as an effective discovery database, an investigation will be conducted by an appropriate authority.
15
 
GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS Wim SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION fflRESHOLDS I 2.A Commitment -- Unitization All LSS participants will unitize their LSS material in accordance with guidance developed by the LSSARP Header Work Group and approved by the LSSA.
Processing Standard Standard: All material in the LSS will be properly unitized.
Rationale: If LSS material is not properly unitized by the submitter, significant access points provided within the LSS header records will be lost to searchers, e.g., document types, authors and dates. LSS users would not find or learn about the existence of improperly unitized material when looking for them using these access points.
Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Material will be rejected if there is any deviation from the standard.
Rationale: The concept of unitization is a very important design feature of the LSS. Having any units "hidden" within others would create too much doubt about the completeness of search results.
Moreover, incorrect unitization may mean a completely new header is required, which is an LSS participant's responsibility.
Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will examine submitted units at its QA Facility. Those that are incorrectly unitized will be rejected and the submitter will be required to correct unitizatioo problems and resubmit the uoit(s). Batches of submissions will be examined on a sampling basis. If any units within the sample are incorrectly unitized, the entire batch will be rejected and the participant will be required tO review the entire batch, correct unitization problems throughout the batch and resubmit the batch.
16
 
GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.B Commitment -- Header Preparation All LSS participants will compose header fields for each unit of LSS documentary material, including privileged material and any material not suitable for entry into the LSS. LSS participants are only required to prepare bibliographic fields, but may do more, and are not required to submit their LSS material electronically, but they may opt to do so. DOE and NRC must prepare a full electronic header for its LSS material. The LSSA will augment the headers of non-DOE participants forwarded from the participants and ensure that these headers are converted into the proper electronic format Whenever LSS material that is not suitable for entry into the LSS is transferred to a new media, a new header will be prepared by the original submitter and sent to the LSSA. [&sect;2.1003]
Processing Standard Standard: All header fields will be correct and complete and all electronic links between header records, digital images or electronic text will be present and correct.
Rationale: Coding and linkage errors can either prevent users from finding material when searching headers or prevent them from viewing material after locating it through a header search.
Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: If any errors are found in headers during LSSA QA review, the associated unit(s) could be rejected. If rejected, the participant would be required to correct the errors and resubmit the complete header(s). However, the LSSA believes that it is more efficient/effective for LSSA to correct errors within the QA Facility if the participant's error rate is low. If the level of errors found by sampling submissions is considered to be too high for rework within the QA Facility, the LSSA will reject either individual units or entire batches and require the participant to review, correct and resubmit the headers. The LSSA will maintain performance data in this area and an LSS participant's track record will be taken into account when deciding whether to require the rework and resubmission of headers containing errors. Individual errors and cumulative error statistics will be reviewed with LSS participants so that they are cognizant of their performance and, therefore, the requirement for resubmission will not come as a surprise.
Rationale: Setting standards and computing error rates in this area is complicated and burdensome.
There are many fields/linkages involved, different fields vary widely in importance and some of the indexing is subjective, thereby precluding a clean "correct/incorrect" determination. Also, requiring resubmission for a few minor errors is more costly and time consuming than if they were simply fixed in LSSA's QA Facility. The submitter will be notified of any corrections made by the QA Facility.
17
 
GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WIIB SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION IBRESHOLDS Commitment 2.B, continued Compliance Assessment Method Format -- The LSSA QA Facility will perform an automated validation of each submitted header.
Critical Access Points -- The LSSA QA Facility will examine each critical field for all submitted headers. Also, during periodic on-site audits, the LSSA will check the accuracy of critical header field entries for those materials that are referenced in the LSS by header only, such as privileged or non-imageable materials, by comparing a sample of these materials against the header entries.
Non-critical Header Fields and Linkages -- The LSSA QA Facility will examine header fields within representative samples drawn from batches of participant-processed material that has been loaded to the LSS.
18
 
GROUP 2 ** COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.C Commitment ** Image Preparation All LSS participants will prepare and submit legible (or best available) images of their LSS material for entry into the LSS. Non-DOE participants may submit a paper copy of their LSS material, but DOE and NRC must prepare a properly formatted digital image for all LSS material processed through their information management system. [&sect;2.1003)
Processing Standard Standard: Format -- Digital images must meet the format standards established by the LSSA (with LSSARP review and comment) considered "state-of-the-art" at the time image submission commences, which may change over time based on technological advances in the field. The media on which electronic images will be submitted will be governed by the same requirements.
Legibility -- all submitted images must be complete, readable representations of the originals, unless marked "best available copy".
Rationale: If there are an unacceptable number of submitted images that do not meet legibility and/or digital image format standards prescribe4 LSS users would either retrieve on-line images that could not be interpreted or the LSSA would encounter difficulties in loading the LSS database.
Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Images will be rejected if there is any deviation from the digital image format standards or if there is a deviation from the legibility standard of more than 1 % of the images in an individual unit or a sample drawn from a batch of participant-submitted material loaded to the LSS.
Rationale: Format problems are simple to avoid and should rarely, if ever, occur. It would be very costly to have every image meet the established legibility standard. Accepting no more than 1 %
substandard images is a reasonable standard. Pages in the LSS with substandard images that cause problems for LSS users will be corrected to standard, where possible. As necessary, participants will be required to submit legible replacement images in the same format (electronic or bard-copy) as originally submitted, or certify that the image already submitted is "best available".
Compliance Assessment Method At its QA Facility, the LSSA will perform an automated validation of digital image formats. The LSSA will also examine representative samples of digital images drawn from batches of participant-processed material, as well as samples of any hardcopy images submitted by non-DOE participants.
19
 
GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING ST ANDA RD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.D Commitment -- Electronic Text Preparation DOE and NRC will produce electronic text for the textual portion of nearly all of its LSS material (privileged material and some text imbedded in graphics will not be converted to electronic text).
[&sect;2.1003) The LSSA will convert non-DOE participant material to electronic text where it has not already been so converted.
Processing Standard Standard: The electronic text for each page of submitted LSS material will have no more than two errors per thousand convertible characters (99.8% accurate) when compared to the text in the corresponding digital image.
Rationale: If there are an unacceptable number of wrong or missing electronic text characters in the processed text. then LSS users could miss some material when performing word searches against the electronic text and thereby call into question the integrity/usefulness of the LSS. Also, errors could impact a user's ability to navigate through text and from text to images. At this time, it is anticipated that. while the best available commercial product will be utilized for text conversion, some re-keying will be necessary.
Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Electronic text will be rejected if more than 1 % of the sampled pages either do not meet the standard or do not conform to LSSA's text conversion/format guidance, e.g., conversion of figure titles, and insertion of "see image" flags.
Rationale: Given the tremendous volume of LSS material to be processed and the relatively high cost of editing converted electronic text to a high standard, it would be very costly to require that every page of electronic text meets the established standard. LSSA proposes to accept batches of material that have no more than 1 % substandard pages. However, no page will be accepted if the text accuracy is below 90%. Pages in the LSS with substandard electronic text that cause problems for LSS users will be corrected to standard.
Compliance Assessment Method Text characters from representative samples drawn from batches of material loaded to the LSS will be compared to the corresponding digital image characters at the LSSA QA Facility.
20
 
GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.E Commitment -- Technical Data Package (Raw Data) Preparation All LSS participants will assemble and prepare their LSS documentary material qualifying as Technical Data Packages in accordance with established guidance. If necessary, DOE will "electronically assemble" Technical Data Packages for submission to the LSS in accordance with LSSA guidance. (&sect;2.1003)
Processing Standard Standard: All participants -- all packages will have a proper Table of Contents and otherwise conform to LSSA guidance; DOE only -- any required electronic links from the package components to the Table of Contents will be present and correct.
Rationale: If the material supporting a technical investigation is not properly submitted as a "package", then LSS users will be unable to identify and/or examine all material supporting a particular investigation.
Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Technical Data Packages will be rejected if there is any deviation from the standard.
Rationale: Tables of Contents and linkages are critical LSS features that permit effective use of the system. Technical Data Package components that cannot be located or associated with a specific investigauon would raise questions about the integrity of the LSS database.
Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will examine all individual Technical Data Package submissions that have been loaded to the LSS at its QA Facility.
21
 
GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.F Commitment -- Amendments After Verification Period After the verification period in Commitment 3L bas expired, all LSS participants needing to amend a submission due to missing or incorrect pages will submit a complete new header and corrected images to the LSSA in accordance with Commitments l.F, 2.B and 2.C. [&sect;2.1004)
Processing Standard Standard: Same as for Commitments l.F, 2.B and 2.C.
Rationale: If errors found by participants are not corrected and resubmitted in a proper and timely manner, users may either be relying on incorrect material or be unable to locate or know of the existence of certain material. Without the timely submission of new updated headers with the correct pages, LSS users will not be aware of the changes and updates to the LSS database. This will lead to a degradation in user confidence in the usefulness of the LSS as a discovery database.
Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Same as for Commitments IF, 2.B and 2.C.
Rationale: Same as for Commitments IF, 2.B and 2.C.
Compliance Assessment Method See Compliance Assessment Methods for Commitments IF, 2.B and 2.C.
22
 
GROUP 3 -- COMMITMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS I 3.A Commitment -- Designated LSS Official All potential LSS participants will identify a DLO who will be responsible for the administration of their LSS responsibilities under the LSS Rule. [&sect;2.1009)
I 3.B Commitment -- Petitions for Access All potential LSS participants will petition the PAPO for access to the LSS in accordance with the LSS Rule. [&sect;2.1008)
I 3.C Commitment -- Compliance Program Plan As a condition for gaining access to the LSS, all potential LSS participants will develop and submit to the LSSA for review and approval a Compliance Program Plan in accordance with the LSSA Guidance on the Format and Content of LSS Participant Compliance Program Plans.
I 3.D Commitment -- Complying with Orders All LSS participants will comply with orders of either the PAPO, the PO, or the Commission as a condition to retaining access to the LSS. [&sect;2.1012)
I 3.E Commitment -- LSS Audits LSS participants will cooperate with LSSA's audits of their document processing activities and agree to LSSA observation of any audits the LSS participant may conduct 23
 
GROUP 3 -- COMMITMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS j 3.F Commitment -- Access to Material Not Suitable for Entry All LSS participants will provide access to their non-privileged LSS documentary material that is not suitable for entry into the LSS in accordance with required LSS access protocols or through entry upon land for inspection or for other purposes pursuant to &sect;2.1020. [&sect;2.1003]
I 3.G Commitment -- DLO Certifications Participant DLOs will accurately certify compliance with all LSS commitments every six months in accordance with LSSA-established format and on a schedule specified by the LSSA. [&sect;2.1009]
j 3.H Commitment -- Participants' Written Procedures All LSS participants will establish written procedures to implement their responsibilities under the LSS Rule. [&sect;2.1009)
I 3.1 Commitment -- Participants' Training All LSS participants will provide adequate training for their staff and their contractors' staff producing and/or processing LSS material. [&sect;2.1009] Participants and their contractors wbo will use the LSS must receive LSSA-required training before using the system.
I 3.J Commitment -- Reporting Requirements All LSS participants will submit to the LSSA: a) complete and accurate periodic reportS/data pertaining to their document processing plans and activities in accordance with LS SA-established (and LSSARP-reviewed) formats; and, b) paper copies of any screened documentary material needed by LSSA for either quality assurance or other verification purposes.
24
 
GROUP 3 -- COMMITMENTS WIIBOUT SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS I 3.K Commitment -- Duplicate Elimination All LSS participants will make a reasonable effort to minimize the submission of duplicates of their LSS material previously submitted to the LSS. The LSSA, through the LSS, will also identify duplicates that will occur within and among various LSS participants' submissions.
I 3.L Commitment -- Amendments Within Verification Period Within the LSS Rule's prescribed verification periods, all LSS participants will make a reasonable effort to verify the accuracy of their LSS documentary material entered into the LSS and notify LSSA of any errors. [&sect;2.1004)
I 3.M Commitment -- Contractor Compliance with LSS Rule All LSS participants will ensure that their contractors, consultants, grantees, or other agents, comply with the applicable requirements of the LSS Rule and derivative LSSA guidance.
I 3.N Commitment -- LSS Access Privileges No LSS participant will abuse its LSS access privileges in ways that purposefully interfere with the ability of other users to have full and ready access to the LSS database or otherwise purposefully place unnecessary burden on the system.
I 3.0 Commitment -- Participants' Costs All LSS participants will pay for their own LSS computer facilities, to include workstations (hardware and software) and any local area networks. Participants will also pay for the telephone connect charges they incur to access the LSS database. Participants will also pay for paper copies ordered on line through the LSS, unless a fee waiver for the paper copies bas been approved by the LSSA. [&sect;2.1007) 25
 
GROUP 3 -- COMMITMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS I 3.P Commitment -- FOIA Responsibilities Federal Government LSS participants will respond to any FOIA requests for the LSS documentary material they have submitted to the LSS. [&sect;2.1007]
I 3.Q Commitment -- Public Access Terminals NRC and DOE will provide terminals for public access to the LSS. [&sect;2.1007) 26
 
ATTACHMENT 1 DEFINITION OF TERMS AND LISTING OF ACRONYMS TERMS backlog backlog repository cited for noncompliance Designated LSS Official (DLO)
LSS documentary material which was generated by, at the direction of, or acquired by an LSS participant prior to the availability of the LSS (for NRG and DOE) or the granting of LSS access (for all other participants). (&sect; 2.1003)
A collection of records or other information under the control of an LSS participant or its contractors which contains backlog. These collections must be identified to the LSSA by a participant's Designated LSS Official.
An action taken by the LSSA in response to a participant's failure to act in accordance with its responsibilities under the LSS Rule. This includes the violation of standards established by the LSSA based on LSSA responsibilities under the LSS Rule.
A citation for non-compliance will be reported to the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer or the Presiding Officer, as appropriate, and is a last recourse after prior efforts to address the shortcomings have failed. (&sect; 2.1 O 12)
A participant may appeal a citation for non-compliance to the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer or Presiding Officer, as appropriate.
An official designated by each LSS participant as the LSS point-of-contact, who will be responsible for administering its LSS responsibilities and for certifying compliance with the LSS Participant Commitments. (&sect; 2.1009) 1
 
documentary material documentary material not suitable for entry into the LSS generation/acquisition source granting of access to the LSS high-level radioactive waste (HLW) image Any material or other information that is relevant to, or likely to lead to the discovery of information that is relevant to, the licensing of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository. The scope of documentary material shall be guided by the topical guidelines in the applicable NRC Regulatory Guide. (&sect; 2.1001)
Any documentary material that is not available in either image or full-text format, e.g., a soil sample.
Such material is to be described in the LSS by means of a sufficiently descriptive bibliographic header, which will contain information about how to access the material. (&sect; 2.1003)
Any organizational unit of an LSS participant, e.g.,
offices, branches, departments, that has program responsibility to either create or acquire potentially relevant LSS material and any of its contractors that may produce or acquire potentially relevant LSS material.
Section 2.1008 of the LSS Rule sets forth the procedures for a potential party to petition for access to the LSS. The Pre-License Application Presiding Officer (PAPO) will rule on all such petitions for access. In order to gain access, the participant must agree to comply with all orders of the PAPO and all LSS regulations.
The most radioactive category of nuclear waste, e.g.,
spent fuel from nuclear power plants and the waste from defense activities. HLW usually decays or loses radioactivity rapidly. However, HLW also contains elements that decay very slowly and remain radioactive for thousands of years. (See 10 CFR Part 60, Subpart A, Section 60.2}.
A visual likeness of a document presented on a paper copy, microform, or a bit-map on optical or magnetic media. (&sect; 2.1001) 2
 
LSS Administrator (LSSA)
LSS Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP)
LSS participant, or participant non-privileged material Pre-License Application Presiding Officer Presiding Officer (PO)
The person within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission responsible for administration, management, and operation of the LSS. The LSSA shall not be in any organizational unit that either represents the NRG staff as a party to the high-level waste licensing proceeding or is a part of the management chain reporting to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
The organizational unit within the NRG selected to be the LSSA shall not be considered to be a party to the proceeding. (&sect; 2.1001)
The LSSA established the LSSARP, whose members are responsible for providing advice to DOE on the design and development of the computer system necessary to implement the LSS and to the LSSA on the operation and maintenance of the LSS, in addition to other duties specified in
&sect; 2.1011 of the LSS Rule.
A party, potential party, or interested governmental participant to the HLW geologic repository licensing proceeding, as those terms are defined in &sect; 2.1001 of the LSS Rule.
Documentary material that is not identified by a participant as confidential, proprietary, or classified, and which must be submitted to the LSS. (See also Section 2.1006 of the Supplementary Information to the LSS Rule for a description of types of privileged materials.)
One or more members of the Commission, or an atomic safety and licensing board, or a named officer who has been delegated final authority in the pre-license application phase with jurisdiction specified at the time of designation. (&sect; 2.1001)
One or more members of the Commission, or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a named officer who has been delegated final authority in the HLW proceeding after DOE's license application has been docketed. (&sect; 2.1001) 3
 
public sanction Any non-participants interested in the DOE licensing proceedings. Public access to the LSS will be provided by the LSSA at all locations specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section 2.1007 of the LSS Rule, after a notice of hearing has been issued.
A penalty that the PAPO, the PO, or the Commission may impose on an LSS participant for misconduct, noncompliance, or failure to fulfill its obligations under the Rule. One such penalty, as stated in Section 2.1012 of the LSS Rule, is suspension or termination of access to the LSS.
4
 
ACRONYMS ASCII Commission DLO DOE HLW LSS LSSA LSSARP NRC O&M PAPO PO QA QC American Standard Code for Information Interchange Nuclear Regulatory Commission Designated LSS Official Department of Energy High-Level Radioactive Waste Licensing Support System Licensing Support System Administrator Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operations and Maintenance Pre-license Application Presiding Officer Presiding Officer Quality Assurance Quality Control 5
 
COMMITMENT Introduction I.A l.B l.C l.D KEY TO CHANGES IN THE LSS PARTICIPANT COMMITMENTS MAY 12, 1995 CHANGE Group 4 was eliminated. The intent of those commitments, which centered on DOE responsibilities for design, development, and implementation of the LSS, will be captured in the Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and NRC.
pf -
P2 -
Added reference to "exclusion criteria".
Inserted "10 working days" as standard.
* - Pl refers to paragraph l of the commitment Pl -
Established June 30, 1996, as the first submission date.
Reduced the scope of the Plan to cover current year plus each of next two years, rather than 10 years.
Requires submission schedule to be broken down into six-month increments, to mirror twice yearly compliance certification by the LSSA.
P2 -
Eliminated 10 year projection and simplified the standard to reduce burden on participants.
Pl -
Added language concerning "eliminating authorized exclusions" to clarify the point at which relevancy screening is considered to begin.
Pl -
Rewrote this paragraph to simplify the audit trail requirements and lessen burden on participants. Participants need not track materials which are authorized exclusions under Section 2.1005 of the Rule.
 
LE l.F LG 1.H 2.A KEY TO CHANGES IN THE LSS PARTICIPANT COMMITMENTS MAY 12, 1995 CHANGE P4 -
The "Variance" was revised to more accurately reflect the program schedule and to recognize that the Material Submission Plan is an estimate that should become more accurate over time.
Completion of backlog submission was established as June 1, 2000, based upon a presumed mid-2001 license application submission date.
P2 -
Revised 10 day standard to 20 days.
PS -
Revised Threshold to accord with new 20 day standard by changing "workdays to acceptance".
P6 -
Removed sentence beginning "The threshold of not greater than 30 days.... ".
P7 -
Clarified the meaning of "Date accepted by LSSA QA Facility".
Pl -
Changed "E-Mail" to "LSS Electronic Transmission Capability" to avoid using technological tenns which are limiting.
Added the requirement for participants to include with their electronic transmission a textual representation of the header.
P2 -
Revised the standard to reflect the authority of the Presiding Officer to set deadlines for exhibit submission.
Pl -
Revised language to reflect LSSARP Header Work Group involvement in developing unitization guidance.
 
COMMITMENT 2.B 2.C 2.D 2.E 3.C Former 3.E 3.J (former 3.K)
KEY TO CHANGES IN THE LSS PARTlCIPANT COMMITMENTS MAY 12, 1995 CHANGE Pl -
Added "NRC" to third sentence.
P5 -
Revised to indicate that participants will be notified of corrections made by the LSSA QA Facility.
P6 -
Revised to indicate that the LSSA QA Facility, not DOE, will perform validation testing.
P2 -
Revised to eliminate technology-specific language.
Pl -
Changed "ASCII Text" to "Electronic Text" to avoid using technological terms which are limiting.
Added "NRC" to first sentence.
P3 -
Added language relating to use of "best available commercial product for text conversion".
Pl -
Changed "Technical Investigation Package" to "Technical Data Package" to conform to DOE protocol.
Changed reference from "LSSA guidance" to "LSSA Guidance on the Format and Content of LSS Participant Compliance Program Plans".
Removed this commitment (Cooperation with Advisory Review Process) as redundant.
Simplified reporting by eliminating the requirement for participants to prepare listings of material they determined non-relevant.}}

Latest revision as of 22:43, 22 December 2025

Certification Minutes of 11th Meeting of the LSS Advisory Review Panel
ML25329A184
Person / Time
Issue date: 12/31/1998
From: Hoyle J
NRC/Chairman
To:
References
Download: ML25329A184 (0)
v • d • e


Text

SECRETARY UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20555-0001 CERTIFICATION MINUTES OF ELEVENTH MEETING OF THE LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL I certify that the attached minutes of the Meeting of the LSS Advisory Review Panel, held on May 12, 1995 are accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

December 31, 1998 Date

MINUTES LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING May 12, 1995 Las Vegas, Nevada The eleventh meeting of the Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) took place on May 12, 1995 in Room 3-B45, two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.

Members of the LSSARP present were:

John Hoyle, Chairman (NRC)

Claudia Newbury (DOE)

Steve Frishman (State of Nevada)

Kirk Balcom (State of Nevada)

Dennis Bechtel (Clark County)

Brad Mettam (Inyo County)

Pete Cummings (City of Las Vegas)

Jay Silberg (Nuclear Industry)

Lloyd Mitchell (Oneida Nation)

Enclosed are:

1. Meeting Agenda
2. Federal Register Notice (Pre-publication) Announcing Meeting
3. Attendance List
4. Meeting transcript and Material Presented at the meeting The meeting was open and attended by members of the public.

This transcript has not been corrected or edited and it may contain inaccuracies.

J9h~~h~an LSS Advisory Review Panel

ENCLOSURE 1 MEETING AGENDA

AGENDA LSSARP MEETING, MAY 12, 1995 Rockville, Maryland Friday, May 12, 1995 1:00 1:15 2:15 2:30 2:45 Introduction (LSSARP Chairman)

Technical Working Group Recommendation on Level 1 Requirements for LSS Design (TWG)

Final Approval of Header Working Group Recommendations (HWG)

Current LSS Activity at NRC (NRC/LSSA)

Action Item Review/ Next Meeting Schedule (All)

ENCLOSURE 2 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ANNOUNCING MEETING

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Notice of Public Meeting.

SUMMARY

The Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) will hold its next meeting on May 12, 1995, at the Headquarters Building of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Room T-3 B45, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting will be open to the public pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L.94-463, 86 Stat.770-776).

AGENDA:

The meeting will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Friday, May 12, 1995.

The agenda will consist of the following topics:

1.

Consideration of a Report of the LSS Technical Working Group on Level One Requirements for the LSS Design

2.

Current LSS Activity at NRC

3.

Future Meeting Topics and Schedule SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established the LSSARP in 1989 to provide advice and

.. recommendations to the NRC and to the Department of Energy (DOE) concerning the design, development and operation of an electronic information management system, known as the Licensing Support System (LSS), which will contain information relevant to the Commission's future licensing proceeding for a geologic repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste.

Membership on the Panel consists cf representatives of the State and Local Governments of Nevada, the National Congress of American Indians, the nuclear industry, DOE, NRC and other agencies of the Federal government which have experience with large electronic information management systems.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John C. Hoyle, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555: telephone 301-415-1969.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Interested persons may make oral presentations to the Panel or file written statements.

Requests for oral presentations should be made to the contact person listed above as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Dated:

Andrew L. Bates Advisory Committee Management Officer

ENCLOSURE 3 ATTENDANCE LIST

ATTENDANCE LIST LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING May 12, 1995 Panel Members U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John C. Hoyle, Chairman U.S. Department of Energy Claudia Newbury State of Nevada Steve Frishman Kirk Balcom Local Government - Adjacent Dennis Bechtel, Clark County Brad Mettam, Inyo County Pete Cummings, City of Las Vegas Nuclear Industry Jay Silberg Chris Henkel Indian Tribes Lloyd Mitchell, Oneida Nation

Others Tony Neville, LABAT Anderson F. Dickerson, OCRWM M&O Michael J. Fisher, TRSS Martin Cummings, TRW/M&O Stan Schafer, NRC Dan Graser, NRC Joe Speicher, LABAT-Anderson Paul Bollwerk, NRC Chip Cameron, NRC Roger Hardwick. Clark County James W. Frank, OCWRM/M&O Moe Levin, NRC Phillip Paull, WESTON Ken Kalman, NRC Camille Kerrigan, M&O/TRW Bill Olmstead, NRC Jim Peguer, City of Las Vegas Lynn Scattolini, NRC Victoria Reich, NWTRB Jocelyn Smith, LAI

ENCLOSURE 4 TRANSCRIPT AND MATERIAL PRESENTED AT 5/12/95 LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP)

Docket Number:

Not Applicable Location:

Rockville, Maryland Date:

May 12, 1995 Work Order No.:

NRC-217 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Pages 1-79

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+ + + + +

LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL (LSSARP)

+ + + + +

FRIDAY MAY 12, 1995

+ + + + +-

1 10 11 The Review Panel met in Conference Room 3B45 at 12 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, q

13 ii ll545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, at 1:00 p.rn.,

14 *John C. Hoyle, Chairman, presiding.

15 I I I

16 ! 1 PANEL MEMBERS:

I 1 Chairman 17 18 19 20 21 '

22 23 24 25 JOHN C. HOYLE ARNOLD LEVIN LSS Administrator, NRC CHIP CAMERON KIRK BALCOM DENNIS BECHTEL PETER CUMMINGS STEVE FRISHMAN CHRISTOPHER HENKEL BRAD METTAM NRC NEAL R. GROSS (202) 234-4433 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 PANEL MEMBERS (Continued):

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I

I i I I ; I I I

1 I

I I l I LLOYD MITCHELL CLAUDIA NEWBURY JAS SILBERG (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 2,

(202) 234-4433

3 1 1

I N D E X 2

AGENDA ITEM PAGE 3

Introduction, Chairman Hoyle 4

4 Technical Working Group Recommendation on Level 1 6

I 5

Requirements for LSS Design (TWG), ROGER HARDWICK 6

Final Approval of Header Working Group Recommendations 51 7

8 9

10 11

! I 12 'I I I, I 13 I I ii

, I 14 15 16 I*

I I 17 18 I

19 i I 20 21 I I

22 'I I!

23 24 25

( HWG) I Current LSS Action Item (202) 234-4433 Activity at NRC (NRC/LSSA)

Review/Next Meeting Schedule NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 58 72 (202) 234-4433

1 2

3 4

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1:05 p.m.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

This is a meeting of the 4

Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel.

It's a 5

federal advisory committee panel, and we meet under the 6

conditions and the provisions of the Federal Advisory 7

Committee Act.

8 If there are members of the public who wish to 9

make statements, I'd appreciate if they would hold them 10 until the end of the meeting, but you are certainly invited !

11 to make statements at that time.

12 Before proceeding with the agenda, I would like 13 to have the members of the panel reintroduce themselves.

14 i I This is sort of a procedure that we have for our meetings.

I 15 1: so, I'll start with Claudia.

16 I MS. NEWBURY:

My name is Claudia Newbury.

I I

17 I work for the U.S. Department of Energy.

I 1a I MR. MITCHELL:

Lloyd Mitchell, Oneida Tribe of 19 Wisconsin.

I work with the National Congress of American 20 Indians.

21 MR. METTAM:

Brad Mettam, with Inyo County, 22 California.

23 MR. CUMMINGS:

Pete Cummings with the City of 24 Las Vegas, Nevada.

25 (202) 234-4433 MR. BECHTEL:

Dennis Bechtel, Clark County, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.NW.

WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

5 1

Nevada.

2 MR. FRISHMAN:

Steve Frishman, State of Nevada.

3 MR. BALCOM:

Kirk Balcom, State of Nevada.

4 MR. HENKEL:

Chris Henkel, Nuclear Energy 5

Institute.

6 MR. CAMERON:

Chip Cameron, Office of General 7

Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

MR. LEVIN:

Moe Levin, NRC.

8 9

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Okay, and I'm John Hoyle from 10 NRC, without a mic.

11 Our agenda today is a planned agenda, it's 12 relatively brief.

I think I've heard some things at the 13 meeting with DOE this morning that may add an item or two, I

14 :

1 but I particularly want to hear today from the Technical 15 Working Group on the Level 1 requirements, and ask the 11 16 !I panel to act on those recommendations, though, we haven't 17 1, seen them to deliberate on them ourselves.

18 I I I would like to see if we can reach final 19 1 approval of the Header Working Group recommendations.

I I

20 I We'll hear from Moe about the activity within 21 the NRC on LSS.

22 One other item, I'm ready to give Mr. Levin, 23 the LSS Administrator, a memorandum from the panel which 24 recommends the manner in which the technical language in 25 the LSS rule can be understood.

I got comments from the (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVENUE, NW.

WASHINGTON. DC. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 panel members.

Brad gave me a couple of what I would call 2

editorial changes which I've made, and there is a copy of 3 it in your blue folder.

So, Moe, I'm giving you the 4

original at this time.

5 Unless there are comments, initial comments by 6

members of the panel, at this time I would like to move 7

ahead to the Technical Working Group recommendations on 8

Level 1 requirements for LSS design.

Sponsor? There's 9

room up here, Roger, why don't you come on up.

10 MR. HARDWICK:

Okay.

Thank you.

11 My name is Roger Hardwick with Clark County, 12 Nevada, and I'm also the Chairman of the Technical Working 13 Group.

Before I get started on the presentation of the 14 Technical Working Group I would just like to take a minute I

15 to let the panel know how much work has gone into this and I

6 16 li the commitment and dedication of these 14 people now on the ;

17 I I Technical Working Group, it has just been absolutely I

18 ll amazing.

It's been successful and it's been all because of I 19, the participant commitments that they are making.

I j

20 :

There's three areas I'd like to talk about.

I I 21 1 One is the Level 1 Function Requirement Statement, the 22 other is the Technical Working Group has come up with 23 several questions that they thought they wanted to present 24 to the panel to get an opinion on, or to get a call on, and 25 then also talk a little bit about the next steps for the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 2

3 4

Technical Working Group.

We met this morning, the Technical Work Group met this morning, at 8:00 here in this building, to go through one final iteration.

There are 29 Level 1 7

I I I I

I 5

functional requirements that have been agreed to up to this I I

I 6

point, and everybody has had several weeks to review them I

and we met this morning to go through them one more time 7

8 9

and made a few editing changes, no content changes, but did j make some editing changes, and that's the reason I don't I

I 10 have a copy of the 29 requirements because we just finished I I

11 1, it this morning at about 10:00, but I will commit to having,

12 j those requirements to the panel on Monday when I get back 13 I I to my office.

1, 14 But, the consensus of the Technical Working 15 '! Group is that these 29 Level 1 requirements are

! I 16 ' encompassing and are complete, relative to defining Level 1 17 ;[ requirements, and the Technical Working Group recommends 18 ll that the panel accept those requirements as Level 1 19 1requirements.

I 20 Any comments from the Technical Working Group, 21 that any of the members of the working group would like to 22 I add, relative to enhancing my statements on the Level 1 I

23,* functional requirements.

24 I think the effort that has gone into the Level 25 1 functional requirements has been phenomenal, and the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.NW WASHINGTON. DC 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 homework that everybody has done here has just -- we're 2

much farther ahead than I thought we'd ever be.

3 Any of the panel members have any questions on 4

the Level 1 requirements?

No?

Okay, good.

5 MR. BECHTEL:

Could you maybe just go through 6

some of the -- maybe discuss some of the requirements?

7 8

MR. HARDWICK:

Okay.

MS. NEWBURY:

Or, at least the changes since 9

the last time the panel met?

10 MR. HARDWICK:

Okay, yes, that would be good.

11 I kind of hesitate to go through the changes, because I 12 !haven't given everybody a copy of the document that we I I 13 I! changed today.

14 1 I I I The document we were working from was a pre-8 I

15 I decisional draft dated 5/11/95, and that outlined 29 16 1/ requirements.

In the first requirement, LSSl00l, it has to 17 ldo with LSS software components shall be integrated using j

18 !modern design techniques and well-documented interfaces 19 !which allow components to be integrated into the system 20 without seriously impacting other components.

The big 21 !! change there was that we took out any references to 22 /software, because in our discussions it's much more than 23 just software, it's systems, it's hardware, it's processes 24 and procedures.

So, the text, the content of the text 25 pretty much stayed the same, we just took out the (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 references to software, to remove some specificity from 2

that.

3 And, the rest of them, going all the way down 4

to LSS1005, there was no problems, and these are pretty 5

much the basis -- the basis of these was the original 6

functional requirements document that TRW prepared and 7

submitted that we reviewed at the last ARP meeting.

That 8

was the genesis of these, and the changes are not that 9

significant from there.

10 LSS1005, we had talked about the capability of 11 ll recognized characters from digital images, and the main I

9 12 ll question here and the main controversy was the fact that we 13 ll were concerned that what best achievable is for optical I I h

  • t '

t Th d

h 14 l c aracter recogn1 10n accep ance.

e ec1s1on ere was 15 !that we -- this is not a Level 1 functional requirement, to,

l b d

16 e defined at Level 1, but we wante to make note of 1t so 17 that when we go to the Level 2 functional requirements it 18 doesn't get lost, that we, in fact, do go through and 19 determine some levels of accuracy and some minimum 20 acceptable standards for those.

21 And, with the other one we talked about, and 22 that's one of the questions that we had for the panel 23 today, was the two search and retrieval modes.

Oh, no, 24 wait a minute, we decided that wasn't going to be a 25 question, didn't we?

The next major thing was the system (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.

WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

10 1

definition, and we came up with a system definition, and 2

I'm not sure that I have even the comprehensive, but in my 3

notes I have the comprehensive, but let me just take a 4

second and read what we've come up with as a system 5

definition.

This not be exact word for word what's going 6

to be issued when I go through my notes and type it up.

7 The system definition is the totality of hardware, 8

software, communications, data and processes and procedures,

I 9

dedicated to writing document intake, searching, retrieving 10 I and delivery to the users of the headers, text and images, I

11 I j as detailed in the mission statements found in 10 CFR 2 ( j).

I 12 I And, I think we had consensus among the group that that I

13 I I would be an acceptable systems definition.

14 MR. BALCOM:

Actually, I might as well raise it I here.

ii 15 I raised the question this morning that it could be 16 seen from this statement I I 17 l 1 place where the raw data that the technical repository, the I will reside, which is, perhaps, a 18 separate facility, might not be included in this statement, 19 and the question to the ARP is going to be, is it part of 20 21 11 "

22 23 24 25 the LSS?

The headers and the pointers to that separate collection of tangible data of core samples, field notes and so on, is all going to be part of the LSS, but in terms of actually physically getting to those tangible pieces of the system that are not documentary, is that part of the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

11 I 1

LSS?

And, I just raise that, you know, for your 2

consideration this morning, because if it is, there may be 3

some design considerations that DOE is doing.

4 i

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

What do you see the advantages '

5 or disadvantages of it being part of the LSS or not?

6 MR. BALCOM:

Well, it's a separate facility to 7

be managed, so I guess, you know, the LSSA also would be 8

wanting to know how that impacts on the actual operation of !

9 the LSS at some point.

I 10 The advantages, it seems to me that there could I 11 be some control over the timeliness of actually getting 12 data, which seems like it's beeri a problem in the past, at 13 least from the standpoint of Nevada's request for I

11 14 materials.

Granted, this goes way back several years, you

, I 15,know, five or six years now, and I know NRC, prior to their I I 16 !!organizational changes, was looking in depth at the I

17 l protocols for getting at this material, and, you know, I 18 just want to raise this again and see where the ARP stands 19 on it, and where the interests of the community is on it, 20 and is it going to come up and bite us at some point?

21 MS. NEWBURY:

Let's see if I understand 22 properly.

You are considering the Sample Management 23 Facility as part of the LSS?

24 MR. BALCOM:

No -- is that what it's called 25 now, is the Sample Management --

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

12 1

MS. NEWBURY:

It's always been called the 2

Sample Management Facility.

3 MR. BALCOM:

All right.

4 When NRC was looking at some of the protocols 5

for getting at documentary material, and actually even 6

doing document intake several years ago, I guess maybe four '

I 7

years ago now, I think the word they used then was 8

technical repository or something like that, and the sample 9

data --

10 MS. NEWBURY:

You are not talking about the 11 data that's generated from the sample, which would be in 12 the LSS, you are talking about the sample itself?

13 MR. BALCOM:

Well, no, actually the data 14 i I generated, would the header be there or would the actual 15 l: data generated be in the LSS?

16 MS. NEWBURY:

In most cases, the data that's 17 generated from the sample would be in the system, because 18 it would be, you know, electronic paper data.

19 20 MR. BALCOM:

How about somebody's field notes?

MS. NEWBURY:

Field notes would be in the 21 system, because they are part of our record system.

22 23 24 25 (202) 234-4433 MR. BALCOM:

And, there would be --

MS. NEWBURY:

From notebooks.

MR. BALCOM:

-- an image of each page?

MS. NEWBURY:

It's how we understand that's how NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 the records are kept, yes.

2 MR. CAMERON:

I think that years ago we did 3

address -- the technical data, of course, is addressed in 4

the rule, and that includes the material that can only be 13 5

imaged that are parts of the package, and it also includes 6

headers for the material, such as core samples, that would 7

not be "in" the LSS.

8 And, we thought that it would be sufficient to 9

establish a protocol with the Department in its 10 responsibility to manage that core sample facility, so that I 11 people would have reasonable access to that.

12 We saw a lot of problems with that being 13 designated as a part of the LSS.

14 MR. BALCOM:

I guess what I'm getting at is 15 1 1

simply wanting to clarify exactly where we stand on that, 16 !, and maybe having it be a part of the LSS is not the right 17 language, but do you still see the protocols as being, you 18 know, part of the LSSA's function?

19 MR. CAMERON:

Well, I think 20 MR. BALCOM:

And, the reasonable time issue is 21 I certainly one of the big issues for the State of Nevada.

22 MR. CAMERON:

I don't want to speak for Moe, 23 but I think that we would think that it would be very 24 important to take the lead in working out a development of 25 a protocol, of course, with the input from the panel that (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.

WASHINGTON. DC 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 would establish some sort of reasonable access, because 2

otherwise, you know, what good is it, you have to have 3

access to it.

MS. NEWBURY:

Chip, there's already an 5

agreement in place between DOE and NRC, and DOE and Nye 14 6

County.

I'm not sure that we have any agreements with the 7

state, in terms of getting samples from the Sample a Management Facility, if that's what this will turn into an 9

issue of.

And, I really think we ought to wait for Nye 10 County to be here, because they are the other big player, 11 ' they are the ones who are collecting samples.

12 I MR. BALCOM:

I think one thing that would help 13 Nevada is to maybe see that protocol.

I mean, I don't know I

14 where the state 15 MS. NEWBURY:

It's part of the site -- not the 16 'l site specific agreement, it's one of those that are the 17 l1 standard protocols, formal interaction protocols.

I 18 11 MR. LEVIN:

I suggest that maybe this is 19 11 something we can discuss at the meeting in June, and so we 20 can be prepared now that you've surfaced it, so we'll have 21, I all the information.

22 I

23 11 MR. BALCOM:

Okay, good.

MS. NEWBURY:

But, that's not part of these 24 functional requirements.

25 (202) 234-4433 MR. BALCOM:

No, since system design is -- I NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE NW WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 didn't want to narrowly -- so narrowly define it that it 2

excluded some things we were discussing four or five years 3

ago.

I feel comfortable with it now.

4 MR. LEVIN:

The reason for the system 5

definition was kind of like in procurement space.

When we 6

talk about the system, if we put together any kind of 7

documents or anything, we were looking for a definition of 8

what do we mean by the system.

We were trying to put some 9

bounds around it, and that was the discussion that 10 generated this topic, this issue.

11 MR. HARDWICK:

To continue on, that was the 12 major changes that we had made this morning, and then we 13 had a discussion as to it would not be appropriate for the 14 Technical Working Group to ask the panel to approve these I

15 :I functional requirements if we didn't have the functional 16, requirements to pass out to them and review prior to that.

17 So, one of the suggestions was, and this is a 18 suggestion that we, as the Technical Working Group, would 19 put to the panel, is that we will commit to have the edited 20 version of these functional requirements to the panel on 21 1 Monday, I will fax them to everybody on the panel on 22 Monday, and if we -- one of the ways we could do it is 23 that, if there was no response within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> we would 24 !assume that the panel agreed to it.

And, if there was 25 changes, we would probably have to -- we really wanted to (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

16,

1 be able to get closure on these functional, Level 1 2

functional requirements, however, we didn't feel right 3

asking the panel to do it when we haven't handed them out a 4

copy of the latest and greatest version.

5 So, we are open for suggestions as to how we 6

should proceed with this.

7 MR. LEVIN:

Let me make a comment on that.

We 8

have to get these nailed down and come to closure on this 9

very quickly, because it's very important because this is 10 just the high-level functional requirements, and that's 11 leading to the Level 2 requirements which are the detailed 12 II requirements which really 13 I like and allows DOE to go I I will define what the system looks out and do the procurement 14 actions and everything.

And that, they are already I

15 underway with developing the Level 2.

They have a schedule I 16 to meet, and we need a quick turnaround on this.

So, I

  • I 17 just want to express how important it is to look at it and I

I I 18 l! get back to us quickly.

19 I MR. METTAM:

I appreciate Roger is saying that 20 'l he'd like us to have a chance to look at them, because I

~ I 21 was starting to get nervous when I was hearing you folks 22 :! say, well, we are going to approve those today, and Roger ii 23,1 is saying, well, I don't have them for you to -- you know, 24 1

I I think that 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> may not be enough time.

You know, we 25 are talking about --

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

17 I 1

MR. HARDWICK:

It was just a number we picked 2

out of the air.

3 MR. METTAM:

but, at the same time, perhaps, 4

some time, you know, within 5

MR. HARDWICK:

Maybe that process isn't even 6

right.

7 MR. METTAM:

-- the next five working days, you !

8 know, which would give us from Monday to Friday morning, or 9

something like that.

10 That also means that someone has got to commit 11 to notify those people on the panel who are not present 12 that this is occurring, so that, you know, we don't have 13 people out of the loop.

14 MR. HARDWICK:

Yes.

15 I MR. METTAM:

Especially if we are going to do a 16 no answer is assent kind of an arrangement.

17 MR. HARDWICK:

We just brought it up as a 18 question as to how the panel would like us to proceed on 19 : ' this.

i I think we've expressed how important it is, and 2 O I we ' 11 do whatever is recommended.

I 21 I MR. BECHTEL:

But, would it be better to 22 I distribute it to John?

23 I CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

I'm not sure that would be the 24 fastest in this case, if he's going to be able to fax it, 25 but I certainly need to be involved.

I would like contact (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

18 :

1 with every member myself, even though it's sort of a 2

negative consent kind of thing, I would prefer a warm 3

feeling that you have seen it, it's been in your hands, and 4

you are not going to object to it.

I 5

6 I would ask Claudia to be sure that I know John participated in it today, didn't he?

that !

7 j MS. NEWBURY:

Yes, John was here this morning.

8 il He had to leave, his daughter is graduating from UNLV 9

tonight.

10 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Oh, okay.

11 Ii I

And, he is -- DOE is in agreement from John's 12 13

'I 11 standpoint?

Ii I,

I I

I MS. NEWBURY:

Yes, we are in agreement with 14 them as they stand now.

15 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

And, remind us of the work I

16 11 time.

Brad has suggested Friday, suppose I get in touch I

17 I. with you later in the day on Friday.

18 ii MS. NEWBURY:

Okay.

I don't know which day jl the 19 week the 23rd is.

As you saw in the briefing this 20,morning, that is our cutoff date for completion of the I

21 'I Level 1 requirements.

22,,

23 24 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

The 23rd is a Tuesday.

MS. NEWBURY:

So, next Friday would be fine.

MR. HARDWICK:

Is that an acceptable process 25 then, that I'll distribute them on Monday?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

of (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

1 19 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Yes.

I was going to call for 2

anymore discussion of that.

The suggestion is that, 3

provided you get it out on Monday, the panel members would 4

have the rest of the week to look at it, and give -- well, 5

there can be a negative consent as far as I'm concerned, 6

but I think I will make contact with the members as best I 7

can to see if, in fact, they have no comments or no 8

objection.

9 This will be, what, several pages?

10 11 MR. HARDWICK:

Four pages.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Four pages, okay.

12 I 13,I those

'I MR. CAMERON:

And, a cover memo, especially to who are not present, that explains the process?

I' 14 ii MR. HARDWICK:

Yes, I'll do it.

15 I 1 I MR. CAMERON:

And, John, could you we'll 16 '.

1make that also part of the public record, so that people 17 !l who have not had access to this material will know what we I

18 1;are talking about.

I, I 19 !j Roger, was there anything that was 20 11particularly, I think we've been used to living with 21 !! functional requirements for a long time now, was there 22 1anything controversial or unique that's worth singling out?

23 I think that Kirk already talked about one thing that was 24 worth discussing, the access protocol.

Is there anything 25 else that you think rises to (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 20 MR. HARDWICK:

Well, if you let me go through -

2

- we've come up with three questions also, and, perhaps, 3

and the questions are a direct result of us working on 4

these Level 1 functional requirements, and there have been 5

some discussions that we've had also relative to level of 6

accuracy for optical character readers, and those types of 7

concerns that are not really Level 1 functional 8

requirements, but are something we want to make note of so I 9

that we don't lose it as we get into Level 2, because 10 that's where that's going to have to be addressed.

11 So, if I can, and I'm not closing on the 12 functional requirements, but let me just go through the 13 questions that we had come up, and they were a direct 14 result of working on these Level 1 functional requirements.

I j 15 I The very first question has to do with I I 16 1l privileged data, and I had several iterations of the 11 17 question, but, perhaps, the most coherent iteration of the 18 question was from Preston Junkin, and if I could ask 19 !! Preston to, perhaps, explain the question, because he I

20 1 1really, if there's any questions about it, and Preston is 21 on our Technical Working Group, so could you do that?

22 23 24 MR. JUNKIN:

Can you hear me from here?

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Speak loudly.

MR. JUNKIN:

Okay.

The question, the basic 25 question regards the protective order filed with reference (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433

21 1

to the rule, and the question really is whether that 2

protective order filed is physically part of the LSS or 3

not.

Let me give you just a little background.

4 The rule states that regarding privileged 5

material, that the LSS shall include documentary material 6

which is not privileged under Section 1006.

It says that 7

privileged material will be placed into a protective order 8

file, that's stated in 1006.B.

It also says that a 9

bibliographic header will be submitted for this material.

10 So, all of this would imply that the material is in a 11 physically separate file without regard to the media, it 12 I doesn't comment of that, of course, but that's it distinct I

13 / from the LSS, except if there's a header pointing to that I

14, I location.

I I I

15 1, I

There's only sentence in here that's a little 16 !! trouble, which appears to contradict that, and we are 11 17 :I looking for some clarification, and that's in 2.1013D, it 18 il states that on-line access to the Licensing support 19 i: system -- it says, on-line access to the Licensing Support I 20 !' system, including a protective order filed if authorized by 1

21 the Presiding Officer, shall be provided.

One can infer 22 from that that the protective order file is in the LSS.

23 Our question is this, is the intent of rule satisfied if 24 the LSS, (a) contains the headers of privileged documents, 25 (b) the headers include the location of the document in a (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 protective order file, and, (c) the protective order file 2

is not part of the LSS.

For example, it might be a file 3

cabinet, or procedurally protected, or it could be on a 4

stand-alone computer, but it's not part of the LSS.

5 The reason we care is that, if that kind of 22 6

privileged data is in the LSS, it has definite implications 7

on the level of software security that has to be built into 8

the system, because people providing that information will 9

need to be assured that their data is going to be 10 protected, and this is a system that the public has access 11 to.

So, it could raise lots of concerns.

12 MR. METTAM:

Could you do a few examples of 13 what types of information would be in there?

14 ii MR. JUNKIN:

Proprietary data, basically, it's 15 qualified, and I'm not an attorney so, perhaps, they can

, I 16 1

  • speak better --

17 1 18 ii MR. METTAM:

MR. JUNKIN:

In general terms.

if a person makes a claim that 19,; information is proprietary or financial in nature, and I I 20,shouldn't be made available for the public, a ruling can be 21

  • made that it's absolutely qualified, in which case it 22 j I doesn't go anywhere -- I ' m sorry, that it's absolute 23 privileged data, in which case it doesn't go anywhere, or 24 that it's qualified privileged data.

If it's qualified, it 25 goes into the protective order file.

So, that means it's (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 relevant enough to the proceedings that some people need 2

access to it, but it's on a very controlled basis because 3 it does tend to be proprietary, financial kind of data.

MR. HARDWICK:

Or Privacy Act type data.

MR. JUNKIN:

Right.

23 4

5 6

MR. HARDWICK:

Those types of things.

There's 7

a whole series of categories here.

8 MR. HENKEL:

Could one example be the losing 9

bids for the multi-purpose canister, something like that?

MR. PRESTON:

I couldn't answer that.

10 11 MR. METTAM:

That's what I'm trying to get at, 1

12 !is a feel for what types of things we are talking about.

13 11 MR. HARDWICK:

Company proprietary information II 14 also on bid rates and, you know, those types of things that I I I

15 the company -- and qualifications, perhaps, for some of the I

16 technical experts.

There's a whole series of things.

MR. CAMERON:

Right.

If you look in 10 CFR I

I I

I 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, there's a number of I 17 18 19 privileges that are traditional privileges that I

any type of

  • 20 I adjudication, basically, although there's other things that I

21 I are set forth there, and it might be -- it traditionally is I

22 II included, like pre-decisional documents, proprietary, I

23 confidential, financial, there's attorney/client, things 24 like that, work product.

25 The rule says that access would be given to the (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 file.

In other words, privileged documents initially 2

aren't submitted to the LSS for entry and then put into a 3

confidential part of the LSS.

If a party claims a privilege for a document, and the Board rules that either the privilege doesn't apply here, okay, which means the 24 4

5 6

document comes in like a regular document to the LSS, or if,

I 7

8 the Board said the privilege applies, but it's necessary for a decision in the case, then you get to the protective 9

order file.

The rule says that if the Board authorizes 10 that there's going to be a protective order file in the 11 l, LSS, it could be, I think that we might have left this to a 12 future decision when we negotiated the rule.

In other 13 words, does the Board want to keep this all hard copy, or 1~ !1 does it want to set up a separate file in the LSS, and part 15 I of that consideration of leaving it for the future, you 16 know, revolves around exactly the issues that you are 17 !raising about cost, security, those types of things.

So, I 18 ! think that that's something that we need to work out and 19 talk to the representative of the Atomic Safety and 20 Licensing Board Panel, Paul Bollwerk is with us in the back 21 of the room, and I think he should be involved in that 22 discussion.

23 In fact, Paul, if you have anything that you 24 think might be useful to contribute on this issue, please 25 pitch in.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON. DC. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l

1 MR. BOLLWERK:

This is all I can say, up to 2

this point we've had some electronic filings come in that 3

we've been using in different proceedings, but we really 25 4

haven't dealt, I don't think, with proprietary information.

5 I think we've kept them out of the system.

6 Now, you know, if things are corning along --

7 MR. CAMERON:

When you say the system, don't 8

give people the impression, there are some electronic 9 !hearing dockets already that the Licensing Board has been 10 using.

11 MR. BOLLWERK:

They tend to be for a particular '

12 hearing, we get documents, generally, when we have a large 13 licensee document, they will bring them in electronically I

14, 1so we can use them in the hearing.

I l 15 '

As I say, security is corning along, questions 16 if about public key private, key security, key passwords, all 17 ! those sorts of things, we haven't really made a decision 18 about how we are going to handle those, so it's sort of an 19 ;1open question, I guess, is the answer.

And, as you say, I I 20 1 it's something to be looked at.

When we get electronic I

21 filings, generally, there's no reflection that they need to 22 be dealt with by security.

23 MR. HARDWICK:

One of the reasons we raise it 24 is the operational aspects could be very significant, if we 25 decide that we are going to have this privileged data or (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433

26 1

these files on electronic format in an LSS, and I guess the 2

gist of the Technical Work Group question is, is it the 3

opinion of the panel that the rule would be satisfied if 4

we, in fact, have headers of privileged documents, and the 5

headers will include the location, physical location of the I 6

documents, not necessarily in the LSS, and that the 7

physical location has protected procedures, protected in 8

some fashion.

9 And, basically, what the answer to that would 10 be, if the panel says that, yes, the rule is satisfied, 11 then that means we can go forward without having to include 12 the privileged data in the LSS.

13 I MR. CAMERON:

I think that, obviously, the 14 panel is going to have to talk about the pros and cons.

I

'I 15,, guess my opinion would be that if the panel decided that it ii 16,, was best to only have hard copy protective file, and, of 17 ;! course, this is something that we would have input from the 18 Licensing Board Panel on, I think that the rule would be 19 satisfied.

20 I think the question is, as a policy matter, is 21 ! it 22 J to 23 II

-- if you do a cost benefit analysis on it is it better have an electronic protective file or a hard copy file?

MR. HARDWICK:

But, that really doesn't matter 24 to us, because if it's electronically protected or a hard 25 copy file, we are worried about whether it's included in (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, DC 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 LSS.

It could be an electronic file not included in LSS, 2

and so the interpretation we were looking for was whether 3 it should be included in the LSS, I guess.

27 4

MR. METTAM:

Roger, let me repeat your question I 5

and see if I've got an understanding of it. The issue is 6

whether or not you need an additional level of security 7 built into the system, so that the documents could then be 8

accessed or not?

9 MR. HARDWICK:

No, no, the question is, is 1 O ! I whether the rule already says that we will have headers 11 '

1and locations of privileged documents in the LSS, that will I

12.

1 be there, so that there wi 11 be a traceabi 1 i ty of 13 !1 privileged documents.

14 The question is, where do the privileged 15 documents reside?

Because they are sensitive documents, 16 and I'm not sure that they could ever be classified, but 17 il they are sensitive or they are Privacy Act type documents, 18 l! if those documents reside in LSS that could have I I 19,! significant design impacts on the entire design of the LSS I

20 i I and operational aspects.

21 And so, the Technical Working Group is asking 22 !I the question that, is the rule satisfied if we just have 23 1,the headers that point to a physical location where the 24 I privileged data is, and not necessarily the LSS.

Is that 25 I clear, or am I still just stumbling?

(202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.

WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I I I

1 MR. METTAM:

When you say the LSS, are you 2

talking about the electronic component of the LSS or the 3

entire system, which includes the physical plant, because 4

I'm not sure it's a Level 1 functional requirement to 5

answer that question now, unless it involves sort of the 6

software design, you know, issue.

7 MR. HARDWICK:

Yes, it does.

28 8

MR. METTAM:

And, that's the question I was at, 9

is it the software security component that's needed 10 answered?

11 12 MR. HARDWICK:

Yes.

MR. BALCOM:

In other words, can you store the 13 materials in a different place than all the other documents.

14 l, for the LSS?

If the answer is yes, we don't have to build I I 15 !,, another level of security.

16 MR. METTAM:

Well, but that issue is easily I

I 17 1 handled.

I mean, whether you keep the file cabinet under 18 I the LSSA's physical control, or in another building, 19 I doesn't seem to be a Level 1 issue.

The issue is really, 20 i you know, are you only going to have a header, or is there 21 going to be some kind of electronic access?

22 MR. BALCOM:

Well, let's say that we have to 23 image, we have to keep an electronic image of a protected 24 document, does the electronic image reside on the computer, 25 as part of the LSS electronic system, or is it okay to put (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 it next door on a mini-computer or in hard copy?

And, if 2 it has to be on the LSS, along with all the other images, 3 it has to be segregated somehow, and that's the software 4

design consideration.

5 6

MR. METTAM:

Right, okay.

MR. BALCOM:

You know, and financially or 7

economically, it would not make sense to include it.

So, 8

what we are looking for is, would everybody be happy with 29,

9 our having it in a room under, you know, your protection or 10 under somebody's protection, the actual physical document 11 or the image of the document, not the header.

12 MR. CAMERON:

I would imagine it would be under 13 1 the control of either the Licensing Hearing Board or the 14 !

1Pre-License Application Hearing Board.

15

I MR. HENKEL:

Question, can the software 16 II security items be added at a later date?

11 I MR. HARDWICK:

Yes, they could be.

I 18 I MR. HENKEL:

If you have enough money.

19 MR. HARDWICK:

If you have enough money, but I 20 think it would be --

21 22 MR. HENKEL:

Well, that's my point.

MR. HARDWICK:

-- it would be probably a 23 significant cost increase to add it at a later date.

24 25 (202) 234-4433 MR. HENKEL:

As opposed to doing it up front?

MR. HARDWICK:

Yes, and the reason that we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 bringing it up as an issue right now is because we really 2

want to -- it's a Level 1 function requirement, if it's 3

going to be a requirement.

4 Preston?

30 5

MR. JUNKIN:

Lt me mention, too, that the rule 6

is, except for that one sentence, the rule is pretty clear.

7 Let me read you 2.1010c.

Upon a final determination that 8

the material is relevant and not privileged, exempt from 9

disclosure or otherwise exempt from entry into the 10 Licensing Support System, and then it goes on, except for 11 that one sentence that refers to an on-line access, it 12 seems the rule is pretty clear that the header is all 13 that's in there.

And, again, we are simply trying to get 14 assurance I

that it's okay to -- the functional requirements 15 j 1 will differ if there's privileged data in the system.

You I

16 simply have to have more protection than you would 17 otherwise, because it's a publicly accessible system, and 18 it's proprietary data.

19 MR. CAMERON:

I think that's the issue that we 20 need to discuss with some assistance from the Licensing 21 Board, and do it -- I guess the point is, do it soon.

22 MR. BOLLWERK:

As John is aware, there is 23 actually a project here in the Commission going on to put 24 together an electronic hearing docket for the entire 25 adjudicatory system of the agency, and one of the questions (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.

WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

31 1

we are going to have to deal with is just this question in 2

terms of every procedure that the agency has to handle.

3 So, it may well be that some of the wisdom we get from that 4

system is something that you all will be able to use.

5 I don't know how you feel about that, John, 6

but, you know, that's one of the things we'll have to deal 7

with on this.

8 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Right, it's really a question 9

of timing, I guess.

We are not ready to deal with that 10 issue within the agency, because we are still several 11 months away from that.

12 13 14 MS. NEWBURY:

Can I *ask a couple questions?

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Sure.

MS. NEWBURY:

On-line access to whatever this 15 proprietary information is doesn't necessarily have to be 16 through the LSS, right?

17 18 MR. HARDWICK:

No.

MS. NEWBURY:

You could have a separate on-line 19 system, and as long as you have the headers in the LSS that 20 point to the electronic access you are covered by the rule.

MR. HARDWICK:

Yes.

21 22 MS. NEWBURY:

All right, so I don't see any 23 advantages, unless there are some that you haven't 24 discussed, to trying to put this proprietary information 25 into the LSS per se.

Am I right?

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

32 1

MR. HARDWICK:

You are right, and if I might 2

just add one last thing here, is that it's the opinion, and 3

if anybody on the Technical Working Group disagrees with 4

me, but it's the opinion of the working group that the 5

headers is all that's necessary and the data being in a 6

procedurally protected or some other off-site storage, or 7

another room storage, that's the preferred answer.

8 I mean, that's the way the Technical Working 9

Group has leaned, relative to a solution, but it's not our 10 lplace in life to make those decisions, and we wanted to 11 make sure that the panel was aware of the potential impacts 12 both ways.

13 But, our interpretation of the rule is exactly,

14 as you stated it, Claudia, that, you know, all that's 15 required is the headers.

16 MS. NEWBURY:

Right, and the electronic access 17 that's mentioned in the rule does not necessarily have to 18 be part of the LSS.

19 20 MR. HARDWICK:

No.

MR. CAMERON:

And, you don't necessarily the 21 rule doesn't require that there be electronic access to 22 privileged documents that are under a protective order, 23 okay?

24 25 (202) 234-4433 MS. NEWBURY:

So, is this really a non-issue?

MR. METTAM:

I think what Roger was trying to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

33 1

get is to get that resolution.

I would say that, at least 2

my personal opinion is, if we leave unresolved the issue of 3

where do those documents physically reside, you know, if we 4

are not trying to decide whether the LSSA is going to have 5

control of those documents, I think the header is all you 6

need.

7 MR. HARDWICK:

And, that's the opinion of the 8

Technical Working Group also, and to get it down to, just 9

like a one-sentence question, does privileged data -- is 10 privileged data in or out on the LSS?

MR. HENKEL:

I'd like to say I agree with what 11 12 13 14 Claudia and Brad said, and it would seem to me that a public system and security are almost an oxymoron, and I

I that,

you are creating a nightmare that will be a never-ending 15 i: nightmare down the road.

16 MR. HARDWICK:

Exactly, and that was kind of 17 our technical view of it, too.

18 MR. METTAM:

And, whatever you do, some hacker 19 will make his way through it, or her way through it.

20 21 MR. HARDWICK:

Sure.

So, I'm not sure if it even is an issue. It 22 was brought up, it was recommended the group bring it up, 23 because, you know, this was -- this same discussion has 24 gone on in the group in great detail, and I think we came 25 to the same consensus, that the rule clearly states header (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

I

34 1

is all that's required, and deal with the privileged data.

2 And, Chip is right, on-line access of that 3

privileged data is not a requirement.

4 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

I think the sense of the panel 5

is that we agree with the working group.

6 MR. HARDWICK:

Good.

Okay, and thanks a lot, 7

Preston.

8 If there's no more discussion on that question, 9

we'll go on to what we had for the -- I think there was two 10 additional questions we had.

Remote access, the other 11 question has to do with remote access, and the background 12 on it was that the remote access implies the accessors have 13 full functionality available as an option to them, and the 14,! question of the Technical Working Group to the panel is, 15 I does this include access to pleadings and transcripts?

16 And, let me just repeat the background again 17 now.

The remote access implies that people who want to 18 access the system have full functionality available as an 19 option.

Does full functionality include access to 20 pleadings and transcripts?

21 MR. BALCOM:

You are talking about non-22 participants and non-potential parties?

23 24 25 (202) 234-4433 MR. HARDWICK:

Yes.

MR. BALCOM:

You are talking about the public?

MR. HARDWICK:

Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 2

Hearing.

3 4

35 1

MR. CAMERON:

This is after the Notice of MR. HARDWICK:

Right.

MR. CAMERON:

What restrictions are placed on a 5

member of the public who accesses the system? Is there any 6

material that's out of bounds?

7 MR. HARDWICK:

Yes, that's a real good way to 8

put it, because that really covers more than just pleadings 9

and transcripts, but you are right, that's exactly what we 10 are asking.

11 MR. HENKEL:

What is the concern with limiting 12 the access?

13 MR. BALCOM:

I'm not sure it's a concern as 14 1 much as it's simply important to clarify some of these so I

15 1, the Technical Working Group doesn't make assumptions on 16 j behalf of, say, the lawyers, you know, who may have a I

17 1

, different sense of the history, and so what we are doing is 18, pinning down some clarification, like can the public have 19 access to all depositions, for example, that are on the 20 I LSS, transcripts from depositions.

21 MR. CAMERON:

Subject to clarification by, not 22 only Paul Bollwerk, but Bill Olmstead in the back, I think 23 that the transcripts of the hearing, motions, all of this 24 is public record anyway, so that there shouldn't be any 25 restriction after the Notice of Hearing on access to that

( 202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

36 1

type of material.

2 And, I would ask Paul or Bill if they wanted to 3

say anything else on that.

Is that correct, essentially?

4 MR. BOLLWERK:

Paul Bollwerk from the Licensing 5

Board Panel, I mean, generally, discovery material is 6

public record information, but people can't come in for 7

protective orders, there is things that is not necessarily 8

considered 9

10 MR. CAMERON:

Subject to the protective order.

MR. BOLLWERK:

-- subject to the protective 11 order, I mean there are certain instances where the press 12 is wanting discovery material, the courts have said no, for 13 whatever reason, you know, given what the case was going 14 on.

So, it's not a blanket that it's all public, we could Ii 15 1l have protected, but as a general rule.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Yes, sir.

16 17 MR. FISHER:

Michael Fisher, TRW.

I think 18 we've gotten off target with respect to what the question 19 was with respect to remote access. It is with respect to 20 potential parties, parties and potential parties, et 21 cetera, not the public.

Going to 21007C, access to the 22 Licensing Support System for potential parties, intra-23 governmental participants, and parties will be provided in 24 the following manner:

(1) full text search capability 25 through dial-up access from remote locations at the request (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 and the expense..., and then it goes on to talk about 2

images.

I believe that's what we were referring to this 3

morning with regards to remote access by the parties, et 4

cetera, was that remote access also supposed to be to the 5

official record materials.

37 6

MR. HARDWICK:

Yes, I recall the conversation, 7

yes, I misstated the question.

8 MR. METTAM:

I have an answer for it if it's 9

raised that way.

The answer is yes, remote access has got 10 to be fully functional, so if you can reach it in another 11 way, the remote accessors have to be able to reach it as 12 well.

13 14 anything?

15 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Bill, do you want to add MR. OLMSTEAD:

Well, Paul just mentioned the 16 electronic documents 17 18 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

We can't hear you.

MR. OLMSTEAD:

-- the problem is service.

If 19 you are a participant in the proceeding, how are you going 20 to get service of documents and pleadings if you don't have 21 access?

In other words, if I file a pleading, I have to 22 file it, not only with the Board, but with all the parties.

23 So, you've got to provide the service to the parties 24 electronically.

So, the answer should be anything the 25 party has to have that they can get through the mail they (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 need to have access to.

2 The way the Licensing Board is really running 3

now, I think it's with a third party provider dial-up 4

access.

5 MR. HARDWICK:

The answer to the question is 6

yes.

Thank you.

7 Then, we have one last question, and that was, 8

in Section 2.1013(c)(4)(i), what is meant by address and 9

return receipt acknowledgement?

And, if I can ask for 10 somebody from the Technical Working Group to explain that a 1 11 little bit further, as to -- Kirk, do you want to give it a j 12 shot?

13 MR. BALCOM:

Yes.

I think this is the 14 !! terminology address in terms of service of process again.

15 I I Is it an electronic address?

I mean, this is another thing l6 11 1

we need a little clarification on.

Is this someone's

\\

17 physical address at, you know, NRC, White Flint, Building 18 Two North, room such and such, or, you know, help us a 19 little bit on how you see that progressing over the next 20 few years, because it may have some design considerations.

21 MR. CAMERON:

We talked about this during the 22 negotiation, and, again, I'm going to let Bill Olmstead 23 elaborate on it, but each party to the hearing would have 24 an electronic mailbox, and all motions, pleadings, would be 25 filed to that electronic mailbox.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON. O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

]9 I 1

Now, is the question, can a party use an 2

existing Internet or E-Mail address that they have now, or 3

do you have to build a whole separate system of addresses 4

for this?

5 MR. LEVIN:

Let me explain a little here maybe.

6 This had to do with when something is sent from a 7

participant electronically and received at the LSS, there's 8

a receipt acknowledgment, a return acknowledgement.

Within 9

that acknowledgement, it's defined that there will be an 10 address.

Okay. We don't know whether that address is 11 supposed to be an Internet address, a mail address, a 12 physical location, we don't know what that address is.

13 MR. CAMERON:

Well, it's supposed to be an 14 electronic address, the way I understand it, and this is I I I

15 I one of the things that, perhaps, can be done a couple of 16 different ways, and it's a question of figuring out what's 17 the most sensible way to do it.

18 I don't think that we have any hard and fast 19 rules or ideas on what that is at this point.

20 MR. BALCOM:

How about in terms -- would you 21 include in that in terms of complying with whatever the 22 federal rules are about service, or are you making a 23 distinction that any electronic mail sent back and forth 24 between participants?

25 (202) 234-4433 MR. CAMERON:

This provision of the rule NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

40 1

focuses on the formal service of pleadings in the 2

adjudicatory hearing.

So, it's not -- although if you set 3

up a system for that, there's no reason why it, perhaps, 4

couldn't be used for E-Mail or discussion between the 5

parties.

I don't know, but keep in mind that the sole 6

function of this provision is for the formal service of 7

pleadings during the adjudicatory hearings.

8 MR. BALCOM:

Right.

9 So, can I imply that there is no need for a 10 hard copy document then?

11 MR. CAMERON:

Oh, we're down to whether you 12 have to have a hard copy duplicate.

Now, the rule requires 13 that there be a hard copy duplicate of all of this 14 material, and the reason that that was -- at the time, I I

15 I I think people were sort of nervous about relying on a purely I I

16 *electronic docket, but I think the rule still requires 17 there to be a hard copy of that material.

18 Now, whether we are in a different world now, 19 is another, you know, question for discussion.

20 Bill, do you want to chime in?

MR. OLMSTEAD:

I'm going to leave.

21 22 There are three elements that are legally 23 required.

You have to have a signature.

You have to have 24 service of the document, and you have to be able to 25 authenticate the document that was sent with the document (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON. O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

41 1

that was received.

You have to be able to handle the hard 2

copy.

All the rule was trying to deal with was 3

verification of service.

The hard copy was the -- if there 4

was a contest about what was to be in the document, it was 5

going to be the hard copy that was used in that event, 6

because we didn't, at the time, have any kind of security 7

authentication procedures to ensure by examining the bytes 8

in the document that the document hadn't been tampered 9

with.

10 But, as we all know, there has been a NIST 11 standard that allows us to verify the electronic copy now, 12 but NIST has deferred now to GSA, and GSA doesn't yet have 13 a standard out that we comply by.

So, the answer at the 14 moment is, we want to use electronic service to eliminate 15 mail fraud, but if there is a challenge to authenticity 16 there still has to be a hard copy.

And so, the return 17 receipt is from the electronic mailbox that indicates the 18 electronic copy has been --

19 Incidentally, a new development, Lexus is now 20 giving every lawyer in the United States an electronic mail 21 address, so I think that the problem of how you address 22 these things will be solved by the time you get to that.

23 MR. BALCOM:

So, does that give our designers, 24 the men who are going to write, the people, excuse me, who 25 are going to write the Level 2 requirements, does that give (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.

WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

42 1

you enough information?

2 MR. JUNKIN:

What I heard is that there is no 3

legal requirement for a U.S. mail address.

That's all we 4

wanted to know.

5 MR. HARDWICK:

Okay, so that answers it.

You 6

can proceed.

7 MR. JUNKIN:

An E-Mail return receipt is as 8

good.

9 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Let me ask my own question 10 here, perhaps, my cohorts can answer it.

Does the rule 11 call for an image, as well as an electronic version of the 12 document, of all documents?

13 14 MR. SILBERG:

Are you talking about pleadings?

1 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

No, just all documents that go 1 15 into the LSS.

16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

It calls for image and 17 text.

18 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

So, where does the image come 19 from if you don't have a hard copy?

20 MS. CARRIGAN:

Well, it could have come from 21 the electronic file.

22 23 24 25 the EMNO.

facilities (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

You should identify yourself.

MS. CARRIGAN:

I'm Camille Carrigan.

I'm with You could create, nowadays they have technical where if I create a document in Word Perfect I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 can put it through an electronic process and create an 2

image out of it without ever creating a hard copy.

3 MR. CAMERON:

But, it's right in the rule 4

actually, is that if you look at -- that's very true, but 43 5

if you look at 2.1013, I guess, (c)(6), no (c)(S), is that 6

besides -- the electronic service is meant to eliminate the 7

delay in the physical delivery, but the rule says that one 8

signed paper copy of each filing shall be served promptly 9

on the Secretary by regular mail.

In other words, your 10 proceeding is going on on the basis of the -- and, your 11 requirements of service are being met by the electronic 12 1 delivery, but that paper copy of everything is supposed 13 be served on the Secretary.

14 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Yes, Stan?

I I 15 I MR. NICHOLS:

Stan Nichols.

Then you'd only 16 need one hard copy, not service of hard copies and to 17 electronics to everyone, because the copy that goes to the 18 Secretary would be scanned in, and if anyone wanted to test 19 the authenticity they could bring up the image.

20 MR. CAMERON:

You only need to send the hard 21 copy to the Secretary, not to the other parties, but 22 /electronic transmission has to go to all the parties.

23 MR. NICHOLS:

And, that runs the clock, as far 24 as servicing all the rest.

25 (202) 234-4433 MR. CAMERON:

Right, exactly.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

44 1

MR. NICHOLS:

So, as far as any challenge to 2

the authenticity, that would be the image of the one copy 3

that went to the Secretary could be called up to serve that 4

purpose.

5 MS. NEWBURY:

So, if I'm following this 6

properly, when you are doing the filings you are only 7

filing a text file, you are not filing both an image and a 8

text file.

9 MR. CAMERON:

That's right, just a text file.

10 MS. NEWBURY:

Okay.

So, what we said earlier, I 11 that there's an image and text with everything, is only for I 12 the stuff pre-licensing, not part of the proceeding.

Am I 13 off?

14 15 that.

16 MR. CAMERON:

Fielden, you may want to clarify MR. DICKERSON:

Fielden Dickerson.

No, that 17 was the thing.

A piece of paper is being generated, and 18 that gives rise to the image.

19 MS. NEWBURY:

But, when you are filing the 20 when you are doing the filing, you are not filing both an 21 image and a text.

22 MR. DICKERSON:

No, you are just catching up, 23 you are right.

24 25 (202) 234-4433 MS. NEWBURY:

Yes.

MR. DICKERSON:

But, ultimately, they are going NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

4-5 1

to come together.

2 MS. NEWBURY:

Right, but that's not part of 3

what -- the person doing the filing doesn't have to create 4

an image.

MR. DICKERSON:

That's right.

MS. NEWBURY:

Okay.

5 6

7 MR. OLMSTEAD:

If you use an Adobe Acrobat 8

file, you would have both the image and the text in one 9

electronic document, and that would meet the requirements 10 of the rule as it's written.

11 MR. CAMERON:

Jay Silberg I know wants to 12 elaborate on the Adobe Acrobat file.

13 14 MR. SILBERG:

I'll hold my tongue.

MS. NEWBURY:

That did not constitute 15 endorsement of a particular product by the federal 16 government.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Yes?

17 18 MR. FISHER:

I'd to ask a clarifying question 19 then based on the previous discussion, and that is, the 20 rule differentiates between the documentary material and 21 the official docket or the official record material, the 22 official record file, whatever terminology you want to use 23 there.

So, as I understand it then, electronic filing 24 detects from the electronic files -- purpose, but the image 25 of the paper copy that's sent to the Secretary will be the (202) 2344433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 2344433

1 only information on that transmittal that goes into the 2

official record materials, not the electronic filings?

3 MR. CAMERON:

There may be exhibits, and the 4

exhibits that are going to be entered into the physical 46 5

adjudicatory record are going to be in the system full text 6

searchable, as well as having a hard copy of that.

7 Now, the pleadings then, and as I understand 8

the rule, is exactly how you describe it.

9 MR. FRANK:

I'm Jim Frank.

I believe the 10 question started out being, what kind of an address do we 11 need.

I think the answer to that question was clear.

12 13 14 MR. CAMERON:

Let's.quit while we are ahead.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Roger, any other things?

MR. HARDWICK:

Okay, thanks.

15 The only other issue that we had as the 16 Technical Working Group was the guidance from the panel as 17 to what the next steps should be for the Technical Working 18 Group.

The next logical step from our opinion would be to 19 continue doing the same processes we were doing for Level 2 20 that we did for Level 1, and, quite frankly, generate a lot 21 of enthusiasm.

I know everybody is chomping at the bit to 22 get at it. So, we were asking for guidance as to what the 23 panel would like the Technical Working Group to address 24 next and how to proceed.

25 (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Discussion on that point?

NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

47 1

MR. METTAM:

Yes.

Does the Technical Working 2

Group have any suggestions?

3 MR. HARDWICK:

That we do, in fact, do the same 4

thing for the Level 2 functional requirements that we did 5

for the Level 1 functional requirements, would be our 6

recommendation.

7 8

9 10 MS. NEWBURY:

Sounds good.

MR. HARDWICK:

Okay.

MS. NEWBURY:

You already are, aren't you?

MR. HARDWICK:

Well, we've made arrangements 11 to, but we haven't done anything yet.

I just made I

12 I arrangements with John this morning to get a copy and to 13 get it distributed to the group.

So, yes, we were assuming 14 and hoping that that would be, in fact, the next step.

15 16 : I working 11 I CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

But, the next project for the group will be the Level 2 requirements.

MR. HARDWICK:

Yes, and we'll start on that 18 immediately, like the 1st of June, I guess.

19 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

All right.

20 And, Claudia, I guess there are tight time 21 limits on that as well.

22 MS. NEWBURY:

Yes, there are, and I think Roger 23 is aware of them.

24 MR. HARDWICK:

Yes.

We talked about them at 25 the Technical Working Group this morning, and it's going to (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

48 1

require some additional commitment on behalf of all the 2

working group, but they've all agreed that it would be an 3

effort they would make, so that, by the time we come to the 4

next ARP meeting in July, we could give a status on where 5

we are on Level 2 functional requirements.

6 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

All right.

Thank you very 7

much, Roger.

8 I also --

9 MR. FRISHMAN:

Claudia, you are on a schedule 10 to have that done by June 15th, aren't you?

11 1 MS. NEWBURY:

Oh, you've got my schedule there, 12 !which I don't have pulled out.

Yes, that's right, that's 13 why I said Roger is aware of our tight schedule.

What 14 he'll probably be reporting on in July is what they did and 15 gave to us.

16 In our last meeting, I believe we talked about 1

17 whether or not I actually have to have concurrence from the 18 group before we can proceed.

19 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Well, I believe that you do.

20 The working group should not be reporting directly to the 21 agency.

22 23 MS. NEWBURY:

Right.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

But, rather, through the full 24 committee.

So, you've got to keep that in mind, and we 25 will use the process that we are planning to use next week (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.NW WASHINGTON. O.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

49 1

in order to get the material around.

2 If a panel member requests a meeting on the 3

subject, I think we've got to take that under consideration I 4

and see if we can call a quick meeting.

5 MS. NEWBURY:

our requirement for the Level 2 6

by June was so that we could start our make-versus-buy 7

analysis, the A,B,C, but that ' s an ongoing process.

So, if,

I 8

we get comments or concurrence from the ARP later than that I 9

June date, that doesn't preclude us from including them.

I 10 don't want to get into a long protracted how we are going 11 to develop the Level 2 requirements that gets beyond our 12 make-buy analysis.

That kind of defeats the purpose of it.

13 14 1 1

process 15 I i ~

16 !I that's 17 MR. FRISHMAN:

Well, that's about a nine-month that you have, from the looks of it.

MS. NEWBURY:

That's true, but they have to --

nine months worth of work.

MR. FRISHMAN:

But, if you were maybe three I

I 18 weeks to a month out on the front end and had to make if I 19 there were adjustments, they'd probably not be major 20 anyway, since you ' ve got your Level 1 already.

And, would 21 that cause us to be overridden?

22 MS. NEWBURY:

Hopefully not, unless the changes 23 are so significant that they would cause perturbations in 24 the whole make-buy analysis, which I would not expect.

25 (202) 234-4433 MR. FRISHMAN:

Hard to imagine one that big.

NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, 0 C, 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

50 MS. NEWBURY:

Since the Technical Working Group is already working with us, we have a person on the Technical Working Group, in developing those Level 2 I

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 requirements, so I don't think that that would be a serious :

problem.

We will make adjustments based on what the Advisory Review Panel says in July.

MR. FRISHMAN:

That means we can conceivably 8

discuss our working group's recommendations in the July 9

meeting, and we'll still have a meaning for your work.

10 11 12 13 to just MS. NEWBURY:

We'll have meaning in July.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Okay, good.

MR. HARDWICK:

One other thing, John, I'd like and to clarify for my own clarification, is the 14 process that I've committed to is that on Monday morning 15 I'll fax you a copy of these edited requirements, and then 16 after you and I concur I will fax a copy to all of the 17 panel members with a cover letter. Is that the commitment 18 I've made?

19 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Yes, that's the way I 20 understand it.

21 MR. HARDWICK:

Okay, great, and that will be 22 done.

23 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

I'm assuming you have 24 everybody's fax numbers?

25 (202) 234-4433 MR. HARDWICK:

Yes, we do.

NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20005 As a matter of (202) 234-4433 I

I

51 1

fact, I think you just gave them to us.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

All right.

2 3

4 I do want to express my thanks to the Technical !

Working Group, not only for taking on that chore on the 1

5 Level 1 requirements, but providing the initial drafting 6

assistance on the memorandum I gave to Mr. Levin a few moments ago.

I I

I 7

8 Okay, moving along, the next topic I would like I 9

to bring up is the header issue.

When we met last time, 10 the panel was about ready to approve the Header Working 11 Group's recommendations, and one panel member asked for a 12 little more time to consider it; and so let me ask Lloyd 13 now if you've had time to consider, and can you now concur?

14 MR. MITCHELL:

Yes, and I feel comfortable in I I 15 *1 concurr1ng at this time.

I I 16 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

All right, very good.

17 So, the panel, then, concurs in the 18 recommendations of the Header Working Group as described in 19 last meeting.

20 MR. BALCOM:

John, before you move on to the 21 next topic, there was a recommendation or a suggestion this 22 morning that the Header Working Group meet again fairly 23 soon to take up a couple of issues that have to do with 24 defining the data elements for the Level 2 requirements, 25 and that was so-called "unitization" definitions, in other (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.

WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

52 1 1

words, what is a document, what does an attachment do to a 2

document and so on, and that there are some additional 3

parameters that go beyond what is in the field definition 4

summary table, part of which are already underway with 5

DOE's Records Management System, and are also being 6

incorporated into Level 2 requirements by those working on 7

the design.

8 And, it sounds like a good idea, it sounds like 1

9 a fairly short meeting, but it would have to happen fairly 10 quickly.

So, I open that up for any comment as to having 11 the Header Working Group meet and look at the data elements 12 land 13 complete some detail design considerations there.

MR. MITCHELL:

That would be before the July 14 1 I meeting?

15 MR. BALCOM :

Right, it would have to be in the 16,j next, probably, three weeks, as a matter of fact.

17 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

The outcome of the meeting 18 would be a recommendation to the panel, to the agency?

I I

19 1!

MR. BALCOM:

I hope what would happen there 20 would be simply that there would be a consensus on some 21, more finite aspects of, you know well, Dan, this was 22 your suggestion, do you want to add anything?

MR. GRASER:

Sure, Dan Graser, NRC.

In terms 24 of the actual header fields, I can give you a concrete 25 example.

The Department of Energy, for example, might have (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433

53 1

a title field 500 characters long.

The LSS design boils 2

down to a piece of software that will only take 200 3

characters.

So, when you go to migrate data from the DOE 4

system into the LSS, you truncate the last 300 characters.

5 Well, obviously, you want to make sure that 6

doesn't happen, so it's really just a point of us trying to 7

provide enough detailed information on the structure of the 8

field itself, so that we are all of a general understanding 9

that when DOE runs the procurement they are going to ask 10 for an LSS system that will carry a title field 500 11 characters long, so that they know that that would be a 12 requirement in that area.

13 And, in terms of unitization, the point that 14 1was raised this morning is that, back when the LSS i

15 I prototype was being run, one of the products of that drill 16 was to develop a document on unitization of documents, and 17 that documentation, in fact, was incorporated very much 18 into the Department of Energy's document processing 19 structures.

But, if you go back to the rule, and we were 20 looking at things in terms of participant commitments and 21 the sort of guidance that the LSS administrator should be 22 giving to people early on, and we figure, well, if we are 23 the point where we are starting to get into the specific 24 aspects of how you catalogue the record, and how long the 25 field is going to be, we want to make sure that we are all (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

1 defining documents relatively consistently, and it is 2

something that the LSS administrator could issue as, you 3

know, a guidance sort of thing to the participants enough 4

in advance so that they incorporate it into the way, for 5

example, DOE starts to reprocess their documents, so that 6

they have that guidance from the get go and can do the 7

document unitization one time and do it right.

8 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Would the product of your work 9

be fed into the Level 2 requirements that we would be 10 looking at in the July meeting?

11 MR. BALCOM:

Yes, it's my understanding is that 1 12 they would.

13 14 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Okay, great.

MR. BALCOM:

Yes.

I 15,,

, I CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

All right.

Well then, we them in the process of the Level 2 requirements.

will 1 16 11 see I

17 Is your -- are the two subgroups sufficiently 18 different, or is the make-up of them about the same?

19 MR. BALCOM:

Well, I was wondering about that 20 this morning.

This is certainly a smaller subgroup, and 21 I'm not sure that it makes sense to get the whole Technical 22 Working Group together just to solve this fairly quick.

I 23 think this would go quickly, and it could be done by a 24 smaller number of people.

That would be my thoughts about 25 it.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

I

55 1

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Okay, please do that.

2 Okay, the next item on the agenda for today is 3

to hear from the LSS Administrator on current LSS activity 4

at NRC.

But, before I ask Moe to do that, let me just get 5

a time check.

It's 2:15.

Many of you are returning West I

6 this evening.

What time will you need to leave here, 3, 00? I 7

MS. NEWBURY:

I need to go by 3:00.

8 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

You need to leave by 3:00.

9 So, we have 45 minutes remaining.

What other topics were 10 going to be brought up by anyone?

Were you going to bring 11 up anything?

12 11 MS. NEWBURY:

I have nothing to bring up.

13

  • I CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Okay.

I I 14 Brad?

15 I MR. METTAM:

I don't know if this is the

! I 16 ' appropriate time to do it, but I'm going to bring it up I

1 7 ! I anyway.

I have yet to hear a good explanation why the I

18 I Department is not using the electronic file that they used I

I, 19 :*, to create a 20, rather than

.I

  • t*

21 1 recogn1 ion document, at least from this point forward, scanning in and using optical character for those future documents.

And, I'd like to 22 either find out why that is, so that I understand it, or 23 find out that I will never understand it and go away 24 disgruntled, but I'd like to resolve it, because it makes 25 no sense to me on the surface.

Maybe there's some deeper, (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

I I I

56 1

more complex reason why it can't be done, but it seems like 2

you could make an image, the image would contain the 3

signature, all that good stuff, because you are not going 4

to capture that with OCR anyway.

I 5

You could use the electronic file that was used I 6

to create the document and not have to worry about 7

scanning, you know, OCR accuracy.

Obviously, you still 8

need the OCR technology for all those past documents, but I !

just wanted to raise that issue.

I I

I 9

10 MS. NEWBURY:

I'm going to look toward the 11 of the room.

I think the answer is that we are in the 12 process of trying to do that, right, Preston?

back i 13 MR. JUNKIN:

Well, we are, for next year we do 14 ' have -- we are planning for next year, there is a task to l I 15 'j continue that analysis, and I will say continue, it's been 16 :

1 a hot topic of discussion for some time, but let me give 17 you a couple quick answers to claim why it is not trivial.

18 Number one, what we call native file formats, 19 :, such as Word Perfect, Word, things that we generate 20 documents in, are not in -- formats, that's why the panel 21 1 initially went to ASCII for text.

Ten years ago, and this I I 22 l 1system will last longer, you know, quite conceivably could 11 23 I last ten years, ten years ago most of our documents were on 24 Wang 9-1/2 11 floppies in a Wang format.

So, you can't 25 for long-term archival those are not a good format to use.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON. DC 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 However, it does make a lot of sense, given 2

that they are in electronic form, to get your nice clean 3

text out of those documents, and we certainly recognize 4

that, and that's what we are going to be analyzing.

5 It turns out it's not necessarily cheaper to 57 I 6

take a Word Perfect file, turn it into ASCII, because most 7

documents that they are made up of multiple file formats, 8

graphics and power point, for example, charts in 123 or 9

Excel, they are multiple file documents, and the physical 10 assembly of those images into the proper order to 11 constitute the actual document sometimes can be more 12 difficult.

If a single paper copy exists, for example, 13 that's been properly sorted, signed off and it's in the 14 right order, it actually can mean less labor to run it 15 through a scanner, an OCR, then to do that conversion.

16 MR. METTAM:

But, is the OCR software faced 17 with the same issues of what I do with the graphic image 18 and what do I do with stuff that's in tabular form?

19 20 MR. JUNKIN:

Yes, it is.

MR. METTAM:

But, I think, and maybe I'm wrong, 21 but it certainly seems on the face of it to make sense to 22 do it that way, and I guess -- I understand you are saying 23 you are looking at it, and that I suppose is good enough, 24 it's '95 and, you know, another couple years of loo~ing at 25 it and we won't have to worry about it.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

58 I 1

MR. JUNKIN:

I understand.

It does make sense, 2

but it's not trivial, and it's not obvious that that's the 3

way to go in many cases.

4 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Thank you.

I 5

All right.

Now, I'll turn to Moe Levin.

6 MR. LEVIN:

Most of the activities I'll report I 7

on have come about as a direct result of our NRC/LSS Senior 8

Management Team, and as I reported at the last meeting, 9

this team was formed to provide a mechanism for better 10 I coordination of all LSS-related activities within NRC.

11 And, it's already proved to be very, very beneficial of 12 :I bringing up issues and seeing that they are brought to 13 il closure, and I think it's going to make a positive

, I 14 ' contribution to this whole effort.

15 I

Now, I'll just go through very briefly some of

I We've begun discussions with 16 11 the activities we've done.

17 ij DOE on creating the LSS Memorandum of Understanding between 18 II NRC and DOE, and we've decided on an approach of, rather 19 I than tackling all issues in one big MOU, we've decided to 20 break it up into phases of three or four different phases.

21 And, these phases are kind of in step with what we see as 22 the phases of the LSS.

23 The first phase is the design and 24 implementation phase.

There will be an MOU that covers all 25 issues related to the design and implementation of the LSS, (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

1 2

3 4

59 which is basically DOE's responsibility.

The second MOU would cover what we call the transition phase, and this is the phase where the hand-off occurs from DOE'S implementation of the system to the I

5 LSSA's operation of the system.

Included in the second Mou l I

6 would be all the agreements related to budgeting and I I 7

funding for the LSS.

8 9

10 11 12 13 The third phase and the third MOU would be the I operation phase, and this is where the LSS administrator is actually operating the system, it's up, and it's available to people, and all of the responsibilities between the two agencies in this phase would be outlined in that MOU.

And, we've also discussed a possible fourth I

14 ' phase, and this fourth MOU or fourth phase, which would be '

ii 15 i! once the hearing is done, it's envisioned that the LSS 16 ;I would have some utility for a long time thereafter.

I've 17 heard numbers like maybe 100 years for subsequent activity, 18 and, obviously, during that period of time there will need 19 to be some accommodations made or agreements made to keep 20 maintaining that for a long period of time, enhancing it, 21 and whatever, and maybe even adding new functionality as 22 the requirements arise.

So, that might be a fourth MOU.

23 24 we can Our logic in structuring it this way was that it allows us to focus and come to closure on 25 issues and resolve them in the ti:nte frame of the related (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

60 1

activity.

For instance, we are currently in the first 2

phase, the design phase, and there are a lot of issues that 3

need to be answered right now.

We can't wait until we get 4 all the issues for all phases answered.

So, we decided 5

just to concentrate on those issues right now so we don't 6

compromise any schedules or plans from DOE, and it seems to 7

make a lot of sense, but that was the underlying logic 8

behind our decision to do it this way.

9 And, I guess our current thinking is that we'll 10 have a draft of the first MOU ready to start through the 11 concurrence chain by the end of June, right, Claudia?

12 13 MS. NEWBURY:

Yes.

MR. LEVIN:

And then, whatever -- what we mean 14 !l by that is that, both staffs from both agencies working on 15 this will have come to an agreement on the wording, the 16 content and everything, and then it's just a matter of 17 going through the steps to get it signed off at the 18 appropriate levels.

19 MR. SILBERG:

When do you intend to make that 20 available to this group?

21 22 MR. LEVIN:

That's a good point.

MS. NEWBURY:

How about at the July meeting, or 23 ' do you want it before then?

24 25 agencies?

(202) 234-4433 MR. SILBERG:

Are you still in review in both NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.

WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

61 1

MS. NEWBURY:

It's still under development in 2

both agencies right now.

3 MR. LEVIN:

Maybe we can get it out, you know, 4

enough in advance of the meeting so you'll have a chance to I

5 look at it.

6 Is there anymore discussion on the MOU or any 7

questions?

8 MR. FRISHMAN:

Commissioner Jackson this 9

morning made a suggestion about a higher level MOU.

Have 10 you had a chance to think about that, or whether it's 11 consistent with this phasing that you have described here, 12 because I'm not sure I really understood what she was 13 saying.

14 MR. LEVIN:

I think she was saying that maybe 15 another MOU to memorialize and make sure that there's 16 understanding on this need for the decision-making process.

17 This has been some kind of an issue that's been raised, 18 that everybody would agree that, yes, we realize the need 19 for this, and that we will have a discipline or a process 20 that makes sure that decisions can be tracked, traced back, 21 you know, to get all the steps up to making a decision.

22 We haven't had a chance -- that's my 23 interpretation of what was said, we've had absolutely no 24 discussion on this.

25 (202) 234-4433 MR. FRISHMAN:

Well, maybe at the next meeting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433

62 '

1 we could hear your thoughts on what she said.

2 MS. NEWBURY:

Steve, it does raise an 3

interesting question, though, and, that is, we talked about 4

DOE's memorializing its decision processes, but there are 5

other people making decisions on this besides DOE, and so 6

we all have to think about how we are going to keep track 7

of all of our decision processes and be able to trace back 8

through.

9 MR. LEVIN:

And, I think that was the genesis 10 of Commissioner's Jackson's comment exactly.

11 Another thing that's occurred since the last 12 1meeting was, on April 27th the Inspector General of the NRC 13 and the Senior Management Team briefed the Commission on 14 11the IG audit and follow-up activities, and I just wanted to II 15 1 report on what I saw as the main points made by the 16 Commission in response to the briefing.

They were, (1) 17 that the LSS is absolutely vital to the repository 18 licensing, they reaffirmed that, that the Commission will 19 need to intensify support for coming to closure on LSS-20 related issues, and I think that I see things kind of 21 accelerating with a schedule and plan for the MOUs and 22 everything, and I think that's going to happen.

And also, 23 that an LSS pilot needs to be put in place immediately, in 24 order to assure proper functionality into surface issues 25 related to document preparation, inclusion and access.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON. 0.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

63 1

I'll discuss this a little bit more in a minute.

2 Those are what I saw as the main points.

Does 3

anybody else who was at that briefing think there's 4

anything else that should be mentioned?

5 MR. SILBERG:

I assume the Commission did not 6

issue an SRM or something, a follow-up document after the 7

briefing?

8 9

briefed?

10 11 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

After the staff and the IG MR. SILBERG:

Right.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Yes, there is an SRM out.

12 It's recently out.

I don't know* if it's in the PDR yet.

13 14 I yet?

15 16 17 transcript.

18 MR. SILBERG:

Okay, that hasn't been circulated '

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

I'll get it there.

MR. CAMERON:

There, of course, is a MR. SILBERG:

Right, the transcript was 19 circulated, I was just curious if the Commission followed 20 it up.

21 22 MR. METTAM:

What is an SRM document?

MR. SILBERG:

SRM is a Staff Requirements Memo, 23 and it's the device by which the commissioners tell the 24 staff what to do.

25 (202) 234-4433 MR. CAMERON:

I would say one thing related to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, O.C 20005 (202) 234-4433

64 I 1

what might be happening in the future.

There were a number 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 I of issues raised today by the Commission that I think that the staff at the NRC is going to begin to explore, perhaps, under the leadership of the Senior Management Team, but as those issues are identified we are going to be corning out to the panel to discuss those issues.

So, there may be I I things popping up on the agenda for the panel in the future I that come out of our exploration of certain things that were raised at the Commission meeting today.

MR. SILBERG:

Will you ~irculate a transcript 11 I today's meeting?

ll of ii 12 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

13 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Yes, I sure will.

14 I MR. LEVIN:

Another activity that the Senior I I 15 Management Team is working on is the -- we ' ve outlined or

  • I 16 1 completed the outline for a paper that we are hoping to 17 have to the Commission, at least a draft of the paper, by 18 the 1st of June, and this paper comes as a result of the 19 l! SMT's first task, which was to provide the Commission 20 ;! recommendations on how to proceed on the LSS.

I just 21 j/ wanted to report that this is coming, and so far we just 22 I have an outline.

We'll spend the rest of the time between I

23 1now and the 1st of June just putting some meat on the 24 bones.

25 A follow-up item from the last ARP meeting was (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433

65 1 1

on the participant commitments document that we took your 2

comments, revised the document, sent it out.

We didn't get 3

any additional comments, so we consider this issue 4

basically closed.

That doesn't mean that we aren't going 5

to continue to look at the commitments document and find 6

the wrinkles and try and smooth them out, and also, one of 7

our next activities related to this is, we are going to 8

focus on ways to simplify the entire compliance assessment 9

program, and this is in line with what we discussed at the 10 last meeting.

11 Now, getting back to the idea of a vehicle to 12 pilot LSS functionality, part of our discussions in the 13 Senior Management Team is to surface the idea of using a 14 system that's been developed for our Office of Nuclear 15 Material Safety and Safeguards, and the name of the system 16 is TDOX, and it's a system that was developed for NMSS to 17 manage their own technical documents in electronic format, 18 give them an electronic search and retrieval and access.

19 The thought is that the TDOX may represent some 20 of the functionality of the LSS, and there may be some 21 activities we can do using TDOX to start modeling, not all, 22 but some of the LSS functionality, and this might be done 23 in conjunction with things that DOE can provide as far as 24 access to their system and little pieces of what might 25 represent parts of the LSS functionality.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON, DC. 20005 (202) 234-4433

66 1

During the briefing this morning by DOE, 2

Commissioner Rogers reemphasized the need for a pilot.

His 3

vision was a prototype type situation, where you had really 4

one system that represented all the elements of what you 5

might want to do with an LSS.

Don't know if that can be 6

done or not, that's something we have to look at, but in 7

the meantime I think there's utility in looking at these 8

other things that may already be in place that we can use 9

to at least look at a segment of LSS functionality.

10 And, as a matter of fact, one of the 11 suggestions now coming out from NMSS is that we use the NPC '

12 application as a pilot for LSS functionality.

13 14 MR. CAMERON:

Where is Mel when we need him?

MR. LEVIN:

I know, I was hoping Mel would be 15 here.

I was expecting to get some kind of reaction.

16 this was an idea that just came up last week, and we're 17 going to start exploring it, and I will obviously keep

But, 18 everybody here informed of it, but it's kind of coming back ;

I I

I 19 20 21 to an idea that had its genesis here, I guess, in an ARP meeting two or three meetings ago, and now it looks like may be able to do something.

we I 22 The idea is that, we are not even sure that 23 TDOX is going to be useful for this, but it may, so we 24 thought we might look at it.

We have something in hand, 25 and we have the application coming, and, of course, the MPC (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

67 1

application, the whole proceeding would not hinge on, in any, shape or form, this TDOX system, it's just whoever felt it was convenient to use it, try it out for some I

2 3

4 things, would use it, but it would in no way get in the way I 5

of the regular process.

So, this is something that, again, 6

we'll try and flush out a little bit more and report on at 7

the next meeting.

8 That about sums up all the activities since our 9

last meeting.

10 MR. SILBERG:

Moe, one question going back a 11 couple items.

The paper to the Commission that you 12 targeted that you want, is that an internal document or is 13 that something that we'll get to see after it goes up?

14 l MR. LEVIN:

Once it is made public, you won't 15 !be able to comment on it, obviously, until it is public, 16 but like all other documents, you will.

17 MR. SILBERG:

I mean, will it go out, 18 essentially, at the same time as it goes to the Commission?

19 20 MR. LEVIN:

What's the process on that, John?

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

The process is that it goes to 21 the Commission and gets acted on first, before it is ma~e 22 public.

The Commission may choose t.o share this with the 23 panel and--with the public ~iJe it i-s, delib.erating.

I ~ill 24 r~ise the issue with them.

25 The normal process is pre-decisional until (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON. D C 2000S (202) 234-4433

1 we've acted on it.

2 MR. SILBERG:

Sometimes these papers can come 3

out quickly.

I just saw one SECI paper that was just 4

released that goes back to 1987, and it was just released 5

last week.

6 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

In 1987, we didn't have the 68 7

present policy, which is to release papers rather quickly, 8

and we do.

We usually release them within ten days after 9

the Commission has acted on them.

10 Any further discussion of activity here in the 11 NRC?

Unless there is other business to be brought up --

12 yes.

13 MR. SILBERG:

There is one comment, and I 14, apologize for not being here at the beginning of the I I 15 J meeting, I was delayed at a meeting out of town.

The 16 letter that went to Moe concerning the recommendations on 17 the LSS rule, there's one comment that isn't really dealt 18 with in this letter that I would just like to put on the 19 table.

The draft, as it was circulated, recommended to the 20 Commission that the LSS rule be interpreted in a ceratin 21 way to avoid being limited by the terminology that was 22 adopted when the final rule was published in light of 23 changes in technology.

And, I agree with the substance of 24 this, and I also certainly agree that, you know, DOE 25 shouldn't necessarily feel constrained by using outmoded (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

69 1

verbiage.

2 The one suggestion that I'd like to make is 3

that it would be useful, perhaps, very useful, to have some 4

kind of Commission recognition that, in fact, that is the 5

appropriate interpretation of this rule.

I would hate to 6

go five years down the pike and have everyone interpreting 7

the rule, so that, you know, dial up doesn't mean dial up, 8 it means something that's more generic, and then have a 9

challenge be made five or ten years from now and find out 10 that, gee, the rule wasn't amended and there's nothing on 11 the record that indicates this is an appropriate 12 interpretation of the rule. It would be very useful to 13 14 1 I

15 I I

have a contemporaneous recognition by the Commission now that this is, in fact, the interpretation that people ought to use going forward.

I 16 MR. CAMERON:

I guess we would need to -- I can 1 17 18 see the advisability of doing that, what we would need to do is to specify each instance that we are talking about, 19 though, I think.

In other words, work station, ASCII, all 20 that stuff, because it could be too open ended otherwise.

21 We need to do that whatever we do, I would imagine.

22 MR. SILBERG:

Just something that would track 23 the scope of this letter, so that there's an 24 acknowledgement by the people who have the power to 25 interpret Commission rules that it's okay to do this, and (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

I I I

1 so you don't get second guessed five or ten years from now.

2 MR. LEVIN:

What would be the vehicle for doing 3

something like that?

4 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Probably a memorandum from me 5

to the Commission.

The DOE gave us a list at the last 6

meeting of the terms and usage of words that -- is that an 7

exhaustive list, so to speak, or is that the list of 8

examples that we should be using?

9 10 11 12 MR. SILBERG:

That was an exhaustive list.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Okay.

Stan, did I see a hand?

MR. NICHOLS:

Yes.

There's just one mechanism 13 that might be -- in addition to a general statement by the 14 Commission, they could recognize or somehow ratify the work I

15 I of the ARP in developing the multilevel requirements that 16 : are being interpreted in real time to be more expansive 17 I than the strict interpretation of the rule.

I don't know 18 i if that would help serve that or not.

In other words, this I 19 I is exactly what you are wrestling with with the working 20 groups and then the panel itself as they vote on 21 requirements now, see.

If they somehow ratify that effort.

MR. SILBERG:

That's a little broader.

Another 22 23 way to do it, you know, would be a General Counsel's 24 opinion.

25 (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

I think the last one was NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.NW.

WASHINGTON. DC 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

1 issued in 1977.

2 3

right?

4 5

MR. CAMERON:

It emphasizes the last one, CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Was it autographed?

I

/1,,...__

r *,1 c..

Well, that's why we put c~~ here 71 6

specifically on the cc list of this memorandum, but that's 7

not to say we shouldn't go further.

8 MR. SILBERG:

Yes.

I just think to have some 9

very high level recognition that would be binding, more or 10 less.

11 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Well, I think that's not 12 inappropriate.

I'm reminded, though, that the rule says 13 that consensus advice by this panel is to be followed by 14 DOE and NRC.

So, in terms of requirements, I would think 15 that would apply.

16 MR. NICHOLS:

You couldn't be giving advice 17 that would be inconsistent with the regulation.

That's 18 where you could bump into problems, and if there is someone j 19 saying, well, the plain meaning of dial up is dial up, then I 20 you could get into an argument.

And, it's to avoid that 21 kind of thing years from now that Jay is addressing.

So, 22 you could argue that what you were agreeing upon was 23 outside your authority to agree, because it fell outside 24 the four corners of the reg.

That's a very narrow 25 restrictive interpretation that you want to avoid down the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

72 1

line.

2 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Well, it's like me saying I'm 3

going to go xerox a copy of this, where I mean I'm going to 1

4 go to the Kodak machine to do that.

5 Bill?

6 MR. OLMSTEAD:

consider yourself the Oracle.

7 The General Counsel has reviewed the May 12th John Hoyle 8

memorandum of Arnold E. Levine and agrees with the 9

interpretations therein.

How's that.

10 MR. LEVIN:

Let the record show that's Levin.

11 MR. CAMERON:

I guess that takes care of it, 12 right there.

13 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

All right.

14 Then, let's talk about the next meeting.

Lloyd 15 I lhas proposed - - we had talked last time about a date, and I

16 I we selected early July, and Lloyd proposed that we meet at 17 the Oneida Reservation near Green Bay, Wisconsin, for the 18 next meeting.

19 And, I sent around a memo to everyone to see 20 whether that met with concurrence, and it has.

No one has 21 said that's not a good idea.

So, unless there's change in 22 the date, which is July the 6th and the morning of the 7th, 23 if we need it, that's a Thursday and Friday, the plan is to 24 meet in the space that Lloyd is going to provide.

25 Lloyd, do you want to add anything at this time (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW.

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

73 1

to that?

2 MR. MITCHELL:

The only thing I would have to 3

add is that I'm working with John in making sure that we 4

have the appropriate room set up, and enough rooms and so 5

forth, and I believe you've had a chance, or you've gotten 6

that information, and if you want to forward any of that 7

on, or if any other questions I guess could be directly 8

referred to John.

We have it set up so that you can just 9

bring appeal directly, or just let us know and we can 10 arrange to have them processed different ways and so forth.

11 That's about it.

12 If anybody needs any* special requirements for 13 I rooms, or food, or meeting set-ups, let me know if we need 14 I. to have a break-off room, if the Header Group might want to I I 15 li meet a day ahead of time or something like that, or a 16 couple hours ahead of time, just let me know.

17 18 19 20 21 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

All right, Lloyd, thank you.

I think maybe the members have gotten a copy this from the Ratison people.

of I I MR. CAMERON:

Some have and some haven't.

MR. METTAM:

I got a letter addressed to LSS 22 ARP.embers.

23 MR. CAMERON:

I think we might have Left out 24 two,~ couple.

If you dida!t g.e.t one, leave me your card 25 and we'll make sure that you get one.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

I

1 2

MR. LEVIN:

Lloyd, I'd like one, too.

MR. MITCHELL:

We forgot you, Moe?

74 3

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

All right.

The topics for the I 4

next meeting that I believe will at least head the list, 5

and there may be others that come up before meeting time, 6

would be the report of the Technical Working Group on the 7

Level 2 requirements, a discussion of the status of the MOU 8

and maybe a draft of the MOU.

9 Claudia, how about the inclusion/exclusion 10 criteria?

I heard this morning that, perhaps, that would 11 have even been discussed today.

12 MS. NEWBURY:

Maybe we should put it on the 13 agenda just for some discussion points on what we could do 14 to improve the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

15 16 meeting.

17 18 MR. CAMERON:

For the agenda for the next MS. NEWBURY:

For the next one, yes.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Okay.

19 Should there be discussion of use of the DOE's 20 present system to find decision documents?

21 MS. NEWBURY:

Yes.

We plan to have something 22 for you at that meeting.

23 24 25 (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Okay.

Are there other topics?

MR. METTAM:

I have just a question on a topic.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

75 I 1

Didn't we discuss inclusion/exclusion at the last meeting, 2

and didn't we all fairly say, I thought we said, Subpart J 3

seems fairly specific, the section.

I was somewhat 4

surprised to hear him come back, hear Steve -- come back 5

with that as an issue still.

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 MR. CAMERON:

Well, I think it's -- it's still an outstanding issue to the Commission that we want to make I sure that we explore as much as we can before closing it, i

I and that's why I think there was some discussion, I think 1

I I

some of the comments from the commissioners that you heard I today touched on that subject.

So, I think, we don't want to necessarily repeat only what we said that were discussed the last time, I

14 11 but I think that we need to give it some more time.

I 15 I MR. METTAM:

So, it would be helpful then if 16 there is someone, you know, who did a little piece on what 17 the issues are that need to be clarified, or in what areas 18 do they see grey in those, so that we can address it in a 19 more focused manner.

20 21 MR. CAMERON:

That's a good idea.

MS. NEWBURY:

I'll take an action and we'll put 22 1 something together for you.

23 MR. HENKEL:

I have one other point that we 24 might want to consider at the next meeting.

I'm sure most 25 of you people are aware that the federal budget process is (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.ANO AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

76 1

looking at some tremendous cuts in the DOE program.

And, 2

by the time of the next meeting we'll probably know a lot 3

more about how that is shaping up, and I think it might be 4

helpful if we could get some information as to how that 5

might affect the LSS.

We're talking about the House is 6

proposing a budget of $200 million for the whole program, 7

and the Senate is talking about $400 million, so if you 8

assume we are going to maybe get $300 million, that's a 9

major difference, and it may have significant ramifications '

10 to this particular project.

11 MS. NEWBURY:

Well, not just the budgets, but 12 the current legislation, proposed legislation, has a lot of 13 significance as well.

14 MR. HENKEL:

Yes.

We might know more about 15 that by July as well.

16 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Well, could I ask DOE then to 17 be prepared to give us an update on activities?

I I I

I 18 MS. NEWBURY:

You'll probably know as much as I

I : I 19 know from reading the Post.

20 MR. SILBERG:

One of the issues that I think 21 would be worth at least bearing in mind, as you go through 22 the design of the system, is the need to remain flexible to 23 changes in funding.

So, if suddenly instead of being able 24 to spend X million dollars a year on the LSS, you have to 25 go to X, you know, -Y, that we not design a structure which (202) 234-4433 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W, WASHINGTON, DC, 20005 (202) 234-4433

77 1

is so inflexible that we go to zero.

2 MS. NEWBURY:

I think that's why in the Level 1 3

requirements, Jay, they put that we have a modular system, 4

that was the first requirement, and that's partially it.

5 6

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Any other --

MR. MITCHELL:

Just a quick note for next --

7 for July's meeting.

The airport is located directly across 8

from the hotel.

Everything is on the reservation there, so 9

you can actually walk across the street from when you get 10 off at the airport, get your luggage, and walk across to 11 the hotel if you choose to do so.

There's also a little 12 bus that goes across the street to get you if you want, so 13 if anybody wants to get there the evening beforehand, just 14 let me know and we can show you around, we can, you know, 15 whatever.

16 17 MR. BALCOM:

Is that the Green Bay Airport?

MR. MITCHELL:

The Green Bay Airport, right, 18 and it's just remodeled now, so you should find your way 19 pretty easy around there.

We have three golf courses, we 20 have an Oneida Golf Course, a riding club, a driving range, 21 and that's on the reservation, and another golf course 22 that's in the Green Bay area.

23 24 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

John, I think that John 25 Gandy believes he is committed to a presentation on the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON, DC 20005 (202) 234-4433

78 1

access to -- record system.

2 MS. NEWBURY:

We already discussed that, Jim.

3 We've got it all.

CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Roger?

4 5

MR. HARDWICK:

I neglected to mention earlier, 6

the Technical Working Group tentatively has a meeting 7

scheduled June 13th, 14th or 15th, for two days, we are 8

targeting Denver, and it's going to depend a great deal on 9

the availability of the Level 2 functional requirements.

10 The group has decided that we need to have a week or so, or 11 two, to review it prior to our meeting, but if we could be 12 included on the agenda for the July meeting, we will have a 13 definite status update on the requirements.

14 CHAIRMAN HOYLE:

Let me mention also, the 15 Commission is getting two more briefings from Mr. Dryfuss.

16 On June the 9th, at 9:00 in the morning, here at the 17 agency, he'll be briefing on the multi-purpose canister 18 program, and then following that a general briefing on the 19 high-level waste program.

20 Are there any members of the public in the 21 audience that would like to comment, add?

22 Has there been circulating an attendance sheet?

23 I would like one, please.

Could I ask someone to put a 24 piece of paper at the door, and if you would sign it as you 25 go out.

I, of course, have the names of all the panel (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.

WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433

79 1

members up here, so you don't need to sign.

2 Anything else? All right, the meeting is 3

adjourned.

4 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 2:50 5

p.m.)

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 1 5 I 16 I 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL A. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

C E R T I F I C A T E This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

Name of Proceeding:

LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISSORY REVIEW PANEL Docket Number:

N/A Place of Proceeding:

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

(202) 234-4433 JOHN MONGOVE Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON. DC. 20005 (202) 234-4433

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 May 12, 1995

. Levi, LSS Administrator

~,/4_-;

LSSARP Chairman RECOMMENDATION RE LSS RULE At its March 22-23, 1995 meeting, the LSS Advisory Review Panel discussed language in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J (the LSS rule) relating to the processing of electronic information using computer hardware, software and procedures.

It was noted that the LSS rule contains certain language which, although appropriate in 1989 when the rule was promulgated, refers to older technology and standards that would limit current cost-effective design of the LSS.

For instance, terms used in the rule such as ASCII, terminal, dial-up, electronic mailbox and thesaurus refer to aspects of technology that are much broader and varied now than they were when the rule was developed.

The Panel recommends that the Commission, in interpreting provisions of the LSS Rule containing such technical terms, be guided by the underlying functional requirements and intent of these provisions in order to be able to avoid the limitations of outmoded technology.

These provisions of the LSS Rule should be used as guides to intended functionality rather than absolute mandates for a particular technology.

The Panel also recommends that DOE proceed with this understanding unless it hears otherwise from the Commission.

cc:

Hugh Thompson, Deputy Executive Director for Operations, NRC Karen Cyr, General Counsel, NRC Claudia Newbury, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, DOE

YMP-5 Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office P.O. Box 98608 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8608 APR 2 8 1995 Jerri J. Adams, Assistant Manager for Administration, YMSCO, NV SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTION FOR LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM (LSS)

DEVELOPMENT (SCPB:

N/A)

Having reviewed the LSS Workin~ Group's Evaluation of LSS Options report, and considering the recommendations of the Information Resources Manager (enclosure 1), the Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing has selected the Working Group's Option 6 as the preferred operational concept for development of lower tier LSS requirements.

Please use the enclosed Phase I Functional Requirements Document (enclosure 2) to develop the level of requirements necessary for an Analysis of Benefits and Costs (ABC), and proceed with an ABC for the LSS in compliance with the schedules as presented in the Project Summary Schedule (Milestone 9894A).

If you have any questions, please call Claudia M. Newbury at 794-7942.

~..&~~~a~n<<:ir. Brocoum AMSL:CMN-2611

Enclosures:

1.

Memo, 4/7/95, Newbury to File

2.

Phase I Functional Requirements Document cc w/encls:

Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing J.C. Hoyle, NRC, Washington DC A. E. Levin, NRC, Washington, DC G. F. Dickerson, M&O, Washington, DC Virgil Rochester, M&O, Las Vegas, NV J. G. Gandi, YMSCO, NV Mary lilln Jones, YMSCO, NV

Date:

From:

To:

Subject:

MEMORANDUM April 7, 1995

/jl;/--1f<.J.

Claudia M. Newb~/

FILE LSS Development Option Based on the following information from the Information Resources Management and my own reviews of the M&O LSS Working Group report and the Level I Functional requirements document, I recommend that Option 6 be selected for development.

Option 6 consists of an electronic image based system that provides for electronic dissemination of information including full text search It does not require that text files be verified and corrected via human intervention The IRM evaluation Is as follows*

As presented in the LSS Working Group report, Options 2-8 meet the basic requirements of 1 0CFR2 Subpart J, with Options 6 and 8 being the most attractive with regards to overall responsiveness and cost. The primary difference between these options is that in addition to the electronic distribution of images provided by both options, Option 8 also provides for image distribution via CD-ROM. The CD-ROM library contains all LSS holdings since the last distribution with any new material being provided via on-line transmIssIon. Cost estimates for Option 8 are approximately $1 M higher than Option 6 Primary concerns with Option 8 are the logistics associated with CD-ROM distribution, inventory control and the value added (if any) by this additional functionality. The only potential benefit would be the reduction of network loading due to the local availability of images from the CD-ROM library. Even so, the end-user will more than likely perform searches using the on-line electronic image database to ensure that an exhaustive search has been performed. Furthermore, given that the electronic on-line images database contains the most complete and up-to-date source of information, end-users would use the on-line searches as their preferred mode of operation. Therefore the only time It would be benef1c1al to use the library is if the desired document image is available on the CD-ROM library and it is more expedient to obtain hardcopies of the image locally. Over time, users will migrate to, and utilize the system providing the most comprehensive access to available information From this perspective, the CD-ROM library may become obsolete from the user perspective.

Furthermore, given the rapid advances in storage technology, it would not be prudent to specify a particular type of library retrieval system (1.e., CD-ROM based) at this time.

Based upon these issues and concerns, IRM recommends that LSS Option 6 be adopted as the preferred approach for the implementation of the LSS.

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Licensing Support System Phase I Functional Requirements Draft February 28, 1995 Prepared for:

U. S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office P.O. Box 98608 Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8608 Prepared by:

TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc.

101 Convention Center Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 Under Contract Number DE-AC0l-9 lRW00 134 WBS: 1.2.5 QA:

NIA ENCLOSURI

~

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION................................................

1 1.1 PURPOSE...............................................

1

1.2 BACKGROUND

1

2. LSS DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 2

2.1 REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION PROCESS........................

2 2.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS..................................

3 2.3 REGULATORY ISSUES.....................................

5

3. REQUIREMENT DEFINITIONS................................. :...

8 3.1 OVERVIEW OF APPLICABLE 10 CFR 2 SUBPART J CITATIONS......

8 3.2 INTERPRETATION OF SUBPART J DESIGN REQUIREMENTS........ 10

4. REFERENCES.................................................. 31 DRAFT ii 2/2!3/95
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE This document presents the fust level of Licensing Support System (LSS) functional requirements from which more detailed requirements can be derived.

LSS functional requirements are necessary to facilitate an Analysis of Benefits and Costs (ABC), as required by Department of Energy Orders 1330.lD and 1360.lB, and to support system design. All functional requirements presented in this document are derived from the regulations found in 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J.

The regulatory language found in Subpart J is cast into more precise statements that can be used as the basis for detailed specifications. The functional requirements consider only those Subpart J citations that specify or imply required LSS design features. Traceability is maintained between the applicable Subpart J citations and the functional requirements by means of a trace matrix which provides a side-by-side matching of requirements to the applicable regulations.

1.2 BACKGROUND

This document is not the first to present LS3 functional requirements.

LSS functional requirements are specified in a document entitled "Licensing Support System System-Level Requirements Document" (Reference 1). This document presents a listing of functional and performance requirements identified for the LSS through analysis, conceptual design, and prototyping efforts performed by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) during the 1988 - 1990 ti.me frame. This document was evaluated as part of the LSS Working Group's efforts to identify an optimal LSS implementation strategy.

The evaluation focused on determining if the document could be used to perform an ABC, and if it could be used as part of a Request for Proposal (RFP) if a buy decision is made, or as a requirements document if the LSS is developed internally.

The Working Group's evaluation (Reference 2, Section 3.4) suggested that as an overall specification, the requirements in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J are satisfied by the SAIC document.

However, there are several deficiencies in the document, when viewed as a system-level or software requirements specification, that preclude its use in an ABC ur in an RFP. In many instances, the document specified system design, included procedural requirements, and contained ambiguous and untestable requirements. In addition, there were many design requirements included in the document that were judged to exceed Subpart J requirements. In short, the document reflected the proposed LSS architecture at the time and the requirements that describe this design could exclude many potentially feasible LSS implementations. Based upon these observations, the LSS Working Group recommended that the LSS requirements document be revised to specify only system functionality.

The LSS Phase I Functional Requirements document represents the first step in this effort--the coalescing of regulatory citations into more concise functional requirements. Detailed functionality will be developed in a separate LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document.

DRAFf 1

2/U,/95

2. LSS DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Use of the LSS during the high-level waste hearings will represent the first time that an electronic document discovery system has been used during an NRC licensing hearing. Because the LSS is a first-of-a-kind system that is intended to support a first-of-a-kind licensing process, there is a certain degree of uncertainty that should be anticipated in designing and implementing the LSS. This section describes a process for developing LSS functional requirements that should minimize this uncertainty and maximize participation by interested parties. In addition, the LSS will pose unprecedented challenges to the information management community because of the projected size of the LSS database and longevity of the system. Several design and operation considerations are discussed in this section that could impact the specification of lower-level requirements. Finally, several regulatory issues are discussed that could ultimately impact how the LSS is implemented.

2.1 REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION PROCESS The technical description of the LSS presented in 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J is general in nature.

It provides a framework for how the LSS should be structured and operated, but does not describe the intended LSS functionality in the detail necessary to purchase or develop the system.

Therefore, the details of how the LSS will be implemented are not clearly defined and will most likely be a subject of discussion with interested parties. To facilitate this discussion, LSS functionality will be defined using a "level" concept where subsequently lower requirement levels provide increasingly detailed information on how the function will be implemented. The level concept is simply a method of decomposing the LSS system design requirements into finer and finer detail until sufficient information exists to either buy or build the system. This concept also supports LSS requirements discussions with interested parties who want to understand the LSS design, but do not wish to delve into the details of the design. The individual reviewer may focus on the level that presents LSS functionality at the granularity that he/she is most comfortable.

Before the LSS system design can be decomposed into finer detail, it is necessary to provide a starting point. The LSS Phase I LSS Functional Requirements document represents this starting point. The LSS design requirements and implied functionality contained in Subpart J have been analyzed and coalesced in this document into a set of requirements definitions that represent the first level of LSS requirements. In several instances, this activity required interpretation of the Subpart J requirements. Comments are included in the requirement definition to explain these interpretations. The LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document will contain all subsequent requirement levels.

The LSS directly supports the high-level waste repository licensing process and is therefore considered a tool of licensing. Consequently, defining the general nature of the electronic information management system required in Subpart J is the responsibility of the Regulatory and DRAFT 2

2(12,/95

Licensing organization within the Office of Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). The LSS Phase I Functional Requirements document was prepared by the Regulatory and Licensing organization to provide this general description and facilitate a "hand off' to the OCR WM Information Resources Management (IRM) organization.

The LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document will be prepared by the OCRWM IRM organization to define LSS functionality in sufficient detail to support the ABC and support LSS evaluation and acceptance testing.

2.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The LSS is described in Subpart J as an electronic records management system containing the documentary material of all parties to the high-level waste licensing hearing (§2.1002). Although the LSS is effectively a large database management system, it is unique because the volume of information expected to be processed and stored in the system is enormous. This volume has been estimated through the year 2010 in Reference 2 and is shown in Table 1. From this table it is apparent that the manner in which the LSS data is stored must be flexible enough to accommodate the projected volume. It must also be flexible enough to adapt to the varying rates at which data is added to the system, particularly if these rates are significantly different than estimated.

Processing this large volume of data will also represent a unique challenge. The shear volume demands that an efficient information processing procedure be identified and implemented.

Studies performed by the LSS Working Group indicate that the cost of processing documents (e.g. indexing), and hence the cost of operating the LSS, is very sensitive to the time necessary for humans to participate in the processing procedure. Therefore, to minimize LSS operating costs, the LSS design should attempt, to the greatest extent possible, to incorporate automation technologies that eliminate document processing tasks currently performed by humans.

As part of its charter, the LSS Working Group was asked to recommend a preferred option for implementing the LSS. The Working Group identified and evaluated seven implementation options. A description of these options is found in Section 4 of the LSS Working Group report (Reference 2), and is summarized in Table 2. The LSS Working Group recommended that DOE implement Option 6, although Options 5, 6, and 8 were all considered viable implementation options. It is expected that the LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document will describe a concept of operation for the LSS based upon the option chosen by DOE.

DRAFT 3

2/?-8/95

Table 1. Estimated LSS Page Volume 90%

OCRWM OCRWM NRC NRC Others Others Total Pages Relevant Year Pages/Year Cumulative Pages/Year Cumulative Pages/Year Cumulative Added Cumulative Yearly 1994 580,000 6,905,000 59,000 550,000 18,000 18,000 657,000 6,782,000 1995 750,000 7,655,000 59,000 654,000 23,000 41,000 832,000 7,584,000 1996 1,351,000 9,005,000 65,000 760,000 42,000 82,000 1,457,000 8,947,000 1997 1,682,000 10,687,000 71,000 891,000 52,000 134,000 1,804,000 10,644,000 1998 1,970,000 12,657,000 78,000 1,046,000 61,000 195,000 2,109,000 12,632,000 1999 2,013,000 14,670,000 86,000 1,203,000 62,000 257,000 2,161,000 14,663,000 2000 2,276,000 16,946,000 95,000 1,381,000 70,000 327,000 2,440,000 16,959,000 2001 2,371,000 19,317,000 104,000 1,567,000 73,000 400,000 2,548,000 19,351,000 2002 1,628,000 20,945,000 114,000 1,694,000 50,000 450,000 1,793,000 20,994,000 2003 1,584,000 22,529,000 126,000 1,818,000 49,000 498,000 1,759,000 22,593,000 2004 1,756,000 24,285,000 139,000 1,956,000 54,000 552,000 1,949,000 24,365,000 2005 1,708,000 25,993,000 152,000 2,089,000 53,000 605,000 1,913,000 26,088,000 2006 1,514,000 27,506,000 168,000 2,208,000 47,000 652,000 1,728.000 27,615,000 2007 1,674,000 29,181,000 184,000 2,339,000 52,000 703,000 1,910,000 29,305,000 2008 1,756,000 30,937,000 203,000 2,476,000 54,000 757,000 2,013,000 31,077,000 2009 1,247,000 32,184,000 223,000 2,574,000 38,000 795,000 1,509,000 32,335,000 2010 1,124,000 33,308,000 245,000 2,662,000 35,000 830,000 1,404,000 33,469,000 Note: The number of bibliographic headers can be approximated by dividing total page counts by 13, the nominal number of pages per document.

DRAFf 4

2/28/95

Table 2. LSS Option Features Licensing Support Option System Features 2

3 4

5 6

7 I 8 Microfilm based system No No No No No No No Electronic images based Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes system Electronic image on-line No No No Yes Yes No Yes

( electronic dissemination)

Image disseminated on No Yes No No No Yes Yes 1 CD-ROM library 1 Image available as hard Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes copy from central site (mail/fax)

Text on-line (electronic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes dissemination, including full text search)

Human verified and Yes Yes No Yes No No No corrected text Bibliographic header on-Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes line ( electronic dissemination)

The CD-ROM library contains all LSS holdings, and is not generated as a response to particular queries. The CD-ROM contains image, text and text search index of the docwnents held on ea.ch individual CD.

Electronic images will be provided via on-line transmission between CD-ROM distributions.

2.3 REGULATORY ISSUES Technology-specific Language Even with the general technical description of the LSS presented in Subpart J, there are several instances where the rule includes technology-specific language which could unnecessarily constrain LSS design options. These instances are identified in this section along with the language introduced in this document for dealing with these instances.

The most apparent instance of technology-specific language in Subpart J is the requirement for LSS participants to submit a document as an ASCII file. The intent of the ASCII file is to DRAFf 5

2/28/95

facilitate full-text search and retrieval of information. However, there are other text formats the preserve the ability to perform these functions with the added benefit of retaining other potentially useful information (e.g. formatting and linkage information). A more neutral wording of Subpart J would use a term such as "standard text file" as opposed to "ASCII file" since the later is a more specific version of the former.

Another instance of technology-specific language is use of the term "dial-up access". This term suggests access must be provided to the LSS via telephone lines and modems when in fact the intent of the rule is actually to access the LSS from remote sites. Dial-up access is simply one method of accessing any system remotely. A more generalized wording of Subpart J would r~place the term "dial-up access" with "remote access."

Use of the term "bit-mapped image" is another instance of technology-specific language found in Subpart J. Once again, the intent of the rule is to store a retrievable digital likeness of a document A more appropriate term for "bit-mapped image" could be "digital image" which includes the more specific bit-mapped digital image format.

Finally, Subpart J uses the term "terminal" without specifically defining it in §2.1002. The word terminal has the connotation to information management professionals of a terminal without intelligence or a "dumb-terminal." A more fitting term today for terminal would be "workstation" since workstations are common today much like terminals were common when Subpart J was promulgated.

Subpart J is NRC's rule and it is incumbent upon NRC to re-write the rule to eliminate technology-specific language. These technology issues have been brought to NRC' s attention and efforts are currently underway to eliminate technology-specific language from Subpart J. In anticipation of a technology independent clarification to the rule, this document has been written under the assumption that the technology-specific terminology identified previously will be replaced with the more general terms suggested.

LSS Search Modes Section 2.1007 of Subpart J provides two modes of searching for material within the LSS database depending upon whether a notice of hearing on the high-level waste license application has been issued. Prior to the notice, members of the public are allowed access to bibliographic headers only to search for information. Full-text search of the document text file is not required for the public until after the hearing notice is issued. This dual search mode reflects a position that the DOE successfully negotiated during the rulema.lcing process to effectively restrict document discovery for the public to only header searches until after the hearing notice is issued, or until the interested public entity chooses to become a potential party to the hearings. Although this strategy does have merit, it unintentionally introduces inefficiencies in document indexing process which could have a profound impact on the cost of operating the LSS.

DRAFT 6

2/u,/95

The LSS Advisory Review Panel (ARP) chartered a working group to examine the header fields required for each document entered into the LSS. This working group proposed a fairly large set of fields primarily to offer the public, who cannot initially perform full-text document searches, a reasonable chance at finding information within the database. Members of the LSS Working Group have recommended reducing the number of required header fields under the assumption that the document text would be available to search. Minimizing the required header fields will reduce the labor required to generate the headers thereby resulting in significant cost savings. However, it is unlikely that the LSS ARP would be willing to reduce the number of required header fields unless the DOE agreed to provide only one mode of access to the LSS--

document full-text search. As the requirement is written in this document, DOE can continue to support dual access modes, or could adopt a single access mode. This issue should be carefully considered and specific guidance should be provided in the LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document.

DRAFf 7

2/28/95

3. REQUIREM~NT DEFINITIONS This section presents an overview of the requirements included in Subpart J that specify or imply system design and presents the detailed trace matrices that link Level 1 requirements to the applicable Subpart J citations. The requirements derived from Subpart J are termed Level 1 requirements because they are at the root of the LSS requirements hierarchy and thus form the requirements foundation from which more detailed requirement levels will be derived in the LSS Phase II Functional Requirements document.

3.1 OVERVIEW OF APPLICABLE 10 CFR 2 SUBPART J CITATIONS Requirements that impact system design directly or imply system functionality are included in seven sections of Subpart J. These requirements are summarized below.

10 CFR 2.1002, High-level waste Licensing Support System The LSS is an electronic information management system contammg the documentary material of the DOE and its contractors, and the documentary material of all other parties, interested governmental participants and potential parties and their contractors.

Access to the LSS by the parties, interested governmental participants, and potential parties provides the document discovery in the proceeding.

The LSS provides for the electronic transmission of filings by the parties during the high-level waste proceeding, and orders and decision of the Commission and Commission adjudicatory boards related to the proceeding.

10 CFR 2.1003, Submission of material to the LSS Submission of material to the LSS shall be accomplished by submitting an ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header for all material to be included in the LSS.

10 CFR 2.1004, Amendments and additions A document submitter shall make a reasonable effort to verify that documents have been entered correctly into the LSS.

The LSS Administrator shall ensure that the bibliographic header for the original document specifies that revisions have been entered into the system.

DRAFf 8

2/2.8/95

JO CFR 2.1007, Access Access to the LSS for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided by full text search capability through dial-up access from remote sites, image access at remote locations, and the capability to electronically request a paper copy of a document at the time of search.

During the pre-license application phase, tenninal for access to full headers and access to images will be provided at DOE Headquarters, NRC Headquarters, and at all NRC and DOE public reading rooms in the vicinity of the candidate site for a geologic repository.

Additionally, terminals will be provided at the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado, and at Las Vegas, Nevada; Reno, Nevada; Carson City, Nevada; Nye County, Nevada; and Lincoln County, Nevada. After the license application is docketed, access is to include searchable full text at the identified sites.

JO CFR 2.1011, LSS Management and administration The LSS Administrator shall ensure availability and integrity of the LSS database, maintain security for the LSS database including assigning user password security codes and maintain the thesaurus and authority tables for the LSS.

10 CFR 2.1013, Use of LSS during the adjudicatory proceeding The LSS Administrator shall establish a file within the LSS to contain the official record materials of the proceeding in searchable full text, or for material that is not suitable for entry in searchable full text, by header and image, as appropriate.

All filings in the adjudicatory proceeding shall be transmitted electronically. Parties and interested governmental participants will be required to use a password for electronic transmission of documents.

JO CFR 2.1017, Computation of time If the LSS is unavailable for more than four hours of any day that would be counted in the computation of time, that day will not be counted in the computation of time.

The details of how the LSS is to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet these objectives are not identified in Subpart J. The above requirements are re-cast into functional requirements in Section 3.2.

DRAFT 9

2/'28/95

3.2 INTERPRETATION OF SUBPART J DESIGN REQUffiEMENTS This section presents the Level 1 requirements that are derived from Subpart J citations. These requirements are presented in the form of trace matrices where the applicable Subpart J citations are listed next to the associated Level 1 requirement. A comment column is included within each matrix to allow for discussions of how a particular requirement is interpreted or the presentation of issues to be considered when deriving lower-level requirements. Each requirement is labeled with a unique identifier indicating the level and the requirement number within the level. For example, [LSS 1-003] is the third in a series of Level 1 requirements. The requirements are ordered based upon the order of their associated Subpart J sections (e.g. 2.1002(a), 2.1003(a)(l),

2.1003(b)(l),... ).

DRAFf 2/'l:3/95

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation

§2.1002(a)

The Licensing Support System is an electronic information management system containing the documentary material of the DOE and its contractors, and the documentary material of all other parties, interested governmental participants and potential parties and their contractors. Access to the Licensing Support System by the parties, interested governmental participants, and potential parties provides the document discovery in the proceeding. The Licensing Support System provides for the electronic transmission of filings by the parties during the high-level waste proceeding, and orders and decisions of the Commission and Commission adjudicatory boards related to the proceeding.

Level l Requirement

[LSS 1-001)

The LSS shall be designed in a modular fashion to allow for the integration of functional components.

Comments The LSS must be available to support the licensing proceedings from the pre-license phase, through the amendment to receive and possess waste, and until the license is amended for permanent closure. It is reasonable to expect that during this time frame, technology associated with the various LSS functional components will advance to the point where they are obsolete. To take advantage of inevitable improvements in technology, the LSS should be constructed in a modular fashion. By adhering to this strategy, obsolete hardware and software components can be replaced without adversely impacting the overall operation of the system.

N Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation

§2.1002(a)

The Licensing Support System is an electronic information management system containing the documentary material of the DOE and its contractors, and the documentary material of all other parties, interested governmental participants and potential parties and their contractors. Access to the Licensing Support System by the parties, interested governmental participants, and potential parties provides the document discovery in the proceeding. The Licensing Support System provides for the electronic transmission of filings by the parties during the hi6h-level waste proceeding, and orders and decisions of the Commission and Commission adjudicatory boards related to the proceeding.

Level 1 Requirement

[LSSl-002]

The LSS shall adhere to established government and/or industry hardware and software standards.

Comments As discussed previously, the LSS will be in operation for a considerable period of time This time frame is on the order of 100 years based upon the current program approach. It is obvious with the current rate of change in technology, that no computer application can be designed to operate effectively over such a long life-cycle.

Both hardware and software advancements will render any existing system obsolete on the order of every 5-10 years. To ensure that the LSS remains compatible and reasonably consistent with the technology of the time, it is essential that the LSS design adhere to open hardware and software standards.

I.,)

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citations

§2.1002(a)

The Licensing Support System is an electronic information management system containing the documentary material of the DOE and its contractors, and the documentary material of all other parties, interested governmental participants and potential parties and their contractors.

Access to the Licensing Support System by the parties, interested governmental participants, and potential parties provides the document discovery in the proceeding. The Licensing Support System provides for the electronic transmission of filings by the parties during the high-level waste proceeding, and orders and decisions of the Commission and Commission adjudicatory boards related to the proceeding.

§2.1013(c)(l)

All filings in the adjudicatory proceeding on the license application to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter shall be transmitted electronically by the submitter to the Presiding Officer, parties, the LSS Administrator, and the Secretary, according to established format requirements. Parties and interested governmental participants will be required to use a password security code for the electronic transmission of these documents.

Level 1 Requirement

[LSSl-003]

The LSS shall provide an electronic mail (E-mail) function to facilitate communications between authorized E-mail users. This function shall allow E-mail users to transmit and receive electronic documents (e.g. motions, filings, orders, decisions, etc.). Each E-mail user shall have a corresponding electronic mailbox to receive and store electronic correspondences.

Comments The electronic mail function will facilitate written communication during the licensing hearings. Therefore, it is essential that the mail system enable users to send messages to other users and send/attach documents with their messages.

10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments I §2.1003(a)(l)

[LSS 1-004]

It is anticipated that the Subject to the exclusions in §2.1005 of this subpart and The LSS shall be capable of LSS Administrator will paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each potential party, accepting electronically receive the required interested governmental participant or party, with the formatted and transmitted document information in exception of the DOE and the NRC, shall submit to the LSS document information in the electronic form from one or Administrator--Subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, following combinations:

more parties to the licensing an ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header, a) Bibliographic header and hearing. Therefore, reasonably contemporaneous with its creation or acquisition, digital image functionality is specified to for all documentary material (including circulated drafts but b) Bibliographic header, digital ensure that the LSS can excluding preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the image, standard text accept information in an direction of, or acquired by, a potential party, interested representation electronic form.

governmental participant, or party after the date on which c) Bibliographic header only such potential party, interested governmental participant or party is given access to the Licensing Support System.

§2.1003(b)(l)

Subject to the exclusions in §2.1005 of this subpart, and subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the DOE and the NRC shall submit to the LSS Administrator--An ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header, reasonably contemporaneous with its creation or acquisition, for all documentary material (including circulated drafts but excluding preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the direction of, or acquired by, the DOE or the NRC after the date on which the Licensing Support System is available for access.

V\\

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation

§2.1003(a)(l)

Subject to the exclusions in §2.1005 of this subpart and paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each potential party, interested governmental participant or party, with the exception of the DOE and the NRC, shall submit to the LSS Administrator--Subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, an ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header, reasonably contemporaneous with its creation or acquisition, for all documentary material (including circulated drafts but excluding preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the direction of, or acquired by, a potential party, interested governmental participant, or party after the date on which such potential party, interested governmental participant or party is given access to the Licensing Support System.

§2.1003(b )(1)

Subject to the exclusions in §2. 1005 of this subpart, and subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the DOE and the NRC shall submit to the LSS Administrator--An ASCII file, an image, and a bibliographic header, reasonably contemporaneous with its creation or acquisition, for all documentary material (including circulated drafts but excluding preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the direction of, or acquired by, the DOE or the NRC after the date on which the Licensing Support System is available for access.

Level 1 Requirement

[LSSl-005]

The LSS shall provide the capability to recognize characters from the digital image of a document and convert these characters into a standard text representation of the document.

This optical character recognition function shall achieve character recognition accuracies that are consistent with the accuracies achievable with the best commercial products available at the time of the LSS system design.

Comments Section 2.1003 requires LSS participants to submit a text representation of each document, if appropriate. If a digital version of document is not available, then the document must be either retyped, or digitally scanned and processed by optical character recognition (OCR) software in order to generate a standard text representation of the document. Because of the large volume of data expected to be processed and loaded into the LSS, automation of the text conversion process is necessary.

It is noted that Subpart J does not explicitly require the LSS to include OCR capabilities since each LSS Participant is expected to provide standard text files as part of their document submissions.

However, this function will be necessary in order to meet the material submission requirements. It is included here for completeness.

0\\

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation

§2.1003(c)(l)

Each potential party, interested governmental participant, or party shall submit, subject to the claims of privilege in

§2.1006, an image and a bibliographic header, in a time frame to be established by the access protocols under

§2.101 l(d)(lO) of this subpart, for all graphic oriented documentary material. Graphic-oriented documentary material includes, raw data, computer runs, computer programs and codes, field notes, laboratory notes, maps, diagrams and photographs which have been printed, scripted, hand written or otherwise displayed in any hard copy form and which, while capable of being captured in electronic image by a digital scanning device, may be captured and submitted to the LSS Administrator in any fo1 m of image. Text embedded within these documents need not be separately entered in searchable full text. Such graphic-oriented documents may include: Calibration procedures, logs, guidelines, data and discrepancies; Gauge, meter and computer settings; Probe locations; Logging intervals and rates; Data logs in whatever form captured; Text data sheets; Equations and sampling rates; Sensor data and procedures; Data Descriptions; Field and laboratory notebooks; Analog computer, meter or other device print-outs; Digital computer print-outs; Photographs; Graphs, plots, strip charts, sketches; Descriptive material related to the information above.

Level l Requirement

[LSSl-006]

The LSS shall have the capability to create a digital image of each page of a document from a paper copy of the page.

Comments According to §2.1001, an image is defined as a "... visual likeness of a document, presented on a paper copy, microform, or a bit-map on optical or magnetic media."

This requirement intentionally excludes the need for creating a digital image directly from microform. Instead, it is assumed that all document images residing on microfilm will be first be copied to paper, and a digital image of the document will then be created from the paper copy.

This process *will ensure that the intent of the rule is retained while eliminating redundant and potentially costly LSS functionality.

7 Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments

§2.1003(c)(2)

[LSSl-007]

This requirement will impact Each potential party, interested governmental Documentary material not suitable the manner in which participant, or party, in a time frame to be established for imaging and conversion to a documents are processed and by the access protocols under §2.lOll(d)(l0) of this standard text file shall be identified the type of fields required in a subpart, shall submit, subject to the claims of privilege with a header that includes a document header. It is in §2.1006, only a bibliographic header for each item reference to the storage location of included here because it could of documentary material that is not suitable for entry the material. This reference shall have an impact on system into the Licensing Support System in image or be descriptive enough for users to design.

searchable full text. The header shall include all identify the location of the material required fields and shall sufficiently describe the and how to access the material.

information and references to related information and access protocols. Whenever any documentary material

-.:i is transferred to some other media, a new header shall be supplied. Any documentary material for which a header only has been supplied to the system shall be made available to any other party, potential party or interested governmental participant through the access protocols determined by the LSS Administrator under

§2.101 l(d)(lO) or through entry upon land for inspection and other purposes pursuant to §2.1020.

00 Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation

§2.1004(a)

Within sixty days after a document has been entered into the Licensing Support System by the LSS Administrator during the pre-license application phase, and within five days after a document has been entered into the Licensing Support System by the LSS Administrator after the license application has been docketed, the submitter shall make reasonable efforts to verify that the document has been entered correctly, and shall notify the LSS Administrator of any errors in entry.

Level 1 Requirement

[LSSI-008]

The LSS shall include a function that allows a document submitter to verify that document information entered into the LSS database is identical to the document information submitted to the LSS Administrator.

Comments In order to satisfy this requirement, it is essential that a document submitter have a tool that allows him to verify that information stored in the LSS database is the same information provided to the LSS Administrator. Because of the large volume of information expected to be stored in the LSS, an automated tool might be necessary to minimize human involvement in the verification process.

Level 1 Requirement Comments Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation 11----------------------t---------------+------------

§2.1004(b)(3)

The LSS Administrator shall ensure that the bibliographic header for the original document specifies that a corrected version is also in the Licensing Support System.

§2.1004(c)(2)

The LSS Administrator shall ensure that the bibliographic header for the original document specifies that revisions have been entered into the Licensing Support System.

[LSSl-009]

The LSS shall provide a function to allow the LSS Administrator to alert users that subsequent revisions to a document exist.

The intent of the Subpart J citations is to make the user aware that revisions to a document are available in the LSS database. Subpart J suggests accomplishing this task by editing the header associated with the original document to indicate that revisions exist. Unfortunately, if the header resides on optical disk or some other read-only medium, then the original headers cannot be modified.

Therefore, in order to prevent the language of the rule from eliminating specific LSS implementation options, the requirement for editing the headers of the original documents is restated to capture the original intent of the rule, but without constraining system design.

N 0

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citations

§2.1007(a)(1)

Tenninals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of DOE, shall be provided at the headquarters of DOE, and at all DOE Local Public Document Rooms established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository.

§2.1007(a)(2)

Tenninals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of NRC, shall be provided at the headquarters Public Document Room of NRC, and at all NRC Local Public Document Rooms established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository, and at the NRC Regional Offices, including the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado.

§2.1007(a)(3)

The access tenninals specified in paragraphs (a)(l) and (a,~2) of this section shall include tenninals at Las Vegas, Nevada; Reno, Nevada; Carson City, Nevada; Nye County, Nevada; and Lincoln County, Nevada.

Level 1 Requirement Comments

[LSS 1-010)

The applicable Subpart J citations The LSS shall be accessible by the public list the generic location for public from the following locations as a access to the LSS. This minimum:

requirement simply states the location of these facilities as they

- DOE Headquarters, Washington DC exist at the time of writing. This

- DOE Project Office, Las Vegas NV requirement can be revised if

- NRC Headquarters, White Flint, MD locations are added or deleted

- NRC Region l Office, King of Prussia, although the requirement is written PA to allow for a greater number of

- NRC Region 2 Office, Atlanta, GA access locations without

- NRC Region 3 Office, Glenn Ellyn, IL modification.

- NRC Region 4 Office, Arlington, TX

- NRC Uranium Recovery Field Office, It might also be noted that the Denver, CO word "tenninal" is conspicuously

- Las Vegas, NV absent from the requirement. As

- Reno, NV discussed in Section 2.3, the word

- Carson City, NV tenninal implies a specific type of

- Nye County, NV equipment to some readers and

- Lincoln County, NV could unnecessarily imply constraints on LSS implementation I

options.

Applicable 10 CFR Pan 2 Subpart J Citation

§2 l007(a){l)

Tenninals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of DOE, shall be provided at the headquarters of DOE, and at all DOE Local Public Document Rooms established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository.

§2.1007(a)(2)

Tenninals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of NRC, shall be provided at the headquarters Public Document Room of NRC, and at all NRC Local Public Document Rooms established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository, and at the NRC Regional Offices, including the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado.

§2. 1007(a)(4)

The headers specified in paragraphs (a)( 1) and (a)(2) of this section shall be available at the same time that those headers are made available to the potential parties, parties, and interested governmental participants.

§2. 1007(a)(5)

Public access to the searchable full text and images of all the documents in the Licensing Support System, not privileged under §2.1006, shall be provided by U1e LSS Administrator at all U1e locations specified in paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section after a notice of hearing has been issued pursuant to

§2.101 (f)(8) or §2.105(a)(5) on an application for a license to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area.

Level l Requirement

[LSSl-011]

The LSS shall provide the public with one of two search and retrieval modes depending upon whether a notice of hearing on the high-level waste license application has been issued:

Prior to notice - Full-text search of each field in the bibliographic headers and retrieval of the header and associated image.

After notice is fasued

  • same as above plus full-text search of the standard text files.

At the DOE's discretion and given concurrence of the LSS Advisory Review Panel, the latter search mode can be provided to the public prior to the hearing notice.

Comments See Section 2.3 for a discussion of the issue.

It is noted U1at LSS Participants (i.e.

potential parties, interested government participants, and parties) will have access to full-text search regardless of whether the hearing notice has been issued. Therefore, U1e dual access mode only applies to non-LSS Participants (i.e.

U1e public).

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments

§2.1007(a)(l)

[LSSl-012]

This requirement addresses Terminals for access to full headers for all documents in The LSS shall be capable of one of the basic functions of the Licensing Support System during the pre-license electronically storing and any database system--storing application phase, and images of the non-privileged retrieving the bibliographic and retrieving information documents of DOE, shall be provided at the headquarters header related to each document pertaining to a record.

of DOE, and at all DOE Local Public Document Rooms in the system.

established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository.

§2.1007(a)(2)

Terminals for access to full headers for all documents in the Licensing Support System during the pre-license application phase, and images of the non-privileged documents of NRC, shall be provided at the headquarters Public Document Room of NRC, and at all NRC Local Public Document Rooms established in the vidnity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository, and at the NRC Regional Offices, including the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado.

I

§2.1007(a)(4)

The headers specified in paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section shall be available at the same time that those i

VI headers are made available to the potential parties, parties, and interested governmental participants.

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments

§2.1007(a)(5)

[LSSl-013]

This requirement ensures that Public access to the searchable full text and images of The LSS shall be capable of standard text files can be all the documents in the Licensing Support System, electronically storing the standcrd stored and available within the not privileged under §2.1006, shall be provided by the text representation associated with LSS for full-text search and LSS Administrator at all the locations specified in each page in a document retrieval of headers and paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section after a images. Although it is not notice of hearing has been issued pursuant to specifically required by

§2.101(f)(8) or §2.105(a)(5) on an application for a Subpart J, the text associated license to receive and possess high-level radioactive with a document could be waste at a geologic repository operations area.

made available as well since it will already reside in the

§2.1007(c)(l) system.

Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and p~rties will be provided in the following manner--Full text search capability through dial-up access from remote locations at the requestor' s expense;

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments

§2.1007(a)(5)

{LSSl-014]

This requirement addresses Public access to the searchable full text and images of The LSS shall be capable of one of the basic functions of all the documents in the Licensing Support System, electronically storing and retrieving the LSS--storing and retrieving not privileged under §2.1006, shall be provided by the the digital image associated with document images.

LSS Administrator at all the locations specified in each page in a document.

paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section after a notice of hearing has been issued pursuant to

§2.101({)(8) or §2.105(a)(5) on an application for a license to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area.

§2.1007(c)(2)

Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided in the following manner--

Image access at remote locations at the requestor's expense;

Iv V,

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation

§2.1007(c)(l)

Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided in the following manner--Full text search capability through dial-up access from remote locations at the requestor's expense;

§2.1007(c)(2)

Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided in the following manner--Image access at remote locations at the requestor's expense;

§2.1007(c)(3)

Access to the Licensing Support System for potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties will be provided in the following manner--The capability to electronically request a paper copy of a document at the time of search; Level 1 Requirement Comments

[LSSl-015]

The LSS shall be accessible by potential parties, interested governmental parties, and parties from locations other than those listed in requirement [LSS 1-010) at the requester's expense.

[LSSl-016]

Potential parties, interested governmental parties, and parties who access the LSS from locations other than those listed in requirement [LSSl-010] shall be provided access to images at the requester's expense.

[LSSl-017]

Potential parties, interested governmental I

parties, and parties who access the LSS from locations other than those listed in requirement [LSS 1-010] shall be capable of electronically requesting a paper copy of a document at the time of search.

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments

§2.101 l(d)(7)

[LSSl-018]

Hardware and/or software The LSS Administrator shall be responsible for the The system shall provide the tools are typically used by a management and administration of the Licensing necessary hardware and/or software system administrator to make Support System, including the responsibility to--Ensure to ensure the integrity and routine backups of data and to LSS availability and the integrity of the LSS data availability of the LSS database.

enhance the efficiency of the base; database. These and other tools effectively ensure the integrity and availability of a database.

§2.101 l(d)(9)

[LSSI-019]

The LSS Administrator shall be responsible for the The system shall provide the management and administration of the Licensing necessary hardware and/or software Support System, including the responsibility to--

to ensure the security of the LSS Maintain security for the Licensing Support System database. The system shall be data base, including assigning user password security capable of providing users various codes; levels of read/write access.

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation Level 1 Requirement Comments

§2.101 l(d)(l 1)

[LSS 1-020]

A thesaurus can be used The LSS Administrator shall be responsible for the The LSS shall include a function during document searches to management and administration of the Licensing that allows the LSS Administrator associate search words with Support System, including the responsibility to construct and maintain a related words included in the to--Maintain the thesaurus and authority tables for the thesaurus.

thesaurus. The thesaurus can Licensing Support System; be used to expanded queries to include searches on related words as well as the words entered in the query.

§2.lOll(d)(ll)

[LSSl-021)

Authority tables are used to The LSS Administrator shall be responsible for the The LSS shall include a function restrict the vocabulary entered management and administration of the Licensing for the LSS Administrator to in select header fields. By Support System, including the responsibility construct and maintain authority restricting the vocabulary, to--Maintain the thesaurus and authority tables for the tables.

words, names, etc. are entered Licensing Support System; in a consistent manner thereby eliminating variations of the same word, name, etc.

I

N 00 Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citation

§2.101 l(f)(2)(v)

The responsibilities of the LSS Advisory Review Panel shall include advice on--

Reasonable requirements for headers, the control of duplication, retrieval, display, image delivery, query response, and "user friendly" design;

§'.2..1011(f)(2)(v)

The responsibilities of the LSS Advisory Review Panel shall include advice on--

Reasonable requirements for headers, the control of duplication, retrieval, display, image delivery, query response, and "user friendly" design; Level 1 Requirement

[LSSl-022]

The LSS shall provide a graphical user interface (GUI) for all LSS access locations.

[LSS 1-023]

The LSS shall provide a function that assists the LSS Administrator in identifying duplicate documents.

Comments Graphical user interfaces have essentially replaced traditional command line interfaces and are in use be virtually all potential LSS users. GUis are intended to enhance the usability of software by providing a more visual interaction with the computer. Therefore, to ensure that the LSS is as "intuitive and user friendly" as possible, the LSS user interface should be implemented in GUI environment.

The LSS Administrator is responsible for loading the LSS with documents provided by DOE, NRC, and all other parties to the licensing hearing. Even if the document streams submitted by each party are free of duplicate documents, it is likely that duplicate documents will exist when the streams are combined.

Therefore, in order to minimize the number of duplicate documents in the system, the LSS Administrator must have a tool to help identify duplicates documents.

Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citations

§2.1013(c)(l)

All filings in the adjudicatory proceeding on the license application to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter shall be transmitted electronically by the submitter to the Presiding Officer, parties, the LSS Administrator, and the Secretary, according to established format requirements. Parties and interested governmental participants will be required to use a password security code for the electronic transmission of these documents.

§2.1013(c)(3) tt, Service upon a party or interested governmental participant is completed when the sender receives electronic acknowledgment ("delivery receipt") that the electronic submission has been placed in the recipient's electronic mailbox.

§2.1013(c)(4)(i)

Proof of service, stating the name and address of the person on whom served and the manner and date of service, shall be shown for each document filed, by--Electronic acknowledgment ("delivery receipt");

Level 1 Requirement

[LSS 1-024]

The E-mail function shall provide password protection for all documents transmitted electronically.

[LSSl-025)

The E-mail function shall provide for an electronic acknowledgement that mail has been delivered to the recipient's electronic mailbox. The acknowledgement shall include as a minimum, the name and address of the recipient and the date the electronic mail was delivered.

Comments Gateways that link various electronic mail systems together are becoming common as popularity with the Internet grows. If an E-mail user accesses the LSS via a gateway that does not allow r~ceipt notices to "jump" the gateway, then the delivery receipt need only indicate the date the message was delivered to the recipients's gateway.

0 Applicable 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J Citations

§2.1017 In computing any period of time, the day of the act, event, or default after which the designated period of time begins to run is not included. The last day of the period so computed is included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday at the place where the action or event is to occur, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, nor holiday. Whenever a party, potential party, or interested governmental participant, has the right or is required to do some act within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other document upon it, one day shall be added to the prescribed period. If the Licensing Support System is ur.available for more than four access hours of any day that would be counted in the computation of time, that day will not be counted in the computation of time.

Level 1 Requirement

[LSSl-026]

The LSS shall be designed so that system availability meets industry averages at the time of LSS system design.

Comments The intent of the LSS is facilitate document discovery during the high-level waste hearings and help the NRC meet the three-year license review period required in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

This requirement is included to ensure that the time saved during the licensing hearings from use of the LSS is not significantly impacted by poor availabi\\ity of the system.

4. REFERENCES
1.

Science Application International Corporation, "Licensing Support System Systems-Level Requirements Document", Revision 5.0, December 12, 1990.

2.

TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc., "Evaluation of Licensing Support System Options", Revision 0, January 16, 1995.

DRAFf 31 2(22/95

LSS PARTICIPANT COMMITMENTS May 12, 1995 NRC Contract No. NRC-40-30-346 Labat-Anderson Incorporated with Price Waterhouse

LSS PARTICIPANT COMMITMENTS The proposed LSSA Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) is based on the commitments placed on participants by the LSS Rule (10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J) and derivative commitments that the LSSA believes are necessary for LSS program control and administration. This document contains all of these commitments. Those commitments that arise directly from the LSS Rule contain an appropriate citation.

The commitments on the following pages have been subdivided into three groups. The commitments in each of these groups are treated differently within the proposed CAP. These groupings are:

GROUP 1:

These commitments address the proper identification of the document universe, the proper screening of this universe for relevant, non-duplicative LSS materials, and the timely submission of this material to the LSS. Specific compliance processing standards and non-compliance reporting thresholds have been established by the LSSA for each of these commitments. Participants exceeding established thresholds will be cited for non-compliance by the LSSA.

If cited for non-compliance, sanctions may be imposed by the Presiding Officer (PO) or the Commission.

GROUP 2:

These commitments address the physical condition of the material submitted to the LSS and its proper preparation. Specific processing standards and rejection/resubmission thresholds have been established by the LSSA for these commitments. Participants exceeding established thresholds will, in most cases, be required to correct and resubmit substandard material. The quality of submitted material will be evaluated at the LSSA's Quality Assurance (QA)

Facility and during the LSSA's compliance audits. Performance related to these commitments will not be addressed in LSSA's periodic compliance evaluation reports to the Commission. However, failure to correct and resubmit returned material in a timely manner could result in reported non-compliance, if the submission volumes/rates addressed in Group 1 (above) are not met.

GROUP 3:

These commitments do not have quantitative standards and rejection thresholds.

They address participant program management requirements and describe conditions for gaining and retaining access to the LSS. Deviations from these commitments will become evident through specific actions taken (or not taken) by participants. The LSSA or the PO, as appropriate, will make judgements about the nature and seriousness of any non-compliance with these commitments. If considered serious enough, participants may be cited for non-compliance by the LSSA. If cited for non-compliance, sanctions may be considered and imposed by the PO or the Commission.

1

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.A Commitment -- Document Universe Identification Each LSS participant will repon in writing to the LSSA, concerning its holdings of potential LSS material, the location and content of each backlog repository and each generation/acquisition source (those that exist at the time the participant's Compliance Program Plan* is submitted and any that may arise thereafter). These will constitute all the sources of material to be screened against the Topical Guidelines and the exclusion criteria in the Rule (Section 2.1005).

Processing Standard Standard: A DLO must report in writing all existing sources of potential LSS material at the time he submjts the participant Compliance Program Plan, and subsequently report any new potential source within IO working days of its identification.

Rationale: To either not be aware of, or not disclose, even a single potential source could prevent relevant LSS material from being entered into the LSS.

Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if, after the initial report of backlog and existing sources is finalized in the participant's Compliance Program Plan, any verified source of potential LSS material that should have been reported is identified by someone other than the responsible DLO.

Rationale: Since it should not be difficult for a DLO to either identify existing sources or establish procedures to stay abreast of new potential sources of LSS material, non-compliance will be reported if any verified source of potential LSS material is overlooked or not disclosed by a DLO. Tbjs is consistent with the importance of full disclosure to the discovery objective of the LSS.

Compliance Assessment Method After becoming aware of an undisclosed potential source of LSS material from someone other than the responsible DLO, the LSSA will ask the responsible DLO to investigate this potential source and certify to the LSSA as to whether or not it is a potential source of LSS material. The LSSA will perform on-site audits when deemed necessary to validate this certification. AJso, as deemed appropriate, the LSSA audit staff may proactively sample other related participant document collections/sources for possible LSS materials.

  • See Commianent 3.C and LSSA Guidance on the Format and Content of LSS Participant Compliance Program Plans.

1

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.8 Commitment -- Material Submission Plans All LSS participants will develop and maintain accurate Material Submission Plans in accordance with the I.SSA Guidance on the Format and Contenl of I.SS Participant Compliance Program Plans.

The first submission date for the Plans will be June 30, 1996, and the Plans will be updated annually until the conclusion of the licensing proceeding. The Plans will contain an analysis of the volume and type of documentary material currently in the possession of the participant (backlog) and an estimate of documentary material to be acquired or generated for each of the next two years.

The Material Submission Plans will also contain a long range schedule for the submission of this material to the LSSA, broken down into six-month periods. That schedule will be evaluated by the LSSA to determine if it supports the timely and efficient loading of the LSS database. The LSSA will confer with a participant if adjustments to the offered schedule are necessary. The Material Submission Plan will be incorporated as an appendix to the participant's Compliance Program Plans.

Processing Standard Standard: The original Material Submission Plans and each revision will show:

an estimate of current backlog documentary material (pages) and a two-year projection of the number of pages of documentary material expected to be generated or acquired; that all backlog will be submitted to the LSS at least 12 months before DOE's planned license application submission date; that LSS participants will begin to submit their backlog within 60 days of gaining access to the LSS (but no later than 36 months before DOE's planned license application submission date), and do so evenly over the remaining six-month periods;

[NOTE: This standard does not address the possible need to load the LSS database with highest priority backlog documents early in the loading process. A standard for highest priority backlog will be set later if priority loading becomes an LSS requirement.]

2

GROUP 1-- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commianent 1.B, continued Processing Standard (Continued)

Rationale: By the time the LSS is available, it is estimated that there will be about 14 million pages of backlog, with most of it belonging to DOE. It is also estimated that another 4 to 5 million pages of "contemporaneous" material will be created between the time the LSS is available and the time DOE will submit its license application. The LSSA's QA Facility and the LSS itself must be properly sized to accommodate this workload and a predictable input volume from LSS participants is needed to have reasonably stable and efficient LSS operations that will pose little risk to the timely loading of the LSS database. [There will be constraints on bow much material can be loaded into a "pre-LSS" database, indexed, reviewed for compliance with standards, and, when available, loaded into the LSS by the QA Facility each day.] As currently envisioned, during the first 12 months of availability, the LSS will have only a limited number of users and will be dedicated almost exclusively to a high volume of backlog loading. Thereafter, the number of users will be significantly expanded, large volumes of new material will be loaded, and the capacity to load backlog will decline. It is prudent to plan for full loading of the backlog 12 months before the license application submission date to reduce the risk that unexpected loading difficulties/

requirements would endanger full loading of the backlog by the point six months before the license application submission date (as required by the LSS Rule). Unless LSS participants develop Material Submission Plans that are consistent with LSSA plans/constraints, the quality assurance review and loading of material into the LSS could be on the critical path to DOE submitting its license application. LSSA will provide LSS participants with LSS loading plans and constraints as an input to the development of their Material Submission Plans.

Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if an LSS participant does not provide a Material Submission Plan that is consistent with all prescribed standards.

Rationale: If an LSS participant will not commit to submit its LSS material in a way that can be accommodated by the LSS, will not endanger the timeliness of loading, and will not unnecessarily add to the cost of LSS operations, then the Commission will be informed.

Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will review each Material Submission Plan and compare it with the standards. LSSA may also audit backlog repositories and acquisition/generation sources to confirm the accuracy of projected material submission volumes.

3

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I l.C Commitment -- Document Universe Screening After eliminating authorized exclusions under the Rule (Section 2.1005), LSS participants will properly screen all their potential LSS material. Proper screening means making accurate relevancy decisions vis-a-vis the Topical Guidelines and accurate decisions as to what relevant materials are duplicative of previous submissions. If sufficient erroneous screening decisions are found during an LSSA audit, the LSS participant may be required to re-screen all material withheld from the LSS since the previous LSSA audit, identify all errors, and, when necessary submit incorrectly withheld material to the LSSA in accordance with Commitment 1.F (Timely Submission/Resubmission). LSS participant re-screening would be confined to the withholding category or categories (non-relevant or duplicative) in which the LSSA audit found errors. (§2.1003]

Processing Standard Standard: All relevant or potentially relevant material will be submitted to the LSS.

Rationale: The Rule says LSS participants must submit any information that is relevant to or might lead to the discovery of information that is relevant to the licensing proceeding. This means that LSS participants must err on the side of submitting material to the LSS if there is any doubt about its relevancy. Screened material that is withheld from the LSS will be clearly non-relevant, or duplicative.

Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if there is a deviation from the standard of more than 2% of the material screened during a six-month evaluation period.

Rationale: With the large volume of LSS material to be screened, some mistakes will be made even with the best procedures and training. However, given the guidance to err on the side of submitting marginally relevant material, and the fact that relevancy and duplicate determinations are not difficult, there should be very few instances where material is incorrectly withheld from the LSS.

Quantities exceeding the threshold would represent a level of incorrect withholding that will be reponed as non-compliance.

4

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.C, continued Compliance Assessment Method During on-site audits, the LSSA will examine a representative sample of materials from the evaluation period that are deemed by an LSS participant to be either non-relevant or duplicative.

Toe number of errors found in these categories will be summed and divided by the total number of units inspected in these categories.

5

11.D GROUP 1 --

A COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS ND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING IBRESHOLDS Commitment -- Accountability for Screened Materials All LSS particip ants will maintain an accurate audit trail of their document processing activities.

This audit trail w of material that a the Rule (and wh ill be capable of identifying the processing status and location of each unit or batch participant determines does not meet the exclusion criteria of Section 2.1005 of ich therefore must be screened for relevancy). If, during an LSSA audit, any material is found to be missing or mis-designated as having already been submitted to the LSS, the be required to perform a complete review of its audit trail documentation since the udit and, when necessary, submit missing or mis-designated material to the LSSA th Commitment l.F (Timely Submission/ Resubmission).

participant may previous LSSA a in accordance wi Processing Standard Standard: Once material has been screened for relevancy, no material wiil b~

  • ~mg,r tnis-designated.

Rationale: Ace urate accounting for units of LSS material by LSS participants is the only way the confidence that all material that is supposed to be entered into the LSS is actually r entry into the system. If material has entered an LSS participant's relevancy LSSA can have being received fo screening process been submitted to

, but cannot be accounted for, it is missing. If material is mis-designated as having the LSS when it was not, then it is also "missing" from the perspective of the uation threatens the integrity of the LSS as a discovery database.

LSSA. Either sit Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non 0.1 % of all mate

-compliance will be reported if there is a deviation from the standard of more than rials screened for relevancy during a six-month evaluation period Rationale: With the large volume of LSS material to track, some mistakes \\I *1,

  • u de even with the best procedur es and training. However, anything greater than a 0.1 % error rate for missing or ocuments will be an indication of inadequate quality assurance that could potentially amounts of material from being entered into the LSS in a timely manner.

mis-designated d delay significant Quantities exceed ing the threshold would represent sufficiently poor accounting to be reported as non-compliance.

6

GROUP l -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.D, continued Compliance Ass~ment Method The LSSA will conduct periodic on-site audits which will, among other things, examine the integrity of each LSS participant's audit trail within its document processing system. A sample of screened materials will be tracked to ensure that the units within the sample have been fully accounted for in one of three categories -- relevant, non-relevant, or duplicative. In addition, a check will be made concerning whether any materials have been mis-designated as sent to the LSS by comparing the participant's tracking information with what should be corresponding data from the LSSA's QA Facility.

7

GROUP 1 ** COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING IBRESHOLDS I 1.E Commitment ** Backlog Submission LSS participants will submit all their LSS material created prior to the availability of the LSS (for NRC and DOE) or the granting of LSS access (for all other participants) in accordance with their LSSA-approved Material Submission Plans. All backlog materials will be submitted 12 months prior to DOE's planned license application submission date. [§2.1003)

Processing Standard Standard: LSS participants must submit all their backlog in accordance with their approved Material Submission Plans.

RationaJe: Backlog processing is a very large undertaking. By the time the LSS is available, it is estimated that there will be about 14 million pages of backlog, with most of it belonging to DOE.

There are constraints on how much material can be indexed and loaded into the LSS, and reviewed for compliance with quality standards daily. If LSS participants, particularly DOE, do not closely adhere to their Material Submission Plans, the backlog might not be loaded six months before DOE's planned license application submission date, as required by the LSS Rule.

Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if a) the cumulative amount of backlog submitted by any LSS participant is behind its Material Submission Plan by more than:

Variance 10%

5%

Years Before DOE's Planned License Submission Date 3.0 each six-month period beginning 2 years and ending I year before planned license application submission date; and b) if any LSS participant has not submitted all its backlog by June I, 2000.

Rationale: Strict adherence to the standard is not necessary until the license application submission date is close. The Material Submission Plans are only estimates, and deviations can be expected due to estimate errors, a lack of experience early in the process, or other factors which might affect production rates over time. It is anticipated that the overall accwacy of the Material Submission Plans will increase with each revision. However, backlog submission volumes falling below these thresholds have a potential impact on the ability to have all the backlog processed and loaded into the LSS six months before DOE submits its license application.

8

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.E, continued Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will compare actual pages submitted to the LSS for each six-month period, with each LSS participant's Material Submission Plan.

9

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.F Commitment -- Timely Submission/Resubmission Participants will submit all LSS documentary material created subsequent to the availability of the LSS (for NRC and DOE) or the granting of access (for all other participants), so it is available through the LSS in a timeframe "reasonably contemporaneous" with its creation or acquisition.

Participants will promptly correct and resubmit any substandard materials. Participants will promptly prepare and submit any materials which were found to be incorrectly/inadvertently excluded. [§2.1003 & §2.1004)

Processing Standard Standard:

FOR ALL LSS PARTICIPANTS:

Type of Submissions Workdays*

Clock Starts Clock Stops Initial submission of Date of the cover or Date accepted by "Contemporaneous" 20 primary document for LSSA QA Facility.

materials material generated by LSS participant For materials acquired by LSS participant, the date of acquisition as evidenced by a date stamp on the material or other evidence such as the date of a transmittal letter.

Initial submission of any Date submitter is made Date accepted by materials excluded 20 aware of such materials LSSA QA Facility.

incorrectly/inadvertently by LSSA Resubmission of any 20 Date participant notified Date accepted by backlog materials rejected of rejection by LSSA LSSA QA Facility.

by LSSA QA Facility QA Facility

  • Not counting workdays in the LSSA QA Facility prior to acceptance.

IO

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.F, continued Processing Standard (Continued)

Standard:

ALL PARTICIPANTS:

Type of Submissions Workdays*

Clock Starts Clock Stops Resubmission of materials Date submitter is made Date accepted by already in LSS found to 20 aware of such errors by LSSA QA Facility.

be substandard by LSS LSSA.

participants or LSSA.

  • Not counting workdays in the LSSA QA Facility prior to acceptance.

[NOTE: This standard does not yet cover the timely submission of headers and images for adjudicatory filings during the bearing process. The standard for submission of these materials will be set later in coordination with ASLBP. This standard also does not cover the timely submission of Technical Data Package "segments". A standard for "segments" will be set later if the submission of "segments" becomes an LSS requirement. Additionally, this standard also does not cover the timely submission of highest priority backlog materials. A standard for highest priority backlog submissions will be set later if priority loading becomes an LSS requirement]

Rationale: For the LSS to be effective, it must be up-to-date and accurate. The "reasonably contemporaneous" requirement in the LSS Rule was established to ensure that LSS material is submitted promptly after it is created/acquired. Other categories of submissions/resubmissions, other than the initial submission of backlog materials which are covered under Commitment I.E (Backlog Submission), will also be processed so that errors or omissions are corrected as soon as possible. There is no easy way to compute a "standard" time for processing and submitting material given the many variations in individual units (e.g., complexity of unitization/indexing and size/quality of images to be processed), individual processing operations/locations and other factors.

Therefore, 20 working days is proposed as a readily achievable standard, in the belief that if the 20 day standard is met, LSS participants will be able to make full and effective use of the LSS.

11

GROUP 1 ** COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS Commitment l.F, continued Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if too many of an LSS participant's submissions/resubmissions (addressed above) are not accepted by the LSSA's QA Facility within the 20 day standard. The following table defines the volume of material that can exceed the 20 day standard, and by how many days before non-compliance will be reported:

Volume up to 5%

up to 1%

0%

Workdays* to acceptance 21-30 31-40

>40 Rationale: Given the large volume of material to be processed, some material will encounter processing problems and some will have to be reworked due to substandard quality. These situations should not occur frequently if good quality assurance is performed within LSS participants' processing operations. Quantities exceeding these thresholds would indicate poor QA and delay a significant quantity of material from entering the LSS database on a timely basis and will be reported as non-compliance.

  • Not counting workdays in the LSSA QA Facility prior to acceptance.

Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will calculate elapsed workdays using LSS header data and the LSSA QA Facility's quality review and acceptance data. "Clock start" and "clock stop" points are those enumerated in the above standard with all workdays that the material is in the LSSA's QA Facility prior to acceptance subtracted. "Date accepted by LSSA QA Facility" is the date that the material passes final QA review. Individual submissions and their processing times will be cumulated over the evaluation period and compared to the standards in order to compute a percentage of deviation from the standards.

12

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.G Commitment -- Use of LSS Electronic Transmission Capability Parties to the high-level waste repository licensing proceeding shall transmit all their filings electtonically to the PO, all other parties, the LSSA and SECY using the electronic transmission capability of the LSS. The electronic transmission will include, on a separate page, a textual representation of the header information for the filing. Note: This electronic filing does not negate LSS participants' responsibility to prepare and submit headers and images, as applicable, for these filings in accordance with the LSS Rule and to provide properly executed paper copies to SECY for docketing. [§2.1013)

Processing Standard Standard: The LSS electronic transmission capability will be used for all filings.

Rationale: The use of the LSS electronic transmission capability will help expedite the bearing.

Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported any time the PO concludes that a participant's failure to use the LSS eleettonk transmission capability has interfered with the conduct of an efficient licensmg process.

Rationale: If the electronic transmission capability is not used in a particular instance, the PO can require the party to refile using that capability. If the process of refiling does not cause any problems, there would be no purpose in reporting non-compliance. However, if the PO concludes that the licensing process is adversely affected in any way by the participant's failure to use the electtonic transmission capability, then non-compliance will be reported.

Compliance Assessment Method The PO will determine if the participant's failure to use the electronic transmission capability adversely impacts the licensing process and will notify the LSSA as appropriate.

13

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.H Commitment -- Hearing Exhibits All parties to the HL W repository licensing proceeding, absent good cause, will make timely submission of all exhibits to be tendered during a bearing, so that they may be entered into the LSS before the commencement of that portion of tbe hearing in which the exhibit will be offered.

[§2.1013)

Processing Standard Standard: All exhibits must be received by LSSA in accordance with the submission deadline established by the PO who, in setting such a deadline, will take into account the need to provide two workdays (or such lesser time as the LSSA specifies) for LSSA processing of the documents.

Rationale: In addition to the time provided by the PO to analyze exhjbits before any hearing, the LSSA may need up to two workdays to process the exhibits and ensure that they are correctly entered/identified in the LSS.

Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if there is any deviation from the deadline established by tbe PO, unless tbe PO has determined tbat there was "good cause" for a particular exhibit being late.

Rationale: Since the standard is set by the PO, no deviation is considered appropriate in the absence of a "good cause" finding by the PO.

Compliance Assessment Method Tbe LSSA will compare the LSSA QA Facility exhibit log-in date with the start date of that portion of the bearing for which the exhibit(s) are being tendered. If the log-in date is not in accordance with the PO's directive establishing a deadline for exhibit submjgsion, the LSSA will contact the PO for a "good cause" ruling.

14

GROUP 1 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING THRESHOLDS I 1.1 Commitment -- Good Faith Discovery All LSS participants will comply with the scope and intent of the LSS Rule (10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J, §2.1000 and §2.1003) tO provide for document discovery in the Jil..W repository licensing proceeding.

Processing Standard Standard: There should be no instances where an LSS participant bas willfully withheld or altered LSS documentary materials, bas willfully provided inaccurate header data about its materials, or bas willfully altered any LSS records for the purpose of denying or delaying access tO relevant LSS documentary materials.

Rationale: Having relevant documentary material withheld from the LSS or having erroneous material in the LSS would seriously undermine the integrity of the system as a discovery database.

Non-Compliance Reporting Threshold Threshold: Non-compliance will be reported if there is any deviation from the standard.

Rationale: Any willful acts tO thwart the effective use of the LSS as a discovery database are sufficiently serious to be reported as non-compliance.

Compliance Assessment Method If, through any means, the LSSA becomes aware of an apparent willful act tO thwart the use of the LSS as an effective discovery database, an investigation will be conducted by an appropriate authority.

15

GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS Wim SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION fflRESHOLDS I 2.A Commitment -- Unitization All LSS participants will unitize their LSS material in accordance with guidance developed by the LSSARP Header Work Group and approved by the LSSA.

Processing Standard Standard: All material in the LSS will be properly unitized.

Rationale: If LSS material is not properly unitized by the submitter, significant access points provided within the LSS header records will be lost to searchers, e.g., document types, authors and dates. LSS users would not find or learn about the existence of improperly unitized material when looking for them using these access points.

Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Material will be rejected if there is any deviation from the standard.

Rationale: The concept of unitization is a very important design feature of the LSS. Having any units "hidden" within others would create too much doubt about the completeness of search results.

Moreover, incorrect unitization may mean a completely new header is required, which is an LSS participant's responsibility.

Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will examine submitted units at its QA Facility. Those that are incorrectly unitized will be rejected and the submitter will be required to correct unitizatioo problems and resubmit the uoit(s). Batches of submissions will be examined on a sampling basis. If any units within the sample are incorrectly unitized, the entire batch will be rejected and the participant will be required tO review the entire batch, correct unitization problems throughout the batch and resubmit the batch.

16

GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.B Commitment -- Header Preparation All LSS participants will compose header fields for each unit of LSS documentary material, including privileged material and any material not suitable for entry into the LSS. LSS participants are only required to prepare bibliographic fields, but may do more, and are not required to submit their LSS material electronically, but they may opt to do so. DOE and NRC must prepare a full electronic header for its LSS material. The LSSA will augment the headers of non-DOE participants forwarded from the participants and ensure that these headers are converted into the proper electronic format Whenever LSS material that is not suitable for entry into the LSS is transferred to a new media, a new header will be prepared by the original submitter and sent to the LSSA. [§2.1003]

Processing Standard Standard: All header fields will be correct and complete and all electronic links between header records, digital images or electronic text will be present and correct.

Rationale: Coding and linkage errors can either prevent users from finding material when searching headers or prevent them from viewing material after locating it through a header search.

Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: If any errors are found in headers during LSSA QA review, the associated unit(s) could be rejected. If rejected, the participant would be required to correct the errors and resubmit the complete header(s). However, the LSSA believes that it is more efficient/effective for LSSA to correct errors within the QA Facility if the participant's error rate is low. If the level of errors found by sampling submissions is considered to be too high for rework within the QA Facility, the LSSA will reject either individual units or entire batches and require the participant to review, correct and resubmit the headers. The LSSA will maintain performance data in this area and an LSS participant's track record will be taken into account when deciding whether to require the rework and resubmission of headers containing errors. Individual errors and cumulative error statistics will be reviewed with LSS participants so that they are cognizant of their performance and, therefore, the requirement for resubmission will not come as a surprise.

Rationale: Setting standards and computing error rates in this area is complicated and burdensome.

There are many fields/linkages involved, different fields vary widely in importance and some of the indexing is subjective, thereby precluding a clean "correct/incorrect" determination. Also, requiring resubmission for a few minor errors is more costly and time consuming than if they were simply fixed in LSSA's QA Facility. The submitter will be notified of any corrections made by the QA Facility.

17

GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WIIB SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION IBRESHOLDS Commitment 2.B, continued Compliance Assessment Method Format -- The LSSA QA Facility will perform an automated validation of each submitted header.

Critical Access Points -- The LSSA QA Facility will examine each critical field for all submitted headers. Also, during periodic on-site audits, the LSSA will check the accuracy of critical header field entries for those materials that are referenced in the LSS by header only, such as privileged or non-imageable materials, by comparing a sample of these materials against the header entries.

Non-critical Header Fields and Linkages -- The LSSA QA Facility will examine header fields within representative samples drawn from batches of participant-processed material that has been loaded to the LSS.

18

GROUP 2 ** COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.C Commitment ** Image Preparation All LSS participants will prepare and submit legible (or best available) images of their LSS material for entry into the LSS. Non-DOE participants may submit a paper copy of their LSS material, but DOE and NRC must prepare a properly formatted digital image for all LSS material processed through their information management system. [§2.1003)

Processing Standard Standard: Format -- Digital images must meet the format standards established by the LSSA (with LSSARP review and comment) considered "state-of-the-art" at the time image submission commences, which may change over time based on technological advances in the field. The media on which electronic images will be submitted will be governed by the same requirements.

Legibility -- all submitted images must be complete, readable representations of the originals, unless marked "best available copy".

Rationale: If there are an unacceptable number of submitted images that do not meet legibility and/or digital image format standards prescribe4 LSS users would either retrieve on-line images that could not be interpreted or the LSSA would encounter difficulties in loading the LSS database.

Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Images will be rejected if there is any deviation from the digital image format standards or if there is a deviation from the legibility standard of more than 1 % of the images in an individual unit or a sample drawn from a batch of participant-submitted material loaded to the LSS.

Rationale: Format problems are simple to avoid and should rarely, if ever, occur. It would be very costly to have every image meet the established legibility standard. Accepting no more than 1 %

substandard images is a reasonable standard. Pages in the LSS with substandard images that cause problems for LSS users will be corrected to standard, where possible. As necessary, participants will be required to submit legible replacement images in the same format (electronic or bard-copy) as originally submitted, or certify that the image already submitted is "best available".

Compliance Assessment Method At its QA Facility, the LSSA will perform an automated validation of digital image formats. The LSSA will also examine representative samples of digital images drawn from batches of participant-processed material, as well as samples of any hardcopy images submitted by non-DOE participants.

19

GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING ST ANDA RD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.D Commitment -- Electronic Text Preparation DOE and NRC will produce electronic text for the textual portion of nearly all of its LSS material (privileged material and some text imbedded in graphics will not be converted to electronic text).

[§2.1003) The LSSA will convert non-DOE participant material to electronic text where it has not already been so converted.

Processing Standard Standard: The electronic text for each page of submitted LSS material will have no more than two errors per thousand convertible characters (99.8% accurate) when compared to the text in the corresponding digital image.

Rationale: If there are an unacceptable number of wrong or missing electronic text characters in the processed text. then LSS users could miss some material when performing word searches against the electronic text and thereby call into question the integrity/usefulness of the LSS. Also, errors could impact a user's ability to navigate through text and from text to images. At this time, it is anticipated that. while the best available commercial product will be utilized for text conversion, some re-keying will be necessary.

Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Electronic text will be rejected if more than 1 % of the sampled pages either do not meet the standard or do not conform to LSSA's text conversion/format guidance, e.g., conversion of figure titles, and insertion of "see image" flags.

Rationale: Given the tremendous volume of LSS material to be processed and the relatively high cost of editing converted electronic text to a high standard, it would be very costly to require that every page of electronic text meets the established standard. LSSA proposes to accept batches of material that have no more than 1 % substandard pages. However, no page will be accepted if the text accuracy is below 90%. Pages in the LSS with substandard electronic text that cause problems for LSS users will be corrected to standard.

Compliance Assessment Method Text characters from representative samples drawn from batches of material loaded to the LSS will be compared to the corresponding digital image characters at the LSSA QA Facility.

20

GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.E Commitment -- Technical Data Package (Raw Data) Preparation All LSS participants will assemble and prepare their LSS documentary material qualifying as Technical Data Packages in accordance with established guidance. If necessary, DOE will "electronically assemble" Technical Data Packages for submission to the LSS in accordance with LSSA guidance. (§2.1003)

Processing Standard Standard: All participants -- all packages will have a proper Table of Contents and otherwise conform to LSSA guidance; DOE only -- any required electronic links from the package components to the Table of Contents will be present and correct.

Rationale: If the material supporting a technical investigation is not properly submitted as a "package", then LSS users will be unable to identify and/or examine all material supporting a particular investigation.

Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Technical Data Packages will be rejected if there is any deviation from the standard.

Rationale: Tables of Contents and linkages are critical LSS features that permit effective use of the system. Technical Data Package components that cannot be located or associated with a specific investigauon would raise questions about the integrity of the LSS database.

Compliance Assessment Method The LSSA will examine all individual Technical Data Package submissions that have been loaded to the LSS at its QA Facility.

21

GROUP 2 -- COMMITMENTS WITH SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARD AND REJECTION/RESUBMISSION THRESHOLDS I 2.F Commitment -- Amendments After Verification Period After the verification period in Commitment 3L bas expired, all LSS participants needing to amend a submission due to missing or incorrect pages will submit a complete new header and corrected images to the LSSA in accordance with Commitments l.F, 2.B and 2.C. [§2.1004)

Processing Standard Standard: Same as for Commitments l.F, 2.B and 2.C.

Rationale: If errors found by participants are not corrected and resubmitted in a proper and timely manner, users may either be relying on incorrect material or be unable to locate or know of the existence of certain material. Without the timely submission of new updated headers with the correct pages, LSS users will not be aware of the changes and updates to the LSS database. This will lead to a degradation in user confidence in the usefulness of the LSS as a discovery database.

Rejection/Resubmission Threshold Threshold: Same as for Commitments IF, 2.B and 2.C.

Rationale: Same as for Commitments IF, 2.B and 2.C.

Compliance Assessment Method See Compliance Assessment Methods for Commitments IF, 2.B and 2.C.

22

GROUP 3 -- COMMITMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS I 3.A Commitment -- Designated LSS Official All potential LSS participants will identify a DLO who will be responsible for the administration of their LSS responsibilities under the LSS Rule. [§2.1009)

I 3.B Commitment -- Petitions for Access All potential LSS participants will petition the PAPO for access to the LSS in accordance with the LSS Rule. [§2.1008)

I 3.C Commitment -- Compliance Program Plan As a condition for gaining access to the LSS, all potential LSS participants will develop and submit to the LSSA for review and approval a Compliance Program Plan in accordance with the LSSA Guidance on the Format and Content of LSS Participant Compliance Program Plans.

I 3.D Commitment -- Complying with Orders All LSS participants will comply with orders of either the PAPO, the PO, or the Commission as a condition to retaining access to the LSS. [§2.1012)

I 3.E Commitment -- LSS Audits LSS participants will cooperate with LSSA's audits of their document processing activities and agree to LSSA observation of any audits the LSS participant may conduct 23

GROUP 3 -- COMMITMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS j 3.F Commitment -- Access to Material Not Suitable for Entry All LSS participants will provide access to their non-privileged LSS documentary material that is not suitable for entry into the LSS in accordance with required LSS access protocols or through entry upon land for inspection or for other purposes pursuant to §2.1020. [§2.1003]

I 3.G Commitment -- DLO Certifications Participant DLOs will accurately certify compliance with all LSS commitments every six months in accordance with LSSA-established format and on a schedule specified by the LSSA. [§2.1009]

j 3.H Commitment -- Participants' Written Procedures All LSS participants will establish written procedures to implement their responsibilities under the LSS Rule. [§2.1009)

I 3.1 Commitment -- Participants' Training All LSS participants will provide adequate training for their staff and their contractors' staff producing and/or processing LSS material. [§2.1009] Participants and their contractors wbo will use the LSS must receive LSSA-required training before using the system.

I 3.J Commitment -- Reporting Requirements All LSS participants will submit to the LSSA: a) complete and accurate periodic reportS/data pertaining to their document processing plans and activities in accordance with LS SA-established (and LSSARP-reviewed) formats; and, b) paper copies of any screened documentary material needed by LSSA for either quality assurance or other verification purposes.

24

GROUP 3 -- COMMITMENTS WIIBOUT SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS I 3.K Commitment -- Duplicate Elimination All LSS participants will make a reasonable effort to minimize the submission of duplicates of their LSS material previously submitted to the LSS. The LSSA, through the LSS, will also identify duplicates that will occur within and among various LSS participants' submissions.

I 3.L Commitment -- Amendments Within Verification Period Within the LSS Rule's prescribed verification periods, all LSS participants will make a reasonable effort to verify the accuracy of their LSS documentary material entered into the LSS and notify LSSA of any errors. [§2.1004)

I 3.M Commitment -- Contractor Compliance with LSS Rule All LSS participants will ensure that their contractors, consultants, grantees, or other agents, comply with the applicable requirements of the LSS Rule and derivative LSSA guidance.

I 3.N Commitment -- LSS Access Privileges No LSS participant will abuse its LSS access privileges in ways that purposefully interfere with the ability of other users to have full and ready access to the LSS database or otherwise purposefully place unnecessary burden on the system.

I 3.0 Commitment -- Participants' Costs All LSS participants will pay for their own LSS computer facilities, to include workstations (hardware and software) and any local area networks. Participants will also pay for the telephone connect charges they incur to access the LSS database. Participants will also pay for paper copies ordered on line through the LSS, unless a fee waiver for the paper copies bas been approved by the LSSA. [§2.1007) 25

GROUP 3 -- COMMITMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC PROCESSING STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS I 3.P Commitment -- FOIA Responsibilities Federal Government LSS participants will respond to any FOIA requests for the LSS documentary material they have submitted to the LSS. [§2.1007]

I 3.Q Commitment -- Public Access Terminals NRC and DOE will provide terminals for public access to the LSS. [§2.1007) 26

ATTACHMENT 1 DEFINITION OF TERMS AND LISTING OF ACRONYMS TERMS backlog backlog repository cited for noncompliance Designated LSS Official (DLO)

LSS documentary material which was generated by, at the direction of, or acquired by an LSS participant prior to the availability of the LSS (for NRG and DOE) or the granting of LSS access (for all other participants). (§ 2.1003)

A collection of records or other information under the control of an LSS participant or its contractors which contains backlog. These collections must be identified to the LSSA by a participant's Designated LSS Official.

An action taken by the LSSA in response to a participant's failure to act in accordance with its responsibilities under the LSS Rule. This includes the violation of standards established by the LSSA based on LSSA responsibilities under the LSS Rule.

A citation for non-compliance will be reported to the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer or the Presiding Officer, as appropriate, and is a last recourse after prior efforts to address the shortcomings have failed. (§ 2.1 O 12)

A participant may appeal a citation for non-compliance to the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer or Presiding Officer, as appropriate.

An official designated by each LSS participant as the LSS point-of-contact, who will be responsible for administering its LSS responsibilities and for certifying compliance with the LSS Participant Commitments. (§ 2.1009) 1

documentary material documentary material not suitable for entry into the LSS generation/acquisition source granting of access to the LSS high-level radioactive waste (HLW) image Any material or other information that is relevant to, or likely to lead to the discovery of information that is relevant to, the licensing of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository. The scope of documentary material shall be guided by the topical guidelines in the applicable NRC Regulatory Guide. (§ 2.1001)

Any documentary material that is not available in either image or full-text format, e.g., a soil sample.

Such material is to be described in the LSS by means of a sufficiently descriptive bibliographic header, which will contain information about how to access the material. (§ 2.1003)

Any organizational unit of an LSS participant, e.g.,

offices, branches, departments, that has program responsibility to either create or acquire potentially relevant LSS material and any of its contractors that may produce or acquire potentially relevant LSS material.

Section 2.1008 of the LSS Rule sets forth the procedures for a potential party to petition for access to the LSS. The Pre-License Application Presiding Officer (PAPO) will rule on all such petitions for access. In order to gain access, the participant must agree to comply with all orders of the PAPO and all LSS regulations.

The most radioactive category of nuclear waste, e.g.,

spent fuel from nuclear power plants and the waste from defense activities. HLW usually decays or loses radioactivity rapidly. However, HLW also contains elements that decay very slowly and remain radioactive for thousands of years. (See 10 CFR Part 60, Subpart A, Section 60.2}.

A visual likeness of a document presented on a paper copy, microform, or a bit-map on optical or magnetic media. (§ 2.1001) 2

LSS Administrator (LSSA)

LSS Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP)

LSS participant, or participant non-privileged material Pre-License Application Presiding Officer Presiding Officer (PO)

The person within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission responsible for administration, management, and operation of the LSS. The LSSA shall not be in any organizational unit that either represents the NRG staff as a party to the high-level waste licensing proceeding or is a part of the management chain reporting to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

The organizational unit within the NRG selected to be the LSSA shall not be considered to be a party to the proceeding. (§ 2.1001)

The LSSA established the LSSARP, whose members are responsible for providing advice to DOE on the design and development of the computer system necessary to implement the LSS and to the LSSA on the operation and maintenance of the LSS, in addition to other duties specified in

§ 2.1011 of the LSS Rule.

A party, potential party, or interested governmental participant to the HLW geologic repository licensing proceeding, as those terms are defined in § 2.1001 of the LSS Rule.

Documentary material that is not identified by a participant as confidential, proprietary, or classified, and which must be submitted to the LSS. (See also Section 2.1006 of the Supplementary Information to the LSS Rule for a description of types of privileged materials.)

One or more members of the Commission, or an atomic safety and licensing board, or a named officer who has been delegated final authority in the pre-license application phase with jurisdiction specified at the time of designation. (§ 2.1001)

One or more members of the Commission, or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a named officer who has been delegated final authority in the HLW proceeding after DOE's license application has been docketed. (§ 2.1001) 3

public sanction Any non-participants interested in the DOE licensing proceedings. Public access to the LSS will be provided by the LSSA at all locations specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section 2.1007 of the LSS Rule, after a notice of hearing has been issued.

A penalty that the PAPO, the PO, or the Commission may impose on an LSS participant for misconduct, noncompliance, or failure to fulfill its obligations under the Rule. One such penalty, as stated in Section 2.1012 of the LSS Rule, is suspension or termination of access to the LSS.

4

ACRONYMS ASCII Commission DLO DOE HLW LSS LSSA LSSARP NRC O&M PAPO PO QA QC American Standard Code for Information Interchange Nuclear Regulatory Commission Designated LSS Official Department of Energy High-Level Radioactive Waste Licensing Support System Licensing Support System Administrator Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operations and Maintenance Pre-license Application Presiding Officer Presiding Officer Quality Assurance Quality Control 5

COMMITMENT Introduction I.A l.B l.C l.D KEY TO CHANGES IN THE LSS PARTICIPANT COMMITMENTS MAY 12, 1995 CHANGE Group 4 was eliminated. The intent of those commitments, which centered on DOE responsibilities for design, development, and implementation of the LSS, will be captured in the Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and NRC.

pf -

P2 -

Added reference to "exclusion criteria".

Inserted "10 working days" as standard.

  • - Pl refers to paragraph l of the commitment Pl -

Established June 30, 1996, as the first submission date.

Reduced the scope of the Plan to cover current year plus each of next two years, rather than 10 years.

Requires submission schedule to be broken down into six-month increments, to mirror twice yearly compliance certification by the LSSA.

P2 -

Eliminated 10 year projection and simplified the standard to reduce burden on participants.

Pl -

Added language concerning "eliminating authorized exclusions" to clarify the point at which relevancy screening is considered to begin.

Pl -

Rewrote this paragraph to simplify the audit trail requirements and lessen burden on participants. Participants need not track materials which are authorized exclusions under Section 2.1005 of the Rule.

LE l.F LG 1.H 2.A KEY TO CHANGES IN THE LSS PARTICIPANT COMMITMENTS MAY 12, 1995 CHANGE P4 -

The "Variance" was revised to more accurately reflect the program schedule and to recognize that the Material Submission Plan is an estimate that should become more accurate over time.

Completion of backlog submission was established as June 1, 2000, based upon a presumed mid-2001 license application submission date.

P2 -

Revised 10 day standard to 20 days.

PS -

Revised Threshold to accord with new 20 day standard by changing "workdays to acceptance".

P6 -

Removed sentence beginning "The threshold of not greater than 30 days.... ".

P7 -

Clarified the meaning of "Date accepted by LSSA QA Facility".

Pl -

Changed "E-Mail" to "LSS Electronic Transmission Capability" to avoid using technological tenns which are limiting.

Added the requirement for participants to include with their electronic transmission a textual representation of the header.

P2 -

Revised the standard to reflect the authority of the Presiding Officer to set deadlines for exhibit submission.

Pl -

Revised language to reflect LSSARP Header Work Group involvement in developing unitization guidance.

COMMITMENT 2.B 2.C 2.D 2.E 3.C Former 3.E 3.J (former 3.K)

KEY TO CHANGES IN THE LSS PARTlCIPANT COMMITMENTS MAY 12, 1995 CHANGE Pl -

Added "NRC" to third sentence.

P5 -

Revised to indicate that participants will be notified of corrections made by the LSSA QA Facility.

P6 -

Revised to indicate that the LSSA QA Facility, not DOE, will perform validation testing.

P2 -

Revised to eliminate technology-specific language.

Pl -

Changed "ASCII Text" to "Electronic Text" to avoid using technological terms which are limiting.

Added "NRC" to first sentence.

P3 -

Added language relating to use of "best available commercial product for text conversion".

Pl -

Changed "Technical Investigation Package" to "Technical Data Package" to conform to DOE protocol.

Changed reference from "LSSA guidance" to "LSSA Guidance on the Format and Content of LSS Participant Compliance Program Plans".

Removed this commitment (Cooperation with Advisory Review Process) as redundant.

Simplified reporting by eliminating the requirement for participants to prepare listings of material they determined non-relevant.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML25329A184&oldid=5539857"