F 1325.4)

td States Government Gvn '- eSbepient ofEnergy

AnemorandumDATE FES 0 2 1987

REPLY TOATTN OF: RW-223

WM DOCKET CONTROLCENTER

*87 FEB 19 A10:23SUBJECT: Quarterly Meeting of DOE and the States -and Indian Tribes,

February 12, 1987, Spokane, Washington

TO: Distribution

Attached is the final agenda and reference package together witha Table of Contents for the February 12, 1987, Quarterly Meetingof the Department of Energy and the States and Indian Tribes inSpokane, Washington. Also included in the package areinformation brochures on Spokane.

This meeting will be held at the Sheraton Spokane Hotel,N. 322 Spokane Falls Court in Spokane, Washington, (800) 848-9600or (509) 455-9600. If you have any questions, please contactBarry Gale or Judy Leahy at (202) 586-1116.

I am looking forward to seeing you in Spokane.

Stephen H. KaleAssociate Director for

Geologic RepositoriesOffice of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management

Attachment

-8727Oj3_ B7o02-O

PDR WASTE PDRWM-1

WM Rd ile WM Project LDocket No.

PDR _

-Ij r niow6U =

-5ou ) I, :-TP

AGENDAQUARTERLY MEETING OF STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

Spokane, WashingtonFebruary 12, 1987

Time Item Responsibility Purpose Reference

8:30 a. . Welcome by DOE, States, andIndian Tribes

DOES State, and IndianTribal Officials

Welcome and introduceparticipants

8:45 Purpose of meeting Moderator Introduce purpose and formatof meeting

8:50

9:00

Review of commitments fromPortland meeting

Coordinating group meetings

J. Bresee

S. Kale

Report on status of comitments

Provide information

List of commitments

Presentation on coordi-nating groups; Lettersdated January 15, 1987,to States and IndianTribes.

9:30 Mission Plan R. Gale/S. Kale/S. Rousso

Present overview of DraftMission Plan Amendment

Mission Plan transmittalletters dated January28, 1987; Draft MissionPlan Amendment

10:15 B R A K

10:30 Mission Plan (continued) Answer questions and provideclarifying information on thedraft Amendment in order toassist parties in formulatingtheir written comments

11:30 Public question and answer session Moderator with DOE,State, and Indian TribalOfficials

Provide opportunity for thepublic to ask questions

12:00 noon L U N C

1:30 Licensing Support System

Activities prior to release ofSite Characterization Plans

S. Kale

S. Kale

Provide information

Provide information

Presentation onLicensing SupportSystem

Presentation on SiteCharacterization Plans

1:45

--- - -9

-FE

ov &-

' I&

' -6 Nr<

Pr=_ S

I

/

Time

2:00

Item

Project Office Status Reports

Responsibility Purpose

Review status of Project Officeactivities

Reference

DOE Project Managers

o Basalt Waste IsolationProject (BWIP)

o Nevada Nuclear WasteStorage Investigations (NNWSI)

o Salt Repository ProjectOffice (SRPO)

J. Anttonen

D. Vieth

J. Neff

2:45 Status report on storage, MRS,and transportation activities

L. Barrett Review status of storageMRS, and transportationactivities

Presentation on storage,MRS, and transportationactivities

3:00

3:15

B R E AK

Budget S. Rousso Review program budget Presentation on NuclearWaste Fund-FundingProfile

3:30 Financial Assistance Programs R. Gale Present interim financialassistance guidelines andexplain need for rulemaking onfinancial assistance andpayents-equal-to-taxes

3:45 Grants and the Budget Schedule J. Bresee Status report Presentation on budgetdevelopment process

4:00 Discussion of location andand tine of next QuarterlyMeeting

Wrap-up and review ofcomitments from this meeting

Moderator

Moderator4:15

Obtain agreement on location andtime of next Quarterly Meeting

Obtain agreement on cosituentsfrom this meeting

Provide opportunity for thepublic to ask questions

4:30 Public question and answersession

ADJOURN

Moderator with DOE,State, and Indian TribalOfficials

5:30

2

REFERENCE PACKAGE

QUARTERLY MEETING WITH STATES AND

FEBRUARY 12, 1987

SPOKANE, WASHINGTON

INDIAN TRIBES

CONTENTS

o Commitments and Highlights from Portland Quarterly Meeting

o Presentation on State and Indian Tribal Participation in DOE CoordinatingGroup Meetings

o Letters dated January 15, 1987, to States and Indian Tribes

o Mission Plan Transmittal Letters to Governors, Indian Tribal Chairmen, andState and Indian Tribal Representatives, dated January 28, 1987

o Presentation on Licensing Support System

o Presentation on Site Characterization Plans

o Presentation on Storage, MRS, and Transportation

o Presentation on Nuclear Waste Fund--Funding Profile

o Presentation on Budget Development Process

QUARTERLY MEETING OF STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

Portland, Oregon

August 13, 1986

Meeting Highlights

CHAIRPERSON: Russell Jim, Yakima Indian Nation

PARTICIPANTS:

States and Indian Tribes

H. Hal Aronson, Yakima Indian NationAlbert Barros, Nez Perce Indian TribeWarren Bishop, Washington StateMary Lou Blazek, Oregon Department of EnergyGinny Bronson, Umatilla Indian ReservationWilliam Burke, Umatilla Indian ReservationCurtis Canard, CERTGail Chehak, NCAISandra Crowe, Yakima Indian NationBill Dixon, Oregon Department of EnergyBarbara Foster, NCSLJames Friloux, LouisianaSteve-Frishman, TexasKevin Gover, Nez Perce Indian TribeJohn Green, MississippiCandace Greene, Nez Perce Indian TribeGary Greene, Nez Perce Indian TribeRon alfmoon, Nez Perce Indian TribeMichelle Henry, Nez Perce Indian TribeDaniel Hester, Umatilla Indian ReservationRobert Holden, NCAIJames B. Hovis, Yakima Indian NationNancy E. Hovis, Yakima Indian NationTerry Husseman, Washington StateJohn Hutchins, CERTElisabeth Jacobs, CRITFCBob Loux, NevadaSidney Martin, MississippiReine Moffett, Nez Perce Indian TribeMal Murphy, NevadaRalph Patt, Water Resources, OregonHenry Penney, Nez Perce Indian TribeDon Provost, Washington StateWyatt Rogers, Jr., CERTCheryl Runyon, NCSL

1

.

Carl Sampson, Umatilla Indian ReservationCynthia Scott, Nez Perce Indian TribeWilliam Spell, LouisianaLisa Spruill, MississippiPat Spurgin, UtahDavid Stevens, Yakima Indian NationDon Tahkeal, Yakima Indian NationBob Taylor, BIADean R. Townsley, Yakima Indian NationT.R. Webster, IS PortlandDel T. White, Nez Perce Indian TribeDanae Wilson, Nez Perce Indian TribeJack Wittman, Yakima Indian NationDavid Wolfe, Umatilla Indian ReservationBill Yallup, Jr., Yakima Indian Nation

U.S. Department of Energy

JoAnne Comins-Rick, BWIPBarry Gale, EQRoger Gale, HQKen Goodmiller, HQ, GAOTom Isaacs, HQJim Knight, EQJudy Leahy, HQLinda McClain, SRPOJim Mecca, BWIPBob Mussler, HQJeff Neff, SRPOLee Olson, BWIPMax Powell, BWIPWilliam J. Purcell, QSam Rousso, HQRalph Stein, EQDon Vieth, NNWSIMike Wisniewski, HQ

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

F.R. CookAlma Hale

Organizations

Madeline Brown, RockwellJohn Gervers, LATIR Energy ConsultantsSteven P. Kraft, Edison Electric InstituteLisa Stevenson, WESTON

2

PORTLAND MEETING COMMITMENTS

1. Continuation of Albuquerque #2: "DOE will provide to States andIndian Tribes copies of its annual planning guidance letters, ifpertinent to site characterization (continuation of Atlantacommitment #7)."

2. Cbntinuation of Albuquerque #3: "DOE will provide States andIndian Tribes with design requirements and design reports forproject-specific advanced conceptual designs. The original.anticipated date of May 1986 may slip (continuation of Denvercommitment #3, with modification of delivery date.)"

3. DOE will make available copies of Secretary Herrington's letterto Governor Bangerter explaining EA release notification.

4. DOE will determine when the Project Offices received the EAs anddecision documents and inform the States and Indian Tribes.

5. DOE will provide a minimum of 30 days advance notice, prior to adate certain, for release of the SCP for public hearings.

6. DOE will provide to States and Indian Tribes the schedule for thenext Transportation Coordinating Group meeting.

7. EQ will provide control copies of QA plans to the States andIndian Tribes.

-8. States and Indian Tribes will provide comments to DOE on theFinancial Assistance Guidelines, including comments oneligibility for funding for participation in the NRC licensingprocess. DOE will deal with this issue specifically in theGeneral Guidelines, which will be revised and available bySeptember 15.

9. HQ, by August 20, will examine the status of the request by theState of Washington for using funds to review the methodology, aswell as to conduct six other tasks, submitted in their memo ofJuly 7.

10. DOE will contact the consultant to the NAS who wrote a letter toDOE disagreeing with the translation of the methodology to thefinal decision, for permission to send copies of that letter tothe States and Indian Tribes.

11. DOE will approach NAS to encourage the involvement of States andTribes in DOE/NAS meetings.

12. DOE will provide transcripts of the Udall hearing to the Statesand Indian Tribes.

13. DOE will brief the States of Nevada and Washington on themethodology and its application.

3

14. A planning subcommittee composed of Ron Halfmoon representing thethree Indian Tribes, Terry usseman representing the States, andtwo DOE representatives (one from HQ and one representing theProject Offices, TBD next week) will meet to structure a modelfor future quarterly meetings that will be open to the public.They will prepare a proposal in writing, to be forwarded toaffected parties by October 1.

REVIEW OF ALBUQUERQUE COMMITMENTS

The commitments made at the April Quarterly meeting in Albuquerque werereviewed. (See page 11 for a summary of their status.)

There was considerable discussion concerning commitment number 5:

"DOE will convey to the Secretary, the Statesand Indian Tribes request that theEnvironmental Assessments (EAs) not be releasedwithout a 30-day advance notice to States andIndian Tribes, specifying the exact releasedate. When the EA release date is announced,DOE will also provide States and Indian Tribesa description of all documents to be releasedwith the EAs, and to the extent possible, withkey decision dates in the process."

The States and Indian Tribes expressed strong dissatisfaction with thefact that they did not receive advance notice about the release of the EAs andthe nomination and recommendation decision. They went on to say that DOE hadmade a commitment to provide at least two weeks notice, and preferably 30 daysnotice, and that the Department failed to meet either of those commitments.

DOE replied that they did convey the States and Indian Tribes' request tosenior DOE management. However, ultimately the nature and timing of thedecisions by senior Department officials were such that date-certain advancenotice was not possible. The CRWM program staff were informed only on themorning of the announcements, and then began immediately to call affectedparties to notify them. Because OCRWM itself received such short notice,there was no time to prepare a Briefing Book to accompany the Congressionalbriefing that was held the next day.

PORTLAND MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

Financial Assistance

Headquarters explained the difference between the two sets of draftfinancial assistance guidelines that were provided in the meeting referencepackage. The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste anagement...PolicyGuidelines, July 1986, are umbrella guidelines that deal with all aspects ofthe program, including the MRS if it is approved by Congress. The purpose ofthese guidelines includes clarifying differences among grants, contracts, andcooperative agreements; defining affected parties for purposes of establishingeligibility for financial assistance; clarifying the decisionmaking process toestablish procedures for timely resolution of issues; and defining activitieswhich are ineligible for funding.

4

The Repository Program Guidelines are more specific and provide moredetail on procedural issues. They were originally issued on June 24, 1983;revised and reissued on September 7, 1984; and supplemented by means of aFebruary 4, 1986, memorandum from Ben Rusche to the DOE Operations Offices,dealing with the implications of the Nevada lawsuit. The 1984 Guidelines plusthe Rusche memo are what are currently being used to evaluate grant proposals.

The draft Repository Guidelines in the reference package for this meeting("Internal General Guidelines for Implementing Financial Assistance (Grants)for Repository Programs...August 1, 1986") incorporate the Rusche memoranduminto the 1984 Guidelines, and also contain the following major areas ofrevision:

4.4 Criteria for funding independent data collection and studies andallowability of funding of the MRS, defense waste and transportationas they relate to repository development; and

6.1 Guidance for phase-down funding for States nominated, but notrecommended.

The States and Indian Tribes asked who will determine whether a plannedactivity by the States and Indian Tribes is appropriate in the sense that itconstitutes an "overview" of the program and by what standard will DOE judgethe adequacy of the quality of the proposed activity. DOE said that the DOEprogram must be the reference point, and that State and Indian Tribalproposals should reflect a good understanding of what DOE proposes to do.

The States and Indian Tribes commented that the issue is whether the datathat they collect will be usable in a licensing proceeding. They expressedconcern that DOE would deny funds to collect data based on an a priorijudgement that the data collected will be of poor quality, and said that thequality of the data should be "our problem" when we present the data to theNRC. DOE agreed, but indicated that poor data might be an issue during ahearing.

The States and Indian Tribes asked whether their participation in the NRClicensing process will be an activity which is fundable. DOE said that thedecision as to who is an intervenor and who has standing is up to NRC.However, DOE intends to continue funding to affected parties during thelicensing process.

The schedule for issuing final financial guidelines is as follows: DOEwill try to revise the Policy Guidelines by August 22, and send the revisionto the States and Indian Tribes for review and comment. The Policy Guidelineswill be sent as a package with the draft Repository Guidelines, and both willbe on the agenda for discussion at the September 16-18 InstitutionalSocioeconomic Coordination Group (ISCG) meeting in Denver. Subsequent to theISCG meeting, both Guidelines will be issued in final form.

5

Defense Waste

The States and Indian Tribes asked when the allocation between defenseand the ratepayers' contributions is going to occur. DOE replied that aFederal Register Notice (RN) describing three methodologies for determiningthe fair share of allocation costs will be published in about a month. TheFRN will propose three alternative formulas for determining the amount thatwould be paid by Defense Programs (DP), each of which would be applicable toany quantity of waste. The FRN will include two hypothetical examples of costallocations based on assumed amounts of civilian and defense wastes in twoassumed pairs of repositories. The public comment period will last 45-60days, during which comments will be requested about the formulas.

After the comments are evaluated, DOE will propose a formula which willserve as the basis to satisfy the requirement under Section 8, to determine anallocation approach. Congress then has to act on the formula, and also willdecide on the timing and form that such funding would take. DOE would thenwork with the Office of Management and Budget to implement the formula. Theformula concept will not preclude DOE from requesting money from the Federaltreasury to pay for defense waste in the short run; however, the earliest thatsuch a request could be made is in the DP '88 budget request, since it is notin the '87 budget, nor is it in the OCRWM '88 budget request.

The States and Indian Tribes also asked how much defense waste will bestored at Hanford, in view of the suspension of the second repositoryprogram. DOE replied that once the amount of waste in the first repositoryhas reached 70,000 metric tons, a second repository must be opened beforeadditional waste may be stored in the first. The schedule in the Mission Planstill-applies. It is the flow rate that determines the timing need for asecond repository, not the volume of defense waste or the contents of thewaste in the first repository.

The FRN deals with two repositories, because it is likely that the 70,000metric ton limit will be exceeded. What is not certain is when that willoccur. The current estimate is that it will be about the year 2020, in whichcase the mid-1990s is when site-specific activity on a second repository willneed to resume in earnest. The Department does not have any plans torecommend removing the 70,000 metric ton cap on the first repository requiredby the NWPA.

Licensing Support System

DOE presented a status report on the Licensing Support System (LSS). DOEis preparing to contract for LSS design and implementation. A procurementpackage containing a statement of work, procurement forms, evaluationcriteria, and instructions to offerors has been sent to the Department'sprocurement office, and a Request for Proposals (RFP) is currently beingprepared. DOE expects the RFP to be issued about September and a contractaward to be made in early 1987.

6

DOE is also developing LSS administrative specifications and procedures.

Those that have been prepared and are currently in internal review are:

record collection and storage specifications; record collection procedures for

OGR/HQ; record storage and retrieval procedures for OGR/HQ; issue tracking

procedures; and commitment tracking procedures. DOE expects the internal

review to be completed about the end of August. Then, in September, the

documents will be given to NRC, the States, and Indian Tribes for review, and

will be discussed at a meeting of the Interagency Coordinating Group Committee

about a month later.

The States and Indian Tribes asked about the relationship between the

above activities and the NRC Part 2 changes. DOE said that the LSS is

independent and is a pivotal information storage and retrieval system for the

program. However, DOE is attempting to design the system to meet the needs of

the licensing process. While the complexity of the system requires that

development begin prior to a final NRC rule being in place, DOE will modify

the system if needed, to comply with NRC licensing requirements.

With respect to participation by affected parties, DOE emphasized that

there is an expectation of participation. Announcements of Interagency

Coordinating Group meetings are sent to all States and Indian Tribes and the

expectation is that they will participate. DOE is also trying to avoid

overlapping meetings and schedule conflicts by maintaining a meeting board at

Headquarters, which is consulted when setting up meetings.

Site Characterization

The States and Indian Tribes asked whether the program is in the site

characterization phase (as opposed to a site investigation phase - a term

used at the recent Quality Assurance Coordinating Group meeting), and, if so,

indicated that a Site Characterization Plan (SCP) is required before

activities may take place. DOE confirmed that this is the site

characterization phase, but said that the availability of an SCP only applies

to the sinking of an exploratory shaft and other specific activities contained

in the NWPA. DOE is in the process of preparing for information a 15-20 page

sunmry document that will describe the activities that are currently going on

at the Federal sites and then will be sent to States and Indian Tribes. The

BWIP and Nevada Project Offices have submitted their documents to

Headquarters, and the review is expected to be completed in about two weeks.

The process of preparing these documents has taken longer than expected,

because in certain cases it has been difficult to determine whether an

activity is ongoing or new work.

The States and Indian Tribes said that they need to know not only what is

going on now, but also what is planned for the future. From their

perspective, it is important to understand the entire array of tests, and they

want to see all material related to a study area. DOE said that the

distinction between ongoing and new activities is important because DOE-NRC

agreements with respect to the SCP require that lengthy detailed study plans

be prepared for all new work. DOE agreed to provide copies of all completed

plans pertaining to on-going work when it issues the 15-20 page summary

document.

7

Quality Assurance

A quality assurance plan was issued in March, and copies were sent to theStates and Indian Tribes. In response to a State and Indian Tribe request,DOE also agreed to provide controlled copies of revised quality assuranceplans to the States and Indian Tribes in the near future. This will ensuretheir receipt of revisions. The States and Indian Tribes questioned whetherit was appropriate that at BWIP, the Hanford quality assurance staff personoccasionally sits in for the project manager. DOE replied that although ithad been discussed with NRC, at this stage of the program, the Department hasthe authority to determine its own organizational arrangements. DOE went onto say that it was confident that the OCRWM QA program will be in place toassure that the data necessary to the licensing process will be fullyqualified. DOE also noted that the acceptability of data taken in the pastmust be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with each case judged individually.

Impact of Gas Exploration on Resources at Hanford

Bill Lynley, from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources,made a presentation on current drilling activity in the vicinity of theHanford Reservation. He indicated that recent findings indicate that the areaaround Hanford shows good potential for oil and gas generation. Mr. Lynley'soffice is attempting to evaluate the potential that drilling activity mightoccur on the repository site in the future, if and when records pertaining tothe repository are no longer available.

OCRWM PROGRAM UPDATE

Appropriations Committee Action

The States and Indian Tribes announced at the meeting that the SenateAppropriations Committee had just passed a DOE appropriations bill providing$380 million for FY87. When asked by the States and Indian Tribes to comment,DOE expressed disappointment, and indicated that they were not able to say yetwhat the impact will be, should the bill be passed by both houses of Congressand signed into law.

OCRWM Organization

Headquarters explained the CRWM and OGR organizational charts andprovided the names of the incumbents in each position. Headquarters alsoannounced that an RFP for cask development was issued and that theTransportation Institutional Plan will be released soon.

National Academy of Sciences

With respect to the National Academy of Sciences (AS), Headquarters saidthat they have contacted NAS about possibly using them in an oversight rolefor some of the site characterization work. In the discussion that followed,the States and Indian Tribes asked that since NAS had given a favorableopinion on the methodology and its application, doesn't NAS have a vestedinterest in the decision, and thus they questioned the Academy'sappropriateness for future independent peer review.

8

DOE said that they were aware of no member and only one consultant of theNAS board who had expressed some mild reservations regarding the applicationof the methodology in selecting the three sites for recommendation, and that aconsultant to the Board had written a letter to DOE expressing disagreementwith the translation from the methodology to the final decision. DOEemphasized that the methodology was decision-aiding, not decision-making, andthus NAS has no stake in the final decision. DOE also observed that theconcerns that the States and Indian Tribes have expressed are directed more toNAS than to DOE and perhaps should be communicated to the Academy directly.

Other Independent Peer Review

The States and Indian Tribes asked whether another outside panel should beconvened. Headquarters said that outside review is welcomed, and that theStates and Indian Tribes may convene panels of their own, the EEG-WIPP modelbeing a potentially good model. The States and Indian Tribes expressed theopinion that DOE should not work with any peer review group that will notinvolve the affected parties. They stated that affected parties should bepermitted to review any peer review agreement in advance of it being enteredinto, and provide comments in writing to DOE. DOE said that they wouldencourage NAS to involve the States and Indian Tribes in DOE-NAS meetingsconsistent with their operating procedures.

Second Repository Program

The States and Indian Tribes asked DOE to explain the significance of thedecision regarding the second repository program. DOE replied that siteselection activity had been deferred indefinitely, but that work is continuingon technical and development studies, so as to be in a better position toproceed with site selection when the time comes. DOE is cooperating on aninternational basis in studies relating to crystalline rock, trying to enhancethe ability to conduct certain tests, and examining other geologic media. Adescription of the activities planned for the second repository program willbe presented in a supplement to the Mission Plan, which is currently beingprepared.

The States and Indian Tribes expressed strong disagreement with thesecond repository decision and with the way in which that decision was reachedand announced. They said that by taking unilateral action DOE violated thespirit of consultation and cooperation, and they also posed several questionspertaining to the basis of authority on which the decision was made. DOEdeclined to discuss the legal aspects of the issue, citing the litigationwhich is currently in progress.

Finally, the States and Indian Tribes asked what specifically promptedthe Chicago Project Office to prepare the April and May options memoranda, andwhether similar options papers are being prepared for the first repositoryprogram. DOE replied that the Department staff routinely assesses programoptions, but that no such options are being considered for the firstrepository.

Effect of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings on the OCRWM Program

Headquarters stated that the OCRWM program is not exempt fromGramm-Rudmann-ollings. The actual impact is based on deficit projections, soin FY86 there was a 4 reduction and in FY87 it may be in the order of 8-10X.

9

Purpose and Scope of Future Quarterly Meetings

The States and Indian Tribes expressed dissatisfaction with the quarterlymeetings. In their view, commitments are frequently not met and litigationprevents the discussion of too many issues. They proposed that in the future,meetings be held with DOE principals at least quarterly, on a rotating basisin the three affected States, publicly announced, and open to the public. Themain focus of- the meetings should be discussed, with program status reportsnot taking up more than half of the agenda. DOE should host the meetings anddevelop the agenda jointly with the States and Indian Tribes. The State ofWashington volunteered to be the site for the next meeting, in the Fall.

A subcommittee of State, Tribal and DOE representatives was establishedto work together to develop a model for future meetings, to report back inwriting to the affected parties by October 1.

EIS Status Report

DOE presented a status report on the progress of the Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) covering current activities, the anticipated schedule forcompletion, and the plan for State and Indian Tribal involvement.

EIS scoping will follow the completion of the SCP, because it isnecessary for the public to understand what site characterization entails inorder to participate fully in the scoping process. The States and IndianTribes suggested that there may be some value to conducting EIS scopingsimultaneously around the country to convey its importance as a national,effort.

SCP Status Report

DOE presented a status report on the development of the SCP anddistributed a handout of the SCP completion schedule for the Federal sites.The second draft of individual chapters and the assembled draft would beprovided to the States and Indian Tribes for review. Headquarters willprovide periodic updates of the schedule to the affected parties. The Statesand Indian Tribes emphasized the importance of having references in advance,in order to facilitate their ability to review the documents in a short time.DOE indicated that references will be provided in the final SCP.

10

Albuquerque Commitment Responsibility Status

i. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)will send to all States andIndian Tribes new sets of tech-nical coordination group minutes.

R. Stein Completed: willbe a continuingcommitment.J. Leahy willsend a list ofminutes sent todate.

2. DOE will provide to States andIndian Tribes copies of itsannual planning guidance letters,if pertinent to site characteri-zation (continuation of Atlantacommitment #7).

B. Purcell Carried over

3. DOE will provide States and IndianTribes with design requirementsand design reports for project-specific advanced conceptual de-signs. The original anticipateddate of May 1986 may slip (con-tinuation of Denver commitment#3 with modification ofdelivery date).

R. Stein Carried over

4. DOE's goal is to provide advancenotice to States and IndianTribes of DOE/NRC meetings atleast 30 days in advance. If achange in date occurs, DOE willnotify the States and IndianTribes as soon as possible(continuation of Atlanta commit-ment #14, with modifications).

5. DOE will convey to the Secretary,the States and Indian Tribes'request that the EnvironmentalAssessments (EA) not be releasedwithout a 30-day advance noticeto States and Indian Tribes,specifying the exact release date.When the EA release date is an-nounced, DOE will also provideStates and Indian Tribes a de-scription of all documents tobe released with the EAs, and tothe extent possible, with key de-cision dates in the process.

J. Knight

B. Purcell

Continuingobjective

Partiallycompleted:see highlights

Albuquerque Commitment Responsibilit Status

6. DOE will send to the first re-pository States and Indian Tribesand the Project Offices via ExpressMail copies of the EA CongressionalBriefing Book the day the final EAsare released.

7. In the next ISCG package, DOEwill include a copy of the Stateand Indian Tribe mailing list forthe States and Indian Tribes toreview and update as needed.

B. Gale

B. Gale

No briefingbook prepared

Completed:St. Louis ISCG;June 6-18, 1986

8. DOE/Office of Storage and Trans-portation Systems (OSTS) willdevelop alternatives for in-cluding host State and IndianTribal participation in Trans-portion Coordination Groupactivities. These alternativeswill be sent by letter to R. Loux,NV, with a copy sent to all otheraffected parties.

L. Barrett Completed: Copyof letter inPortland, OR, re-ference package;June 9, 1986

9. DOE will submit information toStates and Indian Tribes regardingwhether there are official appealsin processes for decisions made ongrants to States and Indian Tribes.

10. DOE will provide States and IndianTribes with Draft Financial Assis-tance Guidelines for their reviewand comments.

11. DOE will provide to States andIndian Tribes an updated Siteagenda; Characterization Plan(SCP) schedule when completed-approximately mid-May 1986(continuation of Atlantacommitment 8, with modifieddelivery date).

12. DOE will provide States and IndianTribes with agendas of the tech-nical coordination group meetingsin advance of the actual meetingdates. DOE will also provideStates and Indian Tribes withone-page summaries of each tech-nical coordination meeting(reiteration of Atlanta commitment #5)

R. Gale

R. GaleB. Gale

R. Stein

R. Stein

Completed: DraftFinancial Assis-tance Guidelinesreference package;August 13, 1986

Completed: DraftFinancial Assis-tance Guidelines;August 13, 1986

Completed: Port-land meetingAugust 13, 1986

Completed: willbe a continuingcommitment

12

. a

0. Albuquerque Commitment Responsibility Status

13. The next meeting will be hosted bythe Indian Tribes. A tentativetime and date for this meeting isthe first or second week of Augustin Eugene or Portland, Oregon.Russell Jim of the Yakima will workwith Barry Gale on arrangements.

R. Jim Completed:Portland meeting;August 13, 1986

13

STATES AND INDIAN TRIBAL PARTICIPATIONIN DOE COORDINATING GROUPS

QUARTERLY MEETING OF STATES AND INDIAN TRIBESFEBRUARY 12, 1987

SPOKANE, WASHINGTON

WHAT ARE DOE COORDINATING GROUPS?

o Coordinating groups provide forum for:

- Coordinating institutional and technical aspects of programamong Project Offices and Headquarters

- Exchanging information- Developing options- Making recommendations to DOE senior policy makers

o Coordinating groups follow formal procedures

- Charters- Operating procedures

o Eleven coordinating groups now operating

- Four groups presently open to States and Indian Tribes- Seven additional groups now opened

o January 15, 1987, letter to States and Indian Tribes

FOUR DOE COORDINATING GROUPSNOW OPEN TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

GROUP NAME

Institutional/Socioeconomic

DOE CHAIR

B. Gale

FREQUENCY

Quarterly

MEETINGSTO DATE

17

Environmental

Quality Assurance

Transportation

J. Parker

C. Newton

E. Wilmont

Triannually

Quarterly

Biannually

4

12

4

SEVEN ADDITIONAL DOE COORDINATING GROUPS NOW OPEN

NAME

Geosciences

Licensing

PerformanceAssessment

ProjectManagement

Repository

SiteCharacterization

Waste Package

DOE LEAD

A. Jelacic

J. Knight

N. Eisenberg

R. Blaney

B. Danker

D. Alexander

FREQUENCY

Quarterly

As needed

Quarterly

MEETINGSTO DATE

1

1

6

As needed 1

As needed

As needed

6

4

A. Berusch Quarterly 8

PROPOSED PROCEDURESFOR INVOLVING STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

IN DOE COORDINATING GROUPS

o Meetings will be held on regular basis (or as needed)

o Draft agenda circulated to States and Indian Tribes forcomments before meeting and revised, as appropriate

o Reference package provided to States and Indian Tribes beforemeeting

o Written summary of meeting prepared and circulated toattendees for comment

o Summary includes:

- Action Items- Options- Issues needing resolution

Department of EnergyWashington, DC 20585

JAN 2 8 1987

Honorable Richard H. BryanGovernor of NevadaCarson City, NV 89701

Dear Governor Bryan:

Pursuant to Section 301 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (WPA)(Pub.L.97-425) the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Manage-ment in the Department of Energy submitted a Mission Plan toCongress in July 1985. Since that publication of the MissionPlan, a number of specific actions and developments have takenplace in the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program andnew information has become available. More recently, since theDepartment's decision on May 28, 1986, relative to the first andsecond repositories, three issues have emerged that warrantCongressional attention.

A draft amendment to the Mission Plan is being submitted toStates and affected Indian Tribes and Federal agencies for theirreview prior to formal transmittal to Congress as provided for inSection 301 of the NWPA. Following interaction with these parties,and the submission of their formal comments, the Mission PlanAmendment will be submitted to Congress.

The purpose of this letter and the draft amendment to the MissionPlan is to clearly articulate the three issues so that Congressmay provide any statutory direction it believes is needed toconduct the program, and to apprise the Congress, the affectedStates and Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and the public,of significant developments and new information.

The issues that have emerged and which may warrant specificCongressional attention are:

1. Indefinite postponement of site-specific work fora second repository which would be required in endeavoringto meet the July 1, 1989 date for selecting sites forcharacterization (Section 112 of the NWPA). The Departmentbelieves site-specific work should be reconsidered inthe mid-1990s which would allow ample time to implement asecond repository program prior to the first repositoryachieving its 70,000 metric ton capacity.

2. Extension of the date contemplated for operationof the first repository from January 31, 1998 to 2003 to allowtime to carry out the necessary high-quality technical pro-gram. The extension is needed to carry out an extensive site

characterization program, to prepare licensing documents tocomply with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirementsthat have yet to be promulgated in their entirety and toprovide additional opportunity for consultation andcooperation with affected States and Indian Tribes.

3. Inability to submit the Monitored RetrievableStorage (MRS) proposal to Congress required by Section 141of the NWPA because of litigation. The Department isprepared formally to submit the proposal when these legalissues are resolved.

The significant developments and new information contained inthe draft amendment to the Mission Plan are in five categories:(1) achievements in the first repository program including thenomination and recommendation of sites for detailed site charac-terization; (2) a five-year extension of the schedule for thefirst repository resulting from reevaluations of the worknecessary to proceed; (3) new waste-generation data that, alongwith other considerations, indicated that it was prudent toindefinitely postpone site-specific activities for the secondrepository while continuing technical development activities; (4)developments concerning the submission to Congress of a proposalfor a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility as an integralpart of the waste management system; and (5) actions taken andprogress made toward better defining the consultation andcooperation process with States and affected Indian Tribes.

First Repository

On May 27, 1986, the Secretary nominated five sites as suitablefor site characterization and recommended to the President thatthree of these sites--the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, theDeaf Smith County site in Texas, and the Hanford site inWashington--be characterized as candidate sites for the firstrepository. The President approved the recommendation on May 28,1986. Each of the nominations was accompanied by comprehensivefinal Environmental Assessments that were issued after two yearsof preparation that included extensive public interaction.

To aid in identifying preferred sites for characterization, theDepartment developed and applied a formal decision-aidingmethodology. The methodology and its application weresubsequently reviewed and found appropriate by the NationalAcademy of Sciences although the Academy did not review the site-recommendation decision or comment on the three selected sites.Given the thoroughness of the analyses in the EnvironmentalAssessments, the information base, the results obtained with thedecision-aiding methodology, and other considerations, the Depart-ment considers that the set of sites recommended provides themost advantageous combination of characteristics and conditionsfor the successful development of a repository.

Site characterization began with the President's approval andwill continue for 6 to 7 years. Site characterization includeslaboratory investigations; surface based data-collectionactivities like geologic mapping and seismic surveys; studiesconducted through the drilling of boreholes; and studiesconducted in the proposed host rock in an exploratory-shaftfacility. Although Congress, in the budget appropriation for thecivilian waste program for fiscal year 1987, specified that nofunds are to be used for drilling any exploratory shaft at anysite in fiscal year 1987, site-specific work other thanexploratory shaft drilling will be conducted at reduced fundinglevels.

Accordingly, the Department is proceeding with site characterizationactivities at the three sites. Before sinking the exploratoryshafts, the Department will prepare a site characterization planfor each site. These plans will be submitted to the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC), the Governors and legislatures ofthe States, affected Indian Tribes, and the public. At the sitein Texas, the Department is proceeding with its plans for obtainingaccess to the land. At the Nevada site, land access is beingpursued with other Federal agencies. And at the Hanford,Washington site, plans are proceeding for hydrologic investiga-tions that will precede exploratory shaft drilling. Work willalso be initiated on waste package and repository conceptualdesigns.

As discussed in the amendment, many important milestones havebeen achieved. However, based on the experience gained inachieving those milestones, advances in the technical planning ofthe program, an assessment of the current status of the programand recent budget decisions, the Department has revised theschedule for the first repository. The rebaselined scheduleshows a 5-year extension of the date to begin operations at thefirst repository, from 1998 to 2003.

Second Repository

The latest spent fuel projections show that a second repositorywill be required to accommodate all the expected waste. However,on May 28, 1986, the Secretary announced that he had reassessedthe timing of the Department's activities toward identificationof candidates for a second repository and decided to postponeindefinitely plans for any site-specific work. Several factorssuggested this decision was prudent. These included:

o Approval by the President of three sites to becharacterized as candidates for the first repository;

o The expectation of receiving Congressionalauthorization to proceed with the development of aMonitored Retrievable Storage Facility;

o Projections of spent fuel generation that areuncertain but generally declining;

o The recognition that the limitation in the Act foremplacing no more than 70,000 metric tons of spent fuelin the first repository before the second is inoperation will not be reached until well after 2020;consequently, Congress need not consider a proposal for asecond repository until the mid-1990s or later; and

o A decision that spending hundreds of millions ofdollars now on repository siting would be premature andunsound fiscal management.

The Department intends to continue a program for, and remainscommitted to, a second repository, with studies that will focuson generic technical issues. This program will include non-site-specific studies of potential host rocks, the development ofanalytical approaches to evaluate long-term performance, and acontinuation of the current program of international cooperation.

With regard to the indefinite postponement of the secondrepository, the Secretary and I have previously testified beforethe Congress that the basis for such actions and new program forthe second repository would be described in an amendment to theMission Plan and be provided to Congress for information andstatutory direction. The Department's General Counsel has con-cluded that "...it is entirely appropriate, as a matter of law,for this office to have determined that significant matters,including new information, relating to the conduct of the secondrepository program should be presented to the Congress through anamendment to the mission plan." This amendment is intended toserve that purpose.

Monitored Retrievable Storage

As specified in the contracts entered into with utilities, DOEintends to start accepting waste for disposal in January 1998.The five-year extension for the first repository cited aboverequires a reevaluation of the acceptance strategy. TheDepartment believes that the most advantageous course is thedevelopment of a monitored retrievable storage facility that isan integral part of the waste-management system.

The Department had originally intended to submit a proposal toCongress in June 1985 but requested and received Congressionalapproval to delay the submission until January 1986. In August1985, the State of Tennessee filed suit against the Departmentclaiming that the Department failed to consult properly with theState of Tennessee prior to the identification of proposed sitesfor the MRS facility. On February 5, 1986, the United StatesDistrict Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled in

favor of the State and subsequently on February 7 issued aninjunction prohibiting the Department from submitting the MRSproposal to Congress.

The decision and the injunction were appealed by the Departmentto the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the SixthCircuit. On November 25, 1986, the Court of Appealsruled in favor of the Department's position in the dispute,indicating that the actions taken by the Department inidentifying sites for the MRS and in consulting with the State ofTennessee did not violate the Act. Subsequently, the State ofTennessee filed a petition for stay or extraordinary writ ofinjunction and for a rehearing with a suggestion that the case bereheard en banc. On December 31, 1986, the Court denied thepetition for a rehearing, but on January 7, 1987, granted a stayfor 30 days to allow the State of Tennessee to seek review of thedecision by the Supreme Court.

The intent of the Department regarding MRS is to fulfill itsstatutory obligations under the Act and submit the proposal onMRS to the Congress at the earliest date practicable.

Consultation and Cooperation

The Act requires the DOE to seek to enter into, and to negotiate,written consultation and cooperation (C&C) agreements witheligible States and affected Indian Tribes. This is to occurafter the approval of a candidate site for characterization orearlier at the request of an eligible State or affected IndianTribe. The Department has been involved in a number of informaland formal negotiations with the State of Washington since 1979,with the Yakima Indian Nation since 1983, with the ConfederatedTribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation since 1985, and withthe Nez Perce Indian Tribe since 1986. No negotiations havetaken place yet with the States of Nevada and Texas.

To date no formal C&C agreement has been concluded. Moreover,given the nature of the program and the reality that theperspectives of the States and affected Indian Tribes oftendiffer from DOE's, we recognize that formal agreements may not beeasy to reach.

The DOE also recognizes that the success of the waste-managementprogram may depend largely on the success of institutionalrelations as well as interactions with the public. The DOEtherefore plans to increase its efforts to improve productiveinstitutional relations and to negotiate formal C&C agreements.To this end, the DOE recently invited the eligible States andaffected Indian Tribes to meet for the purpose of arriving at amutually acceptable definition of "consultation and cooperation."

The participants in this meeting agreed that a mutuallyacceptable definition would be very useful but felt that it couldnot be developed in time for inclusion in this draft Mission Planamendment.

Review Process

The availability of the draft amendment for public inspection isalso being announced in the Federal Register. After the commentperiod of 60 days, the Department will revise the amendment asappropriate in response to the comments and formally submit theMission Plan amendment to Congress.

During the comment period on the draft Mission Plan amendment,the Department anticipates meeting with representatives of theaffected parties including the States and Indian Tribes, localgovernment officials, utility, nuclear and transportationindustry officials, environmental, energy and consumerorganizations. The Department looks forward to this opportunity toanswer questions to assist parties in formulating their formalcomments.

Copies of the amendment are also being mailed to the approximately7,000 parties on the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Manage-ment mailing list.

If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contactme. -

Sincerely,

Jen C. Rusche, DirectorOffice of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management

Enclosure

Department of Energy2 1 .. Washington, DC 20585

JAN 5 1987

Mr. Robert LouxExecutive DirectorAgency for Nuclear ProjectsCapitol ComplexCarson City, Nevada 89710

Dear Mr. Loux:

We have received a number of requests and suggestions, includingyour letter of November 14, 1986, to Ben Rusche, concerningStates and Indian Tribes attendance at the Office of CivilianRadioactive Waste Management (CRWM) coordinating group meetings.These requests have been referred to me for reply.

The Department of Energy agrees that the States and Indian Tribesshould have access to the OCRWM coordinating group activities.With regard to Office of Geologic Repositories coordinatinggroups in which States and Indian Tribes are not now participa-ting, I suggest that we provide time at the next quarterlymeeting (in Spokane on February 12, 1987) to discuss the scopeand appropriate procedures to be followed in providing access tothem. To some degree, I would expect that we would be guided bythe experience already gained with State and Tribal involvementin the Institutional/Socioeconomic Coordination Group, theEnvironmental Coordinating Group, the Quality Assurance Coordina-ting Group, and the Transportation Coordinating Group. Thatinvolvement has been a positive experience, resulting in improvedinteraction.

I am sending similar letters to the other State and affectedIndian Tribe representatives notifying them of this decision.

Sincerely,

Stephen H. KaleAssociate Director for

Geologic RepositoriesOffice of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management

Department of EnergyWashington. DC 20585

JAN 15 1987

Mr. J. Herman Reuben, ChairmanNez Perce Tribal

Executive CommitteeP.O. Box 305, Main StreetLapwai, Idaho 83540

Dear Mr. Reuben:

We have received a number of requests and suggestions concerningStates and Indian Tribes attendance at the Office of CivilianRadioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) coordinating group meetings.These requests have been referred to me for reply.

The Department of Energy agrees that the States and Indian Tribesshould have access to the OCRWM coordinating group activities.With regard to Office of Geologic Repositories coordinatinggroups in which States and Indian Tribes are not now participa-ting, I suggest that we provide time at the next quarterlymeeting (in Spokane on February 12, 1987) to discuss the scopeand appropriate procedures to be followed in providing access tothem. To some degree, I would expect that we would be guided bythe experience already gained with State and Tribal involvementin the Institutional/Socioeconomic Coordination Group, theEnvironmental Coordinating Group, the Quality Assurance Coordina-ting Group, and the Transportation Coordinating Group. Thatinvolvement has been a positive experience, resulting in improvedinteraction.

I am sending similar letters to the other State and affectedIndian Tribe representatives notifying them of this decision.

Sincerely,

Stephen H. KaleAssociate Director for

Geologic RepositoriesOffice of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management

QUARTERLY MEETING DISTRIBUTION:

J.H.L.A.W.M.H.J.G.M.W.C.G.J.F.S.R.L.B.B.R.B.J.S.B.R.J.K.K.J.C.G.A.R.M.D.R.R.J.N.T.J.T.R.

Anttonen, BWIPAronson, Yakima Indian NationBarrett, DOE/HQBarros, Nez Perce TribeBishop, WashingtonBlazek, OregonBohlinger, LouisianaBresee, DOE/HQBronson, UmatillaBrown, Rockwell Hanford OperationsBurke, UmatillaCanard, CERTChehak, NCAIComins-Rick, BWIPCook, NRCCrowe, Yakima Indian NationDeVille, LouisianaDick, UmatillaDixon, OregonEasterling, DOE/HQForsythe, MississippiFoster, NCSLFriloux, LouisianaFrishman, TexasGale, DOE/HQGale, DOE/HQGervers, LATIR EnergyGoodmiller, GAOGover, Nez Perce TribeGreen, MississippiGreene, Nez Perce TribeGreene, Nez Perce TribeHale, NRCHalfmoon, Nez Perce TribeHenry, Nez Perce TribeHester, UmatillaHilley, DOE/HQHolden, NCAIHovis, Yakima Indian NationHovis, Yakima Indian NationHusseman, WashingtonHutchins, CERTIsaacs, DOE/HQJim, Yakima Indian Nation

S. Kale, DOE/HQF. Khattat, BIAG. King, DOE/HQJ. Knight, DOE/HQS. Kraft, Edison Elec. InstituteJ. Leahy, DOE/HQB. Loux, NevadaE. Lundgaard, NNWSIL. McClain, SRPOB. Martin, Hall & AssociatesS. Martin, MississippiJ. Mecca, BWIPR. Moffett, Nez Perce TribeM. Murphy, NevadaR. Mussler, DOE/HQJ. Neff, SRPOT. Novak, City of SpokaneL. Olson, BWIPE. Patawa, UmatillaR. Patt, OregonC. Peabody, DOE/HQH. Penney, Nez Perce TribeM. Powell, BWIPD. Provost, WashingtonW. Rogers, CERTS. Rousso, DOE/HQC. Runyon, NCSLJ. Saltzman, DOE/HQC. Sampson, UmatillaC. Scott, Nez Perce TribeW. Spell, LouisianaL. Spruill, MississippiP. Spurgin, UtahR. Stein, DOE/HQL. Steinmann, WashingtonD. Stevens, David W. Stevens, Inc.L. Stevenson, Weston

s. .rill i Ng ,.D. Tahkeal, Yakima Indian NationB. Taylor, BIAD. Townsley, Yakima Indian NationD. Vieth, NNWSIT. Webster, IHSD. White, Nez Perce TribeH. Wilder, WashingtonD. Wilson, Nez Perce TribeM. Wisniewski, DOE/HQJ. Wittman, Yakima Indian NationD. Wolfe, UmatillaB. Yallop, Yakima Indian Nation

Department of Energy* . Washington, DC 20585

AN 2 8 198

Mr. Elwood PatawaChairman, Board of TrusteesConfederated Tribes of theUmatilla Indian Reservation

P.O. Box 683Pendleton, OR 97801

Dear Mr. Patawa:

Pursuant to Section 301 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)(Pub.L.97-425) the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Manage-ment in the Department of Energy submitted a Mission Plan toCongress in July 1985. Since that publication of the MissionPlan, a number of specific actions and developments have takenplace in the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program andnew information has become available. More recently, since theDepartment's decision on May 28, 1986, relative to the first andsecond repositories, three issues have emerged that warrantCongressional attention.

A draft amendment to the Mission Plan is being submitted toStates and affected Indian Tribes and Federal agencies for theirreview prior to formal transmittal to Congress as provided for inSection 301 of the WPA. Following interaction with these parties,and the submission of their formal comments, the Mission PlanAmendment will be submitted to Congress.

The purpose of this letter and the draft amendment to the MissionPlan is to clearly articulate the three issues so that Congressmay provide any statutory direction it believes is needed toconduct the program, and to apprise the Congress, the affectedStates and Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and the public,of significant developments and new information.

The issues that have emerged and which may warrant specificCongressional attention are:

1. Indefinite postponement of site-specific work fora second repository which would be required in endeavoringto meet the July 1, 1989 date for selecting sites forcharacterization (Section 112 of the WPA). The Departmentbelieves site-specific work should be reconsidered inthe mid-1990s which would allow ample time to implement asecond repository program prior to the first repositoryachieving its 70,000 metric ton capacity.

2. Extension of the date contemplated for operationof the first repository from January 31, 1998 to 2003 to allowtime to carry out the necessary high-quality technical pro-gram. The extension is needed to carry out an extensive sitecharacterization program, to prepare licensing documents tocomply with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirementsthat have yet to be promulgated in their entirety and toprovide additional opportunity for consultation andcooperation with affected States and Indian Tribes.

3. Inability to submit the Monitored RetrievableStorage (MRS) proposal to Congress required by Section 141of the NWPA because of litigation. The Department isprepared formally to submit the proposal when these legalissues are resolved.

The significant developments and new information contained inthe draft amendment to the Mission Plan are in five categories:(1) achievements in the first repository program including thenomination and recommendation of sites for detailed site charac-terization; (2) a five-year extension of the schedule for thefirst repository resulting from reevaluations of the worknecessary to proceed; (3) new waste-generation data that, alongwith other considerations, indicated that it was prudent toindefinitely postpone site-specific activities for the secondrepository while continuing technical development activities; (4)developments concerning the submission to Congress of a proposal-for a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility as an integralpart of the waste management system; and (5) actions taken andprogress made toward better defining the consultation andcooperation process with States and affected Indian Tribes.

First Repository

On May 27, 1986, the Secretary nominated five sites as suitablefor site characterization and recommended to the President thatthree of these sites--the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, theDeaf Smith County site in Texas, and the Hanford site inWashington--be characterized as candidate sites for the firstrepository. The President approved the recommendation on May 28,1986. Each of the nominations was accompanied by comprehensivefinal Environmental Assessments that were issued after two yearsof preparation that included extensive public interaction.

To aid in identifying-preferred sites for characterization, theDepartment developed and applied a formal decision-aidingmethodology. The methodology and its application weresubsequently reviewed and found appropriate by the NationalAcademy of Sciences although the Academy did not review the site-recommendation decision or comment on the three selected sites.Given the thoroughness of the analyses in the Environmental

Given the thoroughness of the analyses in the EnvironmentalAssessments, the information base, the results obtained with thedecision-aiding methodology, and other considerations, the Depart-ment considers that the set of sites recommended provides themost advantageous combination of characteristics and conditionsfor the successful development of a repository.

Site characterization began with the President's approval andwill continue for 6 to 7 years. Site characterization includeslaboratory investigations; surface based data-collectionactivities like geologic mapping and seismic surveys; studiesconducted through the drilling of boreholes; and studiesconducted in the proposed host rock in an exploratory-shaftfacility. Although Congress, in the budget appropriation for thecivilian waste program for fiscal year 1987, specified that nofunds are to be used for drilling any exploratory shaft at anysite in fiscal year 1987, site-specific work other thanexploratory shaft drilling will be conducted at reduced fundinglevels.

Accordingly, the Department is proceeding with site characterizationactivities at the three sites. Before sinking the exploratoryshafts, the Department will prepare a site characterization planfor each site. These plans will be submitted to the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC), the Governors and legislatures ofthe States, affected Indian Tribes, and the public. At the sitein Texas, the Department is proceeding with its plans for obtainingaccess to the land. At the Nevada site, land access is beingpursued with other Federal agencies. And at the Hanford,Washington site, plans are proceeding for hydrologic investiga-tions that will precede exploratory shaft drilling. Work willalso be initiated on waste package and repository conceptualdesigns.

As discussed in the amendment, many important milestones havebeen achieved. However, based on the experience gained inachieving those milestones, advances in the technical planning ofthe program, an assessment of the current status of the programand recent budget decisions, the Department has revised theschedule for the first repository. The rebaselined scheduleshows a 5-year extension of the date to begin operations at thefirst repository, from 1998 to 2003.

Second Repository

The latest spent fuel projections show that a second repositorywill be required to accommodate all the expected waste. However,on May 28, 1986, the Secretary announced that he had reassessedthe timing of the Department's activities toward identificationof candidates for a second repository and decided to postponeindefinitely plans for any site-specific work. Several factorssuggested this decision was prudent. These included:

o Approval by the President of three sites to becharacterized as candidates for the first repository;

o The expectation of receiving Congressionalauthorization to proceed with the development of aMonitored Retrievable Storage Facility;

o Projections of spent fuel generation that areuncertain but generally declining;

o The recognition that the limitation in the Act foremplacing no more than 70,000 metric tons of spent fuelin the first repository before the second is inoperation will not be reached until well after 2020;consequently, Congress need not consider a proposal for asecond repository until the mid-1990s or later; and

o A decision that spending hundreds of millions ofdollars now on repository siting would be premature andunsound fiscal management.

The Department intends to continue a program for, and remainscommitted to, a second repository, with studies that will focuson generic technical issues. This program will include non-site-specific studies of potential host rocks, the development ofanalytical approaches to evaluate long-term performance, and acontinuation of the current program of international cooperation.

With regard to the indefinite postponement of the secondrepository, the Secretary and I have previously testified beforethe Congress that the basis for such actions and new program forthe second repository would be described in an amendment to theMission Plan and be provided to Congress for information andstatutory direction. The Department's General Counsel has con-cluded that ... it is entirely appropriate, as a matter of law,for this office to have determined that significant matters,including new information, relating to the conduct of the secondrepository program should be presented to the Congress through anamendment to the mission plan." This amendment is intended toserve that purpose.

Monitored Retrievable Storage

As specified in the contracts entered into with utilities, DOEintends to start accepting waste for disposal in January 1998.The.five-year extension for the first repository cited aboverequires a reevaluation of the acceptance strategy. TheDepartment believes that the most advantageous course is thedevelopment of a monitored retrievable storage facility that isan integral part of the waste-management system.

The Department had originally intended to submit a proposal toCongress in June 1985 but requested and received Congressional

approval to delay the submission until January 1986. In August1985, the State of Tennessee filed suit against the Departmentclaiming that the Department failed to consult properly with theState of Tennessee prior to the identification of proposed sitesfor the MRS facility. On February 5, 1986, the United StatesDistrict Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled infavor of the State and subsequently on February 7 issued aninjunction prohibiting the Department from submitting the MRSproposal to Congress.

The decision and the injunction were appealed by the Departmentto the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the SixthCircuit. On November 25, 1986, the Court of Appealsruled in favor of the Department's position in the dispute,indicating that the actions taken by the Department inidentifying sites for the MRS and in consulting with the State ofTennessee did not violate the Act. Subsequently, the State ofTennessee filed a petition for stay or extraordinary writ ofinjunction and for a rehearing with a suggestion that the case bereheard en banc. On December 31, 1986, the Court denied thepetition for a rehearing, but on January 7, 1987, granted a stayfor 30 days to allow the State of Tennessee to seek review of thedecision by the Supreme Court.

The intent of the Department regarding MRS is to fulfill itsstatutory obligations under the Act and submit the proposal onMRS to the Congress at the earliest date practicable.

Consultation and Cooperation

The Act requires the DOE to seek to enter into, and to negotiate,written consultation and cooperation (C&C) agreements witheligible States and affected Indian Tribes. This is to occurafter the approval of a candidate site for characterization orearlier at the request of an eligible State or affected IndianTribe. The Department has been involved in a number of informaland formal negotiations with the State of Washington since 1979,with the Yakima Indian Nation since 1983, with the ConfederatedTribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation since 1985, and withthe Nez Perce Indian Tribe since 1986. No negotiations havetaken place yet with the States of Nevada and Texas.

To date no formal C&C agreement has been concluded. Moreover,given the nature of the program and the reality that theperspectives of the States and affected Indian Tribes oftendiffer from DOE's, we recognize that formal agreements may not beeasy to reach.

The DOE also recognizes that the success of the waste-managementprogram may depend largely on the success of institutionalrelations as well as interactions with the public. The DOEtherefore plans to increase its efforts to improve productiveinstitutional relations and to negotiate formal CC agreements.

I

To this end, the DOE recently invited the eligible States andaffected Indian Tribes to meet for the-purpose of arriving at amutually acceptable definition of "consultation and cooperation."

The participants in this meeting agreed that a mutuallyacceptable definition would be very useful but felt that it couldnot be developed in time for inclusion in this draft Mission Planamendment.

Review Process

The availability of the draft amendment for public inspection isalso being announced in the Federal Register. After the commentperiod of 60 days, the Department will revise the amendment asappropriate in response to the comments and formally submit theMission Plan amendment to Congress.

During the comment period on the draft Mission Plan amendment,the Department anticipates meeting with representatives of theaffected parties including the States and Indian Tribes, local-government officials, utility, nuclear and transportationindustry officials, environmental, energy and consumerorganizations. The Department looks forward to this opportunity toanswer questions to assist parties in formulating their formalcomments.

Copies of the amendment are also being mailed to the approximately7,000 parties on the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Manage-ment-mailing list.

If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contactme.

Sincerely,

Ben C. Rusche, DirectorOffice of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management

Enclosure

Department of EnergyWashington, DC 20585

Oh, 2 8 987

Mr. Bill BurkeManager of Nuclear Waste

ProgramConfederated Tribes of theUmatilla Reservation

P.O. Box 683Pendleton, OR 97801

Dear Mr. Burke:

Attached is a copy of the letter and draft Mission Plan Amendmentthat is being sent to the Governor and the leadership of eachhouse of the state legislatures of the affected states and tochairmen of the affected Indian Tribes.

As noted in the letter, the Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement looks forward to working with you during the 60-daycomment period.

While we will have a brief opportunity to discuss the MissionPlan Amendment at the Quarterly meeting in Spokane, Washington onFebruary 12, as noted in the transmittal letter, we believe theimportance of your comments warrants additional interaction.Therefore, on Tuesday, February 24, we anticipate meeting withyou and other affected and interested parties to answer questionsto assist you in formulating formal comments. The one-daymeeting is scheduled to be held in Kansas City, Missouri. Wewill be calling you to confirm your availability and tofinalize the agenda.

In addition, as noted in the draft amendment, OCRWM looks forwardto meeting with the States and Indian Tribes to continuediscussions on defining consultation and cooperation (C&C) as afollow-on to the meeting held in November 1986 in New Orleans.

Ben Easterling and Vic Trebules of -my staff will be in touch withyou regarding both the Kansas City meeting and future MissionPlan-related discussions of C&C. Please do not hesitate to callany of us at (202) 586-2280.

-2-

I look forward to working with you on the Mission Plan Amendment.

Sincerely yours,

Roger W. Gale, DirectorOffice of Policy and OutreachOffice of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management

LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM

OVERVIEW

o PROVIDE BACKGROUND ON LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM (LSS)

- PURPOSE OF THE LSS

- LSS FUNCTIONS

- LSS CONCEPTS, CHARACTERISTICS, AND CONTENTS

o PRESENT LSS STATUS AND PLANNED FUTURE ACTIONS

- DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LSS

- NEGOTIATED RULE MAKING

- INTERACTIONS WITH NRC, STATES, AND TRIBES

1

I.

LSS OBJECTIVES

o SUPPORT TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL NEEDS TO SECURE LICENSE,

INCLUDING DISCOVERY, WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS SPECIFIED IN

THE NWPA.

o PROVIDE PERMANENT RECORD OF LICENSING ACTIVITIES

o SERVE AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT REPOSITORY SITING

AND LICENSING ACTIVITIES.

2

LSS FUNCTIONS

o RECORD STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL

- STORE, INDEX AND PROVIDE ON-LINE ACCESS TO ALL APPLICABLE

RECORDS

o REGULATIONS TRACKING

- STORE, INDEX AND PROVIDE ON-LINE ACCESS TO ALL APPLICABLE

FUNCTIONS

o ISSUES TRACKING

- IDENTIFY ISSUES, SCHEDULES AND TRACK ACTIVITIES LEADING

TO RESSOLUTION, WITH REFERENCE TO RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

o COMMITMENTS TRACKING

- SCHEDULE AND TRACK ACTIVITIES LEADING TO FULFILLING

COMMITMENTS.

3

LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM CONCEPT

I LSS TrackingSubsystems

I WBS TextStorage Subsystems

I

WSComputersystem

_ _ _

LS ssue LS Commitments LBS Regulations LS DocumentsTracking Tracking Access Subsystem Access Subsystemsubsystem Subsystem (full text, (full text, on-line documents

I _________________________ on-line) & index to archive files)

LBSArchives

LBS DocumentFiles

(Hard copies and/ormicrographs of documents)

LSSatelliteFiles(mostly

non-documentmaterials)

_ _ _ amo -_ _ M

a

4

LSS CHARACTERISTICS

o ON-LINE, FULL TEXT RETRIEVAL OF ALL PERTINENT PROGRAM

DOCUMENTS.

o QUICK SEARCHES ON BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION, TEXT (TO

EXTEND PRACTICABLE), AND KEYWORDS

o POSSIBLY ON-LINE FIGURES AND CRAPHS

o HARDCOPY OUTPUT TO EXTENT PRACTICABLE AT USER TERMINALS

5

LSS DOCUMENT CONTENTS

o WILL CONTAIN:

- ALL FINAL CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS GENERATED ORRECEIVED BY THE REPOSITORY PROGRAM.

- ALL DRAFT DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED FOR COMMENTS OUTSIDE OFFICEOF ORIGIN.

- SATELLITE FILES WITH PHYSICAL SAMPLES, WELL LOG DATA,WELDING CERTIFICATIONS

- OTHERS TO BE DETERMINED BY NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING.

o WILL NOT CONTAIN:

- HAND WRITTEN AND MARKED UP MATERIAL GENERATED INTERNALLYUNLESS SUCH INFORMATION IS RETAINED BY PROGRAM EMPLOYEES

- ELECTRONIC MAIL

- DRAFT MATERIAL NOT CIRCULATED OUTSIDE OFFICE OF ORIGIN

- MISCELLANEOUS MAIL WITHOUT PROGRAM SIGNIFICANCE

- PERSONNEL FILES AND OTHER FILES SPECIFIED BY LEGAL

6

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LSS

o REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL UNDER INTERNAL REVIEW WITH EXPECTED

RELEASE IN FEBRUARY

o CONTRACTOR SELECTION EXPECTED IN SUMMER 1987

o LSS TASK GROUP

- DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE

- USER REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS COMPLETED - TO BE CIRCULATED

AFTER PROCUREMENT PROCESS COMPLETED

o LOGICAL PROCESS MODEL CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW

7

NEGOTIATED RULE MAKING

o OBJECTIVE - DEVELOP A RULE THAT WOULD REQUIRE ALL PARTIES TO

THE HIGH-LEVEL WASTE LICENSING PROCEEDING TO PLACE ALL OF THEIR

RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN THE LSS AND TO USE THE LSS AS THE SOLE

INFORMATION SOURCE FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES.

o DESCRIPTION - PUBLISHED BY THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN

THE FEDERAL REGISTER, DECEMBER 18, 1986, VOLUME 51, NUMBER 243.

o OUTLOOK - EXPECT NEGOTIATIONS TO BEGIN IN SPRING 1987, BUT THE

COMPLETION OF THE PROCESS WILL TAKE ABOUT A YEAR.

8

NRC AND DOE INTERACTIONS

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PILOT PROJECT

- DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENT STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL CAPABILITIES

- DEVELOP PROCESSES THAT COULD LEAD TO AN INTERIM SYSTEM

UNTIL LSS IS IMPLEMENTED

o INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE (ICC)

- PROVIDE A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE MAJOR ISSUES

RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LSS

- STATES/TRIBES PARTICIPATION

9

i / /

SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLANS

OVERVIEW

o PROVIDE BACKGROUND ON SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLANS (SCPs)

- STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SCPS

- RELATIONSHIP OF MISSION PLAN, ISSUES HIERARCHY, AND SCPs

- PURPOSE OF SCPa

- ANNOTATED OUTLINE FOR SCPS

o PRESENT STATUS OF SCPs AND PLANNED FUTURE ACTIONS

- ACTIVITIES BEFORE ISSUANCE OF SCPs

- ACTIVITIES AFTER ISSUANCE OF SCPB

1

*1

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SCPs

o NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982 DEFINES ACTIVITIES AND

SCHEDULES FOR NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY ESTABLISH REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACTIONS BY

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

o DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITING GUIDELINES

2

RELATIONSHIP OF MISSION PLAN, ISSUES HIERARCHY AND SCPs

Site Characterization Information What Do We Need to Know?

THE MISSION PLAN

ISSUES HIERARCHY

SCPs

INFORMATION NEEDS ESTABLISHED INCLUDING

A GENERIC HIERARCHY OF ISSUES TO BE

RESOLVED.

SPECIFIC ISSUES TO GUIDE SITE CHARACTERI-

ZATION PLANNING AND ACTIVITIES.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CANDIDATE SITE, WASTE

PACKAGE AND REPOSITORY DESIGN, AND IDENTI-

FICATION OF ISSUES, TESTS, ACTIVITIES

AND MILESTONES.

3

SCP OBJECTIVES

o DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES AND

REGULATIONS.

o DEVELOP AND REFINE REPOSITORY DESIGNS

o CONFIRM PERFORMANCE

o RESOLVE ISSUES

o SUPPORT SITE SELECTION

4

ANNOTATED OUTLINE FOR SCPS

o PURPOSE - INDICATE INFORMATION BE BE INCLUDED TO CONFORM TO

10 CFR 60 AND ESTABLISH UNIFORM FORMAT FOR PRESENTING THE

INFORMATION

o MAIN COMPONENTS - INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER AND TWO PARTS

o PART A - DESCRIPTION OF SITE BASED ON. KNOWN DATA AND

TYPES OF INFORMATION NEEDED TO FULLY DESCRIBE

THE SITE

o Part B - PRESENTATION OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM,

IDENTIFICATION OF INFORMATION NEEDS AND

UNRESOLVED ISSUES, AND PLANS TO RESOLVE ISSUES

5

ACTIVITIES BEFORE ISSUANCE OF SCPa

o GENERIC ISSUE HIERARCH AND GENERIC ISSUE RESOLUTION STRATEGY

HAVE BEEN ISSUED AS A CONTROL DOCUMENT AND ARE BEING REFLECTED

IN REVISED SCP ANNOTATED OUTLINE.

o SITE-SPECIFIC ISSUE RESOLUTION STRATEGIES ARE BEING DEVELOPED

DURING PERFORMANCE ALLOCATION WORKSHOPS CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS.

o SPECIFIC TESTING PROGRAM BEING REFINED BASED ON ISSUE RESOLUTION

STRATEGY.

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, STATES, AND TRIBES TO BE

BRIEFED IN LATE FEBRUARY ON ISSUE HIERARCHY INCLUDING SITE-

SPECIFIC INFORMATION NEEDS AND ISSUE RESOLUTION STRATEGIES.

6

CURRENT STATUS AND SCHEDULES OF SCPs

LOCATION

NEVADA

WASHINGTON

TEXAS

DRAFT CHAPTERS

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987

FEBRUARY/MARCH 1987

SCP PUBLISHED

MAY/JUNE 1987

JULY 1987

JANUARY/MARCH 1988

TBD

7

ACTIVITIES AFTER SCP ISSUANCE -- FIRST 90 DAYS

o AFTER ISSUANCE OF SCPS (GOVERNORS AND KEY STATE AND TRIBAL

OFFICIALS WILL BE BRIEFED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE), THERE WILL BE

A 90 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT

PERIOD THE FOLLOWING WILL OCCUR:

- HEARINGS WILL BE HELD TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE

SCPa. THERE WILL BE ABOUT TWO HEARINGS IN EACH STATE,

ONE IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE AND THE OTHER IN THE

STATE CAPITAL. THE HEARINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY A

HEARING BOARD.

- PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS MAY BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION

WITH HEARINGS. SUCH MEETING WILL BE HELD PRIOR TO THE

PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AN

OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERACTIVE DISCUSSION.

8

ACTIVITIES AFTER SCP ISSUANCE -- AFTER 90 DAYS

o AFTER THE 90 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, COMMENTS WILL BE

EVALUATED AND ADDRESSED, AS APPROPRIATE, DURING THE NEXT TWO

MONTHS.

o EXPLORATORY SHAFTS WILL BE STARTED AFTER SHAFT RELATED COMMENTS

ARE EVALUATED. THE PERIOD FROM RELEASE OF SCP's TO SHAFT START

IS ESTIMATED AT ABOUT 6 MONTHS.

o ALL COMMENTS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN A SEPARATE COMMENT

RESPONSE DOCUMENT PREPARED BY THE PROJECT OFFICES.

o COMMENTS WILL BE REFLECTED, AS APPROPRIATE IN PERIODIC

PROGRESS REPORTS.

9

Quarterly Meeting with States and Indian Tribes:

Status of Storage, MRS, and Transportation Activities

Lake BarrettDirector, Transportation and Waste Systems Division

Office of Storage and Transportation Systems,

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Office of Storage and Transportation Systems

* Storage

* Systems Integration/Analysis

* Transportation

P-1-

Storage Division

* Storage R&D

- cooperative development and demonstration of "at-reactor" fuelstorage technologies

* Engineering Development

- rod consolidation prototype development

* Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS)

-2-

MRS PROPOSAL PACKAGE

- COVER LETTERS

- PROPOSAL

- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

- PROGRAM PLAN

- NRC COMMENTS

- EPA COMMENTS

- STATE (AND LOCAL) COMMENTS

MRS LITIGATION STATUS

* In July 1986 the Court of Appeals heard arguments from the State and DOE.

* On November 25, 1986, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit issued a decision in favor of the DOE.

* Also, on November 25th, the State of Tennessee filed a petition for stay

or extraordinary writ of injunction, which DOE opposed.

* On December 4, 1986, the State of Tennessee filed a petition for

rehearing with a suggestion that the case be reheard en banc.

* On December 31, 1986, the Court of Appeals denied the State's request for

a rehearing.

* On January 5, 1987, the State requested a further stay of the injunction

to allow time for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

* On January 7, 1987, the Court of Appeals granted a stay of 30 days to

file an appeal in the Supreme Court, and, if an appeal is filed, a

further stay until a Supreme Court decision.

as w **e'-ssaiSi.

hk;

7>I

L-

; F.

Systems Integration/Analysis

Objectives:

* To ensure waste components fully integrated into wastemanagement system

. r

e Define waste management system, components, and interfaces

* Coordinate technical integration

* Conduct systems studies on specific issues

-6-

~pp

ONGOINGOCRWM SYSTEM STUDIES

STUDY WASTECATEGORIES

WASTE

CHARACTERIZATION

WASTWASTE IMAL RECEIPT RATEi

ACCEPTANCE

WASTE

TRANSPORTATION ,

WASTE CONSOLIDATI

PREPARATION . C

SYSTEM WASTE SOURCE/SYSTEM INTERFACED

DEFINITION SYSTEMINTERFACEDFNITION

WASTE RI-SKANALYSIS

SYSTEM ROCS

OPERATION LAG TORAGE

ASSESSMIENT OF FOREIGN OPERATION

Transportation Program

* Cask development & acquisition

* Operations

* Environmental and economic analyses

* Resolution of institutional issues

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

* HIGHWAY ROUTING* RAIL ROUTING* PRENOTIFICATION* PHYSICAL PROTECTION PROCEDURES* NSP CTION AND ENFORCEMENT/ HIGHWAY AND RAIL* EMERGENCY RESPONSE* LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR TRANSPORTATION TO NWPA FACILITIES* CASK DESIGN AND TESTING* OVERWEIGHT TRUCK SHIPMENTS* RAIL SERVICE ANALYSIS* MIXTURE OF TRANSPORTATION MODES* INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS* OCRWM TRAINING STANDARDS* TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES* STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION* TRANSPORTATION OF DEFENSE WASTE RW464r.O

Overview of Current Transportation Planning & Activities

* "From-reactor" cask design initiative

* Cask-testing plan

* Operations management configuration study

e Inspection and enforcement - CVSA contract

* Contracts with national and regional organizations

* Plans for future TCG meetings

* Workshop on transportation models

-i nf

"From-Reactor" Cask Design Activities

* Release of RFP in July 1986

* RFP specifications:

- IAEA and NRC design requiremei

- cask-interface guidelines

* Three modal types:

- Truck - legal weight and overm

- Rail/barge

* Proposal deadline: October 31, 1986

* Contract award: Spring/Summer 1987

nts

,eight

- -11-

Cask Testing Plan

* Objective:

- define testing needs & requirements

- define test-facility requirements

* Types of tests planned:

- engineering

- design verification

- acceptance

- operational

* Merits of confirmatory/demonstration testing will be evaluated

-12-

Transport Vehicle Inspection and Enforcement

* Cooperative agreement with CVSA - September 1986

* Term of agreement - 2 years

* Objectives:

- study State and Indian Tribal nspection needs

- develop proposed nation-wide inspection procedures

- review proposed procedures in regional workshops

- develop plan to promote adoption of uniform, reciprocalinspections by State, Indian Tribal officials

-13-

Operations Management Configuration Study

* RFP issued August 1986

* Objective:

- Definition of optimum management configuration for transportoperations

* Options include:

- government operation

- several contractors responsible for various activities

- full service contractors

* Issues to be evaluated include:

- quality performance

- cost-effectiveness

- management control

- ability/willingness to provide services

X Contract award - Early 1987

-14-

National/Regional Group Contracts

* Contracts with national and regional groups to support study ortransportation ssues and information dissemination

e Existing contracts with NCSL, NCAI, SSEB, WIEB

* Contract activities include:

- identification of regional transportation issues

- evaluation of route-selection methodologies for designation ofroutes as alternatives to Interstate highways

-15-

Transportation Coordination Group Meeting

* Tentative schedule for next meeting - late April

* Agenda expected to include:

- Review of technical, institutional activities

- Discussion of repository Project Office transportation studies

- Summary of State, Indian Tribal transportation activities

* Executive sessions after meeting

* Second day may be devoted to workshop on current transportation issue

-16-

Transportation Model Workshop

* One-day workshop involving States, Indian Tribes, industry,utilities, other interested parties

* Scheduled to follow TCG meeting in late April

* Workshop objectives:

- review routing models and routing/risk assumptions in EA's

- discuss options for enhanced routing/risk models

- review data needs, availability, and options for informationgathering

-17-

ACTIVITY

NUCLEAR WASTE FUNDF! 1986 Through F 1988 Funding Profile(Budget Authority in Thousands)

FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988

First Repository $ 386,050Second Repository 35.500Monitored Retrievable Storage 3,000

Jransportation and Systemsnteraion 21,275

2ro ram Maga ement andeclnical support 53,212

TOTAL NUCLEAR WASTE FUND $ 499,037

$ 307,44619, 80020, 000

26,000

46,754

$ 499, 000

$ 525,04424, 00058,000

63, 043

54, 913

$ 725 000- 225: 000$ 500,000CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET REQUEST

NUCLEAR WASTE FUNDFunding By O erations Office(Budget Aut ority in Thousands)

OPERATIONS OFFICES

Chicago Operations OfficeIdaho Operations OfficeNevada Operations OfficeOak Ridge Operations OfficeRichland Operations OfficeTOTAL, OPERATIONS OFFICES

FY 1986

$ 168, 55410 63844,5131, 175

-t5. 670$ 340.550

FY 1987$ 69, 439

13, 07446, 6092, 533

$ 237,268

FY 1988$161, 866

33, 77275,4362,712

4 43, 788

NUCLEAR WASTE FUNDManPower Levels (FTE's)

OFFICE FY 1986

Chicago Operations OfficeIdaho Operations OfficeNevada Operations OfficeOak Ridge Operations OfficeRichland Operations OfficeOCRWM HeadquartersHeadquarters Support Organizations

TOTAL*Actual FTE's

671281.40135

291*

FY 1987

70632442137

311

FY 1988

76640

550

160

357

BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

O OCT I NOV I DEC I JAN I FEB I MAR I APR I MAY I JUN I JUL I AUG I SEPD)

GUIDANCE FORYEAR 2 BUDGETSENT TO FIELDOFFICES

WPAS FORYEAR 2 BUDGETRECEIVED ATHo

IRB BUDGETFOR YEAR 2

YEAR 0

BUDGET FORYEAR 2SUBMITTED TO0MB

-V17

V STATE/TRIBE INPUT\/ TO FIELD OFFICES

OMB BUDGET REQUESTPASSBACK FOR' YEAR 2ON YEAR 2 . SUBMITTED TOBUDGET CONGRESS

YEAR 1

CONGRESSAPPROVES

YEAR 2BUDGET

YEAR 2YEAR 2 BUDGET

EXECUTION

036-03105 it27M