Biannual Report on Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes. · SUBJECT: BIANNUAL REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES The purpose of this letter is to respond to

& ,P9Nlpa/

VAR 1 91993

Mr. Leif G. Eriksson3080 Pillement PlaceAlpharetta, GA 30202

Dear Mr. Eriksson:

SUBJECT: BIANNUAL REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter, dated December 21,1992, to Robert M. Bernero requesting review and input to the subject reportfor presentation to Commission 14 of the International Association ofEngineering Geology. It is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's viewthat the aforementioned report contains numerous inaccuracies that should beaddressed. Although the staff has reviewed your report and highly recommendsrevising many sections, it is unable to provide specific comments on thoseportions due to resource and time constraints. However, highlighted below aresome of the major concerns which the staff believes need to be addressed.

The first concern deals with your statement concerning the current role ofquality assurance (QA) procedures and regulatory requirements in the licensingprocess of a geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste. In the reportyou state, "Unless the current maze of some 1,000 management, technical, andQA procedures is strictly complied with, the license application(s) for ageologic repository might be rejected or successfully opposed ... " Youfurther suggest that these procedures act as an impediment to the U. S.Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management(OCRWM) Program's success, and that they inhibit the "scientific freedom andvitality" of the OCRWM staff. Additionally, you highlight the point that'inconsistent, extremely conservative, and possibly unattainable licensingrequirements' by NRC pose a deleterious effect on the OCRWM program.

Based on its work with DOE in the area of QA, the staff believes that thesestatements are without merit. Although some concern was raised by earthscientists early in the application of QA to the program, DOE took actions tochange its own internal requirements, which successfully addressed theseconcerns. As a result, the staff knows of no instances where its QArequirements are requiring thousands of procedures, and has found that DOEactions have acceptably resolved the concerns expressed by some programparticipants about the burden of QA. Enclosed are several NRC QuarterlyProgress Reports from 1990 for your reference on this issue. I stronglysuggest that you contact Mr. Donald Horton, who is the Director, Office ofQuality Assurance for OCRWM, to update your positions in this area.

PDR lIASTE 93.SP3

Mr. Leif G. Eriksson 2

You further state that NRC, as well as other promulgating Federal Agencies,are "reluctant to revise current licensing requirements' because of thepotential for misinterpretation of being in favor of relaxed public andenvironmental safety standards, as perceived by the public, the State ofNevada, and other interested organizations. Although the NRC staff wouldagree that rulemaking has a role in addressing issues that might unnecessarilydelay repository development, it believes that the existing regulations arenot overly prescriptive. Because of this, it is the staff's position thatrulemakings should be used only where authoritative and binding clarificationor elaboration is needed on the meaning of requirements or definitions in10 CFR Part 60. Application of any such methods at a particular site, or to aparticular situation, would still be an issue that could be raised during thehearing process. Therefore, rulemaking will be pursued only wherepracticable.

Also, I would bring to your attention NRC Chairman Ivan Selin's letter to theHonorable John Dingell, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce inthe U. S. House of Representatives, dated August 18, 1992 (see Enclosure). Inthis letter, the Chairman explicitly states that the NRC "stands ready to meetand discuss any specific proposal that would allow DOE to run a more efficientand effective repository program consistent with ensuring the protection ofpublic health and safety." Additionally, by letter dated November 18, 1992,the staff strongly urged DOE to identify any specific areas where DOE believedNRC needed to conduct additional rulemakings or to provide guidance (seeEncloure). To date, DOE has not identified any needs beyond the workpresently being undertaken by the staff.

Another concern with this report is that you paraphrase NRC employee Dr. JohnTrapp, where he allegedly expresses concern that the seismotectonic regime ofthe Yucca Mountain Site might impose significant licensing constraints on DOE,in reference to the Szymanski Report findings. In your report, thisparaphrasing of an NRC employee's personal position on a particular issue ispresented as the NRC staff's view on this subject. Official NRC staffpositions, or concerns on site characterization issues and licensing aspectsof Yucca Mountain, are only those documented in formal correspondence fromNRC. Therefore, you should ensure that the update to your report does notrepresent personal opinions as those of official NRC staff positions.

Based on the concerns discussed above, it appears that substantial revisionsto this report are needed to accurately reflect the issues presently facingthe program. Furthermore, in order to lend more credibility to this report,care should be taken in stating personal opinions, making judgmental types ofcomments, and presenting subjective opinions.

Mr. Leif G. Eriksson J 3

I hope these brief comments and enclosures will be helpful as you pursue anupdate of your report.

Sincerely,

Joseph J Holonich, DirectorRepository Licensing and Quality Assurance

Project DirectorateDivision of High-Level Waste ManagementOffice of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards

Enclosures: As stated

DISTRIBUTIONCNWRA NMSS R/F HLPD R/FLPDR KHooks, HLPD PDRBJYoungblood, HLWM JLinehan, HLhM RBallard, HLGEJHolonich, HLPD OnwSite Reps CAbrams, HLPD* See revious concurrence

LSS ACNWCENTRAL FILEMFederline, HLHPKMcConnell,HLGE

OFC | HLPD I E HLPD* Eh L \ , .NAME RJohnson J__H_ _ _ _ ch

DATE 03/18/93 03/12/93 03/IT/93,~~~~ -- -- - -- -- ---- I

C E CIER ESUEs:\LEIF.LTR

. O cP UrIlRlAL KUKWU Lur

Mr. Leif G. Eriksson _-2 2

delay repository development, it believes that the existing regulations arenot overly prescriptive. Because of this, it is the staff's position thatrulemakings should be used only where authoritative and binding clarificationor elaboration is needed on the meaning of requirements or definitions in10 CFR Part 60. Application of any such methods at a par cular site, or to aparticular situation, would still be an issue that could e raised during thehearing process. Therefore, rulemaking will be pursued nly wherepracticable.

Also, I would bring to your attention NRC Chairman Iv n Selin's letter to theHonorable John Dingell, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce inthe U. S. House of Representatives, dated August 18 1992. In this letter,the Chairman explicitly states that the NRC stand ready to meet and discussany specific proposal that would allow DOE to run/a more efficient andeffective repository program consistent with ens ring the protection of publichealth and safety." Additionally, by letter d ed November 18, 1992, thestaff strongly urged DOE to identify any spec ic areas where DOE believed NRCneeded to conduct additional rulemakings or o provide guidance. To date, DOEhas not identified any needs beyond the wor presently being undertaken by thestaff.

Another concern with this report is tha you paraphrase NRC employee Dr. JohnTrapp, where he allegedly expresses co rn that the seismotectonic regime ofthe Yucca Mountain Site might impose gnificant licensing constraints on DOE,in reference to the Szymanski Report findings. In your report, thisparaphrasing of an NRC employee's p rsonal position on a particular issue ispresented as the NRC staff's view n this subject. This association simproper, and any such implicati should be deleted from the report.Official NRC staff positions, o concerns on site characterization issues andlicensing aspects of Yucca Mo ntam, are only those documented in formalcorrespondence from NRC. Theefore, you should ensure that the update to yourreport does not represent pesonal opinions as those of official NRC staffpositions.

Based on the concerns di cussed above, it is recommended that you makesubstantial revisions t this report in order to accurately reflect the issuespresently facing the p gram. Furthermore, in order to lend more credibilityto this report, you s ould refrain from stating personal opinions, makingJudgmental types of omments, and presenting subjective opinions.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Holonich, DirectorRepository Licensing and Quality Assurance

Project DirectorateDivision of High-Level Waste ManagementOffice of Nuclear Material Safety

and SafeguardsDISTRIBUTION

CNWRA NMSS R/F HLPD R/F LSS ACNWLPDR KHooks, HLPD PDR CENTRAL FILEBJYoung ood, HLWM JLinehan, HLWM RBallard, HLGE MFederline, HLHPJHoloni h. HLPD On-Site Reos CAbrams. HLPD KMcConnellHLGE

|OFC | HLPD 4E,- HLPD I e, HLPD I I

OAM RJohnson{jg JHolonich

DATE 03/f-/93 03/ii-/93 03/ /93___ _ ____ _ __ ____ ~~- - . ..- ̂ t f _ ersnetn r

C COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSUE N NO COPY UOFlZFAL Kt.LWKU CURg:\LEIF.LTR

C' . ok* UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 205

November 18, 1992

Dr. John W. Bartlett, DirectorOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementU.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585

Dear Dr. Bartlett:

Several events have occurred in the past year that directlyaffect the progress of the high-level waste repository program.These events include the acquisition of permits from the State ofNevada needed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to initiatevarious site characterization activities, the lifting of theNuclear Regulatory Commission's objections to DOE's SiteCharacterization Plan related to the Exploratory Studies Facility(ESF) and quality assurance (QA), and the enactment of the EnergyPolicy Act of 1992. At the same time there have been issues onwhich progress has been slow such as the Licensing Support System(LSS) and promulgation of a final U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) standard. In light of these events and the issuesbefore us, I believe that there is a need to take stock of theinteraction between our two agencies to ensure the continuationof an effective pre-licensing consultation program that focuseson resolution of issues in an open and timely manner.

On December 28, 1988, the DOE issued the Site CharacterizationPlan (SCP) for conducting site characterization work at the YuccaMountain, Nevada site. The NRC staff reviewed the SCP and, onJuly 31, 1989, issued its Site Characterization Analysis (SCA;see transmittal letter, enclosed), wherein it identified 198concerns, two of which were objections that DOE agreed to resolvebefore site characterization work related to those objectionsbegan. The two objections dealt with DOE's need to implement abaselined QA program before beginning site characterization, andthe need for DOE to demonstrate the adequacy of both the ESFdesign and the design control process. The objection related toDOE's quality assurance (QA) program was lifted in March 1992,based on DOE's demonstration that those organizations involved insite characterization have developed and are implementingprograms which meet NRC requirements. The objection related toDOE's ESF design control process and the ESF design was lifted inOctober 1992, based on DOE's demonstration of effectiveimplementation of a design control process for design of the ESF.

In its July 1989 letter transmitting the SCA, the NRC alsohighlighted four issues believed to be of particular importancein site characterization. These issues highlighted DOE's need to1) conduct periodic total system performance assessments to

Dr. John W. Bartlett 2

provide early and ongoing evaluation of the adequacy of databeing gathered and the ability of the site to meet the10 CR Part 60 performance objectives; 2) direct early attentionto investigations related to the understanding of tectonicphenomena and consideration of a full range of appropriate-tectonic models; 3) improve technical integration of the overallsite characterization program and 4) systematically integrate allstudies to ensure that results will provide the data necessary todifferentiate among the various models under consideration. Thestaff believes that DOE has made progress toward resolving someof these important issues, and encourages DOE to continue itsprogress in this area.

Since issuance of the SCA, DOE has provided additionalinformation such that the NRC staff now considers 68 of the 196SCA concerns resolved. The status of the remaining 128 concernswas reported in my letters to you dated July 31, 1991, March 2,1992, and November 2, 1992. However in an August 4, 1992, letterto me, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) noted alack of progress toward resolution of many of the remaining SCAconcerns. Now that activities at the site have increased andwork has begun on a number of new studies, the ACNW believes, andwe agree, that NRC staff SCA concerns need to be resolved in amore timely manner. As indicated in my July 31, 1989, letter toS. Rousso, transmitting the SCA, DOE should consider all SCAconcerns as "serious" and "give full attention to each in anattempt to resolve them early during site characterization."

In the past year our staffs, along with representatives of theState of Nevada and affected units of local government, have heldpre-licensing consultations on varied topics related to sitecharacterization activities. Although the staff believes theseinteractions have produced some effective discussions of issues,we also believe that they need to be more focused on resolvingexisting issues such as those in the SCA at the staff level.Although issue resolution at the staff level will not be bindingon the licensing board or the Commission at the time ofadjudication of the license, the role of the NRC staff during thepre-licensing period is to conduct an ongoing review ofactivities to identify and to facilitate timely resolution ofpotential licensing issues. As DOE's data gathering andassessment activities expand, it is imperative that we maximizethe effectiveness of these interactions. In addition, we believethat more communication by DOE concerning the planning processfor programmatic and technical activities would allow the NRCstaff to provide more timely and meaningful guidance. As hasalways been the practice, all interactions would of courseprovide an opportunity for participation by representatives ofthe State of Nevada and affected units of local government.


As indicated in its reviews of DOE Site CharacterizationProgress Reports, the NRC staff has stated that it regards thesereports as the mechanism by which DOE is to report and updateactivities and changes to its program. As required by10 CFR Part 60.18(g), these reports should include informationsuch as the identification of new issues, status of studies, andmodifications to activities and schedules. Timely submittal ofthese reports is important so that the NRC staff can continue toprovide DOE with early identification of potential licensingconcerns.

DOE has also proposed its Annotated Outline (AO) Skeleton Textfor the Preparation of a License Application as a mechanism forproviding the NRC with notification of progress and changes inDOE's program. Although the semi-annual progress reports areidentified by the regulations as the statutory mechanism forreporting changes and progress in the site characterizationprogram, the iterative development of DOE's AO also provides animportant mechanism for the staff to provide DOE guidance on theinterpretation and implementation of NRC regulations. We wouldstrongly encourage DOE to identify, through the AO or othermeans, any specific areas where DOE believes NRC needs to provideguidance or modify existing regulations for purposes of clarityor completeness. Such information would assist the staff toallocate finite resources to the most pressing regulatory tasksaffecting this program.

Another area where the NRC staff believes attention is needed isin the development of the LSS. The NRC staff is counting on theLSS to be able to conduct a timely review of DOE's applicationfor authorization to construct the repository. The LSS isequally important to the Commission and its adjudicatory board'sability to reach a licensing decision within three years aftersubmission of the application. Although NRC does not havebudgetary responsibility for development of the LSS, it isimportant that we continue to work together to ensure timelydevelopment of the system. As you know, NRC and DOE staffs havehad several interactions with regard to LSS development and thepotential advantages to be gained by using DOE's INFOSTREAMS as abasis for the LSS. The NRC is reviewing various alternativeswhereby development and implementation of the LSS may proceed ina more timely and cost effective manner. We are prepared to workwith the DOE in the future to ensure that issues involving theLSS will be resolved, and its development and implementation willbe completed as early as practical.

Finally, the recent Energy Policy Act establishes a process fordealing with some of the more contentious issues related todevelopment of the EPA standard. Although, based on theschedules in the Act, it will be two years before the EPAstandard is promulgated, the NRC staff does not believe that thisschedule should cause any delays in DOE's near-term site


characterization program, because DOE would have to collect muchof the same basic site data regardless of the form of the finalstandard.

I believe, based on progress in specific areas to date, such asthe lifting of the SCA objections, that we can work towardsaddressing the issues discussed in this letter. As you know, Ihave directed Mr. B.J. Youngblood, Director, Division of High-Level Waste Management, to work with your staff to explore waysto improve our interface to better focus our activities on theseissues. If you have any questions about the items discussed inthis letter, please feel free to contact me at (301) 504-3352.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Robert M. Bernero, DirectorOffice of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards

Enclosure:As stated

cc: R. Loux, State of NevadaT. J. Hickey, Nevada Legislative CommitteeC. Gertz, DOE/NVM. Murphy, Nye County, NVM. Baughman, Lincoln County, NVD. Bechtel, Clark County, NVD. Weigel, GAOP. Niedzielski-Eichner, Nye County, NVB. Mettam, Inyo County, CAV. Poe, Mineral County, NVP. Sperry, White Pine County, NVR. Williams, Lander County, NVP. Goicoechea, Eureka County, NVL. Vaughan II, Esmeralda County, NVC. Shank, Churchill County, NVE. Holstein, Nye County, NVW. Barnard, NWERB

UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 DISTRIBUTION:

August 18, 1992 See attached page

CHAIRMAN

The Honorable John D. Dingell, ChairmanCommittee on Energy and CommerceU.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515-6115

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am responding to your July 24, 1992 letter requesting my comments on theJune 25, 1992 Las VeQas Review-Journal article on the possibility of reducingcosts of high-level waste repository program activities at Yucca Mountain. Ibelieve that the article generally reflects the discussions that took placeduring the June 24, 1992 briefing by Dr. John Bartlett, Director of theDepartment of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement. As an independent regulatory agency, the NRC is committed toensuring the protection of public health and safety while avoiding new andeliminating existing requirements that may be either unnecessary orunnecessarily burdensome. As NRC has developed and is implementing Part 60 ofTitle 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Disposal of Radioactive Wastesin Geologic Repositories" (10 CFR Part 60), we have continued to strive tomeet these objectives and to identify ambiguities and uncertainties in theseregulations that need to be clarified. DOE has not identified any regulatoryrequirements which have imposed an unnecessary cost burden.

During the June 24 briefing, the Commission encouraged Dr. Bartlett to bringto our attention proposals for cost cutting. Since the briefing, Dr. Bartletthas not brought to our attention any proposal for cutting costs at the YuccaMountain project. NRC stands ready to meet and discuss any specific proposalthat would allow DOE to run a more efficient and effective repository programconsistent with ensuring the protection of public health and safety.

I trust that this reply responds to your concerns. If I can be of furtherassistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Ivan Selin

cc: Representative Norman F. LentDr. John Bartlett, DOE

Originated by: MDelligatti, NMSS

9 lap~~~

-~ MEME

'I

POLICY ISSUE(Information)April 27, 1990

For:

From:

Subject:

Purpose:

Background:

SECY-90-032A

The Commissioners

James . TaylorExecutive Director

for Operations

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PRE-LICENSING PHASE OFTHE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S (DOE'S) CIVILIAN HIGH-LEVELRADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

To provide the Commission with a Quarterly Progress Report(January 1990 through March 1990) on the pre-licensingphase of DOE's Civilian High-Level Radioactive WasteManagement Program.

In the Quarterly Progress Reports on the pre-licensingphase of DOE's Civilian High-Level Radioactive WasteManagement Program, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) staff discusses items that cover key aspects of thepre-licensing consultation program between NRC and DOE.These items focus on key issues that deserve Commissionattention. The previous Quarterly Progress Report,SECY-90-032, discusses activities that occurred betweenAugust and December 1989.

ExecutiveSummary:

The most significant activities during this periodpertained to three areas of the pre-licensing consultationprogram: DOE Implementation of Scheduled and SystematicConsultations; Early Implementation of a Quality Assurance(QA) Program; and Early Resolution of State and TribalConcerns.

NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLEIN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THEDATE OF THIS PAPER

Contact: Ken Kalman, NMSS492-0428

The Commissioners - 2 -

DOE Implementation of Scheduled and SystematicConsultations

° DOE provided the staff with its "Draft ProjectDecision Schedule Revision on March , 1990. OnApril 9, 990, the staff provided DOE with two majorcomments on the Draft, along with its other comments.The first was that the milestone given for acceptingthe QA program could be misinterpreted as the pointwhen NRC will lift its QA objection. The second wasthat the Project Decision Schedule (PDS) shouldIndicate milestones for design and development of theLicensing Support System (LSS).

° The staff met with DOE on March 20, 1990, to discussand schedule interactions through the rest of FiscalYear (FY) 1990. Emphasis was placed on thoseinteractions having to do with site characterizationactivities. There was also an agreement to schedule amanagement meeting to review specific DOE concerns orsuggestions regarding the potential rulemakingsidentified in SECY-88-285, "Regulatory Strategy andSchedules for the High-Level Waste Repository Program."

Early Implementation of a QA Program

o The staff, DOE, and the State of Nevada met onFebruary 15, 1990, and March 21, 1990, to discuss QA.Discussions at both meetings focused on the September1990 date identified by DOE as a milestone in its PDSfor NRC acceptance" of its QA program. The staffbelieved that at the February 15, 1990, meeting, ithad reached agreement with DOE that September 1990 wasthe date by which the NRC staff could accept all ofthe DOE QA program plans for further implementation,and that it was not-the date by which the staff wouldlift its QA objection in the Site CharacterizationAnalysis (SCA) for the start of new sitecharacterization activities. However, in aMarch 12, 1990, letter and at the March 21, 1990,meeting, DOE was interpreting the September 1990milestone to mean that time by which the staff wouldresolve its SCA objection. Consequently, the staff iscontinuing to work with DOE to ensure that DOEunderstands NRC's position on the definition of theSeptember 1990 milestone.


° There s a perception by some DOE contractorpersonnel and some observers, such as the NationalResearch Council, that the NRC QA criteria areinappropriate for scientific nvestigations,particularly in the earth sciences area. As part ofthe ongoing NRC-DOE effort to ensure proper andadequate implementation of QA requirements, the NRCstaff Is planning a workshop with DOE and tscontractors to identify and resolve specific concernswith the QA requirements and to highlight the flexibilityallowed by them. The workshop is expected to be heldthis summer.

Early Resolution of State and Tribal Concerns

° The Department of Justice filed suit on behalf of DOEon January 25, 1990, in the U.S. District Court, LasVegas, Nevada. The suit was filed in an effort torequire the State's Division of EnvironmentalProtection to act within 30 days on DOE's applicationsfor the air and water permits that would allow DOE toproceed with its scientific investigations at YuccaMountain. Nevada officials, claiming that the Statehad vetoed the repository in Nevada, had returned theunprocessed applications to DOE on December 26, 1989.

Discussion: 1. DOE Implementation of Scheduled and SystematicConsultations

On March 1, 1990, DOE provided the staff with its "DraftProject Decision Schedule Revision 1," for review andcomment. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982,as amended, DOE is required to prepare a PS that includes'.. a sequence of deadlines for all Federal agenciesrequired to take action, including an identification of theactivities in which a delay in the start, or completion, ofsuch activities will cause a delay in beginning repositoryoperation." Any agency that cannot comply with a PDSdeadline must submit to Congress a written reportexplaining the reason for the failure to complt.

This is the first Draft Revision since the original PDS wasissued in March 1986. The Draft Revision reflects DOE'srestructured repository program schedule as originallypresented in the November 1989 "Report to Congress onReassessment of the Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementProgram." In a major departure from the 1986 PDS, which


required the agencies to report failure to comply with anyfuture PDS deadline, the Draft Revision only requiresreporting of failure to comply with those criticalmilestones that occur within three years of issuance of aPDS.

On April 9, 1990, the staff provided comments to DOE on theDraft Revision. The staff had two major comments. First,the staff was concerned that Milestone (19c), "AcceptOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) QAProgram," could be mistakenly interpreted as the point whenNRC will lift the QA objection noted in its SCA. The staffbelieves that NRC will be able to accept DOE's QA programplans for implementation by September 1990. But until DOEdemonstrates its ability to implement its QA program, theSCA objection cannot be lifted. The staff expects, however,that by January 1991, DOE should be able to demonstrateacceptable implementation for those portions of the QAprograms needed to begin surface-based testing. NRC'slifting of its QA objection for any part of the programwill be contingent on DOE's further demonstration of QAprogram implementation. The staff's second major commenton the Draft Revision was that the PDS should indicatemilestones related to the design and development schedulefor the LSS.

During this reporting period, the staff continued itsefforts to establish, schedule, and hold systematicconsultations with DOE. NRC-DOE technical interactionstook place at the rate of one per month during thisreporting period, in accordance with the schedule agreed toduring the November 8, 1989, NRC-DOE scheduling meeting.One of the more important interactions was a March 6, 1990,NRC-DOE technical exchange on DOE's evaluation of ageophysical test indication that there could be a fault nearthe site proposed in the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) forthe exploratory shaft facility. This interactionestablished DOE's basis for possible resolution of a majorNRC comment on DOE's SCP for the Yucca Mountain site. Duringthis reporting period, there were no interactions betweenDOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thataddressed mixed waste issues.

As part of its continuing effort to hold nteractions withDOE in areas where work is ongoing, the staff met with DOEon March 20, 1990, to discuss and schedule interactionsthrough the rest of FY90. Priority was given to thoseinteractions dealing with site characterization activities.

KJ


There was also an agreement to schedule a management meetingto review specific DOE concerns or suggestions regarding thepotential rulemakings identifled in SECY-88-285. This wasin response to DOE's December 20, 1989, Commission briefingand pursuant to the staff's February 26, 1990, letter toMr. Leo Duffy, proposing to meet. A second interaction topicdiscussed in the December 20, 1989, Commission briefing wasthe volume of greater-than-class-C (GTCC) wastes. In responseto the DOE briefing, the staff, by letter of February 16, 1990,requested that DOE transmit all available nformation on theprojected sources, characterization, and volumes of GTCC wasteand identified the need to hold an interaction on this subject.As of April 1990, DOE has not submitted the requestedinformation.

This interaction would help the staff gain background fordeveloping its rulemaking on GTCC waste. At the March 20,1990, meeting, the DOE representatives present were not ina position to agree to a date for a meeting on GTCC waste,to discuss the volumes and types of wastes. However, theydid commit to such a meeting in the next few months. As aresult of the March 20, 1990, meeting DOE and the staffscheduled nine interactions through September 1990, inaddition to the management meeting on SECY-88-285. It wasagreed that the next scheduling meeting will be heldJuly 31, 1990, to establish the interactions for FY91.

The subject of one-on-one scientific discussions betweenthe Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA)staff and DOE researchers, held under Appendix 7, On-siteRepresentative Activities, of the NRC-DOE ProceduralAgreement, was also discussed at the March 20, 1990, meeting.The first of these scientific interactions, focusing oninvestigation of thermohydrologic phenomena, were held atLawrence Berkeley Laboratory on March 12, 1990, and LawrenceLivermore National Laboratories on April 3, 1990. NRC andDOE both considered the nteractions worthwhile, and DOEagreed that similar interactions could be scheduled as needed.

2. Early Implementation of a QA Program

Repository QA Program

During this reporting period, the staff, DOE, and the Stateof Nevada held two meetings on QA. The first was onFebruary 15, 1990, and the second on March 21, 1990. Onetopic that was discussed at both meetings was the September1990 date identified by DOE as a milestone in its PDS. At


the February 15, 1990, meeting, the staff understood thatit and DOE had reached agreement that September 1990 wasthe date by which the NRC staff could accept all of the DOEQA programs for further implementation. However, until DOEdemonstrated its ability to implement its QA program plans,for all program areas, through development of study plansand technical procedures, the staff would not lift its SCAobjection. As discussed earlier in this report, thestaff's lifting of its QA objection for any part of theprogram is contingent upon DOE's further demonstration ofQA program implementation.

Contrary to the staff's previous understanding of itsagreement with DOE regarding the September 1990 "NRCacceptance" milestone, in a March 12, 1990, letter to NRC,DOE implied that the September 1990 milestone meant thatpoint at which the staff would resolve its SCA objection.At the March 21, 1990, meeting, the staff reiterated thesteps necessary for it to lift its SCA QA objection. Inthat meeting, the staff maintained that the September 1990acceptance has a much narrower definition, and thatadditional confidence in the implementation of the DOEprogram will be needed before the objection can be resolved.The staff is continuing to work with DOE to ensure that DOEunderstands NRC's position on the definition of theSeptember 1990 milestone.

Also discussed in the March 21, 1990, meeting was DOE'sprogress in resolving the Privacy Act issue. Privacy Actrestrictions prevented QA auditors and observers from viewingthe training records of personnel working on the repositoryprogram. Consequently, the auditors and observers wereunable to independently evaluate the qualification of therepository personnel. As reported in the last QuarterlyProgress Report, a Federal Register notice describing a newsystem for maintaining records for the high-level wasterepository program was in the DOE concurrence process. Thisnew record system will be accessible to NRC, DOE and theState of Nevada. At the March 21, 1990, meeting DOE statedthat the Federal Register notice would be published onApril 9, 1990, with a 60-day public comment period. However,subsequent internal problems have caused DOE to further delaypublication of the notice by two more months. A system thatallows DOE and NRC staff review of certain training andqualification records is being implemented in the interim.The staff, DOE, and the State of Nevada agreed to hold thenext monthly QA meeting on April 27, 1990.

K>


Another major area of staff concern regarding the repositoryQA program is the criticism regarding QA practices. Thereis a perception by some DOE contractor personnel and someobservers, such as the National Research Council, that NRC QArequirements are hardware-oriented and nappropriate forscientific investigations, particularly in the earth sciencesarea. The staff believes that the NRC regulations on QA forthe repository have sufficient flexibility to enablescientists to maintain their freedom to be creative and toaddress the unexpected in the laboratory or field, while atthe same time providing the documentation needed forlicensing.

On an ongoing basis, the NRC staff has been interactingwith DOE and has commented on areas where DOE requirementsappear to be in excess of those required by NRC regulationsand guidance. In addition to the bimonthly RC-DOEmeetings to discuss the status of QA program implementation,the staff expects to hold a workshop with DOE and itscontractors, this summer, to identify and resolve specificconcerns with the QA requirements and to highlight theflexibility allowed by them. The staff plans to discussspecific examples where QA practices have been implementedby geoscientists and geoengineers.

Waste Form Producers QA Program

The staff remains concerned about the lack of a fullydeveloped and implemented A program for the DOE glassproducers. The staff still has not received QA programdocuments to review for the West Valley DemonstrationProject (WVDP) or the Defense Waste Production Facility(DWPF). The last Quarterly Progress Report noted that nolater than February 1990, DOE would be submitting schedulesand milestones regarding the development of QA programs forthe waste glass producers. Due to the current reorganizationat DOE, the planned date for submittal has been moved backto April 1990. As noted in the last Quarterly ProgressReport, although the glass producers have been performingpre-production work under a QA program, the program hasneither been accepted by DOE's OCRWM nor reviewed by theNRC staff. Without an accepted QA program in place, OCRWMmay be unable to ensure that WVDP and DWPF activities thatneed to be conducted under 10 CFR Part 60, Subpart G. "QAPrograms," are properly controlled.

v\W.


.

3. Early Establishment of Repository Design Parameters

As noted in previous Quarterly Progress Reports, the NRCstaff's SCA documented significant performance assessmentconcerns in this area. Two technical exchanges onintegrating performance assessment into sitecharacterization and scenario development are planned forlater this year and will provide a forum for discussing thestaff's performance assessment concerns and DOE's action toresolve them. Any problems identified in these technicalexchanges will be noted in future Quarterly ProgressReports.

4. Early Resolution of State and Tribal Concerns

As discussed in the last Quarterly Progress Report, onDecember 27, 1989, the State of Nevada filed a suit in theNinth Circuit seeking a declaratory Judgment that itslegislative actions with respect to the Yucca Mountain siteconstituted an effective "Notice of Disapproval" underNWPA. On December 26, 1989, the State, claiming to haveadopted an effective veto under the NWPA, had returnedDOE's applications for environmental permits without havingprocessed them. The permits would allow DOE to proceedwith the necessary scientific investigations at YuccaMountain, in order to determine the site's suitability.Subsequently, the Department of Justice filed suit onbehalf of DOE on January 25, 1990, n U.S. District Court,Las Vegas, Nevada. The suit was brought against the Stateof Nevada in an effort to require the State's Division ofEnvironmental Protection to act within 30 days on DOE'sapplications for air and water permits.

It should also be noted that on February 2, 1990, a groupof 21 electric utilities filed motions to intervene in theDOE suit against Nevada. The utilities contribute to theNuclear Waste Fund, which was established by the 1982 Act,as a means to provide funding for construction of ahigh-level waste (HLW) repository. They allege thatcontinued delays in DOE's commercial HLW repository programwould increase their Waste Fund contributions and wouldalso force them to build interim storage capacity atsignificant additional expense.

Nevada filed a motion on February 20, 1990, asking the U.S.District Court in Las Vegas to defer action on the DOE

I>


lawsuit on the grounds that the NWPA gives the Courts ofAppeals exclusive Jurisdiction and further that the issuesraised by DOE are the same as those presented in the suitit filed against DOE in the 9th Circuit on December 27, 1989.DOE claims, however, that the issues are not entirely thesame, particularly in that only its complaint addressesNevada's refusal to process the DOE application forenvironmental permits.

Representatives of Nevada participated in most of thetechnical exchanges and meetings between NRC and DOE duringthis quarter. There have been no significant nteractionswith Indian tribes to report during this quarter.Representatives of the Western Shoshone Nation and theNational Congress of American Indians continue to receivenotification of upcoming meetings, as well as AdvisoryCommittee on Nuclear Waste meeting transcripts and letterreports relative to the program.

5. Adoption of the Policy of Conservatism

As noted in previous Quarterly Progress Reports, the SCAidentified the issue of conservatism. DOE is stilldeveloping its response to the concerns expressed in the SCA.During this reporting period, there were no conservatismIssues deserving Commission attention.

6. Early Resolution of Issues

As noted previously in this report, during the December 20,1989, briefing to the Commission on the status of the OCRWMprogram, DOE raised its concerns related to the managementof GTCC. DOE noted that, based on its current calculationsof the volume of GTCC waste, which is much greater than waspreviously estimated, disposal may be a significant problemthat could require a second repository for its resolution.Although the staff had reviewed the most current informationthat DOE had published on GTCC waste (DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 5,Integrated Data Base for 1989: Spent Fuel and RadioactiveWaste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics), and hadrecognized that there are uncertainties associated with thevolume estimates and characteristics of GTCC waste, it wasunclear about the basis for DOE's revised estimates. Inresponse to the briefing and a request from Chairman Carr,the staff, by letter dated February 16, 1990, has requestedfrom DOE all information pertaining to the sources,characteristics, and volumes of GTCC waste. As of April 1990,none of this requested information has been submitted.


Subsequent to its receipt and review of the information, thestaff will interact with DOE to develop an adequate technicalbasis for DOE's concerns, and, possibly, to resolve thoseconcerns before taking any further staff action on itsrulemaking on criteria for GTCC waste.

Previous Quarterly Progress Reports discussed staff effortstoward developing a proposed rule to clarify the meaning of"anticipated processes and events and unanticipated processand events" (APEs and UPEs). The staff has determined thatthe prudent approach to clarifying the meaning of APEs andUPEs would be to combine this action with the rulemakingconforming 10 CFR Part 60 to the EPA standard. The staffwill be working with EPA as EPA rewrites its standard toaddress the issues that were to be covered in the APEs andUPEs rulemaking.

The staff noted in the last Quarterly Progress Report thatit had begun work on a proposed rulemaking on "Design BasisAccident Dose Limit." The rulemaking approach was to make10 CFR Part 60 the same as 10 CFR Part 72, in areas relatedto the mitigation of accident consequences, and thedefinition of items important to safety. The staff hadcompleted its work in these two areas and was beginning toprepare a draft rule for Commission consideration. However,in its efforts to develop the rule, the staff identified anissue that could have major impact on the rulemaking approach.Because the surface facilities for the repository and for amonitored retrievable storage facility are similar,10 CFR Part 60 and 10 CFR Part 72 should offer equivalentprotection for these similar facilities. However, the stafffound that the criteria in 10 CFR Part 72 were more detailedthan those in 10 CFR Part 60. Consequently, the staff issystematically analyzing 10 CFR Part 60 and 10 CFR Part 72,and will consider whether any further changes to10 CFR Part 60 should be recommended.

During this reporting period, the staff made substantialprogress on the draft Format and Content Regulatory Guide(FCRG) for the License Application for the High-Level WasteRepository. The draft FCRG was sent to RES on February 23, 1990,for preparation for publication in the Federal RegisterIt is anticipated that the draft guide 111 be publishedfor public comment by May 1990.

The staff has also undertaken, with the Office of theGeneral Counsel OGC), an effort to review and recommendrevisions to the Topical Guidelines, for inclusion of

- __ -t


information in the LSS. Interim Topical Guidelines wereincluded n the Federal Register, when the negotiated ruleon the LSS was published, with the understanding that thestaff and OGC would revisit them. In a January 12, 1990,memorandum responding to the August 1, 1989, staffrequirements memorandum on SECY-89-186, entitled,"Considerations of Revisions to the Commission's Rules ofPractice in Order to Further Streamline the High-LevelWaste Licensing Process," the Executive Director forOperations and the General Counsel informed the Commissionof their plan to review and revise the Topical Guidelines.The staff and OGC will provide a paper to the Commission ontheir recommendations in May 1990.

a Jes . Tayl/ 6(ecutve Director

for Operations

DISTRIBUTION:CommissionersCGCOIGLSSGPAREGIONAL OFFICESEDOACRSACMNASLBPASLAPSECY

II 1%K

POLICY ISSUE(Information)August 3, 1990 SECY-90-032B

For:

From:

The Commissioners

James M. TaylorExecutive Director

for Operations

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PRE-LICENSING PHASE OFTHE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S CIVILIAN HIGH-LEVELRADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Subject:

Purpose: To provide the Commission with a Quarterly Progress(April 1990 through June 1990) on the pre-licensingof the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) CivilianLevel Radioactive Waste Management Program.

ReportphaseHigh-

Backaround:

ExecutiveSummary:

In the Quarterly Progress Reports on the pre-lfcensingphase of DOE's Civilian High-Level Radioactive WasteManagement Program, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) staff discusses key aspects of the pre-lfcensingconsultation program between NRC and DOE that deserveCommission attention. The previous QuarterlyProgress Report, SECY-90-032A, discussed activities thatoccurred between January and March 1990.

The most significant activity during this reporting periodpertained to DOE Implementation of Scheduled and SystematicConsultations. Mainly because of problems related to DOE'sreadiness to participate in particular meetings ortechnical exchanges, only two of the seven NRC-DOE formalinteractions scheduled for this reporting period took place.

NOTEs TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLEIN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THEDATE OF THIS PAPER

Contact: Ken492-0428

Kalman, NMSS

OPP


Discussion: 1. DOE Implementation of Scheduled and SystematicConsultations

Although the staff has continued to establish, schedule,and hold formal technical interactions with DOEto resolve issues raised in the staff's SiteCharacterization Analysis (SCA), little progress has beenmade in resolving issues, other than the two staff SCAobjections (QA and the Exploratory Shaft Facility designand design process).

Because of problems mainly related to DOE's readinessto participate in particular meetings or technicalexchanges, only two of the seven NRC-DOE formalinteractions scheduled for this reporting period at theMarch 20, 1990, NRC-DOE scheduling meeting actually tookplace. The problems that prevented some of the scheduledinteractions from being held will be discussed at aforthcoming NRC-DOE management meeting. The staffbelieves that this discussion will help identify ways tomore effectively use future interactions to facilitate thepre-license application consultation process for the earlyidentification and resolution of potential licensingissues.

In addition to the formal interactions, informal one-on-onescientific discussions among the NRC Office of NuclearRegulatory Research (RES) staff, Center for Nuclear WasteRegulatory Analyses (CNWRA) staff, and DOE investigatorscontinued during this reporting period under the auspicesof the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards(NMSS) On-Site Representatives, who also participated in thediscussions. The third and fourth in a series ofscientific interactions focusing on laboratoryinvestigations of thermohydrologic phenomena were held atLos Alamos National Laboratory on May 21, 1990, and itSandia National Laboratory (SNL) on May 22, 1990. NRC andDOE both considered the interactions worthwhile forfacilitating timely, direct, and open communication betweenNRC researchers and DOE investigators. Similar interactionsin other scientific areas are being planned.

An informal Information exchange In the area ofperformance assessment was also held at SNL on June 25and 26, 1990 under the auspices of the NMSS On-SiteRepresentatives. This information exchange is furtherdiscussed in this report under Early Establishment ofRepository Design Parameters.


During this reporting period, DOE and EPA did not conductany interactions that addressed issues about high-levelradioactive mixed waste and the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act.

2. Early Implementation of a QA Program

The staff has noted some progress by DOE in programimplementation. During the past several months, DOEhas performed audits and surveillances that have verifiedthat DOE contractors have improved in the development andimplementation of the QA programs. However, DOE hascancelled both of the scheduled audits of the QA programsat DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management(OCRWM) and the Yucca Mountain Project Office (YMPO) andhas not rescheduled them. Confidence in DOE's overallrepository QA program is dependent upon the demonstrationof successfully implemented QA programs at OCRWM andYMPO because these organizations represent the highestlevel of QA implementation and are responsible for thequalification of the DOE contractor's QA programs.

As discussed in the previous Quarterly ProgressReport, the staff continued to express the need for aworkshop among NRC, DOE, and DOE contractors to addressfrequently expressed concerns, whether real orperceived, about implementation of QA in the repositoryprogram. On May 22, 1990, the NRC staff held a meetingwith DOE and the State of Nevada to begin to address aQA workshop. Although other attendees at the meetingdiscussed significant issues regarding QA mplementation,DOE did not agree that such issues existed at the presenttime. However, both DOE and the industry representativesagreed.that NRC's regulations and guidance are not anImpediment to the successful implementation of a QAprogram. While DOE indicated it was unaware of theconcerns related to QA, and did not necessarily agreewith issues raised by other parties, it did agree toevaluate the concerns and to hold a workshop. The NRCstaff will be invited to participate in the workshop. Thestaff will report on the results of the workshop in afuture Quarterly Progress Report.


As noted in previous Quarterly Progress Reports, the NRCstaff documented significant concerns in the SCA

K)~


that relate to performance assessment. By letterdated June 11, 1990, the NRC staff forwarded DOE acopy of the report, "Phase I Demonstration of theNuclear Regulatory Commission's Capability toConduct a Performance Assessment for a High-LevelWaste (HLW) Repository.' The contents of thisreport, along with DOE's performance assessment program,will be discussed at a forthcoming technical exchange.

On June 25 and 26, 1990, an information exchange in thearea of performance assessment was conducted at SNL underthe auspices of the NMSS On-Site Representatives, who alsoparticipated in the exchange. This information exchangefacilitated one-on-one informal scientific discussions ofNRC's and DOE's current activities in the performanceassessment area and information gathering among CNWRA, NRC,and SNL staff. This interaction was the first technicalconsultation concerning performance assessment in the lastsix years. All the participants found the interaction tobe valuable. However, the exchange also emphasized theneed for formal discussions in the performance assessmentarea.


Since the last Quarterly Progress Report, the staffbecame aware that Senators Bryan and Reid, of Nevadaproposed S.2258, "The Independent Spent Nuclear FuelStorage Act." This Act would amend the Nuclear WastePolicy Act (NWPA) to allow commercial nuclear utilitiesthat have contracts with the Secretary of Energy underSection 302 of the NWPA to receive credits to offset thecost of storing spent fuel that the Secretary is unable toaccept for storage on and after January 31, 1998. The Acthas been referred to the Committee on Energy and NaturalResources.

The State of Nevada and local representatives continueto participate in the technical exchanges and meetingsbetween the NRC and DOE, including meetings of theLicensing Support System Advisory Review Panel.Representatives of the State of Nevada participated Inthe formal technical exchanges and QA meetings betweenNRC and DOE during this quarter. In conjunction withthe June 3 and 14, 1990, NRC-DOE technical exchange on


significant faults, geoscientists for the State ofNevada, who are investigating field evidence related tofaulting and structural control of volcanism in thevicinity of Yucca Mountain, led a 2-day field trip topresent the results of their recent work. Their workincludes studies of the following topics: a study of thenorthwesterly trending faults on the western border of theproposed repository site, the rates of faulting in thevicinity of the site, and the levels of hazard posed onthe proposed repository by volcanism.


As noted in previous Quarterly Progress Reports, the SCAidentified the need for DOE to be sufficientlyconservative in its approaches to treating uncertainty inits investigations and analyses. DOE is still developingits response to the concerns expressed In the SCA, and hasstated that its response will not be provided beforeDecember 1990. During this reporting period, there were nonew issues related to the need for conservatism deservingCommission attention.


During this reporting period, RES completed itspreparation of the draft "Format and Content RegulatoryGuide (FCRG) for the License Application for the High-LeVel Waste Repository" for publication in the FederalRegister. RES anticipates publication of the FCRG forpublic comment by the end of November 1990.

As part of its continuing effort to resolve issues, thestaff is developing several Staff Positions. StaffPositions record the staff's interpretation of existingregulatory requirements. Staff Positions are differentfrom Technical Positions (TPs) in that they offerinterpretations of the regulations as opposed to TPswhich provide guidance on acceptable methods fordemonstrating compliance with the regulations. For example,one Staff Position currently under development addresses theclarification of the 300-to- 1,000-year period forsubstantially complete containment of high-level wasteswithin the waste packages under 10 CFR 60.113(a)(1)(ii)(A).


Note: Shortly after the end of this reporting period, DOE ssueda press release announcing a reorganization of OCRWM,effective July 16, 1990. Although it is too early todetermine the overall effects of the reorganization, thestaff considers that DOE has made a positive step nappointing a permanent Quality Assurance (QA) Director whohas a significant amount of QA experience with nuclearreactor technology. The staff will provide additionalinformation on the OCRWM reorganization in the next,Quarterly Progress Report.

/ ,Efeuttte ctor-for Operations

DISTRIBUTION:CommissionersOGCOIGLSSGPAREGIONAL OFFICESEDOACRSACNWASLBPASLAPSECY

November 6, 1990

For:

POLICY ISSUEThe Comissilnformation)

SECY-9 0-032C

From:

Subject:

Purpose:

Background:

Discussion:

James M. TaylorExecutive Directorfor Operations

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PRE-LICENSING PHASE OFTHE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S (DOE'S) CIVILIAN HIGH-LEVELRADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

To provide the Commission with a Quarterly Progress Report(July 1990 through September 1990) on the pre-licensingphase of DOE's civilian high-level radioactive wastemanagement program.

In the Quarterly Progress Reports on the pre-licensingphase of DOE's program, the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission NRC) staff discusses key aspects of theNRC-DOE pre-licensing consultation program that deserveCommission attention. The previous Quarterly ProgressReport, SECY-90-032B, discussed activities that occurredbetween April and June 1990.

1. DOE Implementation of Scheduled and SystematicConsultations

A problem identified in the last Quarterly ProgressReport was that most of the scheduled NRC-DOE formalinteractions did not take place, mainly because ofDOE's lack of readiness to participate in them. Thisproblem was discussed in a July 19, 1990, NRC-DOEmanagement meeting. Since that discussion, all theformal NRC-DOE technical interactions scheduled for thisquarter did transpire. These interactions includedtechnical exchanges in the areas of performanceassessment, geochemistry, and hydrology. The quality ofthe interactions has been steadily improving as DOE hasbecome more candid in discussing how it is addressing thechallenges it faces in the site characterization program.

Contact:Ken Kalman, NSS492-0428

NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLEIN 10 ORKING DAYS FROM THEDATE OF THIS PAPER

V~~17$P~~S)~~9.

1- __ I


During this reporting period, DOE and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency did not have anyinteractions on issues concerning high-level radioactivemixed waste and the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct.

2. Early Implementation of a Quality Assurance (QA)Program

In the last Quarterly Progress Report, the staff committedto report on DOE QA workshops on problems associated withthe implementation of QA programs by the other participantsin the DOE high-level waste repository program. To date,none of the problems identified are due to NRC QArequirements. On August 7, 1990, the staff observed thefirst of these workshops. The State of Nevada, ClarkCounty, Nevada, and the Edison Electric Institute also sentobservers. One significant concern that the DOE programparticipants raised had to do with DOE's excessivemanagement and administrative requirements which had beenmislabeled as QA requirements. There was also concernexpressed about the difficulty in changing participantprogram QA procedures due to the need to obtain approvalsfor such changes from within DOE. A general need forbetter education in QA program development and successfulmethods of implementation was perceived by the NRC staff.

Following the workshop, DOE informed the NRC staff by letterdated September 24, 1990 that future workshops with programparticipants would cover four areas of concern. These areasdealt with: (1) a lack of flexibility in the application ofthe QA program during scientific research; (2) the complexityof the computer software QA program; (3) data submittalrequirements; and (4) communication needs among DOE and theparticipants. The NRC staff has been requested to participatein these future interactions, and will continue to report tothe Commission on them in future Quarterly Progress Reports.

On September 12, 1990, DOE sent a letter to the NRC staffstating that it had accepted the QA programs for six of itsOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)contractors and requesting that the NRC staff accept theprograms. Of the six, DOE had accepted four of the


contractors programs with exceptions. The exceptions werebased on open issues pertaining to procurement procedures,software QA, and objective verification of personnelqualifications.

The staff reviewed DOE's letter and enclosures and concludedthat DOE had provided an adequately documented basis forNRC review and evaluation. The staff has determined it willbe able to accept the six programs subject to satisfactoryresolution of the exceptions noted by DOE. This action showssignificant progress in resolving one of the NRC staff'sobjections to DOE's Site Characterization Plan. DOE has toaccept two more participants' QA programs as well as the QAprograms for OCRWM and the Yucca Mountain Project Officebefore the staff will lift its overall Site CharacterizationAnalysis (SCA) objection.


Previous Quarterly Progress Reports noted that the NRCstaff had documented significant concerns, in the SCA, thatrelate to performance assessment. Although the staff hasnot met with DOE on the specific SCA performance assessmentconcerns, it has continued to interact with DOE in otherareas related to performance assessment. These interactionshelp give DOE insight on what constitutes an acceptableapproach for performing a performance assessment and, inturn, will help DOE address the SCA concerns.

The NRC staff developed a report entitled Phase 1Demonstration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'sCapability to Conduct a Performance Assessment for a High-Level Waste (HLW) Repository," a copy of which wastransmitted to DOE in June 1990. On July 30, 1990, thestaff and DOE discussed this report in a technicalexchange. Another technical exchange that will focus onDOE's performance assessment program and the integration ofperformance assessment into site characterization isscheduled for November 1990.


Previous Quarterly Progress Reports (SECY-90-032 andSECY-90-032A) have discussed the actions the State ofNevada has taken to disapprove Yucca Mountain as apotential repository site. One of these actionsincluded filing a suit on December 27, 1989, in theNinth Circuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its

-


actions constituted an effective Notice of Disapproval,"under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). However, onSeptember 19, 1990, the Court rejected Nevada's challengein a unanimous 3-0 ruling. The Court held that Nevada'sattempted legislative veto of DOE's site characterizationactivities is preempted by the 1987 NWPA amendments.


Previous Quarterly Progress Reports noted that the SCAhad identified the need for DOE to be sufficientlyconservative in its approaches to treating uncertaintyin its investigations and analyses. During this reportingperiod, there were no new issues, related to the need forconservatism, deserving Commission attention.


During this reporting period, the staff briefed the AdvisoryCommittee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) on the draft regulatoryguide on "Format and Content for the License Applicationfor the High-Level Waste Repository." The ACNW's commentswere given to the staff after the briefing and have beenaddressed. Therefore, the staff still anticipatespublishing a notice of availability of the draft, for publiccomment, in the Federal Register, by the end of November1990.

7. DOE Reorganization

The previous Quarterly Progress Report noted that DOEhad announced a reorganization of OCRWM. The new OCRWMstructure consists of five major offices and an independentQA office. The new organization is based on the twofunctions assigned to OCRWM, waste storage andtransportation, and waste disposal at the Yucca Mountainsite, rather than a matrix organization. Waste storage andtransportation'are assigned to one office, the Office ofStorage and Transportation, and waste disposal at YuccaMountain is assigned to a second office,-the Office ofGeologic Disposal. In addition, OCRWM will have a systemsengineering and compliance office responsible for theoverall OCRWM program. It will be responsible fordeveloping the high-level strategy whereas the functionaloffices will be responsible for implementing the strategy.The QA office will consolidate all the QA functionspresently assigned to OCRWM and the Nevada site, under onedirector reporting directly to the OCRWM Director.


The remaining major offices will handle the OCRWMadministrative support. Besides the five major officesand the QA office, there are two support offices, forinternational activities and external relations.

As noted in the previous Quarterly Progress Report, underthis reorganization, DOE was appointing a permanent QADirector who had a significant amount of QA experiencewith nuclear reactor technology. Since the reorganization,the staff has noted significant progress, on the part ofDOE, in resolving QA related concerns. Furthermore, asnoted elsewhere in this report, the past problem concerningmissed interactions seems to have been resolved. Duringthis reporting period, all interactions were held onschedule and DOE has been much more open in discussing owit is addressing its challenges.

ecutive Directorto,/'for Operations

DISTRIBUTION:CommissionersOCCOIGLSSGPAREGIONAL OFFICESEDOACNWASLBPASLAPSECY

Documents

Biannual Report on Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes. · SUBJECT: BIANNUAL REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES The purpose of this letter is to respond to