ML25329A178
| ML25329A178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/06/1994 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC/Chairman |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML25329A178 (0) | |
Text
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 CERTIFICATION MINUTES OF EIGHTH MEETING OF THE LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL I certify that the attached minutes of the Meeting of the LSS Advisory Review Panel, held on September 9, 1994 are accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date
MINUTES LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING September 9, 1994 Rockville, Maryland The eighth meeting of the Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) took place on September 9, 1994, in Room 3-B45, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
Members of the LSSARP present were:
John Hoyle, Chairman (NRC)
Claudia Newbury (DOE)
Harry Swainston (State of Nevada)
Kirk Balcom (State of Nevada)
James Davenport (State of Nevada)
Les Bradshaw (Nye County)
Malachy Murphy (Nye County)
Dennis Bechtel (Clark County)
Brad Mettam (Inyo County)
Pete Cummings (City of Las Vegas)
Vernon E. Poe (Mineral County)
Herman E. Staat (Mineral County)
Juanita Hoffman (Emeralda County)
Jay Silberg (Nuclear Industry)
Chris Henkel (Nuclear Industry)
Enclosed are:
- 1.
Meeting Agenda
- 2.
Federal Register Notice Announcing Meeting
- 3.
Attendance List
- 4.
10/13/94 Report on Mtg of LSS Advisory Review Panel
- 5.
Index to Meeting Transcript
- 6.
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.
Joh L
L
, Chairman Advisory Review Panel
ENCLOSURE 1 MEETING AGENDA
LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING AGENDA 2:00 P.M. SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 Opening Remarks (John Hoyle, NRC, Panel Chairman}
Status Report of LSS Administrator (Moe Levin, NRC}
Status Report of DOE (Claudia Newbury, DOE}
Discussion of Formation of Technical Subgroup (Panel Members}
Topical Guidelines Update (Chip Cameron, NRC}
Future Agenda Discussion
ENCLOSURE 2 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ANNOUNCING MEETING
Federal Register / Vol. 5\\:1, J\\io. l25 I \\Vednc!>da), f'.u\\.emour L..i, 11:11.H / i\\iuu<..~!>
IJI W8nt fuel waste heat ~ejected from Ill* plant. The total increase in heat load IS well within lhe plant cooling system c,pability and the additional waste heat
,ejected to the environment will be small in comparison to the amount of total beat currently being released.
fbere is no significant environmental j,npact attributed to the waste heat from the plant due to this very small increase.
fittdlng of No Significant Impact The staff has reviewed the proposed sFP expansion to the facility relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Bf ;ed upon the environmental assessment, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant radiological or nonradiological impacts associated with the proposed license amendment and that the issuance of the proposed license amendment will have no significa11t impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the Commission has determined, pursuant 10 10 CFR 51.31, not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendments dated January 14, 1994, and supplements dated March 22, July 14, September 1, and October 21, 1994, (2) the FGEIS on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (NURE~575), (3) the Final Environmental Statement for the Limorick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, dated April 1984, and (4) the Environmental Assessment, dated November 16, 1994.
These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.
Dated et Rockville, Maryland. thi, 16th day of November 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz, Director, Project Directorate 1-2, Division of Reactor Projects-llll, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
IFR Doc. 94-28909 Filed 11-22-94; 8:45 em]
BILUHO CODE 7511C)..C)1-M Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
The Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) will hold a meeting on Decemher 12 and 13, 1994, at the Yucca Mountain Site Cbaracterization Project Office, Room 450, Banlt of America Building, 101 Convention Center Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada. The entire meeting will be open to the public pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L.94-463, 86 Stat. 770-776).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established the LSSARP in 1989 lo provide advice and recommendations to the NRC and to the Department of Energy (DOE) on topics, issues, and activities related to the design, development and opera1ion of an electronic information management system known as the Lic.;ensing Support System (LSS). This system 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 of representativ!ls of the State of Nevada, a coalition of affected units of local Government in Nevada, the National Congress of American Indians, a coalition of organizations representing the nuclear industry, DOE, NRC and other agencies of the Federal government which have experience with large electronic information management systems.
The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on both days. The agenda will consist of briefings and discussions on the following topics:
- 1. OOE's Reevaluation of LSS Concept
- 2. Overview of Optical Character Recognition Work at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas
- 3. NRC oversight of LSS Operations
- 4. Establishment of a Technical Working Group for the Panel
- 5. Use of LSS on Pilot Project Basis.
On the afternoon of December 13, interested Panel Members will be provided a demonstration of OCR technology research at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
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 below as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
For further information regarding this meeting contact John C. Hoyle, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555:
telephone 301-504-1969.
Dated: November 17, 1994.
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Monogement Officer.
(FR Doc. 94-28913 Filed 11-22-94; 8:45 am)
BILLING COOE 7590-41-M Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to facility Operating Licenseslnvolving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC stafO is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the A'ct), to require the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards considera1:on, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from October 31, 1994. through November 10, 1994. The last biweekly notice was published on November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55865).
Notice Of Consideration Of Issuance Of Amendments To Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, And Opportunity For A Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's rcgulatiGns in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility. in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; Ol,(2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.
However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that
ENCLOSURE 3 ATTENDANCE LIST
ATI'ENDANCE LIST LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING September 9, 1994 Panel Members U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John C. Hoyle, Chairman U.S. Department of Energy Claudia Newbury State of Nevada Harry Swainston Kirk Balcom Jim Davenport Local Government - Site Les Bradshaw Malachy Murphy, Nye County Local Government - Adjacent Dennis Bechtel, Clark County Brad Mettam, Inyo County R. M. Gracey, Inyo County Pete Cummings, City of Las Vegas Vernon E. Poe, Mineral County Herman E. Staat, Mineral County Juanita Hoffman, Esmeralda County Nuclear Industry Jay Silberg Chris Henkel ATTACHMENT 2
Others Chip Cameron, NRC Moe Levin, NRC Kenneth Kalman, NRC B. Paul Cotter, Jr., NRC David Drapkin, NRC Paul Bollwerk, NRC William Rea.mer, NRC Camille Kerrigan, TWR/INFOSTREAMS Jim Boone, TWR/Regulatory & Licensing Fielden Dickerson, TWR Tony Neville, Labat-Anderson, Inc.
Jocelyn Smith, Labat-Anderson, Inc.
Joe Speicher, Labat-Andrson, Inc.
Fred Rogers, DOE K. Michael Cline, DOE Ram B. Murray, DOE Jimmie Pegues, City of Las Vegas Homi Minwalla, R. F. Weston/Jacobs Eng.
ENCLOSURE 4 10/ 13 / 94 REPORT ON MEETING OF LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O.C. 20555 October 13, 1994 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
n, Deputy Director, IRM FROM:
John 6-rman, LSS Advisory Conunittee
SUBJECT:
SUMMAR OF LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING - -APR::C:t. 14 1§,1994 tSefX~ q,19qy:
}C/J..
The Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) held a meeting on the afternoon of September 9, 1994, at NRC Headquarters, Two White Flint North building.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide the Panel with the status of NRC and DOE activities with respect to the LSS since the Panel's meeting of April 14-15, 1994.
The agenda for the meeting and list of attendees are attached.
Highlights of the meeting are sununarized below.
- 1.
Status Report of LSS Administrator Mr. Levin, LSS Administrator, noted that the Panel, at its last meeting, agreed that NRC and DOE should explore the concept of achieving NRC control of the operation of the LSS by DOE through the assignment of the LSS Administrator as the DOE contracting officer's technical representative (COTR).
He reported that discussions with internal NRC legal staff and procurement experts had uncovered no reasons why the COTR mechanism could not be used. There was general discussion of the desirability of Panel review of the DOE contracting document containing the anticipated COTR provision.
Commitments:
NRC will determine the feasibility of LSSARP review of the language of DOE's draft contract for management of the LSS prior to publication and execution.
(NRC action)
- 2.
Status Report of DOE Ms. Newbury, DOE'S Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office (YMSCO), described the organizational changes at DOE headquarters and at the Yucca Mountain office which have had an impact on management of LSS development.
Mr. Cline, DOE contractor representative, described the activity of the LSS Working Group established by the YMSCO to re-evaluate the LSS concept, develop a milestone schedule for its development and implementation, develop cost comparisons, and develop and evaluate viable options.
A draft report is due to DOE on 9/30/94.
Panel members expressed considerable interest in the re-evaluation effort and raised concerns regarding the method of estimating the volume of documents being accumulated by each party, and the need to rev isit all design assumptions previously agreed upon in the LSS rulemaking negotiations.
3.
Commitments:
DOE will brief the Panel on the results of its LSS re-evaluation at the next LSSARP meeting.
DOE is to provide the re-evaluation materials when they become available for circulation to the members well in advance of the meeting.
DOE will also provide its views on the viability of the COTR concept at the next meeting.
(DOE action)
Fonnation of Technical Subgroup This subject was not discussed.
It will be placed on the ~genda for the next meeting.
- 4.
Comm.i tment:
next agenda.
The Panel Chairman will place this topic on the (Panel Chairman action}
Topical Guidelines Q'.pdate Mr. Cameron, NRC, noted that NRC was evaluating the public comments it has received on the draft Regulatory Guide and was planning to issue the final guide in April 1995.
5.
Commitment:
The Panel Chairman will explore having an additional update on this topic at the next meeting.
(Panel Chainnan action}
Use of LSS on Pilot Project Basis As a follow-up to a discussion at the April 1994 meeting, Mr.
Murphy, Nye County representative, asked whether DOE was prepared to respond to the suggestion that the LSS functionality be tested on a pilot project basis using documents pertinent to the Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) project.
Ms. Newbury said DOE'S preliminary view indicated that such a test would not be appropriate; she said would develop a further DOE response for the next meeting.
Commitment:
DOE is to respond at the next meeting to the Nye County suggestion.
(DOE action)
- 6.
Future Agenda Discussion The Panel agreed to hold the next meeting on December 12 and 13, 1994 in Las Vegas, NV.
DOE will provide appropriate meeting space.
Commitment:
The Panel Chairman will provide an agenda and infoxmation concerning meeting location.
(Panel Chairman action}
Attachments:
- 1.
Agenda for September 9, 1994 Meeting
- 2.
Attendance List cc:
The Chairman CoDDnissioner Rogers CoDDnissioner de Planque LSSARP Members OGC EDO NMSS ASLBP
LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING AGENDA 2:00 P.M. SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 ATTACHMENT 1 Opening Remarks {John Hoyle, NRC, Panel Chairman)
Status Report of LSS Administrator (Moe Levin, NRC)
Status Report of DOE (Claudia Ne~;bury, DOE)
Discussion of Formation of Technical Subgroup (Panel Members)
Topical Guidelines Update (Chip Cameron, NRC)
Future Agenda Discussion
ATTENDANCE LIST LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING September 9, 1994 Panel Members U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John C. Hoyle, Chairman U.S. Department of Energy Claudia Newbury State of Nevada Harry Swainston Kirk Balcom Jim Davenport Local Government - Site Les Bradshaw Malachy Murphy, Nye County Local Government - Adjacent Dennis Bechtel, Clark County Brad Mettam, Inyo County R. M. Gracey, Inyo County Pete Cummings, City of Las Vegas Vernon E. Poe, Mineral County Herman E. Staat, Mineral County Juanita Hoffman, Esmeralda County Nuclear Industry Jay Silberg Chris Henkel ATTACHMENT 2
Others Chip Cameron, NRC Moe Levin, NRC Kenneth Kalman, NRC B. Paul Cotter, Jr., NRC David Drapkin, NRC Paul Bollwerk, NRC William Reamer, NRC Camille Kerrigan, TWR/INFOSTREAMS Jim Boone, TWR/Regulatory & Licensing Fielden Dickerson, TWR Tony Neville, Labat-Anderson, Inc.
Jocelyn Smith, Labat-Anderson, Inc.
Joe Speicher, Labat-Andrson, Inc.
Fred Rogers, DOE K. Michael Cline, DOE Ram B. Murray, DOE Jimmie Pegues, City of Las Vegas Homi Minwalla, R. F. Weston/ Jacobs Eng.
ENCLOSURE 5 INDEX TO MEETING TRANSCRIPT
TOPIC INDEX OF TRANSCRIPT LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 Introduction of Members NRC Background Statement Status Report of LSS Administrator Status Report by DOE on Recent Activities Related to LSS Development Topical Guidelines Update Use of LSS on Pilot Project Basis 2
4 8
16 57 59
ENCLOSURE 6 MEETING TRANSCRIPT AND MATERIAL PRESENTED AT THE MEETING
r r r\\.JAl OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Agency:
Title:
Docket No.
LOCATION:
DATE:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission LSS Advisory Review Panel Meeting Rockville, Mary l and Friday, September 9, 199 4 PAGES: l -
63 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I St., N. W.,Sulte 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North 3B45 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland Friday, September 9, 1994 The above-entitled meeting commenced, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.rn.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
P R O C E E D I N G S (2:00 p.m.]
MR. HOYLE:
This is a meeting of the LSS Advisory Review Panel.
It's being held in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
It's an open meeting, members of the public are welcome.
The meeting was announced in the Federal Register about 20 days ago.
The primary purpose of having the meeting today is actually twofold.
At the end of our April meeting we said we would try to meet again in September, and you were all in town for another purpose and so we decided to go ahead and have it this afternoon, even though it will be primarily a status report kind of meeting, as you will hear.
I have circulating, an attendance list, that I hope you could all sign, please, for the record.
Before going any further, I'll introduce myself and I would like those at the table to introduce themselves, please.
My name is John Hoyle, I'm the chairman of the panel, the NRC representative on the panel.
Claudia?
MS. NEWBURY:
My name is Claudia Newbury, I work for the U.S. Department of Energy at the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Office.
MR. CUMMINGS:
Pete Cummings with the City of Las Vegas.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. POE:
Vernon Poe, Mineral County, Nevada.
MR. STAAT:
Herman Staat, Mineral County.
3 MR. METTAM:
Brad Mettam, Inyo County, California.
MR. BECHTEL:
Dennis Bechtel, Clark, Nevada.
Nevada.
MS. HOFFMAN:
Juanita Hoffman, Esmeralda County, MR. MURPHY:
Mal Murphy with Nye County.
MR. BRADSHAW:
Les Bradshaw with Nye County.
MR. BALCOM:
Kirk Balcom with the State of Nevada.
MR. DAVENPORT:
Jim Davenport, same.
MR. SILBERG:
Jay Silberg, law firm of Shaw, Pittman; representative for Nuclear Energy Institute.
MR. HENKEL:
Chris Henkel with the Nuclear Energy Institute.
MR. HOYLE:
Joining me here at the table.
MR. CAMERON:
Chip Cameron, Office of the General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
MR. LEVIN:
Moe Levin, Licensing Support System Administrator.
MR. HOYLE:
Okay.
I think at this point, Chip, if you're ready to give us a little bit of background, bring us up-to-date.
We have some new faces which we greatly appreciate seeing today, and perhaps those in the audience haven't quiet caught up with where we are in the process.
So Chip, I think, is prepared to tell us about that.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4
MR. CAMERON:
Thanks, John.
Since there are so many new people with us today we thought we'd take just a few minutes to give a thumbnail sketch of what the licensing support system, the LSS, is all about.
And I'd just like to take a few minutes to do that.
Some of us around the table and in the room go all the way back to when this idea of an electronic information management system for use in the high-level waste licensing proceeding began, and it began with a negotiated rule making that the Commission initiated to try to get a consensus among the affected interests; state, local, tribal government, industry, environmental groups, on what a rule would look like for using an electronic information management system in the high-level waste licensing proceeding.
And we met over a period of nine months on the rule and we developed an agreement on a text of the rule and the supplementary information.
And for those of you who were there, you can remember that we parsed every word, every comma of that supplementary information and text.
And we did reach -- almost reach a consensus, in a sense a unanimous consensus, on the rule after we had negotiated the text and the supplementary information to it.
At the end we didn't have complete consensus, but the Commission decided to adopt the proposed -- the draft proposed rule that was recommended by a majority of those on the negotiating ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 committee.
And this rule was issued as a proposed rule, there was public comment and the final LSS rule was promulgated in April of 1989, and it appears in part 2 of the Commission ' s regulations -- subpart J of part 2.
5 Some basic elements of licensing support system is
-- are that it's an integral part of the Commission's repository licensing process.
The LSS will contain the relevant documents of DOE, NRC, and the other parties to the high-level waste licensing proceeding.
All parties will have full text access to the documents in the licensing support system.
To become a party to the high-level waste licensing proceeding, an organization or an individual, including the Department of Energy, must comply with the document submission requirements in the LSS rule.
And the Department of Energy cannot submit its license application under subpart J, unless it's in substantial compliance with the document submission requirements in the LSS rule.
The broad objective of the licensing support system is to facilitate a thorough and efficient review of the DOE license application, including meeting the three year construction authorization review period set out in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
In order to do this the LSS has a number of features.
One, the rule establishes a centralized current and comprehensive database of relevant licensing material.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6
Secondly, the LSS will provide full text search capability on this database to allow quick identification of documents and relevant material within those documents.
The LSS will provide for the identification and availability of discoverable documents before the license application is submitted.
And this will eliminate the most burdensome and time consuming aspect of the traditional system of document discovery in Commission proceedings, and that's the physical production of documents that are relevant to the decision which normally occurs after the license application is submitted.
The LSS will also provide for the electronic filing of orders and pleadings during the hearing, and therefore eliminate the associated delay with the physical delivery of these types of documents.
And a lot of times we focus on the use of the LSS after the proceeding begins, but in the supplementary information to the rule there were some other objectives set forth.
One was to allow use of the LSS before the license application is submitted, to allow sufficient time for preparation for the hearing, and also to allow the technical a nd legal and policy staffs of the potential parties and DOE, NRC, to use the full text system before the license application comes in in the ordinary course of business.
There are three major segments in the rule.
One ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7
segment is the rule establishes a framework for document submission and access to those documents.
The second major aspects are nonsystem provisions.
For example, specificity on contentions, time schedules for various events during the licensing proceeding, and the third major aspect of the rule is the institutional framework for the management and development of the LSS, what are the rules of the Department of Energy and the NRC in the development and implementation of the system.
At our last meeting we spent a lot of time on this third aspect; who is going to develop the system, how is NRC going to implement effective control over the development and implementation of the system.
And we are going to hear more about that today, but I just want to emphasize that the first aspect document identification and submission is a critical aspect of this rule.
We've been focusing on the system itself, the hardware and software, but we don't go anywhere if we don't have the documents identified.
And I'm reminding ourselves as much as anybody else, about the critical nature of doing this.
And I believe that most people have some work ongoing that deals with compliance evaluations of document submission requirements as well as what we need to do to capture those particular documents.
That's all I have to say.
MR. HOYLE:
Okay, anybody want to add anything to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8
Chip's comments?
Looking at the agenda for today I don't feel like we are going to need more than an hour, although we can stay as long as we need to to do our business.
I would like to hear a status report from Mr. Levin next.
And following that, a report by DOE, which will be in two parts.
Then we'll talk a little bit about formation of a technical subgroup, which we first talked about at the last meeting, it was brought up there by Dennis, and we really haven't gotten off the ground, so we need to talk a little bit about that; and get a topical guidelines update.
I know Dennis very interested in that,~~ mentioned that to the chairman this morning.
And talk about what's next for us, when should we get together again, when will we have something of substance to talk about and listen to.
So, let's move on now to Moe Levin.
MR. LEVIN:
First I'd like to introduce myself to those of you I haven't met yet.
My name is -- I go by Moe, my real name is Arnold Levin, but the nickname Moe has been with me for years.
I've been the LSS administrator since October of 1993, and I'm also the deputy director for the Office of Decommissioned Resources Management at NRC.
My professional background is in computer programming and systems development.
I'd just like to take a very few minutes to talk ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about my activity since the last ARP meeting.
A little background.
According to the LSS rule, the LSS 9
administrator is responsible for the administration, management and operation of the LSS.
Early in 1993, the Commission asked the staff of NRC to examine several alternatives for LSS program budget and funding responsibilities.
This was done in order to ensure that the LSS was implemented and operated in the most efficient manner possible.
As a result, the NRC staff recommended a somewhat different approach to LSS responsibilities in those currently detailed in the rule.
This approach, which we have been calling alternative three, places the responsibility of the design, development, installation, operation and maintenance of the LSS within DOE, and makes the LSS administrator responsible for overseeing the DOE's, operation of the LSS.
This oversight would be done through the development and execution of an LSS audit and quality assurance program.
Through discussions with the review panel at our last meeting in April of this year, a variation of alternative three was developed.
This variation which we have been calling alternative acts, for lack of a better name, would make the LSS administrator directly responsible for the operation of the LSS by giving him direct control of the DOE contract that provides for that operation.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 In procurement jargon, the LSSA would be the contracting officer's technical representative, COTR, over the DOE contract.
And what this means is, a COTR is responsible for assigning tasks under contract, for making sure that the work was done properly, and for signing invoices.
Or, in other words, seeing to it the contractor gets paid for work done.
As a result of that meeting, the LSSA and DOE agree to explore this alternative -- alternative acts and the issues related to it and report back to the panel on our findings at the next panel meeting.
Well, due to organizational changes in DOE, which we are going to hear about later, I have had virtually no discussions with them regarding this issue since the April meeting.
I have, however, discussed this alternative with the internal NRC legal staff and procurement experts, and we have uncovered no reasons why the LSS administrator couldn't be in charge of a DOE contract for this purpose.
- However, it is conceivable that DOE may have some procedural, political or other reservations with this arrangement and I really look forward to starting our discussions in earnest on this issue when DOE is prepared to.
In the meantime we are proceeding with the development of the LSS audit plan and the LSS participants compliance program plans as far as we can, although some ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 elements of these plans are tightly coupled with what alternative we finally settle on.
That is really all I have to report on in the activities since the last meeting.
I'd like to ask the 11 panel members if they have given any thought to this issue, the COTR idea or if they have any comments, I'd like to hear them.
That's it.
MR. HOYLE:
Thanks a lot, Moe.
MR. DAVENPORT:
Can you professionally be satisfied that your control as a COTR would be equivalent to your control as the -- having the program managed as contemplated in the original.
MR. LEVIN:
I think so, because as COTR I'm directly responsible for controlling the contractor that would be doing all the operations.
So as part of my job I would be monitoring that on a day to day basis because I have to, because I have to sign off on invoices and make sure the work was done.
If the work isn't done I don't sign off.
That gives me a lot of leverage, a lot of control.
So I think it would.
MR. DAVENPORT:
Under the rule, wasn't the work to have been done in-house, NRC, rather than by NRC contractor?
MR. CAMERON:
No.
If the rule was implemented the way it's written in terms of the LSS administrator being in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 charge of operation and maintenance, it was always conceived that the LSS administrator would contract those services out.
In other words, a contractor would perform those services for the LSS administrator.
So, essentially, Moe's role under either version would essentially be the same.
MR. DAVENPORT:
Just a question whether the funds go directly from DOE's pocket to the contractor's pocket or the DOE money goes to NRC and into the contractor's pocket, and that's really the only distinction.
MR. CAMERON:
Probably.
MR. LEVIN:
Yes, that's it.
MR. CAMERON:
If you could assume that the money would go from DOE to NRC.
But, yes, right; exactly.
MR. DAVENPORT:
I'm sorry, I meant Jay's money, not DOE's money.
MR. CAMERON:
Yes, that's what gave me pause.
MR. LEVIN:
But I think in actuality, and I'm not sure on this, the money would be under DOE's budget and it would be DOE money.
I would, in effect, be spending directly DOE's money.
I don't think the money would come from DOE to NRC.
MR. CAMERON:
He meant if we would have gone through with the original memo.
MR. LEVIN:
The original, sorry.
MR, SILBERG:
Under the COTR proposal, would you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have stop work authority as well as budget authority?
MR. LEVIN:
COTR can, if things aren't going properly.
If the contractor is not living up to the contract, I can order -- the COTR can order a stop work, that's part of the responsibility.
MR. DAVENPORT:
Will the contract be reviewable and commentable in advance of its execution?
MR. LEVIN:
With the review panel -- advisory review panel?
I don't know.
MR. HOYLE:
We have to discuss that.
MS. NEWBURY:
We'd have to ask the contracting officer.
13 MR. CAMERON:
I think that that's a possibility.
It's been done on other types of contracts, although I'm not an expert on procurement law.
MR. MURPHY:
The master contract with Jay's clients -- I can't remember what the terminology is now, but the contract under which we track money and put in the nuclear waste fund was published in the Federal Register and sent out nationally for comment before it was finalized and signed by DOE and the utilities.
There is no reason in the world why you couldn't put this contract in --
MR. CAMERON:
The procurement document itself, as you remember in the LSS rule, there is a provision that statement of work for various contracts are supposed to be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 documents that are put in the LSS.
MR. MURPHY:
I'm talking about the contract between DOE and their contractor to manage the LSS, the contract that will make Moe the COTR.
I know I'm not a federal procurement expert so I could be corrected, but I know of no reason why that contract, that proposed contract, before it -- before it goes through the RFP process and before all of the provisions relating to federal procurement kick in, why a draft contract couldn't be published for comment in the federal register just like a draft note rule.
MR. CAMERON:
I think you're right now.
I guess the thing that we need to think about is if we are building on the info-streams system for the LSS is what the additional procurement piece of that is going to be to provide the LSS functionality.
But I think that that's you know, that's just a detail that could be worked out.
MR. LEVIN:
I think the point is there would be a lot of value in being able to do that and it makes a lot of sense.
It would make everybody feel a lot better, have a chance to look at them and comment on whether they think it will do the job or not.
The only question is I don't know if we have any procurement experts in the room right now, so that's something we'll have to take under advisement and look into and see if that can be done.
I think it's an excellent idea.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 MR. SILBERG:
I would strongly suggest not making it a rule, I think that would be an utter disaster.
The idea of circulating the provisions out for comment, that's fine; but let's not tuck this up in to a procedural plot.
MR. MURPHY:
I don't mean that.
Just, if nothing else, you could always, you know, leave a copy inadvertently on the couch in the public document room one day and we could all go in there and look at it. There has got to be some way to give us notice of what the MS. NEWBURY:
The request for proposal would have to be published anyway and there would be more interest in that than in the national contract.
I'm not a procurement person either, I don't know.
MR. METTAM:
But by then it may be too late.
If the proposal is on the street, it's not time to make comments and changes.
You're -- basically we're saying we would like to see what the provisions are before it went out.
MS. NEWBURY:
But that's before contract is written.
If you're talking about looking at the contract.
I think you'd rather look at an RFP to make sure it has everything you need.
MR. HOYLE:
If there is no further discussion on that point we'll move to the DOE presentation.
Claudia?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. NEWBURY:
Does everyone have a copy of my handouts?
16 MR. MURPHY:
Could I make a suggestion there, and if I'm talking out of line, somebody jump on it.
But just because John said he didn't think this thing shouldn't take longer than an hour, and I certainly agree with that; I don't see that it's necessary for you, Claudia, to go through for all of us, the proposed program approaches.
MS. NEWBURY:
That's fine with me.
MR. MURPHY:
I'm sure it would have been.
It may be for other people in the room, I don't know, and I don't want to cut that off, but I think all of us on the panel, because we spent part of our morning criticizing the PPA to the Commission itself, I don't think it's necessary for you to go through the PPA for us.
MS. NEWBURY:
That's fine.
I put it in because I was asked to address it very briefly, and probably there is one slide in there that you do need, which is the LSS relationship.
MR. MURPHY:
Oh sure.
MS. NEWBURY:
But I've heard it myself so many times I even hate to talk about it.
My name is Claudia Newbury, I am right now the acting team lead for technical synthesis team, at DOE's Yucca Mountain office.
For those of you who aren't aware of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 our organization, that's the group that deals with the performance assessment and technical database development.
And I am the technical database manager in addition to everything else I do.
I'll briefly talk about the operation of the LSS, the issue of the COTR that's one slide; organizational changes; I can skip the proposed program approach and talk a little bit about -- Mike Cline will talk about the LSS working group that we have put together.
Operation of the LSS and COTR function for the NRC, we are still thinking about it.
I have talked to one of our contracting officers and she is looking into it.
Since the contracting officer is ultimately responsible for the contract not the COTR, I mean in the end they're the ones with the warrant from Congress, I think it's imperative that they're comfortable with this before we make any final decisions.
Organizational changes.
Both at OCRWM, headquarters level and at the project office there have been several changes, one of them is, as it says here, the responsibility for records management in the LSS has been transferred from headquarters to Yucca Mountain.
Also, the software development responsibility has been moved from headquarters to Yucca Mountain.
And the assistant manager for suitability and licensing, Steve Brocoum, my boss, is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 now responsible for Licensing Support System.
I've given you a brief organizational chart for OCRWM, the director; and the deputy director is Dan Dreyfuss.
And you'll see Yucca Mountain site characterization office off there to one side, that's where LSS has moved.
And the next slide -- or picture is the Yucca Mountain organizational structure.
As I said, I worked for Steve Brocoum, the assistant manager for suitability in licensing.
Our IRM function is with the assistant manager for administration, it says Marshall Bishop here but Marshall has retired and that position is currently being filled by Ken Powers from Nevada Operations Office. It will be filled permanently from somewhere else, I assume.
Also, Bill Simecka retires effective the end of this month, so he will not be in charge of engineering and field operations and that was, I believe, one of someone's concern this morning.
It's our concern too, he's been a great help.
The next slide is the AMSL, AMSL we call it.
As you see, there is a performance assessment, that's the technical synthesis team that I'm currently acting lead for, regulatory and licensing; April Gil is the lead, she's behind us in the blue shirt.
Site suitability is being lead by Jane Summerson; systems and requirements, the systems ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 engineering part of the program, D. Royer.
Project control, Vince Iorii, and we are going add another team, what we'll do is take the technical database part out of this current technical synthesis team leaving just performance assesment, and put technical data management and the LSS requirements development together as one team.
MR. MURPHY:
What does home team mean?
MS. NEWBURY:
I beg your pardon?
MR. MURPHY:
What does home team mean?
There is a little asterisk.
MS. NEWBURY:
That's me.
I work both for performance assessment, site suitability, and Tom Bjerstedt works for both regulatory and licensing site suitability.
We don't have enough people to cover all the teams.
MR. METTAM:
So that that's your home team and you're a visitor?
MS. NEWBURY:
I appear on site suitability, I show up at public meetings.
The impact of our reorganization of the Licensing Support System.
Within DOE, the assistant manager for suitability and licensing has chartered a working group, it's a group of M&O contractors, to assess the LSS status and direction.
What we'd like to do -- what we are doing is looking at the requirements, the actual requirements in the regulations and trying to do an evaluation ourselves to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 bring to the LSSARP for your consideration on how to develop the LSS, what actually needs to be in the system, and what we are considering in terms of size and cost, and Mike will talk about that.
The LSS will be funded and managed by the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office at this point.
And the DOE LSSARP representatives to this group will report to the AMSL.
The next page, you get to find out who we are.
Director, the assistant manager of suitability and licensing is Steve Brocoum as I mentioned.
And he has asked that the LSSARP representatives for DOE be myself and John Gandi.
John is the one who didn't know what the LSSARP was.
He's going to find out.
MR. HENKEL:
Is this pennance for not knowing?
MS. NEWBURY:
Yes.
We put in two names because I'm not a hardware person, I haven't the vaguest idea, well I can turn on my PC, but John is up on that part of the program and I am looking at more of the requirements, which is more what I'm capable of handling.
I'll skip the proposed program approach overview, except when it gets down to the proposed program approach impact on LSS.
We are looking at an accelerated schedule and so the PPA is going to impact LSS implementation schedules.
We'll have to have it operational probably at an earlier ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 time than we had planned, and that means we'll have to give a lot more emphasis to it and make sure it's available and on-line.
We will be pursuing the design and implementation aggressively, with your blessings, and with a lot of interactions.
And there is some back up material here that you may or may not want to look through. It's mostly PPA type stuff.
MR. METTAM:
Is the LSS on here somewhere?
MS. NEWBURY:
The LSS, actually as I recall, is not part of the PPA, these were put together prior to the function of moving out to Yucca Mountain, so we didn't get them out.
MR. MURPHY:
Have you had time yet to come with up with some sort of a reasonable approximation of what a schedule for developing and implementing might be?
MS. NEWBURY:
Guess what, I've got Mike Cline here and he's going to talk.
MR. CLINE:
Does everybody have a copy of the overview of the LSS?
I have 25 of them, it should cover everybody here.
I'm Mike Cline, I'm with Woodward-Clyde and the M&O.
I'm the lead for the LSS working group activity, and I'd like to point out three additional people from the working group that are here, Jim Boone, if he would stand up or put your hand up; Camille Kerrigan and Fielden Dickerson, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L
22 part of our working group.
First couple viewgraphs are really -- Claudia has already covered them.
I'll just indicate that as she indicated, the function of the LSS has moved to the Yucca Mountain project -- the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, YMSCO.
And with that, there was an election to re-evaluate the LSS concept, considering an improved understanding of the program and LSSARP needs, new milestones and constraints imposed by the proposed program approach, PPA; and advancements in system components.
YMSCO, as Claudia indicated, directs the M&O to conduct this evaluation under the oversight of Steve Brocoum, the assistant manager for suitability and licensing
-- I'm sorry -- yes, assistant manager -- with his designees, Claudia Newbury and John Gandi.
The objectives are to evaluate the key elements of the LSS, that is, as it is currently conceived, and to modify and develop a strategy and/or develop a strategy that is consistent with the PPA that optimizes new technologies and minimizes cost, and provides recommendations for the DOE to consider for providing for moving forward with the LSS.
As I indicated -- I didn't indicate, I mentioned a couple people, but the working group is made up of an interdisciplinary team of scientists, engineers, systems people, professional types, computer specialists and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, (202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information management specialists.
It's been tasked to conduct a comprehensive review of the LSS concept that addresses development of the lengthy history of the LSS, statutory and derived requirements, identification 23 evaluation of viable options that is consistent with subpart J, analysis of capture and dissemination page volumes, that is highly driven by relevancy -- document relevancy, system capabilities and options, and cost drivers development, implementation costs.
Products of the working group will be an evaluation of the requirements and understanding of the derived requirements with respect to the applicability under their applicability under the PPA.
Development of a milestone schedule for the LSS; development, implementation and enhancement of the cost model and comparison to the previous cost analysis; development evaluation of viable options, and their evaluations, using evaluation criteria and the selection of a preferred option that would be presented to the DOE for consideration and a final report.
With respect to the working group schedule, the activities were initially initiated in May of '94, and I think the bottom two dates are important.
We intend to have a draft report to DOE the 30th of September, and it is a hope that DOE can set up a meeting with LSSARP in October to find out the findings.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 Working group status, we are in the process of preparing the final report.
We are still doing a number of odds and ends but we have completed the requirements review.
We developed detailed option descriptions.
We developed a better understanding of the LSS functionality, considering statutory and derived requirements.
We continue to find the cost model for an evaluation -- for evaluating the LSS through 2004, and we've established milestones, and we've developed some proposed recommendations for the DOE to present the LSSARP and to continue forward with the development of the LSS.
Some preliminary observations is that a systems requirements document does exist but it is in significant need of revision, and that is one of our highest priority recommendations for the DOE to proceed with in '95.
Volume estimates are less but reasonably consistent with the earlier studies.
Costs savings -- we recognize cost savings can be achieved by improved technologies, desegregation of costs, we look very closely at those costs for the LSS and to minimize over design of the system, all the while maintaining flexibility.
We have identified seven scenarios driven by basically a text and image dissemination.
The working group and the DOE recognize that the LSS is a critical element for meeting the license application milestone of 2001, and what we've done is -- now ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034 l
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 this is not the comprehensive milestone chart by any means, but this is a summary of where we are.
And as you can see that it is intended to have the LSS certified in '98.
And above on that on the milestone chart you can see the major milestone -- program milestone, such as technical site suitability, the draft EIS, final EIS, site recommendation report and license application.
I'd like to talk a bit about the volume estimates.
There has been a fair amount of time trying to project into the future and to come up with an idea of what the volume estimates might be, and we want to estimate what the total volume of data will be - - or pages will be in the LSS, assuming DOE receives a license to receive and possess waste in 2010.
The assumptions are that the estimates include contributions from the DOE, NRC and stake holders, and that the estimates are based on historical records from the existing historical records from the DOE data management system.
MR. MURPHY:
Did you make any contact with the stake holders in coming up with those estimates?
Because the DOE historical records system don't give you any idea how much data is sitting in the Carson City office or that the State of Nevada is going to input it into the system; or how much data Nye county is going to produce in it's ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 independent scientific program.
MR. DAVENPORT:
Or how much data Mal has in his office.
MR. MURPHY:
Or how much data I have in my office.
MR. CLINE:
We had some informal conversations 26 with members of the NRC, and with the stake holders I'm not certain.
Fielden?
MR. DICKERSON:
No.
MR. MURPHY:
Comparative to DOE's data it's always going to be small, but.
MR. CLINE:
That was our basic assumption.
MR. MURPHY:
They were going to try to design the system dies I can business.
MR. CLINE:
Exactly.
We have a tremendous volume of material going into the system, and we felt that the principal contribution, overwhelming contribution would be from the DOE and its participants, and lesser amounts from NRC and the stake holders.
MS. NEWBURY:
It is important to look at, also in terms of your formats for your contribution, if they're going to be submitted.
MR. DAVENPORT:
I want to differ with the notion that the contribution from the state or other parties is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, (202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 going to be small.
Indeed if Nye County gets the ability to do the research you guys are talking about this morning, you're going to have a pile of data.
Nevada's data is getting larger.
There is a room this big with documents all around the walls in it; that's not small in my opinion.
If you haven't calculated that and if you also haven't calculated the chairman's observation this morning that 2010 is only an assumption date, and it could well be later given the NRC's concerns, and now you're talking about a system where you're going to be monitoring for some 100 years and all that monitoring data has got to go in there ultimately so you can review determinations over time, you're talking about a much larger system.
MR. CLINE:
Agreed.
We set -- for estimating purposes we set certain dates.
We used the PPA dates as our milestones.
But we recognize that it's going to go out in time beyond then; data collection will continue, data entry will continue beyond that time.
It's important that the system be designed to be flexible -- sufficiently flexible to hand increases.
MR. CAMERON:
Michael.
On that point about what dates you used to estimate a mass of documents, I can see that by your last comment you're looking at 2010 in terms of sizing the system, but obviously a critical data point is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 how many documents -- how many pages have to be loaded before the license application comes in, in order to be able to time that so that the LSS is loaded before that.
And then a related question:
When you talk about LSS certification in 1998, what do you mean by certification?
Is that when the system will be loaded and ready for access?
MR. CLINE:
System will be loaded up to that point and it would be ready for to be used or transferred and it would be put through a certification.
MR. MURPHY:
The administrators, at some point in time, has to certify the system.
MR. CAMERON:
No, I'm trying to figure out whether that's the meaning here.
Because when you back up from that, that means that all of the parties are going to need to get their acts together in terms of submitting the documents.
And so, you know, in that light if you go back and say well when do we need to start doing it, it's like yesterday.
MR. CLINE:
Yes, we recognize that.
MR. CAMERON:
I just want to emphasize that to all the potential parties, including the NRC.
MR. HENKEL:
I would like to respond to what Jim said. It's a very good point, but I think we need to remember that this is a computer system that would probably ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
I
- 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 be obsolete within 10 years, and we are going to be updating it probably every 10 years for the next 100 years.
So please don't design to accommodate it the next 100 years, okay?
MR. METTAM:
Just the next 10.
MR. CLINE:
Our cost model is the next 10 years.
MR. MURPHY:
Did you look at the documents that might be produced by the utilities in your cost estimate?
Because remember, we are not going to let them be part of the licensing process anyway, so we don't care about that.
MS. NEWBURY:
Aren't they intervenor?
MR. CLINE:
Let me jump two viewgraphs forward.
MR. MURPHY:
They didn't reach consensus so they can't be arguing.
MR. CLINE:
If we jump to this diagram here, okay, what we did is tried to get a handle on the volume.
We pooled or canvassed a number of our experts, program experts, people who have been in the program for quite some time been through the SCP, at that and that sort of thing, and ask them to give us an idea of what -- where the inputs
-- where the major inputs of data will come.
And as you can see, all their evaluations were put together, and we came up with a curve that looks like what you see in front of you indicating that the greatest volume of material will come in in about 2000 to 2001.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. METTAM:
This is the volume of documents submitted?
Does it look at all of the backlog?
MR. CLINE:
This is strictly looking at not counting numbers of documents, just looking at where the greatest input will come to --
MR. METTAM:
But I would assume that those that are already in existence that should be huge spikes somewhere at '94?
MR. CLINE:
They will be fed into the system, okay.
30 MR. MURPHY:
When, that's Brad's question, when.
I mean I had the same question.
I would have assumed that the huge spike would have come about 1996 or '97 when the LSS was available.
You then start inputting all of, what we call during negotiations the back log documents, the documents that exist today that were created in 1983, and it seems to me there would be a huge spike when you put those documents in, rather than in 2001.
MR. CAMERON:
That would -- I have that same concern.
And I guess one of the things that -- I know we're at an early stage here, one of the things that we are going to have to talk about at some point is that we envision that there might be some sort of a scheme for loading the back log and the current documents in order to try to put in comprehensive sets of information so that it might be useful ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
L 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 earlier.
That may not apply here or it may, but I think that's one thing that we need to think about in terms of loading.
But I do share the concern about why the - - if the LSS certification date is 1998, why the bulk of the documents will come in right before the license application is to be filed.
MR. CLINE:
Let me clarify.
This is material generated.
MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
So this doesn't even relate to loading, this is material generated.
MR, CLINE:
Material generated, yes, okay.
Based on what DOE has now in the system we are looking at somewhere on the order of between 17 and 24 million pages of material in the 2001 time frame, okay?
That's a lot of material.
But as I indicate in the next viewgraph, the last bullet, there is considerable uncertainty exists and that will continue, because we are projecting well into the future.
The cost analysis -- this is page 13 -- cost analysis, as we've moved along and have become more and more sophisticated as our understanding of the LSS has increased, the cost elements of the LSS were desegregated and evaluated to better understand what they represent and what the actual costs of the LSS are.
It is assumed also, in our cost ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 analysis, that the DOE records management system will go to electronic imaging in the future, and that is a commitment.
The major cost drivers are data volume as we talked about both -- well, human verification versus mechanical input or LCR accuracy, and dissemination costs, how much material is going to go out of the system, okay?
And that's very much dependent on the pages, pages disseminated.
Desegregating costs revealed that there are cost elements not attributable to the LSS, these are costs associated with the DOE records management system; I tried to separate those costs and look at only the LSS costs, the more sophisticated cost model that better addresses the sensitivity and the cost sensitivity and the cost profiles through 2004.
And over a 10 year period right now we estimate that the cost for the LSS can be less than $100 million.
MR. HENKEL:
Mike, we are very glad to see that compared to the original cost estimates, but do you have any indication as to why the original estimates were two to three times this level?
MR. CLINE:
Because the records management system was included, that's one of the largest aspects.
The cost of the records -- daily records management system were included in those cost estimates.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 MR. HENKEL:
So you're segregating that out as an independent cost.
MR. CLINE:
Which it should be.
MR. MURPHY:
There were some other things -- I think there was some Cadillac design provisions in there that were really not necessary.
MR. CLINE:
Right.
And we looked at derived departments versus expectations, and we tried to streamline the system a bit.
And we also - - our cost model is that we developed I think a more sensitive model.
And you can see where the real kickers are in kicking the cost up.
MR. BALCOM:
Do you know if there have been any design changes, search requirements types of things.
MR. CLINE:
Well, certainly the OCR capability has improved tremendously, and we have -- as a matter of fact, we have members of the UNLV's organization on our working group -- I didn't mention that earlier, I should have -- and they have given us briefings on the OCR capabilities.
And they're at a point now that they feel they can achieve pretty high levels of accuracy.
MR. BALCOM:
They made a presentation about that at the last meeting.
Well see, I was thinking about design, but - -
MR. CLINE:
If I may, it also depends on how the material comes into the system.
If it comes in if it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842- 0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comes in as hard copy or if it comes in as a balanced machinery or floppy -- electronic image.
MR. DICKERSON:
Data file.
34 MR. BALCOM:
Will we be able to see assumptions if they change and any back up data for the new cost model.
MS. NEWBURY:
At another meeting we could put together another one when they finish their report. I'll be glad to show you what they have.
MR. SILBERG:
What is the cost estimate for the DOE records management, the LSS?
MR. CLINE:
Camille?
MS. KERRIGAN:
I think it's somewhere between I was going t o say it's going to sound like a big range, but
$5 million to $10 million a year.
It was pretty steady over the years.
There was some spikes based on doing the reprocessing, that kind of thing.
MR. SILBERG:
The number I'm looking f or is the equivalent to this $100 million number.
MS. KERRIGAN:
But if you take 10 years at $10 million a year you get $100 million, because the cost you see is over approximately a 10 year period of time.
MR. SILBERG:
So you're saying the cost for the DOE records management system is about the same for LSS.
MS. KERRIGAN:
That's right.
That's what we found out.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 MR. CLINE:
Very close, very close.
And currently the DOE is in our microfilm base.
But as I indicated earlier, they want to go to an electronic image, which should result in cost savings as well.
MR. HENKEL:
Can I just ask a clarifying question on that?
And I assume that that 100 million for the DOE record system would be money spent regardless whether we have an LSS or not, right?
MS. NEWBURY:
Yes.
MR. CLINE:
We identified seven options, and the purpose of doing that was to differentiate among operational concepts, differentiate among attributes, and to identify operational cost drivers and to derive the DOE with various cost options for consideration and development.
Now the scenarios MR. SILBERG:
Do you really mean to say user-friendless?
MR. CLINE:
Oh no.
Oh dear.
MR. LEVIN:
That's kind of honesty in advertising.
MR. CAMERON:
Wait until you get on the system.
You know the seltzer bottles MR. CLINE:
The LSS is -- the scenarios, I should say, are really driven by two considerations, one is the text dissemination and the other is image dissemination.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202} 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 And this -- as we went along the scenarios became -- for options became very complex, and so we tried to separate and better understand, keep them separated.
But the two main drivers are text dissemination, image dissemination, and then under text dissemination, you have electronic copy, you have a network, and what we say in scenarios two and seven are this format.
Image dissemination is both electronic and hard copy, as you can go on.
Electronic copy you can go in to a network system or CD Rom, and you can see which scenarios address that.
Under hard copy you have CD Roms, and that is scenarios 2 and 4.
MR. MURPHY:
There is no scenario one in here?
What's scenario one?
MR. CLINE:
Scenario 1 is our base case, and that IS the current system.
And as I indicated earlier, the current system is a microfilm system.
And we just use that
-- we just carried that along, but it is in the intent of DOE to go beyond that.
And as I say in the next viewgraph, the scenario 1 is not compliant with subpart J, so it's -- for a number of reasons.
The common features to scenarios 2 through 7 is that they are compliant with subpart J, compliant; use scanned images for records storage, and produce OCR full ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 text documents, have on-lines searchable headers, also have on-line searchable full text for retrieval, and provide for transmittal of hard copy image, hard copy, okay, by mail or fax.
The differences between the scenarios is that image availability only by mail or fax are scenarios 2, 3, 4 and 7; and on-line transmission of electronic images are scenarios 5 and 6.
The human corrected OCR full text scenarios are 2 3, and 5.
And the machine corrected are 4, 6 and 7.
MR. MURPHY:
Go over that image available only by mail or fax again.
MR. CLINE:
In other words, there would not be a
-- if you were at a terminal you would not have access to the image by electronic means.
MR. CAMERON:
But you would be able to download the full text at your work station, you just couldn't see the actual image of the page, right?
MR. LEVIN:
That's a band with consideration.
MR. CLINE:
Yes.
MR. MURPHY:
Well I'm band with demands.
My concern is whether it complies with the LSS rule.
And maybe I don't maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying.
I'm sitting in front of my monitor and I want to pull up something that has to do with --
MR. CLINE:
You would be able to read full text on ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your monitor.
MR. MURPHY:
On my monitor.
MR. CLINE:
Right.
38 MR. CAMERON:
And you could download that full text to your printer right there.
But if you wanted to see the actual -- what you're seeing on your screen is not the actual image of the page.
MR. CLINE:
It's from an optical character reader.
MR. MURPHY:
Oh, I see, okay.
I got 'ya.
I'm not looking at a picture of what went into the OCR.
MR. CLINE:
If you want the image or picture --
MR. MURPHY:
If I want to check to see if you guys screwed it up then I have to ask for it my mail.
MR. SILBERG:
Or if you want to see a map or a photo or table.
What about tables and stuff, the same?
MR. CLINE:
Yes, for the most part.
MR. METTAM:
Yes it is available or?
MR. CLINE:
Maps, figures, photos, designs, calculations.
MR. BALCOM:
One of the more costly parts of this is the development thesaurus, is that still part of the common features.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CLINE:
Development.
MR. BALCOM:
Well the thesaurus, of all the materials related to the project and the tagging of each document, to have all the items in a very elaborate 39 thesaurus so you can search by subject terms, the words which may not be in the document, that's a major part of the current design.
MR. CLINE:
You can do a word search.
MR. BALCOM:
No, this is different.
This is a labor intensive project that where a lot of people who are familiar with the subject matter look at a document and they go into a 400 page thesaurus and they say it belongs to this category, this category and this category, and that makes searching easier on subject terms that may not have the word in the actual text of the document.
MR. CAMERON:
It's also one of the big labor intensive cost drivers because these are.
MR. BALCOM:
It's one of the more expensive parts of the whole project.
MR. CAMERON:
Not that that has to be there, but you have consider it.
MR. BALCOM:
I think some people would suggest that it does have, it's been part of the design assumptions all the way along.
MR. CLINE:
We did not consider it.
We did not ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 consider it, okay, but we'll take a look into it.
MR. DAVENPORT:
Kirk, what is your estimate of the cost?
Are we talking twice as much or what?
MR. BALCOM:
I think it's significant because it's people.
We are in the millions but I don't want to the.
MR. CLINE:
People are our biggest single cost driver.
The system is most sensitive -- most sensitive to that.
MR. CAMERON:
Kirk, did you ever write there is also the benefits -- increased benefits in terms of retrieval time, et cetera, et cetera, from using the thesaurus approach, I don ' t know if we ever, if the previous DOE estimates took a look at those types of benefits versus the cost thesaurus.
MR. BALCOM:
I think somewhere along the line we've done that.
Back in the SAIC studies or somewhere I'm pretty sure that there is some background information on that and probably some cost estimates as well.
MR. CLINE:
From our review of the documents we didn't find that, that's why we didn't consider it.
MR. BALCOM:
You'll find it in there, it was one of the major assumptions in the rule, actually.
MR. CLINE:
I'm sorry, we haven't come across it.
I'd like to move into the preliminary conclusions that we have.
And these, again, are our recommendations to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 the DOE, the preliminary recommendations at this time and they are to the DOE, but -- that the DOE must proceed with development and implementation of the LSS without further delay.
In other words, it is critical, we recognize it is critical to the license application and that we must proceed with the development.
The DOE must become proactive with the LSSARP, and the recommendations of this working group will assume the LSS is in compliance -- will assure I should say -- that the LSS is in compliance with all regulatory requirements and that it is consistent with the philosophy of PPA, its cost and schedule.
That's all I have.
MR. HOYLE:
Are there other questions of Mike?
Brad.
MR. METTAM:
Mike, I've got three questions for you.
On slide two it says you have an improved understanding of the LSSARP.
Did you get that from the transcript or from.
MR. CLINE:
Transcripts.
We went through all the records, all the past transcripts.
MR. METTAM:
Page four, it took me awhile to translate this one, but under the list of bullets you have analysis and capture of dissemination page volumes.
And when you had that you said highly dependent on relevancy.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 And my question is who determines relevancy?
MR. CLINE:
Well that has to be evaluated and, you know, I would hope the DOE would come up with recommendations for the LSSARP first.
MR. MURPHY:
Brad, that is one of the perhaps is the most critical concern in our minds, when we are worried about whether or not DOE manages the system or Moe Levin manages the system; I want Moe Levin determining relevancy.
I don't want DOE determining the relevancy of our documents for their own.
MR. CAMERON:
Keep in mind, though, the distinction the COTR idea is on the development of the system itself.
Moe -- there is never any doubt about the fact that Moe is going to be looking to see if DOE and the other parties submit the relevant documents, that has nothing to do with the COTR --
MR. LEVIN:
Absolutely.
MR. CAMERON:
-- business.
And the relevance.
MR. MURPHY:
It has to do with how quickly you ensure compliance.
And under the system he's proposing and that we agreed to under the compromise, he's going to ensure if I say, hey, you didn't put these documents in because --
my documents in because -- or you didn't put some of your own documents in which I think are relevant, and DOE says oh, the heck with it.
We are busy.
We'll do that next ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, (202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 year.
It's going to be complied with by the end of the month if he's controlling the economic book.
MR. CAMERON:
Right, in that sense; right.
MR. MURPHY:
If they don't get paid until they put those documents in they're going to get in.
MR. CAMERON:
Right.
At that point, I understand.
MR. METTAM:
The concern is they're designing the system based gauge volumes determined by some relevancy that they have to do before they design them.
They have to make that judgment on how many pages do you think we are going to get before they finalize the system design.
And if the assumption is they're using are -- for example, inter-office correspondence is not going to be relevant, we are only going to do published public documents as a relevancy test, then we probably have got a problem in the way they designed the system.
MR. CAMERON:
There is a relevancy test which is guided by the topical guidelines and then there is also the type of document that has to be included, but you're absolutely right.
That has to be obviously considered.
MR. CLINE:
Just for your information, in the October briefing -- I'm sure we'll get into this in greater detail, but for our volume estimates we used 90 percent of material that was coming in to the records and management system as relevant.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 MR. METTAM:
I'm not sure I know what your records management system is capturing though.
MS. NEWBURY:
Everything.
MR. CLINE:
Everything.
MS. NEWBURY:
And some of it is confidential and some of it is not.
MR. CLINE:
But the system is capturing everything.
MR. MURPHY:
You're assuming 90 percent OF everything in DOE that's related to this --
MR. CLINE:
For our volume calculations -- for our volume calculations we assume 90 percent.
MR. MURPHY:
That's a fairly conservative figure.
MR. METTAM:
One last question.
I'm back to your bar chart.
The page before it says the volume is estimated based on annual volume inputs and existing records data.
MR. CLINE:
We have a track record -- the records management system has been operating for awhile and has, you know, has captured past material and is capturing new material as it comes in.
MR. METTAM:
But that's your annual volume, your past annual volume inputs and whatever estimated future ones, but it also talks about receiving records.
You just use the volume of that --
MR. CLINE:
What we had originally was a fairly ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 straight line projection, and there was a lot of discomfort with that.
So that's when we went back and pooled the various experts to come up with the projections.
MR. SILBERG:
What is the projected volume as opposed to this relative factor analysis?
MR. CLINE:
For what year, 2001?
MR. SILBERG:
For 10 years or.
MR. CLINE:
Jim, for 90 percent relevancy do we have.
MR. BOONE:
I can look on the this, but I'm sure it would be presented in the next meeting, but which year would you like?
MR. METTAM:
2001.
MR. SILBERG:
2001, that's your maximum MR. BOONE:
2001, 90 percent relevancy is approximately 18 million pages.
And for the year 2010 it's approximately 32 million pages.
MR. SILBERG:
Wait, wait.
MR. MURPHY:
Jim, these are cumulative.
MR. CLINE:
These are cumulative.
MR. METTAM:
Just for that year, do you know what 2001 totals would be for that year.
MR. BOONE:
I don't have that information.
MR. METTAM:
We can tape them all together.
MR. CLINE:
What do we have in the records system ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 now, Camille?
What do we have in the records system now.
MS. KERRIGAN:
Today, the total number of records.
MR. DICKERSON:
Today's?
MR. CLINE:
Yes.
MR. DICKERSON:
There are 8 million pages in the record system today at 2 o'clock.
MR. HENKEL:
I guess it would be helpful if we can find what the normalization of this number is here for this bar graph.
You've got a relative factor.
MS. NEWBURY:
We'll be discussing that in more detail later.
MR. CLINE:
Our numbers are still bouncing around a bit.
MR. HOYLE:
I think this is very exciting, it sort of sounds like where we were in the December 1989 when we had our first meeting.
I think we are ready to get on with it now, so I'm excited about what we are going hear next meeting.
MR. DAVENPORT:
I have a question.
I hope this isn't too naive, but how come you guys aren't doing this, how come my understanding was you guys were going to be doing this stuff?
MR. HOYLE:
No.
MR. CAMERON:
DOE was always the crew who was going to develop the system.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 MR. DAVENPORT:
The but the kind of things they're talking about are already within the purview of the authority that you said you have.
Why aren't you doing these things?
These guys are making decisions about how big the system is going to be, what it's going to be like, what relevance it is to put isn't that NRC's job?
MR. HOYLE:
No, it's not.
MR. CAMERON:
No.
They're not making decisions on what's relevant.
I mean they're using the relevancy guidelines to try to estimate the page numbers.
MR. DAVENPORT:
Right, they're sizing the system.
MR. CAMERON:
And I also, I mean this is something that's going to be presented to the advisory review panel as well as the NRC for comment, as I understand it.
MR. DAVENPORT:
I know it's been a long time ago and I know my memory is not super great, but my understanding when we were sitting around the table negotiating is that this was going to be NRC system.
Now I understand we are talking about transferring that with you guys having a COTR designation, but these kinds of decisions are going to affect what the system is going to be like.
And you're not supervising it.
I mean it's being done over there.
It's not being done in NRC, it's not being done by your contract.
MR. CAMERON:
They're not doing anything yet, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034 l
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 Jim.
Under the existing rule, DOE always had the responsibility to design and develop the system in consultation with the LSS administrator, and the type of stuff they're talking about is design and development of the system.
And Moe, do you want to MR. LEVIN:
Well I was just going to say I believe I was to certify that that met the needs of the LSS according to the rule, so I would certify that it was proper.
MR. CAMERON:
They are supposed to take the lead in doing that.
MR. LEVIN: Right.
MR. CAMERON:
Which doesn't mean that the NRC doesn't have -- or the advisory review panel, for that matter doesn't have a say in what they actually implement in terms of design and development.
I don't want to say anything about the super memory and super things but -- no -- but I think that one of the most important things that you're saying is that this isn't just a unilateral type of thing.
MR. DAVENPORT:
These decisions affect what the system is going to be like, right?
MR. LEVIN:
Correct.
MR. DAVENPORT:
So these are activities that should be done under NRC supervision, control.
Why is the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOE's contractor -- NRC's contractor instead of DOE's sitting here?
49 MR. CAMERON:
Not under the rule.
This is part of design and development of the system.
MR. LEVIN:
Not operation.
MR. HOYLE:
This is what SAIC was doing in years prior to '89.
MR. BALCOM:
This is the third time since I've been involved with this that I've heard this design iteration and assumptions change, so this kind of caught me by surprise a little bit today because it sounds like there is a substantial new set of assumptions that it's possible that you're applying now, and that some of the old ones are out the window that I thought we agreed on.
MR. CAMERON:
Which is, I think, underscores the importance of the NRC, the LSS administrator and the panel being able to review what your preliminary conclusions are going to be before you March off with that as the design and development of the system, and that would be consistent with the ways the rule is set up.
MR. LEVIN:
This is just a study, it's not implementing anything.
MR. CLINE:
Not at all.
MR. LEVIN:
So the study is perfectly within their purview.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CAMERON:
So we get to have you come back, you're coming back.
50 MS. NEWBURY:
We'll give you hours and hours of this, Jim, if you really want and you can critique it, but the LSSARP group has to agree to whatever it is the requirements are that, as a group, we have to develop so that we can go out for a contract that Moe can be a COTR, maybe, for.
MR. DAVENPORT:
I understand that.
All I'm saying is that my understanding was -- and perhaps it's just my memory is lacking that the development of the system, what the system attributes were going to be were going to be you guys design, these guys were going to pay for it.
MR. CAMERON:
No, they were going to design and develop according to the functional requirements that were set forth in a rule in terms full text, image, things like that.
But DOE was going to do the design and development in consultation with the LSS administrator.
And I think we actually have made some progress on that because the fact of, it seems like the intent of DOE here to bring all of this not only to the LSS administrator, but to the advisory review panel for review and comment and approval before they march forward to implement it, to make sure that it is consistent with the functional requirements for the LSS that are reflected in the rule.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 MR. SILBERG:
Certainly something such as the size of the system, it was always my understanding, that that would be determined by DOE.
They are the relying on a share of the records that design the system, that's part of the overall system design.
It's got to meet the requirements of subpart J, but how big a system handling documents, that was never going to be something that would be an NRC decision.
Certainly you would hope everyone would be on the same wave length and I would hope DOE would be talking to NRC because NRC is going to be generating some documents as well.
But those kind of questions are really design questions which are, I think, properly they're all DOE at that point.
MR. CLINE:
The estimates of volume that we have now far and exceed anything -- any other program or project out there.
There is a lot of material, that's a lot of material I should say.
MR. SILBERG:
I think the 90 percent assumption is really quite conservative, assuming that you're counting drafts of documents and the records management system, because most drafts are not covered by the LSS rule, it's only that one category of drafts.
So, if your system is capturing -- easy for you to say -- iterative drafts, the overall number should be, I would think, significantly less than.
MR. HOYLE:
Any further comments on the DOE ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842- 0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 presentation?
MR. MURPHY :
Do you have any rough approximation of about how soon you're going to be able to get an answer on the COTR concept?
MS. NEWBURY:
I would guess if we have another meeting in late October, early November I should have an answer.
MR. MURPHY:
By then?
MS. NEWBURY:
Yes.
MR. HOYLE:
I think we are all looking -- I certainly am looking forward to that next meeting.
I heard more today than I expected to hear about some of the details of what you're studying.
Obviously you've wetted a lot of appetites for more information.
This panel does need to fully understand more about the scenario so we can help determine the direction that we would at least recommend.
So, I do want to talk about setting a time for the next meeting.
We can do that right now, I suppose.
Are you fairly certain you'll be ready by the last week of October or should we really be looking MR. MURPHY:
Last week of October is absolutely impossible, it's elk season.
MR. BECHTEL:
Would the meeting be in Washington?
MR. HOYLE:
No, either Las Vegas or Reno.
I guess we haven't been to Reno.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HENKEL:
Save the winter meeting for Reno, okay?
MS. NEWBURY:
We'd like to offer Las Vegas and allow time for a tour of UNLV and the facility there if anyone is interested in looking at OCR capability.
53 MR. HOYLE:
I appreciate you mentioning that, Claudia, because Tom Nartker did call me and he invited the panel to make a tour, and obviously we need to be in Las Vegas to do that.
Is elk season one day or is it all week?
MR. MURPHY:
It's a way of life.
MR. DAVENPORT:
If he uses an assault weapon, it's quick.
MR. HOYLE:
Chip is making a -- Chip is suggesting we give DOE time to be sure that they're ready, maybe we should be looking at mid November.
Did somebody earlier tell me that mid November was not good?
MS. NEWBURY:
I have a conflict with an NWTRB meeting here in Washington, 17th and 18th on performance assessment.
MR. HOYLE:
When is that, 17th?
MS. NEWBURY:
17th and 18th.
MR. HENKEL:
How about the week of the 7th of November.
MS. NEWBURY:
Election day is that week, I intend ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842- 0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to for vote for my senator from Nevada.
MR. HOYLE:
If a number of you are coming to Washington for that meeting do we want --
54 MR. MURPHY:
This is very, very tentative at this point in time, but there is a technical exchange on TBM activity in Las Vegas on the 7th and 8th of November.
It wouldn't be a real, real big risk if you bet your home right now that the TBM will not be ready for a technical exchange on its status by the 7th of November, it may not even be started yet.
MR. HENKEL:
At least until the 9th of November, right?
MR. MURPHY:
That's not necessarily the same people involved in that, but, that might be, the 7th of November might be doable.
MR. HOYLE:
How about the Tuesday the 8th?
MR. MURPHY:
What about the week of October 31st, what's the matter with that?
MR. CUMMINGS:
31st is a holiday.
MR. MURPHY:
October 31st is Halloween, it's not a holiday.
MR. CAMERON:
In Vegas it is.
MR. POE:
In Nevada it is an official state holiday.
MR. MURPHY:
What about some other day that week.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 MR. POE:
He was suggesting what, Tuesday the 7th.
MR. HOYLE: We're going off the record.
[Discussion off the record.)
MR. HOYLE:
Let's set November the 8th in Las Vegas.
I would ask DOE if we could use their facility again, I think that worked out all right last time.
We used a training room.
MS. NEWBURY:
I'll see if I can get something a little nicer if we have more advance notice.
MR. MURPHY:
You're not going to be ready to do this by mid October?
Everybody is going to be here a lot of us are going to be in Las Vegas on the 12th and 13th of October for a full TRB board meeting.
MS. NEWBURY:
That's too early, I'm afraid.
I would some time to review that the M&Os come up with.
MR. MURPHY:
You're going to get it by when?
MS. NEWBURY:
They're supposed to give it to me in October.
MR. HENKEL:
What about the other TRB meeting that you said you had a conflict with?
MS. NEWBURY:
That's the 17th and 18th.
MR. CAMERON:
And that's in D.C.
MS. NEWBURY:
The October TRB meeting is only one day you realize.
MR. MURPHY:
The October TRB meeting is in what, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Las Vegas?
56 MS. NEWBURY:
I have an agenda.
MR. MURPHY:
I haven't gotten one.
MS. NEWBURY:
I do.
It's one day, it's the 12th.
MR. HOYLE:
Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. METTAM:
So we've decided on the 12th and 13th of December then in Las Vegas?
MR. HOYLE:
Las Vegas, 12th and 13th.
MR. BRADSHAW:
Will it be useful to schedule the next meeting right now if you're going to have the same problem in December?
You may not want to meet until April again.
MR. HOYLE:
The suggestion is that we make the date of the following meeting as well.
Shall we go out four months?
MR. CAMERON:
I guess it depends on what there is to discuss at the next meeting.
MR. MURPHY:
If anybody has got a 1995 calendar that goes out that far.
Here I go, I do.
MR. SILBERG:
Is this in place of the meeting we once scheduled for November 8th is this in addition to?
MR. HOYLE:
You better go off again.
[Discussion off the record.)
MR. HOYLE:
I think we'll try to pick the next ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 date in December when we are in Las Vegas.
MR. DRAPKIN:
Since DOE will have the materials ready way ahead of our meeting is it possible to get a set of the report distributed so that we are all prepared for that meeting.
MR. HOYLE:
I think that's a great idea.
Can DOE circulate material to us when it is available?
MS. NEWBURY:
I can provide you with the materials before the meeting, yes.
I'm not sure if it will be the full report or things pulled out of it.
I'm not sure what I'm getting yet, but I will provide you with information before the meeting.
MR. DRAPKIN:
That will come through you John, disseminate it out?
MR. HOYLE:
That's fine with me.
Do you want to send it to me, Claudia?
MS. NEWBURY:
Yes.
MR. HOYLE:
I think we'll spend a moment on status of the topical guidelines, Chip?
MR. CAMERON:
As you know, there has been a couple of rounds of comment on the topical guidelines, the regulatory guide on that.
And the draft version that was put out for comment was put out in July of last year, and we've received written comments from a lot of the panel ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 members, and also comments at the October meeting of the panel and subsequent written comments to that we folded all into our comment analysis.
The schedule now is to have the final guide ready in April of next year, and I'm not prepared right now to go through a detailed comment analysis, but I would say that the Nye County comment and the Clark County comment, and I'm not sure if the state submitted the same comment -- but for environmental to include socioeconomic, that is our plan now, to define that to include socioeconomic.
MR. MURPHY:
I notice that Dennis isn't here, you might want to let him know that or I can, or something.
He was concerned about that this morning.
MR. CAMERON:
I'll call him and tell him that.
But I don't know if it would be if the October meeting, if when you get to other topics for discussion whether you want to put anything on in terms of a detailed comment analysis, or whether that's something that would be best be saved for the meeting after that before the guide is issued final, maybe that makes more sense, but that's basically where we are on topical guidelines.
MR. HOYLE:
I will talk to the NRC staff for audit and see if there would be something to be brought up at the December meeting or not.
I skipped over discussion of formation of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 technical subgroup, Dennis Bechtel was also interested in that and suggested that at our last meeting.
I think we should pick up on that at the next meeting.
59 Future agenda discussion.
We've decided to meet on December the 12th and 13th, and we have at least one topic, and that is DOE's report to us.
Do we want anything else on the schedule at that time?
I will be checking to see whether topical guidelines would be appropriate, and the discussion of the technical subgroup.
MR. MURPHY:
I'd like to continue the discussion, the issue that I raised in Las Vegas and again this morning with the Commission about the potential use of the NPC certification proceedings to debug the system.
It seems to me if DOE is going to accelerate the development and implementation of the LSS system with their PPA, it may very well indeed be ready in pilot scale type form for us to screw around with this and play with it and tweak it during the not as an LSS, but a way to debug it during the MPC certification process.
Were you informed that have suggestion?
MS. NEWBURY:
I was, and I believe we put out a response that said we were not going to do that.
MR. MURPHY:
I haven't seen such a response.
MR. LEVIN:
He haven't seen it.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. NEWBURY:
I think it went back up to our headquarters and I would check further that than that.
MR. METTAM:
Was there a rationale given as to why?
60 MS. NEWBURY:
We didn't think the system would be ready.
I would have to find the letter and see exactly what it says.
Also the process for the MPC is totally separate from the MGDS, the disposal system, so that I have no idea what the records requirements are or what anything looks like for the MPC at this point.
MR. MURPHY:
A big, big bell just went off in everybody's head here at this part of the table.
MS. NEWBURY:
I'm sure it did.
MR. MURPHY:
Are you suggesting that the MPC information is not going to be relevant to -- relevant and thus inputted into the LSS?
MS. NEWBURY:
It depends whether or not the MPC is used in the repository.
There has been no decision made on whether the MPC will actually be made.
It still is going to have to be discussed.
MR. MURPHY:
We went through these topical guidelines all over again. It's still going to have to be discussed in the EIS, and the NRC is still going to have to make a determination as to they can adopt DOE's as a practical matter, and if the information isn't in the LSS ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 and thus isn't going to be available for our review and comment during the Yucca Mountain EIS process there is going to be a big stink and undoubted litigation and all sorts of problems.
And we went through this over, and over, and over again at several meetings of this body.
We went through it during the negotiations of the original LSS rule, we beat each other over the head and hammered on the table at the LSSARP meeting in Reno which prompted this topical guidelines process that Chip just went through, and let me just suggest in the strongest possible terms to DOE, avoid that problem.
Don't force the stake holder into the corner of having to sue you over something as absolutely stupid and insignificant as not putting MPC data and information into the LSS; that I cannot imagine you doing anything dumber than that.
MS. NEWBURY:
I hope I wasn't implying that it wouldn't be in the LSS long-term, what I was suggesting was certification for the MPC is happening, I'm not sure that the data is going to be put into the LSS system, and if you would like me to take an action to go back and develop something for you to respond to for the next meeting, I'd be glad to do it.
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, please, do that.
But I understand that if the LSS wasn't developed, wasn't at a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 point that -- I'm not suggesting that you slow down and we never did, even back in October, suggest that you slow down the MPC certification process to allow the LSS to catch up with it.
But, if you're going to push the LSS forward on an accelerated basis as you just told us you will, in order to keep it on a parallel track for proposed program approach, the 1998 date and you're going to be certifying an MPC for storage and transportation in about those same time frames, there is going to be parallel activity, it seems to me under the schedules that I've seen.
And the MPC experts here, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're going to be pushing for certification by the NRC of storage and transportation under part 71 and 72 of the MPC, pretty much at the same time you're bringing everything to a head, hopefully, optimistically to a head under the proposed program approach, and you've just told us that you're going to accelerate the development of the LSS so that indeed it may be available in sufficient form to allow the parties to debug it during that process.
It's just a suggestion I make.
Otherwise we are going to -- you know, none of us want to be in a position of having to debug the system during licensing.
MS. NEWBURY:
We'll come back to you with MR. MURPHY:
But you were suggesting that MPC ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 information wasn't going back into the LSS.
MS. NEWBURY:
No, I wasn't suggesting that.
MR. HOYLE:
Okay, so we will hear further from DOE on that subject at the next meeting as well.
Is there any other business that anyone would like to discuss?
In that case, we stand adjourned until the next meeting in Las Vegas.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. ]
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING:
LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL 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 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(202) 842-0034
LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING AGENDA 2:00 P.M. SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 Opening Remarks (John Hoyle, NRC, Panel Chairman)
Status Report of LSS Administrator (Moe Levin, NRC)
Status Report of DOE (Claudia Newbury, DOE)
Discussion of Formation of Technical Subgroup (Panel Members)
Topical Guidelines Update (Chip Cameron, NRC)
Future Agenda Discussion
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor ii~.-.
TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc.
OVERVIEW OF LSS WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES Presentation to the Licensing Support System, Advisory Review Panel B&W Fuel Company Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
Fluor Daniel, Inc.
INTERA Inc.
JK Research Associates, Inc.
E. R. Johnson Associates, Inc.
K. Michael Cline September 9, 1994 Logicon RDA Morrison Knudsen Corporation Woodward-Clyde Federal Services
RESPONSIBILITY With the responsibility of the LSS within DOE transferring to the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office (YMSCO), it has elected to undertake a re-evaluation of the LSS concept considering:
- An improved understanding of Program and LSS ARP needs
- New milestones and constraints imposed by the Proposed Program Approach (PPA)
- Advancements in system components Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S 9/9/94 2
WORKING GROUP
- YMSCO directed the OCRWM M&O to establish a working group, under the oversight of the Assistant Manager of Suitability and Licensing, to undertake an evaluation with the objectives of:
- Re-evaluating all key elements of the LSS as it currently is envisioned.
- Modifying or developing a strategy that:
-- is consistent with the PPA
-- optimizes new technologies
-- minimizes cost Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS005 919194 3
WORKING GROUP (cont'd)
- The Working Group is made up of interdisciplinary team of senior professionals from Washington, DC and Las Vegas.
- The Working Group has been tasked to:
- Conduct a comprehensive review of the LSS concept that addresses:
-- Development history
-- Statutory and derived requirements
-- Identification and evaluation of viable options
-- Analysis of capture and dissemination page volumes
-- System capabilities and options
-- Cost drivers and development/implementation costs Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S 919/94 4
WORKING GROUP (cont'd)
- Products of the Working Group will be :
- Evaluation of the requirements, and an understanding of the derived requirements with respect to their applicability under the PPA.
- Development of milestone schedule for LSS Development and Implementation.
- Enhancement of the cost model and comparison to the cost analyses.
- Development and evaluation of viable options utilizing a set of evaluation criteria.
- Selection of a proposed preferred option.
- Final report with recommendations for implementation of the LSS Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS005 919194 5
WORKING GROUP SCHEDULE
- Initiation of Working Group - May 1994
- Status briefing to DOE - June 23, 1994.
- Draft Requirements Analysis available for review - June 30, 1994.
- Status briefing to DOE - July 14, 1994.
- Cost estimate for planning purposes - July 30, 1994
- Summary Briefing to DOE on Working Group Conclusions and Recommendations - September 23, 1994
- Draft report to DOE - September 30, 1994
- Prepare DOE briefing to LSS ARP - October 1994 Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Brieling # LSS00S 919194 6
WORKING GROUP STATUS
- Completed Requirements Review
- Developed detailed option descriptions and is in process of selecting proposed preferred option
- Developed developed better understanding of the LSS functionality considering statutory and derived requirements
- Continue to refine cost-model for evaluating LSS cost through 2004
- Established milestones for LSS development and implementation
- Developed proposed recommendations for DOE to present to the LSS ARP and for continued work toward development of the LSS Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Brieling # LSS005 9/9194 7
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS OF WORKING GROUP
- Need to revise System Requirements Document
- Volume estimates consistent with earlier studies
- Cost savings can be achieved by:
- improved technologies
- disaggregating costs
- not overdesigning system
- Identified seven scenarios driven by means of text and image dissemination Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S 919/94 8
Development of the LSS is a critical element for meeting the licensing application milestone of 2001.
FYI 94 95 LSS Prepare analysis systems
& budget Requir.
planning Document and submit to LSSARP Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor 96 LSS Develop-ment TSS DEIS FEIS SAR LA v
v v
v vi 1
oo 1
01 97 98 99 LSS LSS lmplemen-certification talion Briefing # LSS0OS 9/9/94 9
VOLUME ESTIMATES
- Objective:
- Estimate the total number of pages to reside in the LSS assuming DOE receives a license to receive and possess radioactive waste (FY 2010).
- Assumptions:
- Estimates include contributions from DOE, NRC and Stakeholders
- Estimates are based in part on historical records system data Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S 9/9/94 10
VOLUME ESTIMATES
- Volume Input and Projections
- Senior participant, professionals canvassed to estimate volume input
- Volume estimated based on annual volume inputs and existing records data
- Volume is estimated to be less than previous analyses
- Considerable uncertainty exists and will continue to exist with the estimates of volume (capture and dissemination)
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S 9/9/94 1 t
09/06 1
0.8 L-o o 0.6 co LL Q) co
0.4
~
0.2 Relative LSS Volume 0
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Fiscal Year
COST ANALYSIS
- Cost analysis has become more sophisticated as the working group has evolved in its understanding of the LSS.
- The cost elements of the LSS were disaggregated and evaluated to better understand what they represent and what the actual costs of the LSS are.
- It is assumed that the DOE Records Management system will go to electronic imaging for its data base.
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS005 9/9/94 13
KEY DOE COST DRIVERS
- Data Volume, i.e. the number of pages that will be processed through the records system
- Human verification of text, and OCR accuracy
- Scenarios defined with and without human verification
- Analysis of sensitivity to OCR accuracy performed.
- Dissemination cost (an LSS cost) for varying page volumes Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S 9/9/94 14
COST ANALYSIS
- Disaggregating of costs revealed cost elements not attributable to the LSS development and implementation.
- A more sophisticated cost model better addresses cost sensitivity and the cost profile through 2004.
- Over 1 O year period costs for LSS may be less than 100 million dollars.
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S 9/9/94 15
PURPOSE OF LSS OPTIONS
- Seven (7) Options/Scenarios identified to:
- Differentiate among operational concepts
-- Text dissemination
-- Image dissemination
-- Human verification
- Differentiate among attributes
-- User friendless
-- Response time
- Identify operational cost drivers
- Provide the DOE with various cost options for development Civilian lladioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S 9/9194 16
LSS SCENARIOS CONSIDERED Text Dissemination Image Electronic Copy I
Electronic Copy I
Dissemination ~
~
Hard Copy ----
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S Network Network CD ROM CD-ROM
[Scenarios 2-7]
Human Verified No Yes 4,6, 7 2,3,5
[Scenarios 5, 6]
[Scenarios 3, 7]
[Scenarios 2, 4]
(Def au It for all scenarios) 919/94 17
DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS
- SCENARIO 1: Current OCRWM records management system
- NOT compliant with Subpart J
- SCENARIOS 2-7: features common to all:
- Compliant with Subpart J compliant
- Use scanned images for records storage and to produce OCR'd full text for documents
- Have on-line searchable headers to support retrieval of documents
- Have on-line searchable full text to support retrieval of documents
- Provide for transmittal of hard copy image by mail or fax per LSS user request
- SCENARIOS 2-7: Differences:
- Image available only by mail or fax (Scen~rios 2, 3, 4, 7)
- On-line transmission of electronic images (Scenarios 5, 6)
- Human-corrected OCR'd full-text (Scenarios, 2, 3, 5) versus machine-corrected (Scenarios 4, 6, 7) 919194
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
- The recommendations of this working group will assure that the LSS is in compliance with all regulatory requirements and in consistent with the philosophy of the PPA in cost and in schedule.
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor Briefing # LSS00S 9/9/94 18
US.DEPARTMENTOFENERGY 0
C R w M
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
* PROJECT RECENT DOE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO LSS DEVELOPMENT PRESENTED TO LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL PRESENTED BY CLAUDIA NEWBURY ACTING TEAM LEADER, TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS SEPTEMBER 9, 1994
Outline
- Operation of the LSS
- OCRWM Organizational Changes
- Proposed Program Approach
- LSS Working Group LSSCNB2.PPT 12519-7-94
Operation of the LSS
- OCRWM is currently evaluating options for funding LSS operation
- Results of evaluation will be presented at next LSSARP meeting LSSCNB3.PPT.12~-7-94
OCRWM Organizational Changes
- Responsibility for records management and LSS has been transferred from Headquarters to Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Office (YMSCO)
- Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing is now responsible for LSS LSSCNB4.PPT.12519-7-94
OCRWM Organization I
Waste Acceptance, Storage and Transportation Waste Acceptance Division Environmental and Operational Activities Division Engineering Division DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR I
Program Management and Integration
~
~
Planning Division Program Management Division Regulatory Integration Division Systems Engineering Division Office of Quality Assurance I
Yucca Mountain Site Headquarters Quality Characterization Quaiity Assurance Division Assuran~A Division I
I Human Yucca Mountain Site Resources and Characterization Administration Office Contract Management Division Administration Division Human Resources Division LSSCNBS.PPT.12519-7-94
Reorganized Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Chief Counsel Clzell)
Quality Assurance (Spence)
Chief Scientist (Vacant) t- -
I Office of Public Affairs Greg Cook I
Assistant Manager for Sultablllty & Ucenslng Steve Brocoum I
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office Yucca Mtn. Site Characterization Project Manager (acting)
Robert M. Nelson Jr.
Dep. Yucca Mtn. Site Characterization Project Manager J. Russell Dyer Sr. Technical Advisor Maxwell Blanchard Assistant Manager for Environment, Safety & Health Wendy Dixon Assistant Manager for Scientific Programs Susan Jones I
Assistant Man Admlnlstra agerfor tlon hop Marshall Bis I
Assistant Manag erfor peratJons Engineering & Fleld 0 William Simec ka
Performance Assessment TBD-Lead E. Smlstad G. LI ndenburg C. Newbu~
- Home Team Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing Regulatory
& Licensing A. GIi - Lead C. Hanlon T. BJerstedr TBD S. Brocoum Assistant Manager A. Barton Deputy Assistant Manager Site Suitability J. Summerson -
Lead T. Bjerstedt C. Newbury Systems &
Requirements D. Royer - Lead K. Elder J.C. De la Garza D. Harrison Project Control V. lorll
- Lead J. Mukherjee B. Hutchinson
- TSO PPANRCSP.125fl-2S-9'
Impact of Reorganization on LSS
- Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing has chartered a working group to assess LSS status and direction
- LSS will be funded and managed by the YMSCO
- DOE LSSARP representatives report to**
Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing LSSCNBG.PPT.12519-7-94
YMSCO LSS Contacts Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing Steve Brocoum LSSARP Representatives Claudia Newbury John Gandi LSSCNB?.PPT.12519-7-94
Proposed Program Approach Overview LSSCNB9.PPT.125/9-7-94
Alternative Program Strategies
- Two alternatives were evaluated:
- A program restructured for management efficiency operating within existing legislative and regulatory framework (assumes availability of increased funding)
- A resource-constrained program operating within existing legislative and regulatory framework (assumes level funding outlook)
- DOE is moving forward with further evaluation of restructured program within existing legislative and regulatory framework {Proposed Program Approach)
AFPINTLB9.125.NWTRB/5-17-94
Comparati: e Schedules SCENARIO 94 95 96 97 98 99 oo 01 02 03 04 os 06 01 oa 09 10 11 12 13 14 100%
REVENUE FUNDING PROPOSED PROGRAM APPROACH LEVEL FUNDING OUTLOOK LA CA CA HLFs HLFs HLFs,
UPOAtE LA I M
OsbN LEGEND:
NOi - NOTICE OF INTENT FOR MGDS EIS SCOPING SSE - SITE SUITABILITY EVALUATION HLFs-INDIVIDUAL HIGHER LEVEL FINDINGS (SITE SUITABILITY)
TSS -TECHNICAL SITE SUITABILITY SRA - SITE RECOMMENDATION REPORT LA-LICENSE APPLICATION LIC - LICENSE FOR FULL OPERATIONS (RECEIPT AND EMPLACEMENT)
DEIS - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FEIS - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MPC - MUL Tl-PURPOSE CANISTER DSGN - DESIGN DATES - FISCAL YEARS RECEIVE WASTE LAST LA UC WASTE CLOSCLOS I
I 2038 2059 2064 i
i I I
LASTI LA l
WASTE CLO~ CLOS 2034 210sI 2110 SCNBSECS.PPT.129/8-22-94
Planning Assumptions
- No changes to legislative and regulatory framework -
make use of inherent flexibility
- Increased funding in FY95 and assured funding in out-years
- Waste acceptance and near-term storage issues addressed by delivery of MPCs to utilities starting in 1998
- Restructure site characterization program based on available information to focus on most significant issues for suitability and licensing
- Retrievability maintained for up to 100 years INEVPSDP7.PM4.125.NWTRB/ 7-8 -94
Basis for Proposed Program Approach
- Responds to Congressional expectations to show demonstrable progress at reduced cost
- Reflects some of the recommendations of the NAS Report, "Rethinking High Level Waste"
- Responds to suggestions from NWTRB and others regarding the need for effective management of a well focused technical program TPLSTRGY6 PMS.129/4-22-94
Summary of Proposed Top-Level Strategy for Repository
- Make formal suitability findings in a stepwise manner
- Initiate the NEPA process as soon as possible
- Provide sufficient information in LA to support NRC's reasonable assurance finding Ensure safety of repository operations High confidence in waste package containment for at least 1,000 years
- Bounding/conservative analyses relevant to radionuclide releases and total system performance for 10,000 years
- Testing programs to focus on supporting design (construction, operations, waste package performance) and bounding/
conservative analyses Additional information to confirm basis for assessment of long-term performance provided under post-LA performance confirmation program
- Involve stakeholders and public prior to making key decisions TPLSTRGY1 PMS 129/4-22-94
Proposed Program Approach Impact on LSS
- Impacts the LSS implementation schedule -
must be operational well before license application is submitted, if site is suitable
- LSS design and implementation will be pursued aggressively LSSCNB8.PPT 12519-7-94
Backup
1 SUMMAR..
lvrr~ _________ _
KEY MILESTONES Project Summary Milestones SITE SUITABILITY 1 Site Suitability Process NEPA Repository Rail Spur LICENSING Issue Resolution LA Annotated Outline PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Total System PA WP Subsystem PA GWTT Subsystem PA EBS Subsystem PA
~o.*
O*** O**
IOCTt3 P,OJKI s,on IOCltJ PfO!Od '"'°"
200CTIO J ~llllrll:~0--
I,.... _..,
................ ~......
_____ -----~*
- FY95 FY96 FY97 F;98 FY99 ~YOO FY01 FY02 FYOJ.FY04 FY 0
0 0
0 HLF's HLF's HLF's TSS
~EIS
~PDATED LI LA 2s SUPP LEMEN
~EIS ~IS-ROD PRE-LICENSING ISSUE RESOLUTION/ INTERACTIONS LA FORMAL ISSUE RESOLUTION/ INTERACTIONS 0
0 0
0 0
0
- o O
A04 AO5 A06 AO7 AO8 AO9 LA -- --
CA
~OUNDEO
?sPA ?sPA REVISK)NS (till end)
?iNAL
~OUNDED
~UBFINAL f>oNSERVATIVE
~OUNDED 1
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Proposed Program Approach Master Schedule Oolo
-* 1 ~~
---'--~
SUMMARY
ACTIVITY t------------------------- __ FY94 jrY95)FY9o)FY97 iFY98f _Y99 fYOO'"jFY01 ~02ji::'Y031"'f'047YO~~~~ £Y01 _F'i'08-FY09 _N10 SITE INVESTIGATIONS 3-D Geologic Description Climate Description Postclosure Tectonics Description UZ/SZ Geochemistry Description UZ Hydrologic Description SZ Hydrologic Description Thermal Effects Description ESF CONSTRUCTION
- 7. 8 Kilometer Loop Calico Hills REPOSITORY / WASTE PACKAGE Repository Waste Package ----
RAIL SPUR
~UOI INAL R NJ\\L
~ONSERVATIVE
~OUNDED
~OUNDED
>BOUNDED
~OUNDED
>BOUNDED
~OUNDED
>BOUNDED
~OUNDED
>BOUNDED
~OUNDEO
?ueFINAL 0
0 COMPLETE7.8K-LOOP COMPLETE ACCESS~S OGDF EVALO~SCH ACCESS(SL DRUEXC)
_)
IMPLEMENT CH DECISION (SL DRUEXC)
?iTLE I
\\
?iTLE I
?iTLE II
1--------------
Rail Spur O*l*D*..
10CTIJ P.Ojeet SIM1 tOCTIJ Pnljod,.....
200CTIO 1<1-s,--.1nc
...............,0--
o~~
~0UTE-ANALYSIS/CD Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Proposed Program Approach Master Schedule
- t
?iTLE II
?iTLEIII
/PROTOTYPE
£,01\\llll
?uBFINAL.
?uBFINAL
~UBFINAL*
~UBFINAL
~UBFINAL.
?.NAL CONSTRUCTIO FABRICATIO 0
0 START TITLE I TITLE t TITLE It CONST
.... P,o,e,ct ~
,.."°'
c~
Differences Between Current Program and Proposed Program Approach for Repository Key Elements Current Program Proposed Program Approach Site suitability
- Interim evaluations evaluation
- Design basis-Title I
- Individual interim findings
- Design basis - ACD EIS Site Recom-mendation
- Technical site suitability determination by Secretary - 1998
- Draft 2003
- Draft 1998
- Final 2005
- Final 2000
- Final supports site
- Same recommendation
- Final accompanies LA
- Same
- Design basis-Title I
- Design basis - ACD
- 2005
- 2000
- Design Basis-Title I
- Same AFPINTLB 11.125.NWTRB/5* 17-94
Differences Between Current Program and Proposed Program Approach for Repository Key Elements Licensing Technical and Scientific Studies (Continued)
Current Program
- 2005 LA
- Design basis-Title II for items important to safety and waste isolation
- Full scope of studies proposed in SCP, with appropriate modifications, to reflect priorities and budget Proposed Program Appraoch
- 2001 LA
- Design basis - Title I for repository, Title II for waste package
- Narrow the focus-to technical issues most important to suitability and licensing
- Make effective use of required performance confirmation program AFPINTLB12.125.NWTRB/5-17-94
Differences Between Current Program and Proposed Program Approach for Repository (Continued)
Key Elements Current Program Retrievability
- 50 years after start of emplacement operations Proposed Program Approach
- 100 years after start of emplacement operations or when results from performance confirmation provide adequate confidence to proceed with closure application AFPINTLB13.125.NWTRB/5*17*94